Ian Thomas Malone

Friday

1

August 2014

0

COMMENTS

Cell Phone Abuse at Restaurants Endangers the State of Human Civility

Written by , Posted in Blog, Social Issues

A recent study was conducted by the Market Diner, a famous New York eatery in Hell’s Kitchen regarding the establishment’s diminished reviews on popular websites such as Yelp! Rather unsurprisingly, cell phones were blamed for much of the issues levied against the restaurant, namely slower service and increased waiting time. While a place like the Market Diner would experience more extreme results by virtue of its popularity, there’s certainly much to be taken from this study.

The results challenge the age old question of whether or not the customer is always right. It seems rather ridiculous to suggest that a customer wouldn’t be able to use a cell phone in a non disruptive fashion. Or does it?

The problem is that the lines are blurred. What exactly constitutes disruptive? If customers are taking longer as a direct result of cell phone usage, then the restaurant has a legitimate claim that the phone usage is undercutting revenue. In the case of the Market Diner, patrons were spending nearly an hour longer at the restaurant than they were ten years prior. That could amount to a serious loss of earnings.

And for what really? Food pictures or further affirmation from Yelp! as to what entrée to order? How much does that really matter? To some people, it matters quite a bit. Which is okay.

To an extant. It’s perfectly reasonable to treat dining out as an experience worthy of documenting. Foodie culture exists whether we like it or not. The problem is that it’s cutting into restaurant revenues in a manner that’s hardly universally acceptable.

There’s no real easily applicable solution either. Exclusive restaurants with month long waiting lists could get away with a cell phone ban, but your average establishment can’t get away with that. It would appear on Yelp! and that would send customers away in a similar fashion as the cell phones themselves.

Which makes the best solution a hard one. Self-policing. It’s not fair to expect a restaurant to tell its customers off for cell phone abuse. That ensures that said customers will not return. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a rude practice that should be addressed.

I was at a restaurant for lunch the other day when a woman at the table next to me started to play a video on her phone. The ambiance at the place was quiet enough that the video could be heard from a reasonable distance. Naturally, the woman did a quick look around to size up the scene, but she continued to play said video at a rude volume. We made eye contact, but that was it. I wasn’t going to cause a ruckus by calling her out, but I wouldn’t blame anyone else for choosing to.

That woman sucks. Plain and simple. Next time, she should bring an iPod speaker so that the whole place can hear her nonsense.

The Market Diner study also suggested that customers were asking waiters for their Wifi passwords. Drawing the line here seems reasonable. A food picture doesn’t require data. Looking something up on Yelp! doesn’t use much. Why should the customer be entitled to anything more. Would you bring dirty dishes to a restaurant to have washed in the sink? Do you bring your garbage there so your waiter can haul it off to the dumpster?

It’s laughable that we’ve reached a point in our nation’s history where the restaurant industry is suffering as a result of cell phone addiction. Using a phone at the table is hardly a crime, but it should never reach a point where you become oblivious to the world around you. That appears to be the case with the Market Diner.

I also worry that studies like these undercut another problem. Bad waiters are likely to blame for the loss of revenue. It’s not like there aren’t plenty of those around. But truly bad service is fine to complain about. One just needs to consider if the patron did anything to contribute to the diminished service.

Cell phones “bring us together,” but they also create barriers that block the immediate world around us. This needs to stop. Everyone should take a step back and honestly evaluate whether or not their usage of technology is having a negative impact on the world around them. If the answer to that is yes, a change should be made. Livelihoods are a stake.

Monday

21

July 2014

1

COMMENTS

Game of Thrones Finally Acknowledges The One True King Stannis Baratheon

Written by , Posted in Blog, Game of Thrones

One of the downsides, perhaps the primary one, of adapting an epic book series is that certain characters are naturally going to get less screen time than they deserve. Game of Thrones has taken this to a whole new level, mostly out of necessity. While George R.R. Martin is content to have characters disappear for multiple books at a time, this isn’t really realistic for a television program.

The biggest victim of this so far has been Stannis Baratheon, King Robert’s rightful heir. His prominence in season two and the splitting of A Storm of Swords into two seasons makes a statement like this puzzling, especially since Stannis isn’t even a POV character. The problem is that the show has hardly done the one true King justice, while allotting large amounts of screen time to characters who are just as absent from chunks of the source material.

The main problem is that Stannis’ portrayal in season two doesn’t do the character justice, though Stephen Dilane was a strong casting choice. Book Stannis is a strong leader with a firm sense of right and wrong who helps uncover the Lannisters’ deception along with Jon Arryn. In the show, he’s introduced as an easily manipulated power hungry religious loon. The show backs off of this a bit in season three, but the much of the damage is done. At least in the viewers’ mind.

Until the season four finale, it was difficult to talk to fans of the show who hadn’t read the books about the one true king. Using strictly television logic, Stannis’ survival past the Battle of the Blackwater is puzzling. He’s portrayed as the “big bad” to Tyrion and Renly and those types of characters tend to die in season finales. And yet Stannis prevails.

The show’s lax characterization of Stannis deprives the character of his rich personality, which makes him one of the books’ strongest characters. While it’s easy to judge Stannis solely by Ned’s characterization, his maiming of Ser Davos, and his devotion to Melisandre, that just scratches the surface of his personality.

Stannis’ defense of Storm’s End during Robert’s Rebellion is consistently referred to as indicative of the middle Baratheon’s personality as a whole. He had it far worse than any of the other commanding usurpers and was perhaps the only one other than Ned Stark who could’ve held off the Tyrell’s under such dire circumstances. His rigidness proved to be an asset.

Which explains why he’s considered unlikable, but it’s easy to forget how little that actually matters. Stannis might not have been a friend of either Ned Stark or Jon Arryn, but he commanded their respect. The Tyrell’s were the only significant supporter of Renly who didn’t defect to his cause and that was a foregone conclusion anyway.

Stannis commands loyalty even in places where the reader/viewer isn’t supposed to expect it from. Ned refused to back Renly because Stannis was the rightful heir, a move that cost him his life. Davos supports him even after Stannis maimed his hand. He works with Jon Snow even after he was rebuffed on his offer to legitimize him as the heir to Winterfell.

Stannis grows quite a bit as he grapples with his sense of duty to the realm. We see him as more than a man seeking his right to rule, but rather as someone who understands that he is the only person who could actually bring order to Westeros. This point is eloquently featured in the show when Davos and Stannis visit the Iron Bank of Braavos in perhaps the show’s only deviation from the books that served to benefit his character.

While it’s slightly upsetting that the episode dedicated to the Wall didn’t end with Stannis’ arrival, it was great to see him have his moment of triumph after a turbulent two seasons. Since season four didn’t fully catch up with Jon’s plotline, this can sort of be excused. Fans have much to be excited for in the upcoming season as Stannis’ relationship with Jon Snow supplies the meatiest storyline of A Dance With Dragons. By saving The Wall, he shows that he’s the only one who doesn’t crave power solely for the sake of power. He chases justice.

Games of Thrones has an opportunity to let Stannis shine opposite one of the series’ most popular characters, which in turn should raise his image in the eyes of the fans of the shows. Hopefully the show won’t use him as a foil for Snow, who is occasionally at odds with Stannis but manages to gain his respect and eventually helps him rally northmen to his cause. I wouldn’t put it past the show to elevate the Snow legitimization conflict, but that in it of itself would be a further bastardization of Stannis’ character.

Looking to the future of the series, it appears as though Stannis could find himself deeply involved in the eventual Targaryen conflict if the R + L = J theory holds up and if The Onion Knight is successful in retrieving Rickon Stark from the cannibal island. Preview chapters of The Winds of Winter show Stannis’ looming decision regarding the fate of one Theon “Reek” Greyjoy, which will undoubtedly shed more light on Stannis’ overall sense of justice.

Stannis is a perfect example of the depth of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire. While Martin never goes too far out of his way to give the spotlight to the one true king, he’s much more of a three dimensional character than anyone at King’s Landing would have us believe in the first two books. While conventional logic would suggest that Stannis has about a zero percent chance at having a happy ending at the end of the series, Martin has a tendency to keep the reader guessing. Perhaps the Lord of Light will stand with Stannis. I know I will.

Tuesday

1

July 2014

0

COMMENTS

Yahoo, Community, and the Cancelled TV Show

Written by , Posted in Blog, Pop Culture

The popular fan mantra #sixseasonsandamovie took an improbable step closer to reality as Yahoo announced it is picking up Community for another season. An earlier post focused on the unlikelihood that such a pickup could happen and quite frankly, given who picked it up, I can’t say any of that was unmerited at the time. The popular opinion was that Hulu was Community’s best bet and hope began to dwindle once that fizzled out last week.

There was never any question that Community had value to somebody. Few shows on TV have half as good a fan base. That value translates best into buzz appeal, which is likely Yahoo’s primary reason for picking the show up. Yahoo is a bit of a dated website to begin with before you consider that it actually does have original programming. Community will bring significant attention to that line-up when it returns next year.

Buzz is also the big reason why Netflix should never have been considered a season contender to pickup Community in the first place. Netflix didn’t need the exposure. They’ve done that already with Arrested Development and to a lesser extent, The Killing. A show that aired on network TV for five years comes with a pretty hefty price tag that Yahoo can justify by the exposure alone. Even before we consider that Netflix has actually been referenced in multiple Community episodes, it’s fairly safe to say the average Community fan knew what Netflix was and probably had access to it in some form. They probably also know what Yahoo is, but the original programming angle is new territory for many.

29% of the new shows that premiered on network TV in the fall of 2013 were cancelled, a number that’s largely consistent with previous years. Most of those were rightfully cancelled though critical hits like Enlisted and The Trophy Wife are mourned. Cable shows fare a bit better, but in most cases, the reaper is kept at bay because those networks can afford a little more time to see if a show can be successful.

So what can we learn about Community’s revival? Is this lightning in a bottle or a shift in the TV dynamic. The latter is tempting, but it’s still the former.

This worked because Community has a massive cult following that’s been fostered in this sort of environment for years and a network looking for a shiny show to get some attention. Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon all could’ve picked it up, but they didn’t because quality alone isn’t a reason to bring something back from the dead. If that were true, 2013 wouldn’t have been the year that Enlightened and Bunheads left before their time. Television can still host Shakespearian tragedies, there’s just more hope now than ever before.

But now in theory, Yahoo is out of the mix for whatever show gets a big fan campaign next year. There’s still Hulu and Amazon who haven’t hosted a refugee just yet. Will they? Maybe, but if they do it’ll be for economic reasons and not for quality purposes.

Over the years of covering TV ratings, a common reaction I’d hear when people would respond to a grim prediction I’d made was, “but it’s so good.” There was a time where that really didn’t matter and it’s good that we’ve moved toward a direction where now that sort of matters. Ratings still influence cancellations but the landscape has evolved to the point where shows like Community can survive to the natural conclusions that fans desire.

Is that a good thing? Fundamentally, yes. I think people were starting to come around to the idea that Greendale wasn’t going to be saved this time and we won’t know if it really should’ve until the new season comes on next year. I’m excited to find out.

Monday

23

June 2014

2

COMMENTS

Orange is the New Black Searches for Balance Between Plot and Character Development

Written by , Posted in Blog, Pop Culture

Is it possible for Orange is the New Black to simultaneously be one of the best shows on TV and overrated? Season two of the prison comedy-drama solidified the show’s status as Netflix’ flagship program. The hype was certainly big, which isn’t very surprising considering the complete lack of anything else happening on TV in the month of June. But does it deliver?

This season takes much of the focus away from Chapman. The acting has always been OINTB’s strongest attribute and the cast rarely misses a beat. Kate Mulgrew and newcomer Lorraine Toussaint are responsible for the season’s meatiest moments while other characters make the most of their more limited screen time.

While the cast excels with whatever they’re given, the show suffers from a lack of direction. There are plenty of plotlines, but none of them feel as developed as they could be. Flashbacks and unnecessary scenes involving Jason Biggs, the show’s sole rotten egg performer, waste precious screen time that could be better dispersed elsewhere. Chapman’s breakup with Larry was a perfect opportunity to get rid of Biggs and yet the show missed a perfect opportunity to shed the 90s has been. There’s no good reason to keep him on the show when other characters are given nothing to do for the whole season.

The show also doesn’t utilize its ensemble cast to its full potential. For the most part, they’re completely separated from one another by individual plotline with very little overlap. The quirk feels a bit toned down when the characters are separated from one another and that’s not necessarily a good thing.

The season as a whole feels a bit incomplete when it’s all said and done. Most storylines are left unresolved and the payoffs are less rewarding than they should be. It’s okay for OINTB to put its focus on character more than plot, but the balance is a bit lacking. The flashbacks aren’t needed in every episode anymore and the show would do well to recognize that. The same problem plagued Lost in its later years when the flashbacks were no longer necessary. Format changes are okay.

The wasted time affects the season’s most interesting storyline involving contraband smuggling and the subsequent power struggle between Mulgrew, Toussaint, and Selenis Leyva. The plotline is never dull, but it never reaches its full potential either. Hints are made that it could have prison wide ramifications, which would be the natural progression and yet the show hesitates to make this the center of attention. It feels like a slightly extended subplot that is naturally the big attention grabber as it’s the easiest talking point.

Chapman’s storyline is the biggest mess of them all. She starts off the season being duped by Alex, then paints herself as some kind of badass, followed by a highly unrealistic/unnecessary furlough, and finally settles for some Stockholm syndrome. Fun right?

Season two is often a mess and yet it’s a fun mess. The cast is a treat to watch and the concept lends itself well to binge watching. It’s no different from having regrets about eating a pint of ice cream in one sitting though no matter how fun it is. The acting is immensely satisfying, but you’re bound to question what it was all for.

The bar in theory should’ve been raised for this season coming off such a successful debut. It delivers on the acting front, but when it comes to creating a season with a beginning, middle, and end, the show fails to figure out how to make it all come together. That’s the problem with a show that only airs new episodes one day a year. You burn through the episodes fairly fast without stopping to examine the flavor.

Which is fun, but it isn’t the greatest thing since sliced bread (or Phish Food, whichever came first). OINTB is a very enjoyable program, but much of its praise should be taken in context. It doesn’t need to be better than anything else on TV, because the competition is hibernating when it comes out. The show entered itself for Emmy consideration as a comedy, a move that’s been tried by hour-long comedy-dramas like Desperate Housewives, Ugly Betty, and Glee to mixed results. I’d be surprised if the show didn’t win Best Supporting Actress for either Mulgrew or Uzo Aduba, but voters have been reluctant to reward dramatic series for exploring genre loopholes.

This post has been oddly hard on a season that I did enjoy, but it’s somewhat unsatisfying when you consider the lack of growth that the show took in its sophomore offering. That’s hardly the slump that many other shows have struggled with, but it does preclude it from true contention as TV’s best program. OINTB is a show that settles for the status quo because the status quo works without trying to see if things could be better.

Monday

16

June 2014

2

COMMENTS

Toronto Needs to Find a New Home for the Argonauts Soon

Written by , Posted in Blog, Social Issues

It’s a good time to be a CFL fan. With the new collective bargaining agreement ratified, the notion of a strike is safely squashed. Preseason games have started and the Ottawa Redblacks play their first regular season game in just a few weeks. The vast majority of the league has seen new stadiums or renovations help modernize the sport. Things are going well.

Except for the Argos.

One of the first things I noticed when I visited Rogers Centre to see the Blue Jays play was that the rafters were devoid of any reference to the stadium’s cotenant. The gift shop also lacked any Argonauts merchandise. Given the scarcity of Argos’ memorabilia in the States as well as the city of Toronto as a whole, I was disappointed that Rogers is purging its association with the football team years before its lease is up.

The Argos find themselves in a precarious position with their stadium woes. Rogers Centre will be shifting to an all grass field to accommodate the Blue Jays in a few years. Given most baseball players’ disdain for turf fields, this move is certainly a smart one for baseball. It is however, unfortunate, that the move was not made in conjunction with a permanent location for the Argos, who will not be able to play on the grass field.

A deal with BMO Field, the home of MLS’ Toronto F.C., was expected to happen before the project hit a snag with funding. The proposed changes would expand BMO Field’s regular capacity by 5,000 seats for soccer and potentially 40,000 for football, concerts, and other noteworthy events. Given TFC’s popularity, this seemed like a win/win for everyone involved.

The project’s cancellation creates a big mess and one that doesn’t appear to have an answer. The BMO Field funding issue means that a separate stadium built exclusively for the Argos would be highly implausible. The University of Toronto’s Varsity Stadium isn’t big enough to accommodate professional football. There aren’t really any spare stadiums lying around, especially now that Maple Leaf Gardens is a grocery store. BMO Field is pretty much the only option.

Canadian football is never going to be as popular in Toronto as it is in other cities. Toronto has plenty of other sporting/entertainment options to ensure that Argos fans will never get behind their team in quite the same fashion as Roughriders’ fans. And that’s okay.

What isn’t okay is the notion that the Argos might not have a home in Toronto in just a few years. While their lease with Rogers doesn’t expire until 2017, this is a problem that needs to be dealt with now. Construction isn’t exactly an easy thing to do.

The CFL doesn’t need the Argonauts to be the most popular team in the league, but a league with Canadian in its title shouldn’t have a team in the country’s most populous city as its black sheep either. The CFL should be embarrassed that a fan cannot find a single piece of Argos merchandise in the city of Toronto. The Argonauts are the only team in the league with a new stadium or a serious renovation in the past five years.

The Rogers Centre lease situation is nothing out of the blue and yet nothing has been fixed. The CFL, the Argos, and the city of Toronto should all be embarrassed about that as well. The league has dealt with threats to its prosperity admirably and it should treat the Argos stadium issue with the same level of importance as the player’s unrest over the collective bargaining. Keeping up appearances is important.

BMO Field is the solution. Ontario needs to iron out the problems in the funding for the expansion of the field. Finding $120 million is easier said than done, but an outdoor field would do wonders for the Argos and might actually elevate them to actual relevance in the city of Toronto. The CFL should do everything it can to keep Canadian football in Toronto.

Sunday

8

June 2014

1

COMMENTS

The Case for Strong Belwas

Written by , Posted in Blog, Game of Thrones

As Ser Jorah took his leave from the service of Daenerys Targaryen, I found myself weeping for a reason unrelated to the fate of the exiled knight. With Grey Worm’s expanded storyline to include a peculiar and implausible romance with Missandei, it’s clear that the show has deviated from the books in an effort to expand the appeal of Daenerys’ supporting characters. Which makes the exclusion of one of her most interesting companions all the more puzzling.

In the Song of Ice and Fire books, Strong Belwas is clearly one of Daenerys’ better retainers. The massive eunuch former gladiator provides comic relief in a storyline that’s often desperate for it. And yet the show excludes him even though its elevated the humor in characters such as The Hound and Bronn.

The problem is that the show didn’t have a natural point for Strong Belwas to enter the fray. In the books, Strong Belwas arrives in Quarth in season two along with Ser Barristan, who is disguised as his squire. It’s hard to fault the show for doing away with Ser Barristan’s disguise given that it’s rather unnecessary in the grand scheme of things and would be hard to pull off on television. Introducing Strong Belwas alongside Ser Grandfather wouldn’t have been impossible, but it wasn’t entirely necessary either. Remember, the books have much more downtime with the Targaryen plotline than the show does.

That doesn’t mean that Strong Belwas couldn’t join the show at any given point. His association with Illyrio Mopantis gives him a fair bit of leeway to join the show far later than he did in the books. The show could simply have him come at the bequest of Mopantis. This of course could easily be worked into the show next season when Tyrion Lannister makes his escape from King’s Landing.

The big reason I think that the show doesn’t want Strong Belwas around is that he’s a eunuch. The show has two eunuchs already and has explored the horrors of that practice with Varys and Grey Worm. Strong Belwas is largely a comedic relief character who mostly wants to eat and kill things. He doesn’t care about being a eunuch. The show would care though.

The show has cut back on the importance of Daenerys’ party as a whole. Her Dothraki bloodriders and Brown Ben Plumm are absent from her storylines, choosing instead to focus on Ser Jorah, Ser Barristan, Grey Worm, and Daario Naharis. Given the fact that the show has limited time to devote to Daenerys, this isn’t surprising and it isn’t necessarily a bad thing either.

Strong Belwas isn’t a character who needs a lot of time devoted to his development. In the books, he doesn’t do much that isn’t involved with the aforementioned gluttony and lust to commit homicide. He doesn’t have a lot of depth. And yet, he’s a fan favorite.

It’s unclear as to how much of a void Ser Jorah’s departure really creates. But his absence is one less character involved with Daenerys that we care about. Given the slow pace of her story for the foreseeable future, it’s hard to argue that he wouldn’t have improved her storyline.

Deviations from the source material are to be expected, but those deviations should serve to improve the experience as it’s translated to screen. Excluding a beloved fan favorite doesn’t serve anyone. There’s simply no reason not to utilize the talents of Strong Belwas on Game of Thrones. The mother of dragons knows it and so do we the people.

Friday

6

June 2014

0

COMMENTS

Dunkin Donuts’ Blueberry Cobbler is Delicious, but Bad at Being a Donut

Written by , Posted in Blog, Social Issues

Dunkin Donuts has made some questionable decisions over the past few years. It’s understandable that the company would want to expand into the sandwich market as there’s clearly a demand for it, but products like the Eggs Benedict Sandwich (complete will Hollandaise flavor) and the Tuna Salad on a Croissant don’t seem like the kind of things Fred the Baker would’ve gotten up extra early to make. The rapid fluctuating lunch menu suggests that there are some growing pains with that whole plan.

Dunkin still excels at their two main areas of interest. The coffee and donuts are consistently good provided you don’t order them at 11 o’clock at night. The donuts might be freeze-dried, but alas, these are things I simply cannot care about.

Every now and then, Dunks decides to tamper with its donut lineup. Most of the time, these new creations are about as short lived as AfterMASH, Qwikster, or a Kardashian marriage, but you’ve got to give them credit for trying. I’ll give them more credit for the new blueberry cobbler donut.

The blueberry cobbler donut is simply delicious. The filling to donut ratio is perfect, the frosting tastes like something you’d find on a birthday cake, and the cinnamon streusel topping is both decorative and flavorful. This donut does everything right. Problem is, something doesn’t feel right about the blueberry cobbler donut.

Donuts are versatile pastries. They can be breakfast, dessert, or a snack. The problem with the blueberry cobbler donut is that is tastes too good. It’s overloading and excessive, even though it’s a fine balance of donut, filling, frosting, and streusel. It won and yet it lost.

The blueberry cobbler donut should strictly be viewed as a dessert item for fear of inducing a food coma. You can’t possibly expect to be productive after consuming it. The same cannot be said for a chocolate frosted, glazed, or even a jelly donut. The donut sugar rush is supposed to aid you, but this isn’t a rush. It’s an avalanche.

Which presents the question, what good is this donut? It tastes great, but it’s a dessert served at a place you don’t go to for dessert. Going to Dunkin after dinner is a surefire way to get a subpar donut. If it was served at ice cream parlors, that’s one thing. But the blueberry cobbler donut is served at a coffee shop.

This donut is a treat without a function. It might taste better than the other donuts, but you wouldn’t pick it over them. Those other donuts know how to be donuts. The blueberry cobbler donut doesn’t.

A bakery might want to adapt this concept into a pastry people might bring to dinner parties. People don’t bring Dunkin Donuts to dinner parties though. Dunkin Donuts doesn’t serve cannolis, cakes, and pies for a reason. People don’t go to Dunks to be overwhelmed by pastries. Ambition doesn’t always lead to success, even if everything goes right. Such is the tragedy of the blueberry cobbler donut.

 

Tuesday

3

June 2014

3

COMMENTS

Getting Rid of the Star Wars Expanded Universe Sort of Matters

Written by , Posted in Blog, Pop Culture, Star Wars

Ever since it was announced that Disney would purchase Lucasfilm in 2012 with the intention of creating more Star Wars films, it was only a matter of time before something drastic changed within the Star Wars canon. The Star Wars Expanded Universe has played a big role in the lasting popularity of the franchise and is far more beloved to many fans than the prequel trilogy or the Clone Wars TV series. When Disney announced in late April that the EU would be rebooted in conjunction with the seventh film’s release in 2015, reception was expectedly mixed.

Timothy Zahn’s Grand Admiral Thrawn Trilogy is widely considered to be the EU’s finest work and was the catalyst that gave credibility to the medium. Since then, there have been well over a hundred entries into the EU with varying degrees of popularity. In addition to Zahn, writers like R.A. Salvatore and Michael A. Stackpole contributed noteworthy works that kept the EU’s popularity up in the time since Heir to the Empire made the New York Times’ Bestseller List. .

The fact that there were hundreds of entries into the EU perfectly highlights the main reason why something needed to happen. Lucasbooks has taken its own continuity very seriously, employing fact checkers well versed in the canon to help writers with their own entries. Outside of those fact checkers, I can’t imagine there are that many who possess a full spectrum of knowledge on all of these books. There’s no reason to expect future films to adhere to continuity so strict that no one would be able to catch deviations in the first place.

More importantly, the popularity of the EU has been on the decline for over a decade now. The New Jedi Order series began with the killing of Chewbacca in an odd matter that’s even confusing to explain coming from someone who actually read Vector Prime. That started a sequence of events that lead to the killing off of many of the EU’s most cherished characters including Anakin Solo, Mara Jade, and finally Jacen Solo who turned into a Sith Lord in a manner that served to emulate his grandfather’s decline.

The EU had nowhere left to go and with dozens of entries that were widely panned, it didn’t made sense to keep that timeline in the fold. Comic books do this all the time. Rebooting the EU might be frustrating, but it needed to happen.

It didn’t need to happen in a way that erased the entire universe though. We don’t know many of the details surrounding the seventh film, but it’s safe to say that Mara Jade and the Solo children will not be in it. Chewbacca is alive again, but the message was sent that the EU no longer matters moving forward. That could be a mistake.

The EU worked. More importantly, the prequel trilogy didn’t work. It’s one thing to reboot what happened, but by going in a completely different direction, Disney is failing to capitalize on what could’ve been a smart goodwill gesture to the fans. Choosing to ignore it completely disregards the fact that the EU kept the franchise alive at a time when nothing else was going on.

If Star Wars: VII is a bomb, you can bet that people will point the finger at the decision to ignore plotlines which were readily available and proven to be more successful than Jar Jar Binks and the midichlorians. As they should. Only time will tell us the full extent of the ramifications of flushing the EU away like Taco Bell twenty minutes after it’s been eaten.

I don’t mourn the loss of the EU. Rebooting the series to a time where the Yuuhan Vong and Darth Caedus never happened is fine by me. The EU gave fans more than twenty years of material to read. Anyone who has gone through all of that material is probably ready for some new books to read. Whether or not that’s the new Star Wars books is up to them.

J.J. Abrams’ new film will face a ton of scrutiny. The idea that there could be a new Star Wars film every year for the rest of eternity all but guarantees that somewhere down the road there will be a valid reason to bash the series. Rebooting the EU isn’t necessarily one of them, but wiping away so many cherished storylines and characters isn’t a great idea either.

Monday

2

June 2014

0

COMMENTS

Netflix’ Derek Continues to Be TV’s Oddest Offering

Written by , Posted in Blog, Pop Culture

The first season of Netflix’ Derek was a peculiar one. Largely marketed as a comedy, the new offering from Ricky Gervais largely steered away from the material commonly found in all of his other series. Derek’s tone was much darker than anyone could’ve expected from the co-creator of The Office, Extras, An Idiot Abroad, and Life’s Too Short. While the results were mixed, a strong season finale had me excited about the prospect of another season.

The biggest problem with Derek is that it doesn’t appear to have much of an idea of what it wants to be. Season one had a few funny moments, but this was a drama that also wanted to explore the meaning of life. The fact that Gervais was channeling existentialism while portraying a seemingly mentally handicapped character oddly reminiscent of Father Dougal from Father Ted made matters complicated. Season two does a good job of fleshing out Derek’s character to a point where he finally makes some sense, but it doesn’t do a great job of following up on his growth from the season one finale.

Season two doesn’t really go anywhere. The six episodes are largely dedicated to exploring the main cast with minimal involvement from the actual residents of the old age home. Karl Pilkington, who plays the handyman/bus driver Dougie, departs after the first episode and the show suffers without his wit, but the rest of the cast steps up in his absence. The acting is elevated drastically in season two and the strong performances provide perhaps the best reason to watch the show.

There’s too much of the same in season two. This season dedicates more time to character than plot, but the destination is exactly the same. Each character is a flawed mess trying to make it through the hard road called life, but we knew that already. Life season one, there’s an episode that stands above the rest, but the majority of the season is largely forgettable. Familiar themes repeat themselves and the characters are mostly restricted to one notable event a season. With a collective run time of a little more than two hours, that’s not exactly surprising. Derek has more of an ensemble cast than any of Gervais’ other shows, which leads to an elevated feeling of inconclusiveness when the season abruptly ends. Though it’s hard to call brevity a deterrent, as I don’t think I could put up with a full season of the show.

It’s hard to imagine where Derek will fit in when it comes time to evaluate Gervais’ career as a whole. As of now, it makes more sense to compare it to Stephen Merchant’s first solo effort, Hello Ladies, which was a far more disappointing effort that received the boot from HBO after eight episodes. Derek represents a transitional series for Gervais, where he steps away from the pitiable narcissists roles in favor of more developed, if not equally flawed, characters.

Does that make it worth watching? Yes and no. If you’re a fan of Gervais’ other work or British television, then the simple answer is yes. Derek is the kind of show that needs its viewers to drop all preconceived notions of what it’s supposed to be. It doesn’t know and in small doses, that’s okay. But it’s a show with quality acting and enough tearjerker moments to merit its brief run time.

Season two struggles to deliver on the good will garnered from the season one finale. There’s a few new things to say, but the season as a whole feels like it didn’t need to happen. There’s been no news on the future of Derek, but it’s hard to imagine that there won’t be at least a wrap up special. Whether or not that’s a good thing remains to be seen.

Derek is a drama that people want to think is a comedy that’s also largely a meandering mess with a few heartfelt flashes of brilliance. That’s hardly a glowing recommendation, but I think it’s certainly worth watching. Ricky Gervais used Derek to grow as a performer and I had fun watching him work

Wednesday

28

May 2014

2

COMMENTS

2014: The Year Jeopardy! Embraced Continuity

Written by , Posted in Blog, Pop Culture

Between the Battle of the Decades Tournament and the 11 and (as of this article) 17 game win streaks of Arthur Chu and Julia Collins, Jeopardy! has quietly entered its most significant eras in the show’s long and storied history. Each of these events on their own would likely stand out as the most noteworthy event of the year for the venerable quiz show. What’s even more impressive is that these three events all happened at the same time.

While the Battle of the Decades started in February, the tournament was not completed until just a few weeks ago. In that time, nearly every noteworthy contestant of the Alex Trebek era returned in what could very well be the most exciting tournament in the entire history of the show. Though a major part of Jeopardy!’s appeal is that the show is largely the same from episode to episode, the Tournament finals were clearly something special as Brad Rutter, Ken Jennings, and Roger Craig delivered a match for the ages.

It was hard to really miss the tournament in the weeks in between as there were plenty of exciting things going on in regular play. Arthur Chu’s extreme use of the Forrest Bounce, a tactic named for champion Chuck Forrest that involves jumping around the board to throw off opponents, and his large Daily Double bets made him easily the most controversial contestant since Ken Jennings. Chu’s reign was so controversial that it attained more press coverage than the tournament itself.

While Chu lost on March 12th, before the Battle of the Decades reached its quarterfinals, Julia Collins insured that there would be another memorable regular contestant before the tournament was concluded. Collins’ active streak seems like a long time, largely because it is in fact a long time. But since she won her first game on April 21st, those seventeen games have been stretched a lot longer as Brad Rutter won his two million before Collins even made history as longest running female Jeopardy! champion. Collins style couldn’t be more different than Chu’s, but her conservative approach has served her well. Collins is quick with the buzzer and rarely gets Daily Doubles wrong, allowing her to achieve runaways without taking big risks.

It’s hard to believe that since February, nearly every person who has made an impact on Jeopardy! has either been back on the show or made a name for themselves in that time. Aside from David Madden, every major champion came back for the Battle of the Decades while Chu and Collins wrote their own chapters in the Jeopardy! history book. For a show that isn’t known for its continuity, we’ve been flooded with memorable characters for a few months now.

There aren’t that many truly memorable Jeopardy! contestants and yet we’ve seen nearly all of them this year. This span could very well be the most exciting time in the entire history of the show. Unless the expand the number of podiums, we won’t see Rutter, Jennings, Craig, Chu, and Collins all in one game. Even if we did, we wouldn’t likely return to regular play to see another long streak continue when it was over.

Sure there’s purists who would prefer that old five game limit, but the fact that the streaks of players like Jennings, Chu, and Collins happen so infrequently makes them special. We’re closer to the end of the Trebek era than the beginning, which is only natural when a person has been occupying the same job for thirty years. But what isn’t natural is for a decades old show to surprise viewers with a surprisingly memorable time period that will be remembered for years to come.When Collins loses, things will likely go back to normal. It seems weird that we’ll be without a memorable contestant for the first time since snow littered the northeast, but that’s a big reason why Jeopardy! has been such an institution.