Doctor Who Can Make the World a Better Place

Monday night I went to see the Doctor Who anniversary special “The Day of the Doctor” in 3-D and on the big screen via Fathom Events, and it was glorious. Not only did they show the 75-minute special, but they kicked things off with a specially-made policy trailer intro featuring Strax (Dan Starkey) that had the auditorium in stitches. There’s a priceless bit with popcorn that has to be seen to be appreciated. That was followed by David Tennant and Matt Smith (in costume and character) against a stark white background, “turning on” the 3-D, which led to the special proper. Once that was over, there was a ten-minute making of special narrated by Colin Baker, so the entire program ended up probably going just over the 90-minute mark, and thus making it all feel like a true theatrical experience. As if watching the anniversary special on Saturday wasn’t enough, this kicked the whole thing up to a new level, and the folks who viewed this same presentation theatrically on Saturday truly experienced the Mona Lisa of Doctor Who anniversaries (and it was not a fake!).

Seeing the same program two days later was nearly as special, as was evidenced by the enthusiasm of the crowd. The B.O. take for this massive experiment is pretty impressive, and the BBC bean counters are surely over the moon. I do not know the specifics of how this entire event was handled, but when I purchased tickets the day they went on sale, as far as I could tell there was just a single showing, at 7:30 PM. Yet Monday night there were numerous showings – at 7:30 and at 10 PM, in both 2-D & 3-D! So it seems that somewhere along the way, more screenings had to be arranged, presumably to accommodate the demand for tickets. When we emerged from our screening at about 9ish, the entire theatre was packed with people waiting for the next screenings. It seems that the initial expectations were obliterated, and a proper Doctor Who theatrical movie, likely starring Peter Capaldi, needs to happen in the next couple years.

But that’s not what I’m here to talk about today. I’m here to publicly recant something I’ve said numerous times over the years (though probably never online - which makes this as much confession as retraction), and that’s that I do not like Doctor Who fans, an opinion I formed back during the lean years when the show was off the air, about an unhappy, grumpy group of folks who often sort of seemed to dislike even one another (there was probably a fair amount of self-loathing involved, on my part, too). That’s all changed now, and with each new convention I attend, and each new batch of Whovians I engage with, I realize that not only do I like Doctor Who fans, but I might just love them.

I love their passion. I love their ingenuity. I love their intelligence. And what I loved more than anything else Monday night at the movie theatre was the love they have for one another. I wore my Tom Baker scarf – one my aunt knitted for me back in, like, ’84 or someting - and people just fawned and squealed over it. Men longed to have one just like it, and women wanted to wrap it around themselves – and it was just a scarf! Still, folks admiring my wares is also not what I’m here to discuss.

It’s Doctor Who families that blow me away – parents that have in-Doctor-nated their children, and they were all there on Monday: so many enthusiastic families – children waving around their sonic screwdrivers, parents wearing fezzes. It was such a sight to behold…and it gets better. My initial reaction to seeing all these children in the auditorium was one of fear – how are these little ones going to ruin my one and only chance at this particular cinematic experience? How many crying fits and bored kids getting up and running around will I have to suffer through?

None of that ever happened. They were so into the program that beyond the laughter and squeals in the appropriate places, there were utterly, silently transfixed. Some of it was because the program was so awesome, but much of it, I believe, was also down to just plain good parenting. Maybe Harry Potter started all this, with its books and movies, and now Doctor Who is picking up where J.K. Rowling left off, by helping to make smarter, more imaginative children, by demonstrating that intelligence and kindness and patience are attributes to strive for, not to be ashamed of. As far as our TV entertainment goes, families don’t have much to watch and enjoy together anymore. TV networks and cable channels have splintered all the choices into specific groups and demographics. Very little on TV tries to please everyone, and the networks have given up on trying to create something the entire family can enjoy.

Families coming together to view Who isn’t news to anyone living in the U.K., but over here in the States, it’s a much more recent development. It probably started with the arrival of the Eleventh Doctor, and has been gathering steam ever since. At the L.A. convention Gallifrey One back in February (where I took all the pictures on display here), I recall seeing similar families, and similarly well behaved, polite children, and I realize that this wasn’t just some anomaly the other night, and that the show is engaged in doing something very special and important to the people who discover and watch it: Doctor Who makes people want to strive for something better. A hero makes others want to be heroic as well, and this is perhaps why the Doctor is the world’s greatest hero right now. We need the Doctor now more than ever. It’s like Rose Tyler said in “The Parting of the Ways,” “The Doctor showed me a better way of living your life.” So not only can Doctor Who make the world a better place, but it is making the world a better place, right here, right now.

This holiday season, figure out a way to turn a kid onto Doctor Who. Share and connect. You’ll be doing the world a favor.

Don't Believe Everything You See on Facebook, Issue #2

The meme this parodies is mercifully in its final death throes, but if you spent any amount of time on Facebook in the last couple weeks, you no doubt noticed this bit of obnoxiousness more than a couple times. If you spend a lot of time of Facebook, you watched it start out as a mild diversion and then grow into a behemoth clogging your newsfeed.

It wasn’t terribly clever, and it only seemed to be amusing to the people who were sharing it. It also sent a message that needs to be stamped out right here and right now: Most people – your family, your friends, your co-workers, etc. - are in fact not thinking about what you do, and that’s because most people are too busy thinking about themselves and what they’re doing or going to do, which, in turn, is exactly why this meme ran so fucking rampant. It’s a Catch-22 of massive Facebookian proportions. It presents the delusion that the rest of the world cares about your nonsense, when in fact, they just simply do not, as they are too busy caring about their own.

Oh, I hear your cries! “Lighten up, Ross! We were just having fun!” Well your fun is impeding my sharing and receiving of useful information, and it’s pissing me off. If Facebook is indeed a tremendous waste of time, this meme is entirely emblematic of why.

On the surface, this is good times and great oldies, but lurking beneath is something much more sinister (but let’s face it: oldies can be pretty sinister to begin with). I think the implication here is that our parents were somehow “better” than the parents of today (i.e. “us”) because they let kids run recklessly and didn’t think so hard about whether or not bones would end up broken. Fair enough, but it’s not going to convince me that there’s anything wrong with not wanting your kid to be rushed to the emergency room if it can be prevented with a little common sense.

More importantly, however, when my son was a preteen, I’d never have let him go out of the house wearing a half shirt like the kid in the background. I might also have advised him to not sit like Farrah Fawcett when someone nearby has a camera in hand. Take that, parents of the ‘70s!

I looked up other pictures of Gillian McKeith. There’s no question that she’s not as conventionally attractive as Ms. Lawson, but there’s also no question that whoever put this together chose the most unflattering photograph they could find of her. Had the following shot been used instead, the graphic wouldn’t be nearly as dramatic.

For the record, I’m a big fan of both exercise and butter (though probably not at the same time).

Yes, let’s use fictional people (from the ‘60s, no less) to attempt to prove some kind of idiotic point about marriage today. What was that? Oh yeah, they were based on some comics from the ‘30s! I’ll see your Gomez and Morticia Addams and raise you a J.R. and Sue Ellen Ewing.

This is such a prime example of liberal hubris, it must be called out. Something that really gets under my skin about Democrats is their inability to know when to just fucking stop; to realize when they’ve won. It’s like that guy who thinks he’s a comedian, but he’s not, because he’s unable to instinctively recognize when a joke has reached its end. Here, someone has put together an impressive list of accomplishments by Barack Obama. It would stand tall, proud and strong, but they just had to go ruin the entire message with that last sentence: “What did you do in the last three years at your job?” You know why I didn’t do any of those things at my job in the last three years? Because I’m not the fucking President of the United States, you sanctimonious asshole!

This is why I do not go to Superbowl parties. Don’t play with your food, especially when you have this much of it (and all of it so unhealthy!) Last month I realized that I’m invited to more Superbowl parties than any real holiday of the year. Are there really more people gathering together on that one day than any other? Come on, folks, take just half the dollars you’re putting into this nonsense and do something cool on Halloween. You know how many Halloween parties I was invited to last year? None. Me, of all people! It beggars the imagination, yes it does. 

Don't Believe Everything You See on Facebook, Issue #1

Oh, how I'd love to get behind this one, if not for the fact that the person who put it together was obviously stoned (in light of this, who knows if the facts are even correct?). Bad spelling, awful grammar, and terrible punctuation. This is an online nightmare. What's most amazing is that marijuana is spelled correctly not once, but twice! Anytime these little placards fail to get the basics right, I loathe them even if I agree with the message. Don't encourage bad writers to keep doing this stuff by passing their handiwork around! 

This one I totally agree with in sentiment, but the way it’s put together rather kills the whole point, because it’s an apples vs. oranges comparison. There’s no question that women are sold a “look” these days that’s unhealthy to attempt to reach and certainly to maintain. Necrophiliacs aside, few would find the top row attractive, which is why, on the surface, this works. But those pictures are stalkery, paparazzi-type shots.* Those women did not choose to be photographed in those positions, in those moments. They aren’t meant to be seen like this. This is seriously trying to convince me that Keira Knightly isn’t a bangable babe, yet I know better, because I’ve, like, watched her movies. With proper lighting and camera angles, they look fine, because that’s the business they’re in. The real problem is that everyone thinks they have to look like a movie star or a model these days to be considered attractive.

Conversely, the photos on the bottom row are clearly shot by professional photographers under ideal circumstances, so of course they’re more pleasing to ogle. It’s got nothing to do with the fact that they’re rubenesque or curvy or whatever term you want to use to describe them. I’m sure there was a surplus of moments in Marilyn Monroe’s life in which she looked like utter hell – it’s just that the paparazzi didn’t exist back then (at least not in the way they do today) to capture those looks. There also wasn’t much of an audience for that sort of gawking back then. People enjoyed believing the illusion of beauty more, I think, so they weren't so quick to tear it down. The top row of photos exists only because there’s now a public desire to drag our fantasy icons down to our level so we might feel better about ourselves, especially if it means making an actress like Kirsten Dunst look bad in the process. It needn’t exist if we simply recognize that we live in reality, and these people present us with illusion, and ne’er shall the two meet.   

*Or at least three of them are – who knows what that stupid bitch Heidi is up to? That girl could be photographed taking a massive dump and she’d be elated that someone was interested in what she was doing.

Folks still use the whole “let’s compare those who disagree with us to Hitler” tactic! It'd be amazing if it weren't so silly. This was huge a year or two ago with Obama, which showed how out of ideas his opponents really were. Indeed, stooping to the level of comparing the opposition to Hitler means you've lost your argument. Yeah, whoever put this doozy together is comparing the pro-choice movement to Adolph Hitler, and they have the gall to back it up with a quote from Dr. King. Because Hitler molested kitty cats and puppy dogs and King shit rose petals everywhere he went. This is a perfect quote for these people to use to try to get their point across, because it ignores all the variables in between their black and white view of the world. They’re welcome to it. It’s less offensive than it is predictable and boring, which is pretty much how I see rabid pro-lifers at this point. For those who are interested in the text these words came from (which of course had nothing to do with abortion), you can find it here, in King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.”

This is one of the most unnerving bits I’ve seen on Facebook. Look closely at the photo. Study it for a bit. See it? Hint: It’s almost dead center.

Most people freak out over this. I'll admit it: I did, too. But why? It's not the fucking Ring 3. So there’s a black girl hiding between two Asian girls, and she managed to get into the shot. My reaction to this photo makes me feel incredibly racist. The only reason it’s at all scary is because she’s dark. Honestly, I don’t know what else there is to say, except that this photo should maybe be used as a litmus test to figure out how far we really haven’t come in the past 100 years as a society. Does it freak out black folks, too? If it does, is it then fine?

  

Speaking of being freaked out by black folks, this is problematic on several levels, but mostly it's grounded in no version of reality that any thinking person will acknowledge exists. To wit, I also don’t believe anyone who dares to pass this around is thinking about what the message here is when they’re sharing it. This is the snarky, online equivalent of the ostrich burying its head in the sand. (Careful about how you laugh, lest you choke on the sand.)

What folks who insist on passing this sort of thing around don’t realize - whilst giggling amongst themselves at the “funny,” or even worse, actually believing that there’s any truth to it - is that it’s this attitude that could very probably lead to the end of their party. It lends them zero credibility and speaks to the one thing that’s going to be the undoing of the Republican party, and that’s that it no longer stands for anything. Republicans don’t appear to like anything, or even believe in anything anymore. All they know how to do is oppose, and unfortunately that just isn’t the reality of the world we live in any longer. It’s not enough to oppose; folks gotta be doers as well.

So if this photoshopped bit of nonsense really means anything at all, the rubble Obama is surveying is the wreckage of the Republican party itself. And that’s sad, because this country needs them. We need differing points of view – debate! - to keep the U.S. moving forward. But a debate cannot merely consist of, in the immortal words of Messrs. M. Python, “the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.” For it to work, it must be “a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.” It isn’t just saying “no it isn’t.”

Only One Cook in the Kitchen

It was worth sitting through months of American Idol this season just to watch this guy win tonight.

His journey wasn't too shabby either. Nice seeing a cool Missouri boy take the big prize.

Abe the Babe

My ongoing quest to find hot nudie shots of Abe Vigoda on the internet has been a fruitless endeavor. There aren't even any decent fakes, which mystifies me. I mean, can there possibly be a better use for Photoshop than to at least create the illusion that Vigoda's goods are on display for all to bask in? (To do it myself would destroy the fantasy.) The travesty to the left is not only an insult to Abe's studlinesss, but it doesn't even make any sense. Abe in drag!?!? It's just not funny, and flies in the face of his quiet masculinity.

Anyway, I inadvertently stumbled across something on YouTube today that comes closer to fulfilling my dreams than anything else I've encountered. Strangely, I wasn't even looking for His [B]Abeness at the time - I was doing a search on Bea Arthur. It's a parody sketch of Sex and the City, starring Maude as Carrie Bradshaw. Sally Struthers, Katherine Helmond, and Charlotte Rae round out the rest of the self-centered foursome. (My feelings about Sex and the City are a whole different entry, but suffice it to say, I hate those bitches.)

But as I viewed the video, imagine the beats my heart skipped when it played its trump card in the closing seconds: Fish himself as Mr. Big.

While it's a huge tease and a massive shame that he doesn't appear au naturel, the idea of Abe banging Bea Arthur over and over throughout the night is enough to fuel my fantasies 'til the end of summer.

See the video for yourself by clicking here, and you'll no doubt know the feelings I'm experiencing as I type.

Cheeseburger in a Can

If you're anything like me - and surely you must be, or else you wouldn't frequent a Morgue - the idea of a Cheeseburger in a Can is both revolting and intriguing. The fine, brave folks at The A.V. Club got their hands on one and gave it a taste test. Their conclusions are amusing to say the least. I'm still trying to figure out how there could be so many reactions to one tiny burger. They must have cut it up into some awfully tiny pieces. Perhaps that's all one can stomach anyway? I gotta admit, they've not turned me off entirely, and if a Cheeseburger in a Can ever rolls my way, I'll probably give it a shot.

Fucking Damon & Affleck

I have not seen Sarah Silverman's "I'm Fucking Matt Damon" video, which seems to have been jokingly aimed at her beau Jimmy Kimmel. I've also not partaken in Jimmy's follow up retort to Sarah entitled "I'm Fucking Ben Affleck." It would be far easier and less time consuming than writing this post to just go find and watch them. But this might be more fun.

All four of the people involved in this joke are talented to some degree or other. Damon's a pretty damn good actor who most always manages to work within his limits, and in doing so more often than not comes away looking good, even if the movie he's in is shit. Affleck, on the other hand, got sucked into the machine in an ugly way, and ended up doing all manner of crap to keep people happy and himself on the radar. When reports of him drunk and hanging all over strippers in Vegas surfaced, I understood the guy; if anything I'd say he was well behaved. And after seeing "Gone Baby Gone" this weekend, he's got a gold star in my book. But as much as I liked it, he's acted in so much nonsense it's only starting to even out. Ben and I would probably get along fine, so long as he didn't expect me to play poker ('cuz he'd whoop my ass). His overall career is one thing he wouldn't have to worry about me bringing up. I get it. I'm sure he does. End of story.

Sarah Silverman's hot, but I don't find her all that entertaining. I get why other people find her funny, but I know that I don't. By the time Kimmel's show comes on, I'm either away from the TV, watching something on cable or DVD, writing, hounding the 'net, etc. I've got almost no opinion of the guy other than he seems jovial enough. He's good on the roasts.

So there it is. I can't be bothered to check out these gags which have seemingly entertained millions, because none of the four people involved move me enough to make the simplest of efforts. Yet clearly I'm so aware of these bits that I've been driven to write a meaningless entry on the subject.

I feel like I might be missing out. I wonder if I am. I suspect I am not.

You tell me.

Come and get your love...

IMDB reports:

Lindsay Lohan is set to spend time in a morgue as part of her community service - in a bid to show the consequences of driving under the influence. The Mean Girls star, 21, was arrested twice last year on charges of DUI, and was sentenced to serve four days behind bars in August. She served just over 80 minutes in Lynwood jail in California in November, after a judge reduced the sentence and ordered her to carry out 10 days of community service - which she began in late last year with the American Red Cross. Her attorney, Blair Berk, told a judge on Thursday at a progress hearing Lohan will spend two four-hour days at a morgue, and will spend a further two days in a hospital emergency room. Lohan was not present at the hearing.

I would like to extend the invite to Miss Lohan to spend her time doing her community service here at The Rued Morgue. She'll be made quite comfortable and no doubt she and I will find plenty of ways in which can work off her debt to society.

Beverly Hills, 90210: Season Three

A while back Piper gave me some good-natured shit for writing about Desperate Housewives on a blog that typically showcases fare like Doctor Who and James Bond (as if either of those franchises can be considered edgy at this point).

If he sees it, this entry will likely cause him to spontaneously combust...

Having spent most of the ‘90s watching movies and very little broadcast TV, Beverly Hills, 90210 was a slice of pop culture I missed out on entirely. (It’s always mildly baffling to realize any series was on the air for 10 seasons and you never saw a single episode of it.) Something as iconic as 90210 carries loads of preconceived baggage, and for education’s sake, I was eager to find out what so transfixed audiences back in ‘92. This box set was my intro to the world of Brenda and Brandon Walsh & Co., and going in I was sure I was gonna hate it...

Find out if my instincts failed me yet again by clicking here and reading the rest of the review at Bullz-Eye.

Stern on Letterman (01/10/08)

One TV event that can always be counted on to deliver is a Howard Stern appearance on David Letterman. A huge part of why it works is because of Stern's ability to corner Dave on issues that he'd rather not discuss, and the ensuing discomfort Letterman ends up wallowing in. It's a sight to behold and the duo have never failed to leave me in stitches. There's a reason why Stern on Letterman appearances almost always last for three segments: because once Howard leaves, the show is all but over. Last night did not disappoint, however the strongest segment was the second (which you can see by clicking here). Stern riffs on Dr. Phil, Don Imus and Jay Leno with increasing comical prowess. It's clear Stern's got an agenda when he comes on the show and he knows what he's gonna say, but the guy's so good that it doesn't matter that it isn't entirely off the cuff. Often times one wonders who's interviewing who. It's must-see TV, even if you're not a fan of either guy. Even Paul Shaffer rises to the Stern occasion and whips out several zingers.

If you are a fan, then by all means check out Part One (where Stern pimps a genital cream and bitches about Oprah) and Part Three (where Stern speaks of his fear of vacations and gives Dave a hard time for not marrying his long-term girlfriend, Regina).

Watch these clips now because they may be gone tomorrow.

Bein' a Dick

So what the fuck is Andy Dick’s problem anyway? Lately this guy’s been in the news more often than the lovely-and-IMHO-far-too-frequently-picked-on Lindsay Lohan. But with this cat, it’s always some obnoxious social faux pas travesty mixed with a healthy dose of freakshow. I’ve got nothing against Andy Dick and admit to actually enjoying the weirdness he adds to a Comedy Central Roast...but many people would be locked away in an institution for these types of ongoing shenanigans.

From CNN.com:

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- David Stroupe said it was one of the worst experiences with a performer in the history of the Funny Bone Comedy Club.

He was referring to Andy Dick, a former co-star on the 1990s sitcom "NewsRadio," who appeared at the Funny Bone last weekend.

Stroupe, the club's managing partner, said the 41-year-old actor-comedian made inappropriate comments while on stage, groped patrons, took women into the men's room and urinated on the floor and on at least one person.

A limousine driver was to meet Dick early Monday morning at a hotel near the club, Stroupe said, but he couldn't be found and missed that morning's flight to Los Angeles.

Dick was across town, where he was issued a citation for urinating on the sidewalk by Columbus policeman John Fantin. Police eventually escorted Dick back to the hotel, Stroupe said.

So I ask again, what the fuck is wrong with Andy Dick?

A. He’s trying to live up to his last name.
B. He’s socially retarded and just doesn’t know any better.
C. Drugs and/or alcohol abuse.
D. Tourette’s?
E. He hates Hollywood and the way the machine operates, so he’s trying to break it down.
F. Between Roasts, he crafts inventive techniques for keeping Dick in the public eye.
G. It’s just good ol' fashioned performance art on a grand, tasteless scale.
H. All of the above.
I. Some of the above[1].
J. None of the above[1].

[1] If you chose "I" or "J", please elaborate on what the fuck Andy Dick’s deal is in the comments section below[2].

[2] If you are Andy Dick, please contact me so we can arrange an interview to get to the bottom of what the fuck is going on with you...over the phone, of course. I could probably handle a quick grope, but I gave up the golden showers thing years ago.

A Little Destruction

If you don’t own Life's Little Destruction Book, you should. It’ll make you feel better about committing those little social faux pas -- or even really big ones. Its tagline is “512 boorish, insensitive and socially obnoxious pointers for leading a simple, self-centered life.” It was intended as a parody of the similarly titled Instruction Book (which only offered 511 pointers), but there are some of us who discovered this text to be far more profound. Here are some of those pointers:

Never tip more than a quarter.

Take the hotel towel.

Help fools part with their money.

Let everyone know how hard you work.

If the mistake is in your favor, don't correct it.

Misquote. (That one’s great for bloggers.)

Tell the ending of movies. (So’s that one.)

Give little kids clothes for their birthdays.

Add insult to injury.

Develop a convenient memory.

Touch strangers.

Sneer at people who try hard. (Again, Blogger 101.)

Dish it out, but don't take it.

Develop a truly tasteless foul mouth.

I’m real fond of that last one, and recklessly embrace it if I’ve had a few drinks in a public place. You can read more of these tips by clicking here or you could just go buy the book...although in doing so you may be breaking one of the rules.

One great pointer (though I rarely abide by it as I've learned the fallout can be hell) is "Pass the vicious rumors along". Admittedly, this isn't all that vicious -- hell, it isn't vicious at all -- but it is a rumor and one that's got me stoked about Doctor Who Season Four: The Sun reports that Ben Kingsley is close to signing on as the Dalek creator, Davros. One thing that cracks me up about the Sun piece is their observation of the irony of “Gandhi playing Davros”. Good lord! As if Kingsley hasn’t played one bastard after another since 1982. Man, it’s what the guy’s good at! Does anybody really still think of him as Gandhi!?! His career since has been so anti-Gandhi. Maybe he feels playing Davros will forever wash away that stink?

As I recently wrote at The House Next Door, we’re all suffering from Dalek fatigue at this point -- but much like in the classic series, the one surefire way to overcome that is to introduce Davros. Davros entered the series in 1975’s "Genesis of the Daleks", and his introduction was revisionism of sorts whereas the Daleks were concerned (he'd never been mentioned before). It mattered not. Davros was ruthless, witty, cold and always able to engage in some sort of theological discussion that not only mesmerized the Doctor but also made his blood boil. His presence so overshadowed his creations that he featured to some degree or another in every subsequent Dalek story -- which was actually only five tales including his intro. (Back then, the Doctor didn’t meet the Daleks every season, just every few years.) Many complained the Daleks took a back seat to their creator (a valid criticism), but from a dramatic standpoint, one Davros was ten times more stimulating than a fleet of Daleks. He owned a copy of and lived by Life's Little Destruction Book.

Russell T Davies has done a sterling job of reinventing the Daleks (even if every outing hasn’t been stellar), and with the idea of the Cult of Skaro, he’s come close to replicating the Davros vibe. Close, I say, but not close enough. If he intends to reintroduce the mad genius one can only imagine the villainous reinvention he’ll have in store for the character, and Ben Kingsley is a superb choice for the job. I’d heard through the grapevine before this casting rumor that Kingsley is indeed a fan, so perhaps it’s genuine. The last time I wrote of a Who rumor via the Sun it was about Kylie Minogue’s appearance in the upcoming Christmas special and that turned out to be true. (Granted, the same article claimed Woody Allen would play Einstein and that, at least so far, hasn’t come to pass).

But it’s hard to imagine Kingsley signing on to play the part under the heavy makeup Davros requires. Is it possible Davies might unveil a "Genesis of Davros" storyline? Perhaps a story leading up to the nuclear devastation that nearly wiped the Kaleds and the Thals off the face of Skaro? See, Davros wasn’t always so hideous; he went through an Anakin Skywalkerish-type of literal meltdown, which is how he came to be a disfigured invalid. Terry Nation, the true creator of the Daleks, left the Davros/Dalek history open enough for it to be played with...and obviously Davies loves to play. One area that seems difficult to play with, however, would be the Doctor meeting Davros for the first time, as those events are clearly shown in "Genesis of the Daleks". But then again, you’ll not find me being such the fanboy stickler that I’d heavily criticize Davies for fudging that in some manner if it made for an engaging story. If the Daleks are to return next season, they’d better damn well be packing a dramatic punch, and there's likely no better punch than Davros.

If you’re new to Who, I highly recommend tracking down the DVD of "Genesis of the Daleks". It’s Who/Dalek/Davros 101 and one of the greatest Doctor Who social allegories ever written. But you’re sick of Daleks, right? The good news is it barely features them and focuses far more on their creator as well as the ongoing war between the two aforementioned races who coexist on Skaro (hence the title). Terry Nation, who’d been cranking out Dalek stories since 1963, was at the top of his game and just a few years later he unveiled what was to be his television masterpiece: Blake’s 7. (Someday soon I'm gonna write about B7...)

By the way, it's pronounced "DAV-ross".

Monk, The Bobblehead

Meet the Adrian Monk bobblehead.

Monk rocks, right? It's one of the coolest, easy series unleashed in recent years. If you follow the formula, you don't have to tune in every single week. Monk shows up and solves the mystery. Sometimes we're in on whodunnit; sometimes not. Either way the show entertains mostly due to its cast and the writers' manner of deftly shoehorning each character into the plot.

None of this justifies the bobblehead looking nothing like Tony Shalhoub. But in defense of the sculptor, he may very well have too intricate a face for a bobblehead. Sure, it wants to be Shalhoub, but it is not.

To me, it looks like someone else...specifically. Curious if anyone else hones in on what I did (assuming my photo does the sculpture justice).

Hint: Remove the curly hair and focus on the face.

By the way, does anyone have any ideas as to the strength of the Bobblehead Culture? Why is it so prevalent? Why do these doodads keep getting made? I've pondered purchasing numerous characters, but have yet to find one that meets my standards. Do you own a bobblehead, and if so, which one? (Monk was a freebie, FYI.)

Leone's Latest Quiz

Dennis at Sergio Leone recently posted another one of his mammoth film quizzes. Like Damian at Windmills, I've chosen to post my answers here.

1) Favorite quote from a filmmaker

Don't make a film if it can't be the film you wanna make. It's a joke - and a sick joke - and it'll kill ya'. - David Lynch

2) A good movie from a bad director

I really don’t have a fair answer to this. How about Ravenswan?

3) Favorite Laurence Olivier performance

Max de Winter in Rebecca (Sleuth’s a close second.)

4) Describe a famous location from a movie that you have visited (Bodega Bay, California, where the action in The Birds took place, for example). Was it anything like the way it was in the film? Why or why not?

There is no basement in the Alamo. That is all.

5) Carlo Ponti or Dino De Laurentiis (Producer)?

Dino. (He produced Blue Velvet!)

6) Best movie about baseball

The Bad News Bears. Not sure it's really "about" baseball, but Jackie's in it, so 'nuff said.

7) Favorite Barbara Stanwyck performance

Well I’ve still not seen many of them, but I’m going with The Lady Eve for the time being.

8) Fast Times at Ridgemont High or Dazed and Confused?

Both rock, but Fast Times has the edge.

9) What was the last movie you saw, and why? (We’ve used this one before, but your answer is presumably always going to be different, so…)

Driving Lessons, because Laura Linney was in it. (Although it turned out that Rupert Grint and Julie Walters made the piece; Linney was great support, but just not “the star”.)

10) Whether or not you have actually procreated or not, is there a movie you can think of that seriously affected the way you think about having kids of your own?

Having never procreated, but having a 14-year old I consider “mine”, all I can say is that question requires too much thought.

11) Favorite Katharine Hepburn performance

Suddenly Last Summer

12) A bad movie from a good director

The Brothers Grimm/Terry Gilliam

13) Salo: The 120 Days of Sodom-- yes or no?

Fucking no fucking way. And I guess my answer just goes to show the power of that nasty piece of filth.

14) Ben Hecht or Billy Wilder (Screenwriter)?

Wilder.

15) Name the film festival you’d most want to attend, or your favorite festival that you actually have attended

Festivals annoy me, but I’ve got great memories of the Twin Peaks marathon at the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin years ago.

16) Head or 200 Motels?

Head -- I’ve not seen the latter, but I love Head.

17) Favorite cameo appearance

David Cronenberg in To Die For.

18) Favorite Rosalind Russell performance

Picnic (see #7 above, though)

19) What movie, either currently available on DVD or not, has never received the splashy collector’s edition treatment you think it deserves? What would such an edition include?

The Avengers. Somewhere there’s a cut of that movie that makes it even more worthwhile…although I am quite fond of the 89-minute version that does exist. I’d treasure a commentary track from director Jeremiah Chechick and screenwriter Don MacPherson wherein they discuss their vision vs. the finished product.

20) Name a performance that everyone needs to be reminded of, for whatever reason

Jeff Bridges in The Fisher King…for every reason.

21) Louis B. Mayer or Harry Cohn (Studio Head)?

No thoughts.

22) Favorite John Wayne performance

I guess The Searchers. Not a big fan.

23) Naked Lunch or Barton Fink?

I like this question, because anyone who was a film freak in ’91 probably equates the two films for numerous reasons. Both rock, but Naked Lunch easily scores my vote.

24) Your Ray Harryhausen movie of choice

Even though he didn’t direct it, I’m going with The Valley of Gwangi, a movie that imprinted itself on me for life.

25) Is there a movie you can think of that you feel like the world would be better off without, one that should have never been made?

Um, see #13 above.

26) Favorite Dub Taylor performance

Damn…looking at his IMDB resume I’ve seen a shitload of stuff he’s been in, but I’ve got no idea who he is. I’ll say The Getaway because I’m sure he was good in that (right?).

27) If you had the choice of seeing three final movies, to go with your three last meals, before shuffling off this mortal coil, what would they be?

Good lord, I hope to whatever higher power may possibly exist that the last thing I’m thinking about in that moment is movies. I’ve devoted so much time to them in my life that in those precious minutes I oughtta be thinking about bigger issues.

That said…

Withnail & I, The Big Lebowski, and Ravenswan (currently my only writer/directorial effort…hey if I’m dying, why not choose something I was part of?).

28) And what movie theater would you choose to see them in?

I guess the Showboat Theatre in Hermann, MO, my hometown. I don’t even know if it’s still a movie theatre, but it’s where I saw my first theatrical movie, which, unless memory cheats me, was Star Wars.

Rued Panache

A while back Adam Ross at DVD Panache invited me to contribute to his ongoing Friday Screen Test series.

What I find most interesting about Adam's work for this series is the opening paragraph, which he crafts himself based on what he knows about the blogger in question. It's weird to be talked about as though I'm a subject worth talking about (I suspect in my case there may have been some struggle on Adam's part to accomplish this feat). I like this series because it's a blogger dedicating a portion of his blog each week to another blogger. Nice!

My answers to his questions can be found at DVD Panache by clicking here. If you're interested in contributing to the series, contact Adam!

Auntie Meme

UPDATED!

Copeland tagged me. I still don't entirely understand all this. Everything I know about memes I learned from the Doctor Who episode, "The End of the World", which featured The Adherents of the Repeated Meme. These are the rules I apparently must obey:

1. We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.

2. Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.

3. People who are tagged write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.

4. At the end of your blog, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names. Don't forget to leave them a comment telling them they're tagged, and to read your blog.

UPDATE!

From Wikipedia: Biologist and evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins coined the term meme in 1976. He gave as examples tunes, catch-phrases, beliefs, clothing fashions, ways of making pots, and the technology of building arches.

I bring this up only because Dawkins is married to former Doctor Who companion Lalla Ward (who was also once married to Tom Baker for about 10 minutes).

So now that that's out of the way, here are my eight random facts/habits:

1. I have actual interests outside of Doctor Who and James Bond.

2. I rarely answer the telephone, but check any and all messages left and will return most calls within 24 hours (unless I just don't feel like it).

3. I loathe the sun and the heat that emanates from it. (Moonlight, on the other hand, is refreshing.)

4. The Simpsons aren't all that funny to me.

5. Indian cuisine is the best way to go.

6. I enjoy eating mayonnaise straight out of the jar. Miracle Whip, however, is nasty.

7. Other people's opinions matter a lot more to me than I let on.

8. I spend far more time in various states of mild depression than you can possibly imagine.

The eight bloggers I'm tagging have been chosen mostly because they either haven't been tagged yet or will have no interest in playing along:

1. Joan
2. The Sheik
3. Keith Uhlich
4. Matt Seitz
5. Figurebuilder
6. Dan
7. Koda
8. Peel

Best. Chips. Ever.

(That is all.)

Slinging Webs at Spider-Man 3

What currently fascinates me most about Spider-Man 3 is the diversity of the reactions to it. I’ve yet to read a single review that praises it to the hilt, and the ones that trash it seem hell bent on proving there's nothing good about it at all.

The stuff I’ve enjoyed reading most has resided somewhere in the middle -- and each of these pieces offers up some new viewpoint that hadn’t occurred to me. Try Damian's reaction. Or Matt's excellent breakdown. Edward's is interesting because he felt the Sandman storyline should have been cut (to me it would have been the perfect central conflict had it been written somewhat differently). If you're so inclined Lazy Eye Theatre offers up some thoughts and don't miss Rob Humanick's great insights as well.

But I gotta admit that Harry Knowles' take really worked for me . It gave the whole affair a sort of logical fanboyish perspective -- which is probably what's required for an appreciation of this film.

I still have no idea where I stand in regard to Spidey 3, other than I never shed a tear (unlike the other two flicks) and it left me not really wanting more. I love the first two flicks so much that I'm not even sure I needed another Spider-Man movie. My feelings about 3 remain incomplete aside from maybe these few bullet points:

* I went in expecting the worst based on the handful of things I’d read. The first hour or so charmed me in a big way (the Harry getting amnesia thing aside, which seemed a huge waste of time). During the second hour, the charm began wearing thin -- although the cheesy disco stuff and Peter’s dance were, quite possibly, my favorite moments in the entire thing. The last 15 or so minutes were a big, loud mess.

* The movie seems like a classic example of Studio Vs. Talent. (Un?)fortunately Sam Raimi is such a team player and pro, he probably didn’t have the will to fight after all Sony’s done for him -- and frankly I can’t blame the guy.

* I’m not sure how much more angst can be drawn from the Peter/Mary Jane dynamic. Either keep ‘em together or split ‘em up -- but make a decision and stick with it. Give them both character and motivation that exists outside of reacting to one another's faults. What provided a solid center for Spidey 2 felt old and tired in Spidey 3. The wad was shot at the end of 2: They were together and it was good and right. Exploring the intricacies of their current relationship isn't working out; it'd be great fodder for a TV show, but a movie series delivering entries every few years is tedious.

* Harry was never given enough to do in the previous two films to warrant what happened to him in this film. Biggest transgressor? I really wanted to groove on Peter and Harry pooling their talents in the finale, but it didn’t work because their friendship’s never had enough depth for such a climax to resonate. Likewise, my eyes glazed when Harry died. This sucks because Franco’s done the best he can with the character and he deserved a much better exit. (Is he actually dead, by the way?)

* The Venom stuff sucked while the Sandman stuff rocked...'cept for the Uncle Ben angle. Can we please stop using his death as a dramatic "cliff" from which to jump? (Sorry Charly, I know it’s a nice paycheck for you at this point, but really…) It's become as tiresome as the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents.

Everything above may be void after I see the film again. The whole thing was such a sensory overload -- which is odd, because I'm sure the talk to action ratio weighs far heavier on the "talk" side. I gotta see it again before forming a real opinion. In any case, Spider-Man 3 may well be the most misunderstood movie of the year.

However the following very likely won’t change: After the first Spider-Man, I realized the biggest problem with bringing Spidey to the big screen: His face is static. This was amplified in any conversation scene between Spidey and the Goblin (especially the meeting on the roof), which featured NO facial movement from either character. (Maybe Hugo Weaving should play Peter?). What isn’t an issue for a comic book panel was hugely distracting on the silver screen (even Batman has a mouth and eyes).

Obviously Raimi hooked into similar thinking after completing the film and found some clever ways of getting around it in Spidey 2. But Spidey is without his mask for far too much of Spidey 3 and yet I don’t know how the issue should be handled at this point.

The bottom line: Both the static face and the removing of the mask cause big problems and it’s hard to say which is worse. The former makes a less engaging superhero; the latter makes a less believable film. It’s probably the most fucked conundrum in the history of comic book filmmaking.

O-Blog-atory "My Cat Died" Entry

Given the title of this piece, you probably already know if you care to invest a few minutes into these words...

Every cat means a little something different - and that's part of the charm of owning cats.

Two days ago one of our cats, Babygirl - whom we’d raised and had for four years - was killed by a reckless driver on our street. We know this thanks to a witness. (For the purposes of this piece, from here on out “I/me/my/etc.” frequently means “we/us/our/etc.”)

Babygirl was undeniably the sweetest cat I’d ever owned. So dainty that she’d even somehow, over the years, gotten to the point where she refused to crap in her litter box and always demanded to go outside. This was my fault for having trained her to be an indoor/outdoor cat from kittenhood. My house has three streets surrounding it as well as a high school a stone’s throw away. I live in a bad place to have outdoor cats.

But Babygirl was living on borrowed time anyway, and I’d always reckoned she’d made ample use of her 9 lives. I lost her on three different occasions and managed to get her back each time (the first was even on a Christmas Eve). Her premature passing was something I’d pretty much come to view as inevitable.

Before Babygirl, I lost Inuyasha - also thanks to a car! He rocked and was the least problematic cat I’d ever owned. And he looked like Batman, which I always thought was kinda cool. When he passed, Babygirl seemed lonely, so I wanted her to have a new friend – only any hypothetical new cat would not be allowed outside.

Enter Scorpius, who is not only the biggest pain in the ass of a cat you can imagine, but he’s strictly indoors and clearly doesn’t want to be. Tough titty, kitty -- I’m in charge. Luckily he makes up for his shortcomings with ample amounts of personality, which in the cat world is pretty valuable. Scorpy was chosen from the many at the pound because he was black and took an instant liking to me. I've reminded him time and again that without my intervention he'd likely have been gassed or offered up as a sacrifice by some lame Goth cult. This doesn't appear to matter much to His Highness.

But back to my beloved Babygirl. I had to clean up her remains, which, as you pet lovers might guess, wasn’t easy. I wanted to bury her in our backyard. Sounds simple, right? Not so. The spot I picked was so heavy with roots and rock that before getting less than a foot in I gave up. We also have rampant raccoon and possum problems, and the idea of something digging her up due to an inept burial didn’t set well with me. So I call animal control - an apparently miniscule division of the Alamo Heights police department. Guess what? “Animal control has the week off.”

“We usually tell people to double or triple bag the pet so a feral animal won’t get to it, and then just put it out in the garbage”, the voice said. That was on Tuesday and I quite frankly didn't have another reasonable solution. I was, however, insistent that nothing else other than she be placed in that can before pickup day.

This morning I woke up extra early so I could meet the garbage truck. If I didn’t feel like a total shitbag at this point, presiding over my little Babygirl's unceremonious dumping into a truck with used tampons and half-eaten burritos certainly sent me over the edge – or at least sent me far enough to write a “dead cat” entry, which two days ago smacked of improbability.

So I run out to the garbage truck when it pulls up. Goddamn these guys are pros! He’s already got her bag in his hands when I get out there, and I – like an idiot – say, “That’s my cat in there! She was killed a couple days ago and I just…” The words pretty much trailed off after that. I said something about the animal control call and what I was instructed to do. He calls over a supervisor. I tell him the same thing and he gives me a blank stare. There are like four of these guys, each handling some different aspect of the job[!?] and all speaking Spanish. They just wanna do what they have to do, dead cat or not – and I can’t really blame them. Are they supposed to hold a fucking funeral every time some suburbanite runs out waving his arms? I explained to him that yeah, I know how stupid I sound, but I just kinda wanted to be here. He says nothing, but his eyes call me a fucking pussy. Into the garbage truck my Babygirl went and I wondered exactly what the point was of me getting up to put myself through all this.

So here I am, sharing with you dear reader the goriest of details. There is no concrete end to this tale, and certainly no moral. I hope that I do not sound heartless, as I did my best by my Babygirl, who once upon a time - when she was tiny - shit in various corners of our house. I loved her regardless. I loved her even though, unlike my other cats, I was allergic to her. I loved her even when she woke me up at 5 in the morning wanting to go outside. I loved her immensely when I got her back that Christmas Eve.

And I believe, as much as a cat can, she loved me. Even though she was probably allergic to me, too.

"Violence is a very horrible thing!"

(The above title is a quote from A Clockwork Orange.)

Two great pieces on the blogosphere led to this entry.

The first is from Edward Copeland at his Institute for Lower Learning.

The second is from Damian Arlyn's Windmills of My Mind.

Check out their reactions to some of the stuff that's been going on the past couple days in regard to the media and the Virginia Tech tragedy. They've got more to say than my piece, which is just a reaction to issues they both pondered concerning violence in the media and the age-old "chicken and the egg" debate about whether or not violence in film inspires violence in the real world or if it's the other way around.

The way I see it, there are as many different types of filmic violence as there are sex, comedy, animation, etc. But for the purposes of my reaction, I’ll boil it down to 4 categories.

1. The type of violence Hollywood generates the majority of the time is the senseless kind, designed to titillate and thrill - the stuff displayed in most action films and video games. There aren’t any hard consequences from it and it (hopefully) doesn’t register to most as real violence. (Bond movies fall into this category; even Casino Royale --despite its attempts to “make it real”-- still resides here.)

2. Following right behind that is the slasher-type violence seen in horror films (and also in many video games). Again, we’re removed from this stuff because it’s usually perpetrated my some unseen monster with no personality or means of audience identification – and it also helps that we know our characters are set up to be victims anyway, so we invest nothing in them. (This category needs to be separated from #1 because it's typically drenched in blood, whereas #1 is mostly about action.) Oddly, this too is meant to be a form of "fun".

I’d guess that about 95% of all filmic violence falls into one of the above two categories.

3. Quentin Tarantino’s brilliant because he practically created -- or at least honed -- this brand of violence...and almost nobody’s as good at it as he is these days. QT’s violence occurs within his hyperreal, stylized world. Sometimes there are consequences; sometimes not. Sometimes you feel for the victims; sometimes you’re not supposed to. Sometimes you root for the perpetrator; sometimes you fear him or her. But whatever’s going on in a Tarantino film, a strange barrier still separates his world from our reality - worrisome is the notion that some people don't see that barrier. His brand of mayhem could be the most subversive – there’s arguably nothing more potentially dangerous to a weak mind than stylized violence that just looks fucking cool, especially when it's perpetrated by someone the viewer identifies with. Other good examples of this are Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange [1], Fincher's Fight Club and DePalma's Scarface. This category is very specialized and covers a mere 1%.

4. The other 4% is the “ugly violence with hard consequences” category. This is my personal favorite and the one that separates the men from the boys: A man will wince and feel the pain; a boy will laugh and think nothing of it. I enjoy feeling horrible about seeing atrocious acts of screen violence in a similar way to how I enjoy feeling horny as a result of a hot sex scene or laughing my butt off at some well-played slapstick.

Some examples: Dorothy Vallens getting raped by Frank Booth in Blue Velvet. The knifing of Billy Batts in Goodfellas (both in the club and then later in the car). The attack on Parry in The Fisher King. The killing of Honorah at the end of Heavenly Creatures. Pick a scene from a war movie of your choice (Saving Private Ryan, Apocalypse Now, etc.), and it too likely fits in this category: Hard violence that hurts when you watch it -- as violence should and does. The Sopranos sometimes resides in this category, but also frequently dances with Tarantino and #3.

My son – who turns 14 next month – is as potentially “desensitized” to categories 1 & 2 as not only any kid his age, but also as most of us have become. I don't see a problem with that -- it's called growing up. I’ve yet to show him much fare from category 3 because of the potential dangers I outlined above.

Two things I’ve watched with him in the past week fit into category 4: A) A fairly lengthy sequence that closes Season 2, Episode 1 of Twin Peaks, in which snippets of Laura Palmer’s gruesome murder at the hands of Bob are shown in a very jarring manner and B) The movie Deliverance and all the nasty shit that goes down in that 2 hour period. He was disturbed and shocked and felt as one should feel toward the acts of violence he viewed in this fare – even though he full well knows it isn’t “real”.

So my point is that no matter how much carnage we view on our TVs and movie screens, when violence is presented as the horrific act it is, most people --I hope-- react accordingly. It’s difficult for me to swallow the accusation that watching one mindless action pic after another or playing Grand Theft Auto for 12 hours straight is making soulless zombies of us all…unless, of course, we’re beginning to appreciate bad screenwriting as a result – but that’s a different matter entirely.

[1] It's worth mentioning Kubrick's UK-only withdrawal of Clockwork when some copycat attacks occurred back in the '70s.