Thoughts on House Season 6: Part 2

Okay, so this is me managing to pick up where I left off before the New Year. (Hooray!) Hopefully, this won’t have to extend itself to 3 parts. We’ll see, because, as you know, I love to ramble.

I finished the last post with what I loved about season 5 and what I liked about season 6 so far. Now here are my (loving) criticisms. Remember, I only say these things because I love! Like last season, the House behind-the-scenes crew seems to be trying to mess with the format of the show. As I said before, last season did a great job of balancing DOTW (Disease-of-the-Week) and character drama. I was hoping they would stick to this path, but this season seems to be all about the character dramas with a little bit of medicine sprinkled on the top. This isn’t working for me—don’t they remember what happened to ER? I stayed on much longer than a lot of other fans, who jumped ship there the moment Dr. Green died, but what broke it for me was when it seemed like the county staff stopped treating patients and started acting in a soap opera. Come on, we have General Hospital for that! From the looks of this season, I fear that House might be headed for the same route if someone doesn’t stage an intervention.

Read more...

Reactions:

Thoughts on House Season 6: Part 1

WARNING: If you haven’t been keeping up with House this season and just plan to watch it this summer when it’s out on DVD, don’t read any further! I will be giving spoilers! You have been warned.

You don’t have to say it; I know I’ve been slacking. And I was doing so well! Alas, the call of papers and applications sucked away the majority of my free time for the past time, and my boyfriend took up the other part of that time, so here we are. At long last, though, I have some time for myself, and as I’m currently trapped on an airplane with nothing else really to do, I figured why not prepare a new entry to post before the year ends? (Before anyone panics, I’m not online on the plane, I’m typing in a Word document and have published after the fact. Duh. Edit: This also ended up being torn into two parts because we started our descent into Chicago—woohoo!—when I started in on my criticisms of the current season. It seemed like a fitting breaking point, so stay tuned for Part 2…) So sit back, grab a drink, and get comfy. This is set to be a long one with a lot of ideas that have been percolating in my mind for awhile.

Read more...

Reactions:

Reaching Your Quarterlife Crisis with Dignity

Earlier today, I was driving in my car and listening to the local oldies station. I was singing along pleasantly to the end of "Hang on Sloopy" by the McCoys; as it segued into the next song, I nearly slammed the brakes in horror. What was the next song? Madonna's 1984 hit "Borderline."

This wasn't the first time I heard 80s music on the so-called oldies station, but for whatever reasons I was much more aware of it this time. 1984? Since when was 1984 considered old enough for the oldies station? That was a year before I was born! That can't possibly be old, because if it were, then, well, that would mean I'm getting old. Right?

Things are more distressing than this clear oversight of my local oldies station. Spongebob Squarepants, that little critter in the pineapple under the sea, supposedly turned 10 this year. How is that even possible? I could've sworn it was maybe 3 years ago, 4 tops, that this show debuted. There's no way the world has experienced a decade of Spongebob. Kids are still watching Rugrats and Tiny Toon Adventures these days, right? Right?!?

I'm not getting hysterical...I always breathe like I'm hyperventillating...

But it's okay. Just because the relics of my childhood are being put out to pasture doesn't mean I have to panic. I just need to focus on the things I can tell this generation of young whippersnappers, like, "I remember a time before the Internet," or "When I was your age, Pluto was a planet." How about, "There was a time when MTV played music videos." I rather enjoy, "Our telephones were plugged into the wall, and the farthest you could walk around when talking was the 6-foot length of your cord." Oh, nostalgia!

~The Original Fong~
**You wish you could pull off being me**

Reactions:

Why Halloween Is Awesome

Perhaps this is a little late in the week (as in the last day of the week), but I still made it! I realized last week that I have a lot of anti-Twilight posts on this blog ever since I decided to try this posting regularly thing. Now, while I probably could maintain a blog for 52 weeks a year with various postings on why Twilight sucks, this is, in fact, not an explicitly anti-Twilight blog. Thus I figured I have to start posting some things not related to Twilight. (Not to mention that, by writing about why I hate it so often, I'm in a way supplying advertising for the franchise, and I'd really rather not do that.) Hence, today's very timely topic: Why Halloween is awesome!

This post is inspired more or less by my boyfriend and his sadly Halloween-less childhood. Yes, he came from one of those staunchly conservative Catholic families that spurned Halloween and Harry Potter. For the record, Steve has no problem with Halloween or Harry Potter, and it's not just Catholics that unjustly freak out over Halloween. (Nor is it true that all Catholics or Christians even freak out over Halloween--my family loves Halloween! More on this later.) On a certain level, I suppose I can understand the Halloween uneasiness. No one's denying (as far as I know) the pagan origins of Halloween, and it is a celebration of all things scary, undead, creepy, and, for some, occult.

However...

Read more...

Reactions:

Edward vs. Prince Charming: The Bigger Detriment to Female Will?

My failure to keep up my coherent thought a week past 3 weeks is only half-excusable. 2 weeks ago, I could blame being tied up with my dear Anya-berger's wedding. (I'm still trying to figure out how to combine her first name with her new last name...Anyetti? Lame.) Last week, however, was just a failure. I've already castigated myself over this, on onto this week's thought! It's very delayed, as it builds off my thought from 2 weeks ago. More accurately, this comes from an IM conversation with my former Deaners partner Brittany about my last post. (I know, who uses AIM anymore? Apparently, we old fogies do.)

Brittany brought up this interesting point in both her comment on the Facebook version of my post and in our conversation--her problem with the Bella-Edward dynamic was its particular flavor of codependence. An issue that I know I hadn't considered before is how Bella uses her trelationship with Edward basically to excuse herself from accountability and responsibility. Because she has Edward, why should she need to do anything for herself? She doesn't need ambitions, or dreams, or personal aspirations--she has Edward. The reasons for this are twofold: What in her life could she possibly need beyond Edward Cullen, and what could she possibly do that he won't do for her? Apparently (this was told to me, as I haven't read beyond the first book), even Edward disapproves of this, as he has to force her to apply to Dartmouth (I think?) for college; she didn't see a need to aim higher than a community college. Why bother? First of all, she has Edward. Second of all, going anywhere besides Forks (or Alaska, I guess) would take her away from Edward.

This then begs the question (or, at least, Brittany did): Who is the worst sight for a girl to aim for--Edward Cullen or Prince Charming?

Read more...

Reactions:

Loving or Losing Literacy?

Ha, you probably thought I already forgot about my "1 coherent thought a week" venture! I never said I'd do it on the same day every week, right?

This week's topic spawns from a conversation with a soon-to-be-former (again) coworker at your friendly neighborhood (if you live in Westwood) Borders. We were discussing overrated books and authors; it began with Dan Brown and spiraled outward from there. Naturally, in talking about something unworthy of attention in the literary realm, we had to get to Twilight. Both of us whole-heartedly agree: It's crap. Terrible writing, less-than-fluffy story, I'd rather read barcodes all day, etc. (And it's not just us; I think there's only 1 Twilight defender in the entire store, and she only restocks Paperchase.) There is, however, one point on which we diverge. She said:

"As long as it gets kids reading, I suppose. It's better than if they're not reading, right?"

I have given this a lot of thought, both before and after this comment. My response is a big, emphatic, NO.

Read more...

Reactions:

Thoughts on Tim Burton

This is a new thing I'm trying; let's call it an experiment in discipline. I'm going to try to have one coherent, well-formed thought a week that I will post about. Particularly for the past year, I've been very sporadic in my posting--sometimes a billion posts a week, sometimes once every month or so--and I can hardly call that a blog now, can I?

(Plus, I found out people actually read this thing...Who knew?)

So here goes my first post in this grand experiment. Tonight's topic was inspired by a conversation I had regarding 9 not too long ago: Tim Burton.

Read more...

Reactions:

My Comic-Con 2009 Adventure :-)

I know, I know--for everyone else in the world, this is old news already. And I really meant to get this posted much earlier, but my excuse is that Borders is slowly sucking away my soul and will to live. So, here goes...

Lindsay and Katherine picked me up around 6:30 AM for our drive down to San Diego. If you think we're nuts, our friend Ben left at 4 AM, while Arminder left at 5 AM. Oh yeah, and the doors didn't open until 9:30. Yeah. We got there pretty close to 10, and I was sus-ploding out of my skin.

Thaaaaaaaaaaaaat's me! I was disappointed that I had left all my X-Files related T-shirts back in Chicago. I wore the nerdiest shirt I had, and actually got a few compliments on my Narnia shirt. (On a side note, I swear I get as much if not more comments on my Narnia shirt as I do on my "Shakespeare hates your emo poems" shirt. Go figure.) Back to Comic-Con...

Read more...

Reactions:

In Defense of Hating Michael Bay

Disclaimer: As the author of this blog, I reserve the right to delete any comments that I deem offensive. In this case, I will be counting any comments defending Michael Bay or other so-called "filmmakers" of his caliber as offensive in addition to whatever is traditionally offensive.

I'm going to say this outright first: I love blockbusters. Like most people, for many years of my life I only went to the movies in theaters to see blockbusters. Even since I have become academically interested in film, I have never had a problem with film-as-entertainment. Naturally, the best films are art and entertainment, but there is nothing wrong with only being one or the other, and I will always defend the merit of film solely as entertainment. Again, there is nothing wrong with films as harmless fun. However, there are many different calibers of entertainment, and the mere fact that people are willing to watch a certain type of entertainment does not necessarily grant it merit. Let me put it this way. Some films are like court jesters--nothing very deep or life-changing attached to it, just light, fluffy entertainment for the masses. Then some films are like, oh, public lynchings--which were considered a viable form of entertainment for many years. And if you still find a public lynching a good way to spend your Friday nights, then you better put your hood back on and leave; you're going to be late for your cross-burning meeting.

Sure, it's a little extreme to compare Michael Bay films to public lynchings, but you're starting to get my point: Saying that a Michael Bay film is just mindless fun and entertainment is not necessarily a good defense. I'm not one of those people upset about his messing with the "lore" of Transformers as a franchise. I probably couldn't care less on that front. He doesn't offend me there. Where he does offend me is in the realm of good taste and good film making. I know my fellow film lovers don't need a treatise outlining why Michael Bay sucks, but I personally know many people who have no idea why this dude attracts so much ire from me and most of the intelligent world. So I will attempt to explain.

Read more...

Reactions:

Things I'm Guessing Movies Lie to Me About

Do you ever watch a movie and wonder to yourself, "Do people ever actually do that in real life?" These are thoughts I often have in conjunction with my normal movie-going experience. I'm not referring to lightsaber battles or anything fantastically awesome like that, but things that appear in supposedly more realistic movies. You know what I mean--romantic comedies, family dramas, things like that. The habits of characters in those movies supposedly represent the workings of the Average Joe, but most of the time I know I've never done those things, and I'm pretty certain most of people I know never have, either. So I wonder: Has anyone?

• Dancing around in groups singing into hairbrushes and collapsing onto your bed in a fit of giggles: It's become a staple of the chick flick. The circumstances regarding how this arises can vary: A teen's first sleepover, trying to cheer up a friend after she's been dumped, etc. A variation on the theme has the group of females merely dancing around and laughing while a non-diegetic song (that they somehow are all in time to) plays in the background. In any case, who does this? I would like to know! I've had plenty of sleepovers with friends, I've helped friends through breakups and good times, and we've never felt the need to karaoke ourselves into hysterical laughter in our bedrooms. I'm just saying.
• The crying collapse into the fetal position: This is also pretty common in the chick flick. You know the scene: The leading lady loses whatever it is she's after (9.9 times out of 10 the man of her dreams), and she slumps against the wall to express her pain. It usually starts out with a single tear streaking down her face, but inevitably she will erupt into a fit of sobs and slide down the wall into a curled position clutching her knees. Granted, I've felt mopey mc-emo-pants like that before and have curled up in the fetal position on my bed (or in the backseat of a friend's car), but it's never been quite as dramatic as that. If only!
• Wearing sexy lingerie under regular clothing on a daily basis. This is something James Bond films, among others, certainly lie to you about. I suppose if I knew I would be encountering James Bond at some point that day, I would prepare myself. After all, even lesbians aren't immune to Bond's wiles, so why fight the inevitable? But I don't suppose you really get warning for that, and it just seems silly to wear the fancy, lacy, sexy stuff every single day just in case. Not to mention that it's impractical, both from a cost standpoint and a comfort standpoint. Cost-effective underwear is, by its very nature, plain, nothing for show, and just does its job. But the really nice stuff? From my understanding, you only wear that for the express purpose of having it taken off, and, as a result, they aren't necessarily made with comfort in mind. Now that I think about it, if there IS someone who does wear sexy underwear on a day-to-day basis, I really don't need to know.
• Have frank and detailed discussions about their sex lives in public. I fully acknowledge that I'm a prude and that most of my friends are the same way. Moreover, I really don't want or need to know the sordid details of what people I know do behind closed doors. I'm a visual person--it doesn't end well. In any case, movies and TV would lead you to believe that people talk about sex no matter how public the location and in as much detail as they please. Topics covered include: When, where, how often, what positions, special moves, etc. (I also admit that a lot of what I'm thinking about appears in comedies, so they do this specifically for the awkwardness, but still.) Again, if you have NO PROBLEM discussing your sex life in front of a crowd, I really, really don't need to know. But I question how many people actually do this.
• Keep shoeboxes with pictures and other keepsakes under their beds. I can't even count how many movies feature this. You know the scene I'm talking about. The protagonist gets to reminiscing or feeling lonely or something and goes up to his/her room, shuts the door, and reaches under the bed for that shoebox. There are extra points if the pictures (and sometimes letters) are tied together with a ribbon. But I am convinced that this is 100% a screen thing. Excluding the fact that almost no one prints pictures anymore, people are more apt to keep printed pictures in albums or, if they are in a box, still in their envelopes, and those are in boxes.
• Leave the windows open during sex. How many movies and TV episodes have there been where someone discovers that his/her significant other is cheating after looking through the window and seeing him/her having sex with someone else? That would be indisputable (but hopefully not video) evidence, for sure. But I'm predisposed to think that people in general would, oh, I don't know, draw a curtain or close the blind prior to naked time? I realize that we're slowly becoming a world of exhibitionists, but while there's still some modesty around I prefer to give us the benefit of the doubt.
  

~The Original Fong~
**You wish you could pull off being me**

Reactions: