ROLE MODELS? WHERE?!?!

There was a time when children and even adults found role models in literature. What else was the Bible, but a book of fairly reasonable examples of how you should live your life? And since then there have been an endless supply of books jammed with great examples of heroes, both male and female that supplied many Americans with positive examples of how to live one's life. But since the 80s we, as a nation, have started reading fewer and fewer books, looking to television for most of our brain stimulation. That's a pretty frightening prospect, isn't it? Back in my father's day, there was the Lone Ranger and Paladin on the radio - they both made the leap to Television, but by the eighties, characters we could really look up to had vanished. They were replaced by Michael Knight and the Knight Industries Two-Thousand (Knight Rider) and B.A. Baracus (The A-Team) and Remington Steele.

These were the Eighties' equivalent to the Lone Ranger, but they were vacant of any true moralistic spirit. Michael would get in to trouble and KITT would save his ass. Meanwhile, the A-Team would simply get revenge on some mean guy who was taking advantage of some little guy - yip-E. Even when I was a kid I watched these shows and thought they were pretty lame, it's just that watching Mr. T act like an ass and watching that sleek Trans Am made both shows bearable. The Nineties offered up no such role models. The only notable characters that comes to mind from the Nineties would be Bart Simpson, Jerry Seinfeld and Al Bundy. Jeez. So what's the deal here? Why is it that we as a culture don't seem to mind that the examples that are set for us are morally bankrupt? I mean, come on!!

Al Bundy taught we men that we should want to have sex with anyone except our wives.

The Simpsons taught us that men are frigging idiots while women are secretly brilliant but never quite brilliant enough to do anything with that brilliance.

Jerry Seinfeld taught us to blur the line separating fiction and reality so much that no one is really surprised when AFTER his sitcom goes off the air the REAL Jerry Seinfeld hooks up with a married woman and proceeds to break up her marriage.

Hollywood in 1999 gave a lifetime achievement award to a brilliant film maker who just happen to help keep several immensely talented writers from getting work in the film industry during the Communist Witch Hunt. As if it wasn't already hard enough to get work as a writer. We seem to be a country that can quite easily concentrate on what we like about a person and wholly ignore what is sheer evil about them. Did you know Charles Lindburg disliked Jews? Did you know that Bob Fosse, one of the greatest stage and film directors of all time was an alcoholic and used heavy quantities of cocaine, uppers and downers? (The combination of all these drugs help lead Fosse to an early grave.)

Since the real world is filled with flawed, somewhat bankrupt people, why don't we compensate in our media? Why doesn't SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE suggest that we can do better? Oh yeah, someone tried to once. Two thousand years ago and boy did they nail him to the wall for it. Ah well, we all have our cross to bare.

NO TV? NO PROBLEM!

I haven't given up my TV yet - beleive me - I would never do that! I've got over 400 video tapes in my collection. HOWEVER, I have practically given up watching broadcast or cable TV. Sure, if my fiance has the TV on, I'll pay attention and I do watch the news when ever something big happens in the world, but for the most part I watch almost no television. I still watch the X-Files (not that it's been any good lately), Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Angel and that's about it. There just isn't much on that I really feel merits my time. None of the new popular shows on any of the networks are interesting enough for me to go even slightly out of my way to watch them. They may be new, but they are hardly different. How many times do we need to see Friends repackaged, or Dawson's Creek? Even the supposedly good stuff isn't all that. I watched the pilot of Malcolm In The Middle and while it definitely was different, it wasn't very funny. I think IT thought it was a laugh riot, but the show ended up feeling more like that guy in high school who would always tell jokes thinking he was a regular George Carlin when in the end he was just a wannabe Jerry Lewis. >SHUDDER!< The other show I gave a try to was Freaks & Geeks. I remember watching the pilot and thinking that it was a pretty cute show but that it would bomb quickly in its 8:00 Saturday night time slot. But after the holidays, it got moved to Monday nights at 8pm, where I gave it another try. It seemed to have lost all of its heart. It was now just a dumb, vacant show with musical cues letting you know when to laugh or just generally feel something. So I am more than happy to spend more time surfing the web, watching old episodes of Mystery Science Theater 3000, playing my Atari, just chatting with my fiance, or even GOD FORBID - reading books...

AOL/TIME/WARNER, OH MY!

Wow, I'm not sure what to make of the two biggest companies in America teaming up. I am really quite puzzled. The good things are numerous. You won't ever have trouble finding anything out about a product from Warner Brothers or Time. Want to check out Time Magazine's latest special issue? I'm sure there will be a keyword for it. (There probably is already.) If you want to see a commercial for the latest movie starring Jeff Daniels on TNT, they'll probably email it to you if you want. If you want to find out more about the latest travesty masquerading as a Batman movie, stills, behind the scenes info and more will all be online. Another good thing, assuming the powers that are at the new ATW are good natured (HA!), might be that since the combined revenue of both companies is so massive that maybe, JUST MAYBE, they might give out free internet service. That might sway me back to AOL - FREE is about the only feature that AOL could add to get me back there.

But think about it - I hear they already flash more ads than a calculator on AOL, so they have GOT to be charging for it and if they stopped charging for internet service, EVERYONE would join, which would up their subscription numbers tremendously, which would mean that the ads on their service would be reaching that many more people which would mean they could charge more for the ads and pass the savings on to their victims-- I mean customers, by not charging anything. If AOL really wanted to impress me, they could come out with AOL Advanced for people who just want to get on the 'net. But that's another Bitch.

Here are the negatives to the AOL/Time-Warner merger. First off, we're all going to see a LOT more advertising for the three companies products. As I mentioned above, you'll be able to find out anything about any product they create. Of course, this means they'll do their best to jam advertising for those products down our throats. You'll see loads of cross-promotional spots where you won't know exactly what they're advertising, internet, magazines, TV, movies, cartoons, cable.

The next negative thing is that filmmakers will have less control over how their product is marketed. Odds are once the ATW PR department gets a hold of your movie it'll be plugged into the same old formula. The trailer to your film will look like the trailer for every other film. And let's just say you HATE AOL. Your movie will be splashed all over the damn service.

The third reason AOL and Time-Warner should not merge is the lack of selection for us, the consumers. Not only will the trailers look the same, but the movies, the shows and just about everything else will most likely be way too similar.

The absolute worst thing that could happen as a result of this merger is that it may set the standard for other companies. Already there is talk of Yahoo merging with Disney. I'm sure Viacom would be more than happy to get in bed with Amazon.com. Perhaps Fox's parent company News Corporation (their real name! How INVENTIVE, don't you think?) might want to hook up with Earthlink or Prodigy. SHEESH! The next thing you know, the whole world will be ruled by three or four massive companies. They'll own EVERYTHING. Not just media, but appliances, services, food, etc. By the mid twenty-first century, the three of four companies will be so powerful, they will persuade lawmakers to allow all of the companies to merge into one massive corporation. Then, there will be two kinds of people. People who work for the corporation and the people that don't. The catch is, both kinds of people will pay money to the corporation. The future sure looks bright, doesn't it?

SCRIPTWRITER ON THE MOON

Perhaps you've seen the movie starring Jim Carrey as Andy Kaufman. I did and boy did I laugh. Carrey did a wonderful job being a nut. I'm not sure he really caught that wild freaky look Kaufman had in his eyes, but Carrey did a pretty decent job. I was a bit disappointed that they didn't even try to figure the guy out at all. I am not surprised. The guy was bizarre and a bit awe inspiring, it's no surprise that the spineless powers that be in Hollywood wouldn't want to try and actually form a theory on what Kaufman's deal really was. HOWEVER, I did find the film VERY disappointing for another reason. If you base what you know about Andy Kaufman on Man on the Moon then you don't know about his daughter. That's right, Kaufman had a daughter. I think it's pretty reasonable to think that when trying to put a man's LIFE on screen one should be sure to include any major life events, like childhood, death and OFFSPRING PERHAPS?!?!? The film failed to mention that Kaufman had even HAD a sex life during his late teens early twenties, let alone that he GOT A WOMAN PREGNANT!! They also made no reference to the fact that he gave up his child for adoption or that he offered to marry the mother of his daughter. GREAT FILM. You watch - it'll get an Oscar. That's Hollywood, always striving to totally miss their own point.

UPN: ALL WHITE TRASH, ALL THE TIME!

Well, United Paramount Networks has finally tapped the Undiscovered Audience - Also Known As The WTM or, The White Trash Market. First, UPN puts pro wrestling in prime time. Soon they will have monster truck rallies gracing our TV screens. They can't make Trek work, so now they are just making it easy for themselves. Personally, I can't imagine what they are thinking - even if every guy with a dead pick-up truck in their lawn were to watch their ratings still wouldn't compete with any of the other networks. So it looks like UPN is helping broadcast television take a step downwards in quality, taste, and just general entertainment. Big surprise there!

AND A MERRY MOVIE TO ALL! (Did I really just type that???)

The only thing I actually LIKE about the Christmas holiday is that usually there are some fun films in theaters. This year seems to be no exception. Although I am writing this before the holiday begins (while goofing off at my desk at work) I know that I hope to run out and catch Galaxy Quest. Usually I don't like parodies that are this directed. I hated Space Balls and Robin Hood: Men in Tights they were just too specific and weren't random enough. I usually prefer parodies like Airplane! or Blazing Saddles that address a whole genre, but I think GQ looks to be an exception to my rule. I know I haven't seen it yet, but I watch the trailer and first off, it makes me laugh, and secondly, it looks like the writer(s) actually took the world of Star Trek seriously and just tried to make jokes within that universe. Boy - I wish that the boys over at the Star Trek: Next Generation, Deep Space Nine & Voyager had thought about lightening things up a bit where characters say "oops" and try the old tried and true cliches, only to have them not work. So, I am making a prediction here - this will be a fun film that I will enjoy. So, if you want to see a film that I will enjoy (or possibly prove me wrong - yeah RIGHT!) then go catch Galaxy Quest.

Or would you rather watch "It's a Wonderful Life" - AGAIN?

PS: My girlfriend and I just got back from Galaxy Quest and boy was I RIGHT! It was more fun and fulfilling than the last THREE Trek movies put together!

NEVER A LACK OF MATERIAL WITH CABLE TV

Boy you know, I may run out of time to work on my site, but I never run out of things to bitch about. If I ever think, "gosh, what shall I complain about this week?" all I need to do is turn on the Television and start surfing. Usually I find something pretty offensive on E! Entertainment Television. I do admit that I enjoy Talk Soup and the occasional episode of The E Hollywood True Story. Mostly because both shows point out how truly messed up Hollywood is in one way or another. But the shows that I only see promos for (because that's all I can TAKE) seem to EMBRACE this insane industry. Take E's Fashion Emergency hosted by Emmy (no relation to the Award - as far as I know). Now first off, Emmy is best known, before hosting this show, for being what is called a "full figured model". (Or as I call them, a not-so-fat-hot-chick.) So, there she is, hosting this show that helps people who need help dressing "hip" or "cool". Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical? I mean, here is this heavy chick who sets a great example for other heavy chicks around the country showing America that one doesn't have to be a freaking TWIG to be a hottie, but THEN she turns around and tells that very same America that they have to dress a certain way to look "hip" and "cool". And that isn't hip or cool - it's just LAME. So, THANKS cable TV for making the sucky things in life easier to make fun of!