Ok full disclosure, I walked away from writing these posts in May. I came back today expecting to simply recap my journey back to Green Bay from Pittsburgh on Sunday. Wrong, because Part Five ended on Frida, which means I have all of Saturday to recap and I honestly don;t remember as much as I would like to, but I'm not going to let that deter me. So here we go, the epic conclusion, Part 6.
Goodbye to the Burgh
Saturday March 26, 8 a.m.(ish)
Now we had to wake up early on Saturday because one of our school chums was reading their paper early and as they had come to support us at our readings we would go support them, despite our lack of sleep.
So as I'm writing this I realize I can barely remember what we did that day, we might have gone to Bruegger's bagel for a late breakfast/early lunch but then again it could have been another day. I also might have gone to Dunkin' Donuts, again I can't remember. I definitely did both of those things but I don't remember when. So with a major lack of anything to actually say about what happened during the day on Saturday let's skip ahead to Saturday evening.
Saturday March 26, 7 p.m. (ish)
The weekend culminates in a gala dinner and bigwig speaker. The dinner is very nice everyone gets dressed up and awards are handed out. Some people from St. Norbert won some awards which was actually pretty awesome considering how many people were there, yours truly however walked away empty handed.
Dave Eggers, nice hair
The keynote speaker was a man by the name of Dave Eggers. Dave wrote the screenplays for the films Away We Go and the film adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are. He is also the author of the book Zeitoun about a man who stays behind in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina and then helps those stranded with the use of his kayak.
However the most interesting thing Eggers shared (fun sidenote: he apparently demanded an ungodly amount of money and a first class ticket for his appearance) was his work setting up writing centers around the country. From San Francisco to New York Eggers has established open writing centers in impoverished areas to help children develop writing skills. The centers are free and generate revenue by sharing space with a specialty store. For example: The San Francisco center is dedicated solely to selling pirate themed items, while one in New York sells time travel equipment.
Overall it was one of the better lectures I had witnessed during the trip, and other people seemed to like him too given the line that formed around the ballroom waiting for his autograph.
However I, and some of my other compatriots went down to the hotel bar (it was still before 11!) and I discovered I do not like scotch (at least not from the rail). Then we called it a night because we had to get up early again to catch our flights out.
Sunday March 27 8 a.m. (ish - get it? I don't actually remember what time)
We got up and got out, a non creepy concierge helped grab us a cab to the airport, a Chrysler 300 with a leather interior. Unfortunately I did have to pay for this cab ride.
We aited to board out plane, this time to Detroit, and found two of our professors and a couple of our schoolmates would also be on it. The flight took off and landed without too much trouble.
We made our way through the Detroit airport, passing through this lovely tunnel.
Trippy, no?
This flight was delayed however and then we had to get a new plane because the one we were supposed to fly on was broken. They gave us some coupons for 50 dollars off our next flight (which according to one of my profs who tried to use it, don't actually work, thank you for flying Delta.) and five dollar voucher to use in the airport. Most people went to some hot dog place, but I didn't think I could stomach a dog so I bought some pretzels gum and orange juice.
We finally got to board and got back Green Bay safely. I dug out my car and then went to Culver's where all my troubles were rewarded with the new Three Cheeseburger: two patties three different slices of cheese, all delicious.
Oh my, well hello there
And there you have it, eight months and six posts later my trip to Pittsburgh and back.
Let's break it down real quick so that my titles to these posts make sense:
The Good
Diverse music in bars
Sam Adams on tap pretty much everywhere
The South Side
The Bad
Poor travel conditions
Early bar close time
Lack of good/interesting places to eat in downtown area
It's been a while, but here I am still alive and kicking. It's been about three months since my last post, and many of you may be wondering:
Where has he been, what has he been doing, what secrets is he hiding, etc, etc.
To answer the first: College, the whole time, minus a brief jaunt to Madison and Minneapolis which we may or may not get to.
To answer the second: A lot. Two words I wished were one, and hoped that by simply spelling them as such for most of my life, someone would finally give up correcting me. (A failed experiment to say the least.) You see that little slogan on the right there that says " Just an average guy with too much time on his hands"? Turns out that second part isn't as true as I had envisioned.Again we can get into specifics later but for now let's just say I have been very busy, and also there has been very little striking my interest to write about. Writing emails and press releases and taking notes and correcting papers all day is exhausting, but I feel I am on the mend, or at least sucking it up a little. So we'll try and start this again. I won't make any promises on what I'll write about because I never seem to come through, but I will tell you what I'd like to write about and then we can see if I follow through on any of it.
As for the third: Many, and someday I might share them.
And as for the etc., etc.: you're just going to need to be more specific.
Here's what I'd like to write about:
1. Despite having taken the trip 8 months ago, I'd really like to finish up my Pittsburgh posts especially since my blog partner in crime: Raymond, writer of The Hot and Bothered Effect (see sidebar) has made a claim that he would like to contrast my opinions of the city with his own. (Although he has also seemed to take a hiatus from his writing as well.)
2. I'd like to do a little halfway followup to my SNL Wishlist I posted back in May, specifically how I'm doing on my host predictions (spoiler: not well).
3. I'd also like to followup on what I've been watching on Netflix, because I know that's what you're really here for.
4. Might profile another one of my friends again, although that was kind of lame I think.
We'll see what else happens, the posting of the pop-culture stuff got a little dull, but I'm certainly not going to stop. However I got some more positive feedback when I do more personal posts so I'll probably throw out a couple of those too.
It's all about "feeling it". You get that writing bug and then you spew it out. That's what I'm doing, spewing. We'll see how long it lasts.
Come along with me, hit the comments tell me what you want me to say, I just might listen.
For those of you who do not follow such things as closely as I do there are two race related developments in the world of superhero culture in the last two days. The first being the big reveal that the new Spider-man is half back and half Hispanic teenager named Miles Morales. Now don;t worry, this isn't the real Spider-man, but the Ultimate version of the Marvel character. What is an Ultimate Spiderman you ask? Well you don't really care, and it's not really important, since the real Spider-man, Peter Parker, the original is still alive and well and webslinging like he always does. This fact of course did not stop people (read, web commenters) from becoming enraged that such an iconic character had been so drastically changed. Now that's all I'm going to say about that because as I said, it's not the real Spider-man that has changed, and a little diversity never hurt anyone.
The new Spidey (kinda)
Lawrence Fishburne
The second issue arose when it was announced the Lawrence Fishburne (Morpheus from The Matrix) would be taking on the role of Perry White in the new Superman movie. Perry White, surprisingly is a WASPy character, and Lawrence Fishburne is black. This has upset some people who feel beloved character is being altered so that a film that would have a predominantly white cast can appear more politically correct. There are two sides to this argument.
Perry White
One is that this is true (to an extent), and the other is that this is bullshit.
Before going any further I'd like to direct you to this link. This is the article that inspired this post, as did the comments that went along with the article. Normally, I avoid reading comments at the end of articles or posts (unless it's one of my articles or posts) because I feel they do little to add to what has been said in the article. However my curiosity got the better of me, and although there were only 14 comments when I first read, it was enough to make me a little upset that the race of an actor is still such a problem to some people.
Now in Mr. Frannich's article, he makes some good points, as do some (read few) people in the comments section. The main issue is that these are not real people we are discussing. However, this does not necessarily mean that race is not an issue. A someone pointed out, they would not cast a white male in the role of Luke Cage or Blade. However, the point this commenter misses is that those characters were created specifically for an African-American audience in response to a lack of such characters in mainstream comics. It would be disrespectful to cast a white male in either of those roles. But here's the thing about Perry White:
1. It's Perry White, if we're listing significant Superman characters, he probably falls somewhere towards the bottom ten, behind Ma and Pa and just ahead of let's say, well somebody else. I find it hard to believe there is this much uproar over a character whose screen time will probably amount to about fifteen minutes (if not less).
[Sidenote: I really shouldn't be surprised though since the same thing happened when Idris Elba was cast has someone named Heimdall in Thor. And while, it was a little weird to see an African-American in a Norse dimension, Elba was badass, and owned the character who most people didn;t even know in the first place.]
2. Perry White has been around since issue seven of Action Comics a time when almost almost all comic characters were white, and if they weren't the were an offensive stereotype of another race (generalize much? yes, yes I do). A African-American could not hold the position as editor of a major newspaper when the character of Perry White was created.
Here's my main point, race is not important to a character as long as it is not a defining aspect of the character. And I think most people would have a hard time arguing that for Perry White. I look back to last summer when Donald Glover was simply looking for a chance to audition for the role of Peter Parker. He knew he wouldn't get the part, but he just wanted a chance to audition, to at least start breaking down this unrealistic barrier that has been set-up that says character's must play to their race. It's funny that no one has a problem that we have a Brit playing Batman, Superman, and Spider-man now. Really there's no reason for them to be white males. The fact that they are white has nothing to do with what makes them great characters. This is not to say there aren't certain characters that need to have their ethnicity respected. Take Wolverine for example, whose Canadian...ness(?) is an essential part of what defines his character's history.
I'm not trying to start a personal crusade here, just trying to let people know we need to chill out about some of these issues. Personally I'd love to someday see a black Batman or Spiderman or James Bond for that matter. And to these small steps with minor characters will slowly work their way inward, until we are simply left with the actor or actress that will bring the most to the role.
Agree? Disagree? Hit the comments and let me know if I'm hitting the mark or way off base.
As my graduation slowly/quickly approaches, I will undoubtedly keep thinking of ways to get rich quick, not work, or work minimally and make a lot of money. As these ideas pop into my head I'll share them with you, and you can give me some pointers, sway me one way or the other, or join in my delusions.
Volume 1: The Appalachian Trail
The Appalachian Trail is approx. 2100 miles, stretches across fourteen states, and takes between 5-7 months to complete. In other words, the perfect thing to do after spending nine months in northern Wisconsin completing my education.
In all honesty I don't know what I want to do with my life. Do I want to grad school? Maybe. Do I want to go into the work force right away? Maybe.
Now let me be honest about something else. I love America. I love everything about it, but I especially love the history, and various nation parks that this country has, and I would like nothing more than to see it all.
The Rationale
Now why exactly would I want to go do this? There are a number of reason's the first being that once after I graduate would be the only time in my life where I would be able to take this trip. I wouldn't have a job to worry about, or bills to pay (kind of), or any other responsibilities that come with being a citizen of the real world. I wouldn't have a wife or children (fingers crossed) that I would feel guilty about leaving for six months just so I could go on a hike.
In addition since I don't know what I want to do with my life, I feel this would be a good opportunity to (as cliche as it sounds) find myself. I need to discover who I am when I am on my own. Ive always had people I can rely on, and I am extremely grateful for all the friends and family that have been there for me in good times and bad. However, there is a point where you need to see who you are away from those people, without their influence, without fearing about how you look in their eyes. This would be a good opportunity for self reflection, self discovery, and planning for the future.
The Plan
As I may have mentioned before, I love a good plan, and if I were to actually do this, there would be a lot of planning involved. First thing that would need to be planned is a budget. A rough estimate would put my expenses at about $5000. That's a significant chunk of change. The major expenses will be food as I travel from Maine down to Georgia, which I forgot to mention. See the trail runs from Springer Mountain in Georgia to Mount Katahdin in Maine. Most people hike from South to North, but because of the length of the journey they start in April and follow the warm weather North. I would probably start in Maine and go south for two reasons. One, I would have to start at the earliest on Tuesday May 15th, and at the latest I would want to start on Wednesday May 16th. The Maine park is closed to thru-hikers (people who hike the trail the whole way through without interruption) after October 15, which means I would have exactly five months to hike the trail. As a first timer I don't think I could do it that quickly, plus it would hinder the enjoyment of the experience if I was working against a clock. In addition I'd want to be moving towards where the warm weather would be sticking around, not going to where it would be getting cold first. So, North to South it is.
Where was I?
Budget. Right.
So five thousand. I'd rather not spend that much, but a minimal cost looks like at least $4000. Why so much? Well first of all there's a travel expense, as much as I'd like to drive out to Maine and leave my car in some shady parking lot for six months, probably not a good idea. So I fly. From Green Bay, I can connect in Detroit and from there fly to Bangor, Maine for the lowlow price of $250 dollars. Then I don't need to worry about a return trip for another six months, that one probably from Atlanta. However, as close as Bangor is to my starting point, it is still a two hour drive away. So that'll be an expensive cab ride I'm sure.
Then there is the gear. I'll need a backpack, and a tent, and a sleeping bag, and food. I keep thinking I'll need two water bottles. I want to get some type of Swiss Army Knife, but there is also this survival gear in a sardine can which looks pretty neat. Then there is a $175 GPS thing that lets people know where you are, which I think would be handy, and KellyMarie would appreciate knowing where I am. Plus boots, I need a good pair of boots, and flashlight would be helpful, because it will most likely be dark at times.
Everything you could ever need
Now I said I would need a tent, but that's a case of better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it, BECAUSE the Appalachian Trail has wicked awesome lean-tos set up along the trail about a days hike from each other that are free to sleep in.
I mean, doesn't that just look fun?
I mean c'mon that's way better than a tent anyway. But still apparently people get tempted into going into to town and spending a night in a motel because of things like "running water", "flush toilets", and "showers". But I am a man, and I will be a man in the wilderness, so that stuff wont bother me. But really, those are some serious questions I have. Like where will I shower/bathe/clean myself? And where can I do laundry along this trail? Because laundry I think will be the most serious problem. First of all I need to pay for the laundry, so chalk that up as another expense. Second I need to plan how many clothes I'm bringing along. One piece of info I read said plan on resupplying every 10-14 days. I can handle that. but will there be a laundry mat evenly spaced out every 10-14 days? and then do I need to bring 10-14 pairs of boxers, and 20-28 pairs of socks (because another thing I read advised wearing 2 pairs of socks while hiking to avoid blisters)? and then how big of a backpack am I gonna need? and I haven't even gotten to my shorts, shirts, a pair of jeans and a sweatshirt to be safe. Which then brings me around to food, a sleeping bag and a tent. plus soap, toothpaste, and other luxuries. One of the things I read said your pack should be 25-40 lbs max, an obviously the lighter the better. I don't know about you, but to me it already sounds like I'm pushing it.
However, that's where my first two purchases come in, two books about planning a thru-hike totaling roughly $26 (start the running tally). They will come in the mail on Tuesday next week, I believe. I'll come back with an update on how helpful they are.
And speaking of mailing. There is an issue with changing seasons, meaning that while I'm hiking the seasons will change. This means a wardrobe change. Which means I'll need someone to send me a new wardrobe when the weather gets colder. It's very expensive to ship things. And apparently people are always sending themselves things along this trail that they pick up at the local post offices. This is another area I need to more thoroughly research. There are two ways to do it. One to send packages at different intervals of your trip. The other, to have a package called a "bounce box" where you simply have all the items you need in a box that you keep shipping ahead of you, switching out what you need from your pack as you go. An interesting idea, but again, pricing issue.
Also, contacting people is also a concern. I would debate weather or not to bring a cell phone along. I would assume there are many places that I would get no reception so having one would be pointless. I also don't know how I would charge the damn thing as I'm sure there are not an abundance of outlets on the trail. On the other hand, it's always good to have in case of emergencies, and when I did get to a place with reception it would be nice to be able to call people. I think maybe the best solution would be to get one of those pay as you go phones, but again I need to look into it more.
The Aftermath
This all being said, I would still need to find a job or go to grad school once this was over. That leads to two possible options. One, simply start grad school at the beginning of 2012 (although I need to see if that's a viable option). The other option is the job. This would mean returning home after my trip (which I'm sure KellyMarie and Walt would be thrilled about), and trying to get a retail job for the holiday season while I apply for "real jobs" that I can begin in 2012.
So there it is, my grand post-graduate plan. It's the first of many, maybe I'll throw up the other one next week, and after that I'll post them as they come to me.
Thoughts? Feelings? Suggestions? Outrageously uncalled for racist remark? Hit the comments, and while I said I was gonna do this solo, I'd welcome the company (I'm looking at you Ray) if anyone else is up for it. And to be honest it's never safe to travel alone.
Let's preface this post with a short explanation about why I use "let's" a lot in these posts. According to my Business and Professional Speaking professor, Dr. Hutchinson, the use of words (or in this case contractions) that use words like "us" and "we" increases the verbal immediacy between the speaker (me) an the audience (you). Verbal immediacy meaning that we are in the same boat together, it makes me more relatable, and puts me on the same level as you. Let me know how that's working.
This post is going to take place in two parts: The first will be about an experience today. The second will be a reprint of something I wrote back in November while reading Stephen King's It.
Earlier today I found a great new site called listverse.com. Listverse is a blog that has an infinite number of Top 10 lists ranging from the historical to the pop-cultural (which in my mind are pretty much the same thing but that's another post). The neat thing about the site, besides the boundless avenues to venture down, is that fact that a large number of the lists are user generated.
One of the last lists I perused today was the Top 10 Unbearable Phobias. This list being comprised of those phobias that would be the most difficult to live with. Among them Ambulophobia - the fear of walking or standing. Decidophobia - the fear of making decisions. And Somniphobia - the fear of sleep. It would be easy to make light of any of these, but there is a certain terror involved in even thinking that these phobias are affecting people.
Everyone is afraid of something. A common fear is death. Allow maybe it's better qualified as dying. That is the long drawn out process of dying from an illness, or some other reason. Death is too quick, maybe it's a fear of not existing, but then again, if you don't exist, neither do your fears.
I'm afraid of getting cancer. This probably stems from both of my grandfathers getting diagnosed at the same time, and one of them dying from it. But I also know two people my age this year that were diagnosed with cancer. That's kind of frightening. Seeing healthy people your own age getting sick.
I know a lot of people have recently said they are scared of thunderstorms in the last couple of days, which I think is kind of silly but I will try and be understanding.
People say we can't let our fears control us, but that can often be difficult. Sometimes it' hard to be rational. It's hard to not let fear overwhelm you. Usually we can pull ourselves out of it, to only let that fear consume us for a little while before breaking back through the surface. Or we take the Jack Shephard method to fear, and if you know what that is, we can be friends, and I'll let you stitch up my stomach.
Speaking of which, I think most people have a fear of being alone. I certainly do. Loneliness is not a fun thing. It can be nice to have time to yourself, sure, but deep down, we are social and intimate beings. We want to be around people and we want to be able to share with people. We want to share our hopes, dreams, feelings, frustrations, and desires. We want to be fulfilled by having someone we can share the burden of life with. I don't mean that in a depressing way, like life sucks or anything. I mean it in a hopeful, uplifting way, and well, I probably shouldn't have used a word like burden then. Hopefully you understand.
I'm gonna close out the first part of this post by disclosing one of my irrational fears. Every time I cross train tracks I have a fear of being hit by a ghost train. If you know the name for that, or want to make one up, hit the comments.
Now Part 2, titled: On Fears & the Like (11/7/10)
When I was a child, I feared two things more than anything else: the wind and aliens.
The wind was silly and was a fear I outgrew by kindergarten. I have three distinct memories of
that fear:
The first was when I was 4. I ran around a neighbors van in endless circles. My neighbor's mother, aware of my fear, asked if I was doing this because I was afraid the branches above me would fall on me. I told her no. The real reason was that when I ran I created a wind against my face. This made me oblivious to the natural wind. It helped me deal with my fear.
When I was 5, I was being babysat by a friends grandmother who had a hill in her backyard. Being winter, my friend, his sister, and I were supposed to go sledding. But high winds were blowing the snow around, and instead I spent the day inside coloring. This may be the first memory I have of letting my fear dictate what I do.
My final memory is again at the age of 5 (maybe 6) and my mother forced me to go outside to play. It was a gray, gusty fall day. My biggest trick to avoid playing outside on windy days was to hide in my garage. The garage had hockey sticks and nets, so I could usually get away with playing with those as long as I left the garage door open. However on this day, one of my parents had left their car in the garage. So I stood inside next to the car, which probably would have worked if not for my grandmother's untimely arrival. She pulled up and caught me sitting in the garage, and while I strongly implied I would not like my mother to know I was hiding in there, she ratted me out anyway.
The wind was a fear of the elements, of that which cannot be controlled, of power, or sound. My fear of aliens was quite different.
My fear of aliens came quite suddenly after seeing a blurb for a news story about UFO sightings in Wisconsin cornfields. I didn't know much about aliens, but I knew immediately that I didn't like them. My mother assured me there was no such thing as aliens, and that the story was only on air because it was so close to Halloween. While this appeased me for the moment, the seed had been planted.
I couldn't even watch Star Wars without getting frightened. I recall Jack Nicolson getting killed by a creepy-crawly alien hand in Tim Burton's Mars Attacks! Yet at the same time, as much as I hated it, as much as I lost sleep over it, I still wanted to know more about UFOs and aliens.
I had an awful time with my imagination getting away from me (still do). I would have visions of long skinny gray arms, with skinny gray fingers appearing in door frames and beckoning me to follow them.
While most kids are afraid of the monsters under the bed, I was afraid of aliens. Whenever I was asked to go to the basement to get something, I had this idea of glowing gray bodies emerging from the darkness.
I hated it, and I hated the idea of fear. When I go down to that basement I find myslef revisiting those fear. Why? Because our fears never truly leave us. As much as we grow, change, evolve, and mature, we still have that person we were living inside of us.
The alien fear is obviously a fear of the unknown, of things that are different. But it is also a fear of drastic change. Of shattered realities and conceptions of truth. If aliens landed on earth tomorrow everything (most everything) I ever knew or believed to be true would be wrong and I would no longer know where I was.
The ground upon which I would stand would open up and swallow me whole.
But that might just be another fear.
[Narrator's Note: Ok, the second part of this post is kind of weird, and a little depressing, but I was reading It and it was probably about 1 a.m. when I originally wrote this, so clear thinking doesn't really factor into the occasion.]
Go ahead and hit the comments, what are you afraid of?
Narrator's Negatives focuses on pointing out what went wrong, why something was bad, and how those mistakes could have been avoided. Today we draw our attention to the film Green Lantern.
Eyes, those haunting, haunting eyes
This past weekend Green Lantern premiered to scathing reviews and tepid box office receipts. Usually I'm not one to bash a movie I haven't already seen, but in this case I'm making an exception. I'm usually all down for the superhero fare. I went and saw Ghost Rider on opening night, and I own a copy of Daredevil. I'm also a big Ryan Reynolds fan. Remember the show Two Guys, A Girl, and a Pizza Place. I do, I watched it pretty religiously until it went off the air. (Also on that show, Nathan Fillon, who had a strong fan campaign going to star as Green Lantern before Reynolds got the job, go figure). But from the minute I heard Reynolds would be playing star role as Hal Jordan, something just didn't click. Then came news that the Lantern suit would be completely CGI'd. Then the first image of Reynolds in said suit, all glowy green, with those scary eyes that didn't seem quite connected to his body. Then the trailers started coming out, and again something failed to click, everything was too green, the jokes too lame, and the speech, just couldn't seem to have the impact it should. Alright I'm drifting a little so let's start to structure this post a little bit, shall we?
Let's start small and work our way up, with the decision to CGI the suit. This isn't the first time this has been done, but it It might be the first time it has been completely done. a good chunk of Spiderman's action is CGI, but we also have a good handful of scenes where the audience knows Tobey Maguire is in that suit. But Chris, what about Iron Man you ask? Well Iron Man is a suit, a full suit, and that is where the advantage lies. Its a metal suit, with defined limitations, and a mask that doesn't reveal any facial expressions. It was believable because of this. The Lantern suit was glowy, why the hell was everything in that movie so glowy? And why was it veiny? I mean it was oddly veiny. Didn't we learn our lesson from rubber nipples? Now we need to CGI muscles and veins on the suit? next time around make the suit real. Yes, it'll probably take an outrageous amount of time to put on, and no the green lantern is probably one of the harder suits to bring to life because it doesn't have too many discernible breaks in the fabric, but someone in Hollywood should be able to figure it out. I recommend whoever did Gaga's meat dress.
Next we need to address the issue of choosing Hal Jordan as the Green Lantern. As one of my friends said, they should have used the black one. For those of you unfamiliar with comics, there are about a half dozen people going by Green Lantern. All with the same powers and galactic connection. The original is not even Hal Jordan. But he is arguably one of the most well known. At least that's what Warner Brothers believed. But the most prominent Green Lantern in the mainstream media in the past ten years has been John Stewart (or as my friend called him, the black one). You might know him best from the Justice League and the Justice League Unlimited cartoon series that ran on Cartoon Network in the early 2000's. This was a great version of the character, and one many of the main demographic this film was targeting, the 16-24 male (demographic may be entirely made up by me). These are the people who grew up watching these cartoons, and that is the version of the character they are most familiar with. Let's think of this another way too, this would have been the first superhero film to feature a prominent African-American as the lead since the Blade franchise died out. Perhaps the reason this film didn't perform, it couldn't stand out in a what was already a crowded summer, because it was just another superhero film with another white pretty boy in the lead.
Which brings me to my next point. One argument for Green Lantern's, at this point we'll call it lack of success rather than outright failure, is that Green Lantern is not a character audiences are familiar with. To which I call bullshit. Audiences know the Green Lantern, what they don't know is Hal Jordan. People know Batman is Bruce Wayne, Peter Parker is Spiderman, and Clark Kent is Superman. Most people couldn't tell you what the Green Lantern's alter ego is. Now there are two arguments that can be made, first, what about Thor? True most people don't know Thor's human identity (it's something like Blake Donaldson), but the film maker's handled that nicely by simply ignoring this aspect of the character. The other argument what about Iron Man? Again prior to the film's release, I bet many people couldn't tell you that Iron Man and Tony Stark are one in the same. But that's where acting comes in. Downey Jr. took that character and made him cocky, arrogant, and immensely likable. Ryan Reynolds simply decided to be Ryan Reynolds, and not even a fun version of Ryan Reynolds. He played a toned down bland version of Ryan Reynolds who gave lame jokes. He played it without the zest that makes Ryan Reynolds so appealing.
There were other points I wanted to make, but since it took me two days I've forgotten most of the rest. I could go on about the lame supporting cast, and the cartoonish world Reynolds enter whenever he isn't on Earth. But really if you're still reading this, I'm not sure why.
Matt & Kim's latest music video from their album Sidewalks is for the the track "Block After Block". Matt & Kim's previous music video for Sidewalks featured an epic battle royale between the two bandmates. So how do they up the ante for this one? Turn New York City into what everyone wants it to be, their personal playground. Never has New York City been this much fun, and its mostly because they don't seem to be trying. Lots of movies and TV shows have portrayed New York as a fun place to be, but the characters always have specific destinations in mind, items that they are checking off a list. Matt & Kim manage a to capture a sense of complete spontaneity running through NYC at a break neck pace with an entire crew of jubilant fans in tow.
What do think a good time you wish you could have? Or does is it a failed run for fun?
If you came here looking for an amazing revelation about an entirely new direction this blog is taking, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you (for now). However if you came here looking for something interesting to read, well I might still need to disappoint you.
Take a look on the right hand navigation of this blog and you will notice a new feature: My Blog List. This a list of a few of my friends' blogs. Check them out, and if you have a blog, and you're my friend, I'll throw your blog on that list too. Here's a quick run down of what those blogs are about and a little something about the people who run them.
Ray O'Brien's The Hot and Bothered Effect the oldest blog on this list, even older than my blog. Ray is my sister's friend and we share a love of pop-culture and boots. Ray blog's about a lot of stuff and takes a long time to do it. Not that this a bad thing, rarely will you find a blog with thoughts as well laid out as his. Also, it has pictures with funny captions, usually much more clever than mine.
Andrew Bray's Travel Blog chronicles his study abroad semester in Spain and his various travels around Europe. Andrew Bray is my friend from high school, a skilled chef, and lives on a lake during is free time. Highly insightful (though nowhere near as detailed as my posts about Pittsburgh), and filled with dry humor and fantastic photos, it's almost as good as being there. (But probably not) Catch it now while he still updates it, because I'm pretty sure he's home tomorrow.
Claire Westlie's Untitled Blog and Sasha Zweifelhoffer's Blog That's Refreshingly Sweet All Over are still in very early stages of development and I won't try and inaccurately describe them. That being said they are humorous and heartfelt. They both go to St. Norbert College, and work on the paper with me, and according to Sasha, are basically the same person.
So check them out they may be worth your time, especially if you have a lot of it.
It looks like its going to be a Top 3 kind of week.
I keep perusing around the avclub.com and they have a lot of interesting subjects but not many interesting responses. They have their writer's respond to reader questions, but none of their writer's seem to get real creative with their answers. Or other times they try and be two clever. I find it hard to believe the people writing for that website could be so dull.
The most recent Q&A I read dealt with which fictional work of fiction did the writer's wish actually existed. If that's confusing let's take a moment to go through an example. The easiest example is of course, fake movie trailers. There are two prominent examples, we will go through both of them. First 2008's comedy blockbuster, Tropic Thunder. Tropic Thunder began with a whole host of fake movie trailers. There was Robert Downey Jr. playing the method actor role in his forbidden priest love-fest Satan's Alley. Jack Black's Mike Meyers/Eddie Murphy skewing comedy The Fatties: Fart 2. And Ben Stiller's worn out action hero franchise Scorcher VI. Now imagine you'd like to see one of those made into a real film, that's the idea. Unfortunately, none of the above mentioned trailers are YouTube. So let;s try again.
The other example of fake (or apparently faux is the more appropriate term) trailers is the 2007 Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino double feature Grindhouse. The film included fake trailers before the film as well as after the intermission. The fun thing about these trailers was that they were directed by some pretty well know directors, and featured some pretty big name stars. The other fun aspect about these trailers is that not one, but two of them were actually made into feature films. The first you may be familiar with, it goes by the name, Machete.
The other is a little more obscure. To promote the film in Canada the film distributor there held a contest for amateur film maker's to submit their own trailers, with the winner appearing along with the other "real" fake trailers. The winner was a trailer for a film called Hobo with a Shotgun. This was made into an actual film that premiered at the beginning of this summer in a very limited release.
So that's the general idea? Get it? Probably not, I did a pretty poor job of explaining it, but anyway here are my top three fictional works of fiction I wish were real.
1. Thanksgiving (film directed by Eli Roth)
As long as we're talking about Grindhouse, I might as well thrown in my favorite trailer I would like to see be made into a real movie.
I'm not a huge horror fan, but I do like Eli Roth, even though he hasn't really done a whole lot in his career. There is so much to love about this trailer, from the croaky bored voice giving the narration, to the absolutely ridiculous plot line. Of all the holidays that are in need of a good horror film, Thanksgiving is probably at the top of the list. Plus I can appreciate any film that can come up with creative new ways of killing people. As a comedian I recently saw on Comedy Central once said (and I'm paraphrasing): A gun is a tool with one purpose, if you point a gun at me, I know you want to kill me. A knife however, a knife is versatile. If a pull out a knife, I could stab you, I could open letter, I could frost a cake.
2. George Stark Novel's
Who is George Stark, you say? I respond, a character in a Stephen King novel? You ask, who is Stephen King? I tell you to get the hell off my blog.
Follow me if you will down the twisted path of one of my favorite King tales, The Dark Half. The Dark Half was published in 1989 (year I was born, coincidence? probably) and is in a small way a partial autobiography of King himself. At this time King had recently retired the pseudonym Richard Bachman, under which he had published a handful of novels. The plot of The Dark Half, similarly, revolves around an author named Thaddeus Beaumont who kills off his psuedonym George Stark. The parallel continues as King's Bachman books (as they have come to be known) were known to be darker in a more psychological sense than in King's more traditional supernatural style. The same was true of Beaumont's George Stark novel's. However the differences begin to arise when George Stark actually comes to life and starts killing those close to Thad Beaumont.
George Stark wrote a series of roughly four novels focused on the psychotic killer named Alexis Machine. The prose is delightfully simple, dark, plain, and violent. There are some fantastic tease's of these books that King uses to divide the chapters of The Dark Half, and I would love to see King flesh one of them out into a full-length novel, or maybe write a few novella's that were collected into one work.
3. Expose (Fake TV from Lost) Lost's third season was riddled with difficulties and triumphs. One of the biggest failures of Lost was an experiment that needed that needed to be tested. Between the second and third season's fans were beginning to wonder what the rest of the castaways were up to while our heroes were off fighting smoke monsters and discovering buried hatches. So Lost tried to integrate some of the background players into the main story. These players went by Nikki and Paulo and were universally despised by fans the moment they stepped onto the screen. The third season of Lost was also home to another experiment where the execs at ABC tried to string as many new episodes together as possible by airing a short six episode run in the fall, with the rest of the season running uninterrupted in the spring. The break in the season was also despised by fans but offered the writer's to course correct themselves. In their one and only back-story episode, Nikki was found to be an actress on a syndicated television program called Expose. The show was about secret agent stripper who had to go up against none other, than Billy Dee Williams.
Hello Readers, welcome to the cool side of the blog
This was maybe the one redeeming factor of the Nikki/Paulo story line, and it was a great one. And hey if it's good enough for Hurley, it's good enough for me.
There you go, but wait! There's more!
In a first time ever move, I offer my Top 3 Honorable Mentions
1. Gumbel to Gumbel (TV show from Family Guy) Family Guy's commentary on fan-favorite shows being cancelled by networks took the form of this fake TV Show starring Greg and Bryant Gumbel as beach cops.
2. Kickpuncher (Movie from Community)
One of Troy and Abed's favorite movie's, they liked it so much they made their own version: 3. Any of the Lucas Lee films (From Scott Pilgrim vs. The World)
One of the many highlights of this film was Chris Evan's playing one of Romano's evil exes. Once a pro skateboarder, now a big time action movie, Lucas Lee is the star of some of the most wonderfully idiotic action films of our time. If only we could a full length version. Just check out the taglines to some of these posters:
So what did I miss? Hit the comments and let me know what fictional works of fiction you'd like to get a hold of.
Top 3 Classics will be reprints of my Top 3 column that originally appeared in the St. Norbert Times. I'm reprinting them here, and tweaking them a little bit from how they originally appeared to add a little flavor. This repost was inspired by reading the A.V. Club's response to a reader question asking what movie they watch over and over. Not one of the movies listed below was listed as any of their responses.
I would like to preface this list by saying it is a fairly male biased list, and being male, I’m ok with that. (This is what you need to say when you're publishing in a college newspaper).
The subject of this list is my top three movies to watch anytime. What I mean by this is that I can turn the TV on at any point of these movies, already in progress, and know exactly what is happening. It also means I know exactly how it will end, allowing the freedom to walk away from it at any point. Most importantly it means that no matter what else is on during that time, I will be watching this movie if it is on TV. These movies also qualify because they on almost any given weekend you will be able to find one, if not all on your basic cable. These movies are best viewed on a Saturday afternoon or late Sunday evening. Here we go:
1.Air Force One
When Harrison Ford tells you to get off his plane, you get the FUCK off his plane
Arguably one of the best movies where Harrison Ford is asking the bad guys to give him back his family. Harrison Ford plays the President of the United States and is on Air Force One when the plan gets overtaken by hijackers mid-flight. This movie is great on its own account due to its strong supporting cast that includes Gary Oldman, William H. Macy, and Glenn Close. But what makes this movie great is Harrison Ford at his peak. This not to say he is better in this movie than he was as Han Solo or Indiana Jones, but that in this movie he is playing up all the things that he is known for. This is Harrison Ford at his grouchiest, raspiest, and most resolved to take down the bad guys.
2.Forrest Gump
What is he looking at, seriously even the text of the poster is on the other side
Is there any part of this movie you can’t quote or don’t enjoy? This is the movie that changed America’s perspective on chocolates, shrimp, and girls named Jenny. Is there any movie that better embodies the phrase “something for everyone”? What makes Gump so watchable is that it’s like ten movies rolled into one. It’s an overall inspirational, feel good movie, but there is so much more to the movie than that. It’s a war movie, sports movie, and romantic comedy all rolled into one. Let’s not forget Tom Hanks, whose tremendous skill captivates the audience the minute he appears on the screen and makes it near impossible to change the channel.
3.Independence Day
Help us Jeff Goldblum! Your computer virus is our only hope!
We had the action movie, the feel good movie, now there’s the sci-fi movie. What more could you want from this movie. Alien invasions, awesome one liners, massive destruction, Will Smith, and what many consider the cheesiest speech in all of film history. This is the movie where America fell in love with Will Smith, here he became Hollywood's next big blockbuster star. This is also where Rolan Emmerich found his true calling as a director who loved to destroy the cities of America. Plus this movie has Jeff Golblum being used to the best of his ability as nervous science guy. Mostly though, I think people watch this movie because it’s patriotic, and people love to see America at its mightiest.
So there you go, I wrote this over a year ago, and I still think this is a pretty good list, but let me know what you think. Hit the comments with the movie you just can't turn off when it come son the tube. I'll do a follow-up if there are enough responses.
In my second "What's the deal with..." post, I will be examining last night's puzzling South Park episode.
South Park is currently in its fifteenth season. It was recently voted the greatest animated program of all time by the reader's of Entertainment Weekly, beating out Family Guy and The Simpsons. South Park has done what few shows can, which is maintain an audience, stay relevant, and stay fresh for fifteen seasons. A feat, few (if any), other television shows have ever achieved.
I'm a fan of South Park. As a kid without cable I remember only being able to watch when I was on vacation. One of the first episodes I ever saw was the classic Thanksgiving episode featuring Timmy and Gobbles in a Helen Keller musical. Coming to college, I enjoyed being able to watch new episodes each week with the rest of the guys I was living with. It was a quintessential college experience.
But in the first episodes of this season, South Park didn't quite seem to be hitting the mark as well as it once had. South Park has always been known for it's biting social satire, mixed with incredibly outlandish, childish, and grotesque humor. It was a balance that no other show has even tried to achieve. What other show wold dare combine the ideas of battling the growing popularity of Jersey Shore by asking for help from Al-Qaeda? I think what few people realize is that South Park became Saturday Night Live. I mean this in the best possible way. For years SNL used absurdist humor to comment on what was happening in the world. South Park was able to do the same, without celebrity guest stars or musical guests. As SNL wandered into a dangerous level of mediocrity in the past decade South Park executed brilliant social commentary in ways SNL could only dream of.
This season though the marks have been weak and the humor uneven. The South Park team is also famous for their ability to make an episode in a short amount of time, and some might argue they missed an opportunity to capitalize on the death of Osama Bin Laden, and this past week's Anthony Weiner scandal. Take last week's episode for example, where Butter's was mistaken for having multiple personalities, it's not really a topic on the American minds. And while the first half of the show had been laughing constantly, but in the second half the jokes just didn't seem to click.
Which us to last night's midseason finale, titled "You're Getting Old". Stan turned 10 and became a victim of cynicism. A condition diagnosed by his doctor as: everything he sees, hears, and eats will seem like shit. It was episode where half of the noise was simply farts. They also seemed to take a shot at something called Tween Wave music, which I still don't fully understand (if you know please explain in the comments). A crappy brand of kids music that Randy, desperate to reclaim his youth, insisted that he enjoyed. This in turn caused a riff between him and his wife Sharon.
Awww yeeeaaaah! O-BA-MA!
The episode as whole was pretty terrible. I kept waiting for the plot to turn around, or to suddenly reveal itself to be something else, as it so often does. However this episode just seemed to be missing the mark. South Park has thrived on potty humor in the past (Mr. Hanky anyone?), but this episode was as shitty as the music it was making fun of.
And as I watched the clock slowly tick down, and it seemed the episode would not be salvaged, something happened. Sharon confronted Randy about his wild behavior, not just in this episode, but in past episodes that have focused on Randy's desire to be young again. Watching this was extremely odd, because even when characters in South Park take on a serious tone, they rarely have anything serious to say. I kept watching thinking I had to be missing something, that there was some grand joke staring me in the face that I just couldn't see. But what was really happening was a serious conversation between to people, and the startling realization from Randy and Sharon that they were both unhappy about their lives. That they weren't enjoying themselves any more. And suddenly it became more than a conversation between Randy and Sharon. It became a conversation between South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, and their fans.
As the show ended with Stevie Nick's "Landslide" playing in the background. We watched as Stan's friends deserted him because they didn't want to be around someone who thought everything was shit, and Sharon and Randy separated. This was another moment about this episode that caught me off guard. South Park can often make you forget that you actually care about these characters. It was an oddly touching and sad moment that reminded me of the shockingly violent end to the Somali Pirates episode a few years ago.
So what does this ambiguous ending mean? Is South Park on it's last leg, and this is Stone and Parker's way of letting us know? Or is it simply a set-up for a new direction the show will take? It's hard to say. Stone and Parker are notorious for pulling the rug out from under their fans. On the other hand they are finding success elsewhere with their Broadway Musical The Book of Mormon. Perhaps they really do want to move on and avoid becoming like the shows they have lambasted in the past.
If South Park does end, expect them to pull out all the stops, maybe even trying to get one last crack and Mohammed, before leaving our favorite third graders behind. Regardless, South Park will live on in reruns on Comedy Central for eternity, and if Parker and Stone come back a few years down the line with fresh ideas, I'm sure they'll be welcomed back with open arms.
What do you think? Time to move on from South Park? Or do you never want it to end?
Tonight Stephen Colbert noted that Palin supporters had taken to Wikipedia after hearing her version of Paul Revere's ride.
Colbert noted that the Paul Revere page had now been locked. However it the Wikipedia page on bells still had the opportunity to change history. I grabbed several screen captures of the changes that had been made mere minutes after Colbert sent out his instructions. About thirty seconds after I got my first picture, the page had reverted back to it original content. My apologies about the awkward sizing of the photos, hope it doesn't hurt your enjoyment. Here are the changes The Colbert Nation made:
I consider myself a realist. Those who know me might mistake it for pessimism, or cynicism, but the truth is I like to try and keep everything in perspective. I try not to get too upset over things because I realize in the long run, they will be insignificant and my energy can be better utilized on other activities. I also openly admit that I have delusions of grandeur in terms of becoming overly successful and leading an easy life once I get out of college. However I am able to recognize them as such and therefore believe that also falls into the realm of being realistic. This new series of posts will focus on applying my realistic point of view to certain events. It's a reality check, it's a way to bring people back down to earth. It's to criticize, attack, or slam people for their efforts, although it will undoubtedly seem that way. I apologize in advance.
Over the last few days an event has kept popping up on my newsfeed as some of my college friends began RSVPing for it. The event was for the students of my college to organize and submit a video to send to Daniel Tosh to enter into his College Invasion contest. For those of you who do not know Daniel Tosh announced he will be filming an upcoming episode of his widely popular Comedy Central show, Tosh.0 on a college campus. Students are encouraged to send in videos about why Tosh should come film at their school. From some of the submissions posted on the Tosh.0 Blog it is astounding to see how many people do not seem to have the slightest idea of what will appeal to Daniel Tosh. Take for example the Michigan State video that was an elaborate seven and a half minute lip dub.
When has Tosh ever featured a lip dub, and when has he ever showed more then a thirty second clip of a video on his show? Why would you make a video that would take up one third of his airtime if shown in its entirety?
Now this is the link of the event. I encourage you to read it before continuing with this post. (Also from here on out I am addressing the you generally, not specifically).
First off, it's not their idea. It's Daniel Tosh's idea. They can't claim its their idea to enter a contest. That's not an idea, it's a decision.
Second its says CW14 is interested in covering it. No they aren't. Somebody might have said maybe we could cover it. The person they say said that has posted on the wall of the event, that they need to talk their boss and then they'll see what he says. No offense but he'll say no. Probably.
Third, they have no definitive date, and are trying to arrange a large student participation (on a campus that doesn't see a lot of student participation) during a time when the campus is mostly deserted. You created an event without having a plan. Now if you had an actual plan, this would be a whole Other story. But you're jumping the gun. It's also commendable to ask people for suggestions, but this leads me to my fourth point.
They ask people to look at Daniel Tosh's favorite video so far to get ideas. Daniel Tosh isn't going to consider something that is simply a carbon copy of what someone else has done. He wants something original.
Ok those are my points about what's written on the info of the event page. Here a few more.
The contest will probably be over before we even submit a video. Tosh has been promoting this since the middle of the spring, and while he is still accepting submissions, he probably already has more than he cares to have. One more from a small catholic College in Northern Wisconsin is just going to be a drop in the bucket.
Here's my biggest point. Even if by some stretch of the imagination SNC would get selected, do they really think a college that wouldn't let a production of the Vagina Monologues be performed on campus, would let a comedian who mocks every race, religion, and gender come put on a show? No,
they wouldn't.
I want to close this post by saying a few things. First I'm a huge fan of Daniel Tosh and Tosh.0 and would be ecstatic if SNC was chosen. Again I don't mean to knock anyone for their efforts, but I also believe that it isn't fair to criticize if you don't have any ideas on how to do it better. So here are a few suggestions:
If you're going to do it, just do it. Don't wait around and try and coordinate the schedules of hundreds of people during the middle of summer.
Mention something about the girls on campus. It doesn't need to be mean, but maybe something about its hard to determine what gender someone is for most of the year because of our long winter season.
Make fun of our size, and the fact that there is little do in Green Bay. Tosh responds to people who can take themselves down a notch or to and can recognize their own inadequacies. The college that wins this contest isn't going to win because they told him how great their college was, it will be because they told him how much their college sucks. Although in a clever way.
Ok there it is, again I wish everyone the best in there efforts. If you think I'm wrong, being a dick, or have some other suggestions, throw them in the comments.
Saturday Night Live ended a fairly boring season last week on a high note with all-star host Justin Timberlake. Saturday Night Live will be back again next year as it always is, but there are some things that I would love to see next season that probably will not happen. SNL will probably be better next season than it was this season if only for the fact that America will be gearing up for another election which always provides ample opportunities for satire. However, SNL needs to do a lot more than make a few political jibes next year to hang onto peoples attention. This season especially highlighted some of SNL's glaring weaknesses when it comes to comedy. From having absolutely no idea how to incorporate a host (cough Ed Helms cough), to the general lack of diversity in the current cast. So here are some things that I think would improve SNL for next season.
The Sketches
Now, I can't simply say that sketches should be funnier, its unrealistic that every sketch for every show would be a homerun. However, the place to work on improvement is the cold open. There hasn't been a funny cold open since Will Ferrel left the cast in 2001, and took his Bush impression with him. That was ten years ago. Think about that, ten years without a memorable way to open the show. There hasn't been a drought that bad since the original cast left SNL in 1980, and didn't get revitalized until the cast of the early 90's came along. The cold open needs to be the thing that gets people talking about the show. You want people saying, "Did you SNL the other night? Oh man it started with this great sketch about..." What people have been saying is, oh I heard there was a good digital short the other night let me check it out on Hulu.The cold open should be relevant, it should NOT be something featuring Lawrence Welk. It should comment on an event that has happened in the past week. Or it should find a way to combine two events in a way that the audience might not expect. SNL did that a few times this year with WikiLeaks, and some Obama stuff, but again nothing that really stood out. The event itself is not enough to carry the humor, they need to satirize it.
If the cold open can be fixed, the next thing on the list needs to be the monologues. Nothing was more dreadful than Ed Helms monologue a few weeks. SNL can often be painful to sit through at times, but listening to Helms struggle through some made-up story about how he wanted to be a baton twirler was excruciating. The monologues have become obscenely formulaic, they either have the host sing, go backstage, take questions from the audience, or have a cast member interrupt them. They need more variety, or I guess less variety. What I mean is, let the host come on, and be who the audience expects them to be. let them be loose, and natural, and for godsake let them have fun. Too often they take a host and put them in a box or take them outside of what the audience know them for. After 36 seasons even this approach has become stale. It's too often that the host seems to be rehearsing a story rather than telling one. As much as Lorne Michels hates ad libbing, it may be time to switch to a less scripted format and give the host a little more control over that aspect of the show.
Finally, SNL needs to ditch any sketches that take place between 1930 and 1995. They just aren't funny in any way shape or form. The only exception to this rule would be if they can make it a parody for something going on in the world today. All of these lame brain game show sketches featuring celebrities that no one is familiar with isn't appealing to anyone. It's the same with impressions, non one cares if you can impersonate someone the audience has never heard of. Keep impressions familiar, this s where new cast members Jay Pharoah and Taram Killam have really broken out this season. Relatable impressions like Will Smith, Brad Pitt, Eminem, and Lil' Wayne. This more of what SNL needs, taking people down a peg or two who really deserve it, rather than trying to simply be funny by copying mannerisms from a certain time period.
The Cast
The SNL cast is in serious need of an overhaul. As I mentioned earlier the biggest problem is diversity. It is a predominantly white cast, and really has only one standout female performer. The cast members who get the most screen time are also the ones that have been their the longest. and these are the members that need to move on. Of the current cast members over half have been on the show for five years or longer. Seth Meyers is currently tied for third place for the cast member with the longest tenure on the show. Fred Armisen is right behind him with nine years, and Kenan Thompson follows with eight. Bill Hader has six, as does Andy Samberg, Kristen Wiig, and Jason Sudeikis. Compare that to some of the more successful cast members SNL has seen. The original cast only lasted for five years, if not less (Chevy Chase only lasted a year and a half before moving onto motion pictures). Adam Sandler was on for roughly four seasons, and Mike Meyers was on for six. The reason this is that cast members know after three or four seasons whether or not their career is going to go somewhere. The people who stick around for longer than five or six seasons are simply biding their time to figure out what they are going to o with their career. SNL is a launchpad for a film career. Fifteen years after Adam Sandler left and began making films, he is still making movies that easily gross $100 million when they are released. That wouldn't be possible if he hadn't had SNL to get his name out there and build up a fan base that have now aged along with him, and still flock to see him.
Out of all the current cast members I listed above, three have a future in film. Sudeikis is slowly gaining a foothold with work is last spring's Hall Pass, and this summer's Horrible Bosses. I don't know that he will ever be a strong box office draw, but I think he will find plenty of side kick roles head his way in the years to come. As will Bill Hader who also has a established foothold in film with parts in Superbad, Adventureland, Hotrod, and this spring's Paul. He will continue to find roles as the sidekick as well, as well as scene stealing cameos, like in next summer's Men in Black III (reportedly playing Andy Warhol). The one who has a chance to be the big draw is Kristin Wiig. In all honestly I hate most everything Wiig does on SNL. I find her characters abrasive and her presence on screen over bearing. I mean what is funny about this sketch? (Seriously tell why this is supposed to be funny)
That being said I do enjoy her work in film where she plays more down to earth characters. With the recent success of bridesmaids, Wiig may begin to succeed where few other female SNL cast members have as a major film star.There have been many successful and popular females on SNL but few (if any) have serious weight when it comes to the box office. Amy Poehler and Tina Fey are more known for their television work then their film work.
What I would like to see is for the three of them to move on this summer, and pursue their film careers.
As for the other four, I think Samberg could use one more year to make a little more of a mark in live sketches. While eveyone loves the Digital Shorts, He also has a movie coming out with Adam Sandler at some point in 2012, so if that's successful, he could potentially also become a box office draw.
Meyers, Armisen, and Kenan all need to leave. While I've enjoyed Seth Meyers solo run on Weekend Update it's time to go back to the co-anchor format. In addition as head writer, Meyers carries most of the blame for the poor sketches, and as I mentioned above, his limited vision on how to handle the monologues is a detriment to the show. The show needs some fresh blood to take over and shake things up, otherwise viewers are only going to get more of the same when the next season roles around.
As for Armisen, his contributions to the show have always given more credit than he really deserves. His Obama impression is weak, and his seniority on the show has let him keep that gig when Jay Pharoah really should have gotten a shot at it. Other than that he never really any strong recurring characters to call back too. He was a good supporting player but for some reason got more of the spotlight than he should have. He has a show on IFC called Portlandia that I have not seen, but got renewed for a second season. Stop splitting your time Armisen, and let someone else have a chance to shine.
Finally is Kenan Thompson. When I first saw that Kenan had joined the cast in 2003 I thought, wow that guy from Nickelodeon made it. Eight years later and I've come to realize. Kenan Thompson's charatcters are all the same. Literally every single one is simply a variation on the other. All he does is tweak his voice slightly from normal, but he tweaks it the same way, for every character. He puts on the same goofy grin, for every character. He doesn't have any range, and outside of "What's Up With That?" rarely makes a significant contribution to a show. I don't know how Kenan has survived on the show this long, contributing as little as he does, outside of the fact that he was, until this season, the only black cast member. I'd like to think Lorne Michels is better than that, but I'm not sure his track record supports that.
So that's who I would vote off the island, what about who should stay.
As I said, Samberg should stay on for one more season. I also would like to see Bobby Moynihan come back. I think Moynihan has potential that has yet to be tapped. If some of the veteran players get out of the way, Moynihan may be able to step into the spotlight. He has a very cartoonish quality to him that has only been unleashed on the rare occasion. That leaves us with Abby Elliot as the only cast member. Again because so many of the female parts go to Kristen Wiig, it's hard to judge the other females from this past season. However Elliot does have talent when she's allowed to show what she's got such as playing a girl Justin Timberlake slept with in last week's episode.
That brings us to this year's featured players. Perhaps I should explain for those who do not understand how SNL works. Every season there are Repertory players, those listed above, and featured players. You can tell the difference of who is who at the beginning of each episode during the theme song. You know the tune "It's Saturday night live with ... " and then the Repertory players are listed, then there is a break where they say "featuring..." and then lists the Featured players. The featured players are often the newest members of the cast, the ones that get tried out before becoming fulltime members. This try often rests on their shoulders thy need to prove themself to Lorne Michels and the audience that they have what it takes to draw people in. To have people coming back each week to see what they will do next.This was especially difficult this season, since there were five featured players competing for airtime with established cast members. That being said many of the featured players had at least one or sketches this season that they owned, but there chances of coming back are really up in the air. Let's go alphabetically.
Vanessa Bayer has perhaps been the the most successful at finding a niche in the SNL framework with her recurring Miley Cyrus Show Sketches.
Hard to believe those just started this season right? Beyond that she played one of the Karadashian sisters, and had a few pop up roles else where. Since most of her work has been impressions this seasons it's hard to say how well she would fit in more of a character role, but it will be interesting to see if she comes back next year.
Paul Brittain had a rough season in terms of getting screen time. When he did though he brought a certain whimsical insanity that might make him a good replacement for Samberg. He has at least one good impression of James Franco, and snuck this little bit of crazy onto the end of a show a few weeks ago.
I'd love to see Brittain come back next season and get some more screen time, and inject some more of that crazy into what has become kind of a stale show.
Last summer when I heard Taram Killam was joining the cast I got pretty excited. SNL is not Killam's first TV job. His first job was as Jimmy the overly touchy orderly on the eighth season of scrubs. While he had a few funny parts on that show it wasn't until he unleashed his dazzling array of impressions that he truly got to show his talents. (Jump to :55 second mark)
Killam got to unleash a few of those impressions this year with varying degrees of success. However I think one of his better sketches came at the end of this season as a creepy automated robot.
If he comes back next season I would like to see him achieve a good balance of impressions (and actually do something effective with them) and more off the wall stuff like this.
Now Nasim Pedrad is the most senior of the featured players joining the cast in 2009. This will either be a make it or break it summer for Pedrad as she will either be promoted to a repertory player, or be cut from the cast. Pedrad hasn't done a lot to make her mark. She also has been one of the Kardashian sisters, otherwise she's just kind of had bit parts. The one exception is the Under-Underground music festival commercials she does with Jason Sudeikis.
While these are fun she needs to show she has more to offer to become a well rounded cast member, and as a significant part of the show.
Finally, there is Jay Pharaoh. As I said above, he rally should have at least had a shot to take over Obama from Fred Armisen. Many people complained that all Jay Pharaoh got to do was impressions this year, but hell at least he was good at them. He was a sorely underused talent, and could easily become the next Chris Rock (at least in terms of SNL).
For the most part I would like to see each of these five come back next year and take over the show. SNL needs some fresh faces in a desperate way, and these people are talented they just need some room to spread their wings.
The Hosts
The problem with the hosts SNL brings in is two fold:
1. They bring in people that they don't know what to do with.
2. A serious lack of diversity, this season there was not one African-American host.
The one thing SNL did do a good job of this season was trying to even out the amount of male and female hosts (9 females to 11 males). However not being able to find one African-American to come in and host inexcusable, there are plenty of talented people out there that could come on and do a great job.
As for my other point there have been too many cases in the last few seasons where hosts have come on and either been absent from a number of sketches, or are simply put into roles that they should not be in (e.g. Bryan Cranston, Ed Helms, and January Jones just to name a few).
So I'm going to do SNL a favor and pick out their hosts for the next year. I'm going to include some favorites, so newbies, and try and split the females and males evenly, and throw in some diversity. I'll also give some reasoning as to why. Also I'm not going to try and guess musical guests because that's just too difficult to predict. Here's my wishlist:
(All dates subject to change) Sept. 24 (Season Premiere) Aziz Ansari - Season needs to get off to an energized start and for that they need an energized host. Last season started with Amy Poehler, which was a mistake. I like Poehler but she isn't the right person person to start the season, especially since it was her first time as host. Aziz Ansari is bursting with energy, he seems game for anything, he sings, he dance, and he does stand-up. He has a movie coming out this summer with Jesse Eisenberg that looks like it could be pretty funny, combine that with his work on Parks and Recreation, and you have something who has something to promote as well as someone who will work well with the younger cast I'm hoping will be more prevalent next season.
Oct. 1 Joseph Gordon-Levitt has a movie coming out on Sept. 30 with Seth Rogen. Gordon-Levitt has hosted once before and did a pretty good job even if he wasn't given the best material to work with. He brought a strong, positive energy to the show that would be fun to see again. In addition it gives him a chance to promote his film outside of the trailers, which are emphasizing the fact that it is a cancer-comedy.
Oct. 8 Zooey Deschanel would be a fun follow-up to Gordon-Levitt. If you've read my previous post about Fall TV, you'll know I'm pretty excited for her new show on FOX this fall. If it proves to be a hit, as I'm hoping it will be, she would be a great person to have host. Also, as Julie Roberts begins to noticeably age, the title for America's Sweetheart is pretty much up for grabs, and I see Deschanel putting it in her sights. She could even pull double duty as musical guest with her band She & Him.
Oct. 22 Rihanna has been slowly building an acting resume. She's proven she can do funny with her work with The Lonely Island. She has been a musical guest twice, and the third time has sometimes been the charm for musical performers to pull double duty as host and musical guest.
Oct. 29 Kal Penn will be out promoting the third Harold & Kumar movie during this time, so what better place to stop by than SNL. Penn has been keeping pretty quiet since leaving House a few years ago to go work for Obama. The one to punch of a new film for his most recognizable character, and an appearance on SNL will help put his name back on the map.
Nov. 12 Amy Adams hosted SNL back in 2008. She will be starring with Jason Segel in the new Muppet movie around this time, and it would be fun for her to ring a few of her felt friends along for her hosting gig. The Muppets and SNL have a long history together, from Jim Henson's adult Muppet sketches during the first season of the show, to Cookie Monster's appearance this past season with Jeff Bridges. So it would make sense to bring her on.
Nov. 19 Morgan Freeman wouldn't really be promoting anything at this time, his next film will be The Dark Knight Rises in 2012, but that didn't stop Dana Carvey from coming on and hostign this year. Morgan has never hosted SNL although he did appear back in October on a "What's Up With That" sketch. This would technically be the Thanksgiving episode, and I think Freeman's soothing vocals would set the perfect tone for this show.
Dec. 3 Tina Fey has hosted 3 times in the last four seasons. She pretty much can come on whenever she wants, so why not on this one? Fey has been pretty consistent during her hosting stints, except this last one which was a bit of a snooze. If the cast members that are more familiar with her don't come back next season, it could be refreshing to see her do something new with a cast that wasn't there while she was a cast member.
Dec. 10 Daniel Craig will be headlining a new potential franchise as the Hollywood version of The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets Nest comes out around this time. Craig would be only the second actor to play James Bond to host SNL after Pierce Brosnan. Craig has shown he can be charming and witty through his Bond role, but a stint on SNL would allow him to let loose and show his comedy chops (if he has any).
Dec. 17 (Christmas Episode) Steve Martin is always a great host, and again while he might not have anything to promote at this time, he would be a good way to end the first half of the season. Also Steve Martin has been around to revitalize SNL when it was in desperate need of it. From being hosting multiple times during the shows first five years to this amazing monologue from an early 90's Christmas episode.
Martin could bring some of that juice back to the show, and bring SNL back to prominence as it heads into election season.
Plus she's hot
Jan. 7 Olivia Munn had the poor fortune of being stuck in a mediocre sitcom this past spring, but recently signed onto Aaron Sorkin's new show for HBO. While the show has no official start date, let's assume it will air sometime in 2012. Munn has a proven track record as an up and coming funny woman from her work on G4's Attack of the Show to becoming a correspondent for The Daily Show. In addition the craziness she was put through during her time on Attack of the Show has shown she is really up for anything, and has garnered her a large fanbase.
Jan. 14 Donald Glover has put up a strong showing on Community, as well kicking off a stand-up and rap career. Glover has a unique brand of humor that resides mostly in his persona being naive. However anyone who has heard his rapping alter ego "Childish Gambino" know that Glover is anything but. It would be fun to see what Glover's energy could bring to a show that doesn't normally cater to his brand of humor.And if you need more convincing, just watch this:
Jan. 28 Dwayne Johnson has hosted SNL three times in the past all with verying degrees of success, his most recent time her broke out a new character called "The Rock" Obama.
He will be out promoting his new film Journey 2: The Mysterious Island around this time as well as gearing up for his return to the wrestling ring as he takes on John Cena at next years Wrestlemania. He would be the most logical choice to host during this time.
Feb. 4 Mindy Kaling hasn't had much of chance to break out beyond her time at The Office minus a few small film roles. However she does have a good amount of comedy chops and has written some of the best episodes of The Office. Not only would she be a fun host, but she would also be a great asset to the writing staff, being able to work with them to fine tune sketches.
Feb. 11 Nicolas Cage getting in the cage with Nicolas Cage. Imagine the possibilities. If Samberg stays on for another season like I hope he will, imagine the insanity that would occur if he unleashed his Nic Cage impressions on the man himself. Cage has never hosted SNL before, but with Ghost Rider 2 (yep they're making it) hitting theaters around this time, this would be the perfect time for Cage to give it a go. Besides has Nicolas Cage ever turned down a role?
March 3 Peyton Manning is one of the few sports figures that have hosted SNL that have actually done a good job with their hosting duties. Remember this gem?
Manning did his one and only hosting gig in 2007, and with the football season ending around this time, this would be the perfect time for him to return.
March 10 Jennifer Lawrence is quickly becoming a household name after her work on the critically acclaimed Winter's Bone and this summer's X-Men: First Class. Expect that trend to continue when she headlines the first adaptation of the widely popular Hunger Games trilogy, as the heronine Katniss. What better way to celebrate her rising stardom then by getting her first hosting gig.
April 7 Eugene Levy is another person you might be surprised to find out has never hosted SNL before. The fourth (that's right fourth) American Pie film will be out in theaters around this time, and while it's more likely we'll see someone who from the cast of those films who has hosted SNL before return, like Sean William Scott (where does the hyphen go in his name? Anyone?), I'd like to start the online campaign for Levy to host right here.
April 14 Elizabeth Banks has now projects around this time, but I needed another woman for this list, and Banks is certainly funny and recognizable and would be a fun host.
May 5 Lady Gaga proved she's got what it takes to steal the spotlight away from the likes of Justin Timberlake. I don't know what else you need to do to prove you can host SNL. The writer's certainly seemed excited to have her, as they wrote her into more sketches that any other musical guest in recent SNL history, I'd be interested to see if she has what it takes to carry a whole show.
May 12 Zoe Saldana is another actress who is making a name for herself. The last couple of episodes of any SNL season are usually reserved for celebrities looking to promote big summer films. Perhaps its more likely we would see someone from the new Avengers film hosting during this time, but I'll pull for Saldana in the hopes that Star Trek 2 will be able to meet its release date.
May 19 (Season Finale) Jon Hamm, there's not much more I think I need to say about this. SNL made the appropriate decision in the last few seasons to ensure the season ends on a high note by bringing in ringer hosts. Hamm has never hosted the season finale of SNL and I think next year would be a good year to have that honor. Really all I want is another sketch in this vein:
So there it is my extensive wishlist for the the 37th season of Saturday Night Live. Agree? Disagree? Got some other people you would like to see host next season? Hit the comments and let me know. I might do a follow-up post.
