Watchmen

I saw this movie Friday afternoon with my girlfriend Shannon. Shannon has never read the original comic (or any comic, for all I know), and while she enjoyed the movie, she had a lot of questions... many of which I couldn't answer.

"So what exactly happened at the end?"

Um... I couldn't really answer that. I told her the truth, that the ending in the comic made almost no sense, while the ending in the film made completely no sense. I was going to tell her about how the comic ended with an genetically engineered squid that was teleported into New York City to... but I didn't, for the same reason I'm not going to talk about it here. The less said about the ending of Watchmen (and the over all story structure, for that matter), the better.

"So did they blow up New York or not? Because they showed it at the end and it looked fine."

Yeah, that confused me too. I mean, if you're going to blow up New York, blow up New York, at least show some kind of lasting impact. Don't end with the main character's midtown brownstone looking completely intact and none the worse for wear.

But we both liked it.

As a comic book, Watchmen was a vexing piece of work, at times brilliant and at times maddening. In my opinion, it's neither the unparalleled work of brilliance that some have claimed, nor is it exactly overrated as well. What it is is an epic, convoluted, comic book mini series that spanned the length of 12 issues, some of which were brilliant, and some of which... were not.

In that respect, the new film by Zack Snyder is stunningly faithful, capturing both the moments of brilliance from the comic and the same problems with the overall storyline, though it also contains its own unique strengths and weaknesses as well.

Let's talk about the strengths first:

To being with, this is a Watchmen movie. That might sound silly... of course it's a Watchmen film, you're saying. That's the title, for pete's sake!... but let me explain myself. You can put George Clooney in a rubber cowl with horns, but that doesn't mean you actually made a Batman film. You can have Tobey Maguire jumb around and shoot webs from his wrists, but that doens't mean you made a Spider-Man film. Most comic book adapations take a familiar name from the comics, a few similar details, comparable powers, and a similar costume (though sometimes not) and splap it on the screen and that's that.

But Watchmen is Watchmen. It isn't just a film containing similar characters to the comic, it's the same story, with the same tone, look, and feel. That's a good thing and a bad thing, as I said, since the overall story from the comic has too many structural weaknesses intrinsic to the overall plot, but I still appreciate the fact that they made the attempt. And, in their defense, they made an attempt to fix some of the story problems from the comic, but we'll get to that later.

Visually, this film is incredible, and on par with the comic. Many of the scenes and visuals are ripped straight from the pages of the comic, and it looks awesome. While Snyder's direction couldn't quite match the masterful pacing of comic artist Dave Gibbons, he did an admirable job taking the book and making it look nearly identical on the big screen. Unlike Robert Rodriguez's adaptation of Frank Miller's Sin City, Snyder's takes visual cues and moments from the comic, but doesn't attempt to translate the entire comic panel by panel and word for word. While I liked Sin City, it felt static and wooden while Watchmen is actually able to breathe. This film couldn't have looked better, in my opinion, and it's almost worth watching just for the cinematography alone.

The casting was also great, even though it was filled with some relatively unknown actors.

Jackie Earle Haley was best known, to me at least, as #3, Kelly Leak from the original Bad News Bears, so it came as no surprise that he could play a total badass better than anybody. He was amazing. Rorschach is one of the best, most interesting characters from any comic book, and it was portrayed perfectly here, with Haley giving stealing every scene he was in, even though he had a thick mask on for 99% of the time. I just wish he had driving his motorcycle around on the baseball diamond at least once.

Jeffrey Dean Morgan was already well known to geeks like me as the dad from Supernatural. Morgan's rare appearances on that show were always exciting and usually let the viewer know something crazy was about to go down. When I heard he was cast as the Comedian, I was floored, and he didn't let me down at all. Another perfect casting choice that brought the characters from the comic to life.

And everybody else was pretty good to ok. I really liked the guy who played Dan Dreiberg, but he came off as more likable and sympathetic in the comic, or at least as more of an everyman. They made him into too much of a superhero here, but the actor who played him was very good. The guy who played Ozymandius wasn't as bad as you'll here from some other reviewers, but his performance was still a bit odd, and he came off as creepy and alienating when he should have seemed kind and intelligent. But the actress who played Laurie was incredible, at least in the looks department. Where did this Malin Akerman come from and how come I've never heard of her before? Those bangs were killer. And her acting was fine.

While I've read a lot of negative things about the film's soundtrack, I thought it was fine. In fact, I thought it was quite good in most places. The opening montage played to "The Times They Are A-Changing" was brilliant and set the mood for the rest of the film perfectly. In fact, the film probably never quite topped that sequence, but that's ok. Some people have criticized the use of "Hallelujah" during the sex scene, but I didn't mind it. I thought it was fine.

So what didn't work?

Well... the overall story, just like the comic, just doesn't work and completely falls apart at the end. But, to a certain extent, that's ok, since the murder mystery is little more than a pointless macguffin used to deconsturct the medium and take a closer look at these characters. So you can't fault the film or the comic for having a denoument that makes no sense, because it was all about the journey and not the destination. But, having said that, it's a flaw that is ok for the comic, because it was so long and told in individual issues that worked well on their own if not when put together as a whole, but the film didn't have that luxory. If a film tells a murder mystery, it damn well better wrap it up in a way that makes sense and doens't leave the audience confused. This film failed on that account.

I defy most viewers who haven't read the comic to tell me why the Comedian was killed, what his killer was actually attempting to do, or why anything in the denoument made sense at all.

Snyder looked at the ending of the comic and, quite rightly, realized that it was deeply flawed, unsatisfactory, and completely illogical. But his solution wasn't to come up with a better, well set up ending that would satisfy the viewers... he came up with an ending that was just as absurd (if not more so) and still left everybody confused an unhappy.

Or was it just me?

Also, what was with those fight scenes? Considering how perfectly Snyder managed to capture the overall tone and feel of the comic, why did he go so over the top with the action sequences? Don't get me wrong, a lot of them were very, very cool and well done, but they still took the viewer too far out of the film. The opening fight was awesome, and worked because it showed the brutality and stubborness of the Comedian, and the over the top violence let the viewer know they'd better look out. This ain't exactly Spider-Man you're about to watch.

But the scene where Dan and Laurie got attacked by some thugs in the alley and they flew around in slow motion and ripped people's limbs apart? That just made no sense. These aren't superheroes. They're people playing at being masked vigilantes. They can't fly. They don't have superhuman strength. They shouldn't be ripping a guy's arm in half. That scene was just moronic. The jailbreak scene was better, though it was still too much. It would've worked better had the first scene in the alley been more realistic while the fight with them in costume been more stylized, but as it was, the alley scene was even more over the top.

And don't get me started on the fight scene at the end. Would anybody who hasn't read the comic book watch that scene and be expected to understand that none of these comic book characters actually have superpowers? Especially considering how one character managed to stiop a bullet in midair, which was perfectly set up in the comic, but not so much here. In the film, it just looked stupid.

Consistency of tone was also a major problem for the film, perhaps because it tried to emulate the comic a little too much. As I said, the comic was a huge story that spanned 12 issues, but it didn't just contain pictures and word ballons. It had prose stories, entries from a a fictional autobiography, stories from a comic book within the comic book, business reports about new perfumes, and much more. It didn't all work, and I skip most of that stuff whenever I reread it, but it just shows writer Alan Moore's incredible attention to detail and attempt to show what could be in a comic that no other medium could do.

So when Dr Manhattan when to Mars and the film suddenly slowed down for 15 minutes to show his origin, complete with his dispassionate, clinical narration, it just didn't work. It was a very cool scene, but it was too far removed from everything else in the movie. Watchmen #4 was the best, single issue of a comic book I've ever read. More than that, it's one of the best short stories I've ever read from any medium. And while this segment did an admirable job trying to adapt it to the screen, it just went to show how much better the story worked as a comic. The narration just didn't work, nor did the quick cuts though time, the juxtapostion of images, or the overall feel of the scene.

And why show a character's origin if you're not actually going to attempt to explain it or give it any real significance?

And that's really the film's main flaw: It's a Cliffnotes version of Watchmen, with all of the big scenes told in loving detail, but forgetting the little details that actually lended support and weight and character development.

But I liked it.

G.I. Joe #1

G.I. Joe #1 was the first comic I ever purchased for more than its cover price.

A lot more.

When I was a kid, G.I. Joe was my favorite comic book, my favorite cartoon, and my favorite toy. The toy was amazing because the joints made it fully poseable, there were so many of them, and they had a ridiculous number of accessories, vehicles, and playsets. I was the king of my neighborhood the day my parents bought me the G.I. Joe Aircraft Carrier. That thing was longer than my bed. It was seriously the best toy I've ever owned and I wish I still had it.

The cartoon was cool because all of the characters from the toys had their own episodes, the animation was awesome, and the stories were actually pretty clever for a kids' TV show. But I've watched a bunch of episodes since, and it really doesn't hold up. The animation still looks good, and the music is awesome, but nothing makes any sense. I have no idea how I was able to follow any of those stories when I was a kid, since the writers must've been on drugs or something.



Why was he staring in their window? Why did that seem normal when I was a kid?

"Now we know!"
"And knowing is half the battle! And, remember, kids, don't tell your mother I was here, ok? Now why don't you hand Doc that bottle?"

And then there was the comic book, which was brilliant. Nobody ever believes me when I tell them that G.I. Joe was my all time favorite comic book. It was created to sell action figures, sure, but it was still great. Writer Larry Hama gave the series a sense of integrity and intelligence that most other's would've shrugged off, assuming kids wouldn't know any better. Hama, a Vietnam vet, understood the army and what war was like, and he even went on to help create the critically acclaimed, and more mature, comic book The 'Nam. His ancestry as a Japanese American, and his mastery of several martial arts, lent an authenticity to such characters as Storm Shadow and Snakeyes, the popularity of whom helped to usher in the Ninja craze that swept through comics and TV in the 80s and 90s.

And then there was Kwinn the Eskimo, a character so morally neautral and ambiguous that he never appeared in the cartoon or the original line of figures. Kwinn's struggle to find inner peace was one of the most brilliant things I'd ever read as a kid, and I still remember his death scene to this day. Kwinn finally managed to track down the evil Dr. Venom, who had betrayed him and set him up to be killed by Cobra. Kwinn had followed him across the globe, deadset on exacting his revenge and killing him once and for all. But when he finally found him and began to throw his grenade, he realized that he was no better than Venom, and that killing him wouldn't bring him satisfaction at all. When he turned to walk away, Venom shot him in the back, killing him, which made him drop the grenade, sending it rolling to Venom's feet. I still haven't forgotten Venom's final words as he realized his fate: "A grenade... fallen from a dead man's hand."

This was powerful stuff for a comic that came out when I was only six years old, though I was probably a couple of years older than that when I first read it, because those early G.I. Joe issues were in the box of comics my brother gave me when he grew out of them.

But I was going to tell you about G.I. Joe #1. That wasn't in my brother's box of comics. But it was for sale in an ad at the back of one of my recent G.I. Joe issues. For thirty bucks. And, remember, this was before ebay or buying anything on the internet. Back then, if you wanted to buy something mail-order, you actually had to fill out an order form that you ripped out of a comic or magazine, send it along with a check, and then wait weeks (sometimes months) for anything to arrive, if anything even did arrive. I'm still waiting on a few things I sent away for when I was a kid.

But G.I. Joe #1 did arrive. Finally. It came in a giant box filled with those packing peanuts, and wrapped up in a mylar slipcase. I never opened it. I had already read the story because they had reprinted the entire run undert the title "Tales of G.I. Joe," so I didn't need to read it again. I just needed to own it. I paid 30 bucks for that thing, I wasn't about to put my greasy little fingers all over it. And until I took that picture, I had never opened it. For all I knew, the inside pages were blank.

Years later, when I had enough comics to put into comic-sized long boxes, I had to remove the comic from its original slipcase because it was too wide to fit into the boxes. Maybe I opened it up for a second when I removed it and put it into a standard size comic back with a backing board, but I doubt it. I was too nervous about touching it that I was afraid I'd rip it or that its finally coming in contact with air would result in it turning to dust before my eyes.

Anyway, I've recently decided to sell off my comic book collection since I have thousands of issues in dozens of boxes that are just collecting dust in my basement. G.I. Joe #1 is collecting dust on my wall, however, since I have it hanging on the wall in my TV room with some other comics that are special to me. It's going for $15 dollars on ebay. Well, the one issue that I saw listed is. Maybe it'll eventually go for $30, but I doubt it. Nobody pays that much for comics anymore, unless they're from far earlier than the 80s, or feature characters more important than the G.I. Joes. Still, $15 is better than it was last time I checked, years ago when I first started using ebay to buy comics. Back then it was worth about a dollar.

And now they're making a live-action G.I. Joe movie, due out this summer, not to be confused with the animated movie that came out when I was a kid. But that's a whole, 'nother blog post. Don't get me started on that movie.



Personally, I think it looks pretty cool, but I'll reserve my judgment until I actually get to see it, or at least, see more of it. I don't understand why all of these superhero movies (for lack of a better term, at least in regards to G.I. Joe) have to get rid of the original costumes from the comics, cartoons, etc, and dress the characters up in ugly black leather bodysuits. It works for Snak-Eyes since that's what he actually wears in the comics, but everybody else had a lot of color and style. This movie looks kind of drab. Also, why isn't that guy playing Destro wearing a metal mask? At some point in the movie, he'd better put on a shiny metal mask. And according to the IMDB, Marlon Wayans is playing Ripcord, which is weird, because Ripcord is white. Maybe they were thinking of Stalker?

But it still looks goofy and fun. But I'd rather they had called in Larry Hama to write it. That Kwinn the Eskimo storyline would've been Oscar-worthy.

Watchmen Motion Comic

In anticipation of the upcoming movie, DC Comics and WB released a "motion comic" on DVD and Blu Ray today. This is a, well... a motion comic. It's a pretty good label because that's exactly what it is. It's the entire comic, word for word, panel for panel, "animated" in the most limited sense of the term.

Sounds stupid, right? In theory, it is. I thought it would be terrible, because it's been done before and it was always terrible. The very first Captain American cartoon was little more than Kirby's original comic book drawings with the mouths almost moving while bad voice actors read Stan Lee's dialogue. Then there was that Maxx cartoon on MTV in the 1990s, which offered actual animation, but it still took whole images and panels from the comic. There have been a few other attempts here and there, none to much success, un my opinion.

But this one is kind of cool.

Some how, it works. Maybe it's because of the deliberately slow pace of the comic book that you don't mind the lack of much movement on the parts of the characters. Or maybe it's the dramatic, brooding prose of Alan Moore that ties it together. Or maybe it's because Dave Gibbons's art work was already so cinematic to begin. I don't know. I just know that it's kind of cool.

At the end of the day, it's not a comic book but it's not quite a cartoon either. It's also probably something a little less than either. I'd rather read the comic book again, but the artwork actually does look very good and the colors are awesome. I bet it looks great in HD. But make your own judgment. The first episode is free on iTunes and it's well worth checking out. I'm not going to buy the entire season, but I did like the first, free episode. Also, if your computer can handle it, check out the official website. It's pretty cool.

Golden Girls

This one is for my girlfriend, so she'll actually be able read my blog at least once and kind of understand what I'm talking about.

Back in the day (the early 2000s when I was a younger man), a friend of mine always used to ponder the question of why all women, no matter their age or station in life, seem to love the Golden Girls. He used to ask this of most girls he met. It was a stupid, silly question that my friends and I would allow (and, sometimes, even ask ourselves) because it gave us an excuse to talk to girls in bars, restaurants, wherever.

Of course, I would always tell my friend the logical answer: Girls like the Golden Girls for the same reason everybody does: It's a good show. It's funny, well written, well acted, and shows a positive, hopeful portrayal of healthy, vital women in their advanced years. He would never listen to me, however, and kept asking.

Anyway, my girlfriend and I have been watching a lot of Golden Girls lately, since it's always on either Lifetime or the Hallmark channel. We even sat through the entire first season last week because a relative of hers owns the DVDs. It has definitely renewed my interest and fondness for this show, since it is really one of the all-time greats.

But I don't recommend sitting through more than, say, three episodes in one go, and definitely avoid watching an entire season in just a few days. Watching that many episodes of Golden Girls in one go is like trying to eat an entire cheesecake in one sitting at 1:00 in the morning. It's sweet inviting at first, and you may as well finish it all once you've gotten so far into it, but at the end you'll feel bloated and tired and confused.

To begin with, every episode more or less follows the exact same story arc: One of the girls has some sort of crisis (either with her job, a family member, etc) that could potentially change her life forever, panics and tries to figure things out, because coming to her eventual epiphany after a night of overeating with the rest of the girls. Along the way, Rose tells a long, rambling story about St. Olaf, Blanche talks about how she loves sex, and Dorothy and Sophia take turns insulting everybody with whom they come in contact. And every crisis and plot line is used for each of the Golden Girls. They all almost get married, have to decide if they want to date a married man, reconcile with a long-lost relative, etc. It's a format that works well, but doesn't lend itself to repeated viewings over so short a period of time.

All of these stories primarily take place in one set: The connected living room/kitchen of their home. Occasionally there will be a scene in one of their bedrooms, and maybe once or twice a season they will actually be shown outside of the house, but for the most part it all takes place in just those two rooms. It is a testament to the wonderful writing and acting that the show manages to actually feel fresh, no matter how many times the same plots have been reused in the same, single set.

But now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go ask great aunt Betty to lend me season 2.

Dollhouse

I don't have a whole lot to say about Dollhouse, the new sci-fi television program by Joss Whedon, other than that its first episode was really boring.

I've never been a Joss Whedon fan, though I wouldn't say I've been one of his detractors either. I would say I'm aware of his existence and that's about it. I remember trying to watch a few different episodes of Buffy back in the day, but always failing because they were, in my opinion, unwatchable. The dialogue always seemed really hokey and the acting was bad. But, again, I never made it through more than, say, twenty minute at a time so take my opinion lightly.

Then there was Angel (I think), which I never watched but a friend of mine used to love. I never gave it a try because it was a spin-off of Buffy. Also, I just never seemed to be around whenever it was on TV, if it was ever on TV. I've heard people talk about it, but I've never actually seen any proof that it was ever on, let alone for a few years.

I did enjoy Firefly, for the brief few months that it stayed on TV. It wasn't as brilliant as a lot of people would have you believe, but it was a really funny, really entertaining sci-fi western hibrid that deserved better than Fox gave it. Had it lasted long enough, it probably would've have grown into something as brilliant as a lot of people would have you believe. Or maybe not, since Whedon's film version Serenity was pretty mediocre, in my opinion. But I did like the show.

All of this has nothing to do with Dollhouse, other than that it seems to be another show in which I have very little interest.

Basically the premise of the show is that Eliza Dushku has really nice legs. That got me through the first episode, but they aren't good enough to get me to come back for any others. Life is too short and boring TV shows seem too long.

But if you liked all those other shows I mentioned, maybe you should give it a try.

Battlestar Galactica

Yes, I am a fan. In case you're wondering why I haven't reviewed last night's episode, or the previous week's episode, or the week previous to that, etc, it's because I'm waiting to give my thoughts until the final episode has aired and the entire storyline has had a chance to unfold and come to its denouement.

But last night's episode was very good, or, at least, the last ten minutes or so were.

Philp José Farmer, 1918 - 2009

File this one under the "I thought he was already dead" department, but Philip José Farmer, the best and most important science fiction writer you've probably never heard of, died yesterday. He was 91.

Farmer's novels were delightfully insane, with subject matter so full of honesty about human (and alien) sexuality and religious beliefs that his works would be considered shocking and innovative even by today's standards. But nothing he ever wrote was gratuitous, nor was any of it ever boring or predictable or ordinary or the least bit lacking in imagination, entertainment value, and integrity.

Even better than his science fiction and fantasy novels, in my opinion, were his love-letter-like novels about the pulp heroes that paved the way for his own work. His fictional biographies of Tarzan, Doc Savage, Phileas Fogg, et all, are three of my all time favorite books, and every bit as engrossing and fun as the original novels by the characters' original creators.

Philip José Farmer. Even though I thought he was already dead, he'll still be missed.

Heir to the Empire

Well, this is why my fans keep coming back to my blog: to read my opinions on Star Wars novels that were originally published 18 years ago. Give the people what the want, that's my motto.

Anyway, long story short... this novel was terrible.

"What," you're probably asking yourselves, "You were expecting maybe... Tolstoy?" Well, no, but considering how much I loved it when it first came out (when I was 14!), and considering how much praise has been heaped on it over the years by my fellow Star Wars fans, I was expecting something special. Or, at the very least, something that wasn't, well terrible.

And, no, I don't think I was expecting too much. There is a stigma against licensed novels, but it is one that isn't necessarilly fair in the case of the "Expanded Universe" of the Star Wars novels. Unlike most licensed novels, the publishers of the Star Wars books actually hire a lot of well respected, established writers, which tends to give them a literary (or at least entertainment) value that would otherwise be lacking. Some of them are actually very good and compliment the films very well. And Heir to the Empire, the first in a trilogy by Timothy Zahn, should have been one of those good Star Wars novels. After all, Zahn was one of those well respected, established writers. He had already written a dozen or so science fiction novels, and had even won the Hugo award for best novella in 1984.

So why did he drop the ball with this novel? Some of its problem may have had to do with the fact that he was already an established science fiction novelist. After all, Star Wars is not science fiction, it's fantasy, and that is a problem many writers have had trouble resolving. Star Wars takes place in space, sure, and features technology and science concepts far advanced from our own, but it is told with a sense of mystery and magic and, well, fantasy, that makes it closer to Tolkien or even mythology than Asimov or Heinlein. Zahn doesn't understand that, and in fact seems to rebel against it. There is even an animal in this novel that is somehow able to repel the Force, almost as though Zahn is telling us that the very concept of the Force is silly and unneeded.

But we can't blame Zahn too much for inconsistencies in tone from the original trilogy of films, because this book was written almost ten years after Return of the Jedi was released, during a time well before the Expanded Universe of Star Wars novels really exploded. In fact, Zahn's novels helped to create that Expanded Universe, which brought the films back into popularity, which helped to generate the excitement that led to the release of the Special Editions and the Prequels. So the impact and importance of Zahn's novels can't be denied, but that still doesn't mean they're any good.

The humor from the films, for example, is something Zahn tried his best to translate to his books, but with little success. The films are very goofy and funny and silly, so Zahn attempted to add some levity, like in the scenes where 3PO is given Leia's voice to trick people over the communications link, or when Luke makes a big deal out of some new drink, that's called Hot chocolate. Hot chocolate? I'm willing to believe that such a drink exists in the Star Wars universe, but its existence shouldn't be used as a punchline to a joke. There is a chapter where Luke is said to be drinking some exotic beverage that Lando told him about. He keeps sipping from it, and then, finally, somebody asks him what it is, and he replies that it is called hot chocolate. I can't quite explain why this was so annoying and weak, but I bet you can kind of understand.

Then there are the huge, ridiculous plot contrivances. There are three huge coincidences in this novel that completely ruin any kind of plot or story flow. There are actually three instances where Luke in his X Wing and Han in the Millennium Falcon independently decide to visit some such location, at the exact moment when the Empire decides to launch an attack. Three times. Three. Once was annoying but forgivable, two was a sign of bad writing and poor editing, but three made me want to chuck the book across the room into the garbage can.

And, lastly, we have to discuss Thrawn, who was unjustly become something of a fan favorite villain amongst Star Wars fans. I saw unjustly because he's actually a really boring, ill-thought out character. To begin with, he has no real personality or defining characteristics beyond his blue skin. We're supposed to believe he's some kind of military genius, but not because we see him do anything remotely logical during battle, but because the writer has characters describe him as such.

But wait, you might be asking, what about his ability to understand the weaknesses of any race by completely studying their art? What about it? It's completely moronic and makes no sense. You really think that an alien culture could defeat Earth in a massive space battle simply because they studied the works of Picasso? It's a cute idea to be sure, and one that amost seems clever and smart, but it falls apart after even a three year old gives it two minutes of thought. Thrawn sucks.

And so did this book.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some Halo novels to read.

In Memoriam

I didn't watch the Oscars this year, much like I didn't watch the Oscars last year or the year before. Usually I tune in here and there during the commercial breaks of whatever else I happen to be watching, out of morbid curiosity or just in hopes I might get to see Cate Blanchett. But this year, zero interest. Maybe it was because I haven't seen any of the films up for any of the major awards, except for that Batman movie (if you can call best supporting actor a "major" award), but I didn't like that very much. Or maybe it was because I already knew that the best film of the year was Wall-E, which wasn't even up for consideration. So whatever.

But what I do usually enjoy, other than the montages showing clips from better films than whatever happens to get nominated in the current year, is the "In Memoriam Reel." It's always a well done, tasteful montage of noteworthy names who died in the previous year. They always leave important people off for whatever reason, but it's still worth watching and always makes me misty... not only because of the passing of so many wonderful, talented people, but because Hollywood used to be filled with so many wonderful, talented people.

Anyway, here it is:

iPod Touch

Here I am, blogging from my iPod Touch. This totally blows and I doubt I'll ever do it again.

Site Changes

I changed the layout to a different blogger template. The white was starting to hurt my eyes. Minima is clean and I like that, but some of these others are a little easier to read when all you have are long, blocks of text. Minima with a slight outline or box around the posts would be perfect. Get on that, somebody.

Also, why can't you modify the width of the columns in these blogger templates? I guess I could always go back and write my own page like I did with my last blog, but it's more trouble than it's worth trying to force blogger's weird code into straight html. At least, it's more trouble than it's worth for me, because I'm not that good at it.

Here's another thing that's annoying: Somehow, blogger, yahoo mail, and gmail are all linked, so when you log into one, the browser thinks you want to log into all of them. So if my gmail, blogger, and yahoo accounts are different, I have to log out of each one and re-log in each time. It makes no sense and it's really annoying and pointless. Why do I have to be logged in to gmail and blogger with the same account during the same web session? Fix that already.

Watching TV and Movies Online

Why pay for Cable? With so many options for watching movies and shows through your computer, only a sucker would still shell out the big bucks to the Cable companies. Well... maybe not quite yet, but the online TV/film revolution is coming, and lucky for you I've had nothing better to do these past few weeks than watch a lot of movies and shows on the various online offerings.  

I've whittled the choices down to the four best and most popular: Hulu, Netflix, the Itunes music store, and Surf the Channel. I'll give you my thoughts on each, and also ranking them in four main categories:

1. Content: In other words, do they have a large library of programs worth watching? 

2. A/V Quality: How do the programs look and sound? 

3. Interface: How easy to use is the service? What's the format like? Does the search feature work, etc.

4. Pricing Structure: How much does it cost? And is it worth it?

Anyway, let's get to it:

Hulu

Overview: Hulu is owned and run by NBC, but don't let that scare you away, since their library contains shows from most of the major networks. 

Content: If all you want is to watch current TV shows, Hulu can't be beat. Since it's owned by NBC, all of their shows are on there, but most of the biggest shows from their competitors are as well. Most new shows are updated the day after they originally aired, so as long as you don't mine waiting 24 hours after everybody else, it works. They also have a fairly respectable library of older TV shows, which grows everyday as they continue to add more and more content. 

Movies are another story, however, and at these point seem like more of an afterthought or "bonus feature" than anything else. Sure, there are some good movies on there, but you really have to search for them, and none of them are exactly Hollywood blockbusters. But if you really love old B movies like Smokey and the Bandit III or Any Which Way You Can, you'll enjoy Hulu's movie library.  

Score: 8 out of 10

A/V Quality: Not bad, not great. The shows and films look pretty good -- certainly good enough to watch -- but where's the HD? Ever since they first came online, they've had a tiny "HD Gallery" touting the power and quality of HD programs, but they have yet to follow through. As it is now, most of their shows and films can be played in 480P, but it doesn't really look like it. I can't tell a difference between their "high res" and their "low res" options. But both look pretty good, all things considered. Also, playback usually runs without a hitch without almost any lag or choppiness.

Score: 8 out of 10

Interface: Here's where Hulu gets a little annoying. First of all, their search feature is actually too powerful. Search for something like "Heroes" and you'll get 3,000 hits with that word in the title, description, or footnote somewhere way on the bottom of the screen. Also, it isn't very good about filtering between actual programs or just trailers or clips. And when you click on the tabs for films or TV, then do a search, it will always seem to search the entire site instead of just the section you want. 

Watching the programs is fine, though jumping around or fast-forwarding and rewinding can be annoying. First of all, you can't move through the progress bar in full screen without pausing the video or shrinking the screen. Also, because of the mandatory commercials (more on that below), you can't jump too far without being forced to stop and watch the ads. But none of these are deal breakers, but the entire thing could be streamlined and cleaned up.

Hulu does make it easy to share and embed clips on the web, which is pretty cool:

Score: 7 out of 10

Pricing: Hulu is completely free! You just have to sit though a few, very short ads during the programs. This isn't so bad, but it is kind of weird how each program has only one sponsor. So if you sit down to watch, say, an episode of Psych, be prepared to watch four commercials for the same product. 

But free is free. In my opinion, they all should be free. Kudos to Hulu for getting this one right.

Score: 10 out of 10

Overall score: 8 out of 10

Netflix

Overview: Everybody has heard of Netflix, the website that pioneered renting movies online. They have since expanded into the realms of streaming to your TV and computer. 

Content: If you're a film-lover who wants to rent DVDs through the mail, Netflix is a godsend. Pretty much, if it's on DVD, it's in their library. That goes for TV shows on DVD as well as films. They also offer Blu Ray, but since I don't have a BR player, I can't speak for their selection. But I would go so far as to say that they have the best, and most complete selection of DVDs for rent in the civilized world.

Online-streaming content is another story, however, but it's still pretty good. I can't really figure out any rhyme or reason as to why some films are available for online-streaming and some aren't, but it's probably a rights issue. Their film selection is actually really good, with more and more popping up every day. Everytime I take a look at my DVD queue, I notice that there are a few more that are suddenly available to watch instantly on my computer. That's cool. TV isn't quite as good, and the content is pretty much restricted to what is already on DVD. In other words, there are no current episodes or seasons to be found. If you want to watch the entire run of Quantum Leap or Miami Vice, no problem, but you'll have to go elsewhere for last week's 24.

Score: 9 out of 10

A/V Quality: Honestly, the quality here is pretty much identical to Hulu, which is to say it looks pretty good. However, their streaming is a real system hog so there can be a lot of lag and choppiness, especially when you are in full screen and have too many programs running. It's watchable, but close your other programs and hope for the best. And, so far, there's no options or mentions of HD content.

Score: 6 out of 10

Interface: Using and searching and watching programs on Netflix is a breeze. The search feature is intuitive and powerful, allowing you to search by genre, format, director, actor, etc. It easily lets you know what can be viewed online and what is only available by DVD, and it even lets you set up two queues for both formats.

The section for user comments, ratings, related films, and other recommendations is probably the best I've seen on the internet, with suggestions that actually seem to make sense. I've found a lot of films by just surfing through the suggestions and related films tabs. The only real problem I've noticed is that the screen ratio format listings are for the DVDs only, so there is no way to know if the streaming content is in full or widescreen until you actually start to view it. That's lame. Why are any of these films not in their original aspect ratio? 

Score: 9 out of 10

Pricing: Online streaming is free with any Netflix subscription, so you could sign up for only $5 a month. You have to pay a lot more than that if you want more DVDs out for longer periods of time however. As far as online DVD rentals are concerned, Netflix is cheap and well worth whichever plan you decide is right for you, but at this point, watching programs online is more of a bonus than anything else, and probably not worth paying for on its own. If you have a Netflix account already, you'd be insane not to take advantage of this service. But as it stands now, it's not worth it by itself.

Score: 6 out of 10

Overall score: 7 out of 10

iTunes

Overview: The iTunes Music store is the online depot for content that you can download to view and hear on itunes or on your ipod. Do you have a Mac or an MP3 player? Then you already know what itunes is. 

Content: Pretty good. Their selection of current TV shows is right up there with Hulu, if no even more expansive, though their catalogue of anything older than a few years ago is sorely lacking. Movie selection is really good as well, with most things available for rent or purchase. 

Score: 9 out of 10

A/V Quality: Programs purchased from the iTunes store look and sound great. And they actually have a lot of HD content! The HD programs are limited to just TV at this point, but they look fantastic. In my opinion, HD should be the norm at this point, and iTunes definitely delivers, more than doubling their HD content than they first had just a few months ago.

Score: 10 out of 10

Interface: Itunes is a great, easy to use program. The music store itself is really buggy and goes down a lot and gives the occasional error when you try to download something, but most of these are fixed with a simple program restart. But it can still be really annoying when all you want to do is download a song or TV show. Also, nothing is streamed, so downloads can take a while and take up a lot of space, especially for the HD stuff. So be aware if you set up an entire season to download automatically each week in HD. It'll eat up your memory faster than you think.

Score: 7 out of 10

Pricing: Way, way, way overpriced. Seriously, I have to pay for TV now? Sure, the selection is great and the programs look fantastic, but I still have to pay for every episode? And entire seasons cost almost as much as they would on DVD. Why is there no option for a monthly subscription fee for all of their TV or movie content? Also, who is buying movies on itunes? Renting may, though I've never done it, but purchasing them? And they're not even in HD?

Get with the program, iTunes. Lower your prices or at least have them make more sense for loyal customers. I would be perfectly willing to watch ads in my shows if they were free, or even cheaper. 

Score: 4 out of 10

Overall: 7 out of 10

Surf The Channel

Overview: Surf the Channel is a website that just provides links to TV shows and movies. That's all. No more, no less. The website claims its perfectly legal, but I'm not sure how. I guess because they don't host the content, just link to it, and maybe it's all on servers in different countries. I dunno. 

Content: How about every TV show and movie ever made? Ok, it's not quite that all-encompassing, but it's close. Chances are good if it's somewhere online, it's going to be found on this website. And everything is online. 

Score: 10 out of 10

A/V Quality: Because the programs aren't hosted on one website, they vary in quality. But one thing is consistent: It all looks awful. The bit rates are low, the picture looks like crap, and a lot of them have weird, Asian subtitles covering much of the screen. They're watchable, I guess, but most have the same quality as a youtube video. 

Score: 3 out of 10

Interface: There's no bells and whistles here, folks. Just search for a program then pick the link you hope will work. Most won't, and those that do won't look good. A lot of trial and error is involved, since you'll be following dead links most of the time. I also wouldn't recommend using this site without a good pop-up blocker and virus program running. I wouldn't trust most of these websites not to be malicious in some way.

Score: 4 out of 10

Pricing: It's all completely free, and you definitely get what you pay for. But unlike Hulu, there are no ads to support the site or to keep the production levels in check. But, you know, it's free. If you've absolutely looked everywhere else and can't find that missing episode to Car 54 Where Are You? you may as well look here. I bet they've got it.

Overall: 5 out of 10

Overall Winner: Hulu