Should YOU "Meet the Robinsons"?

Today’s post begins with a fractal called Moving On: I picked it not so much because I felt that it related to anything covered here but rather to remind myself that I need to be “moving on” with this blog if I’ intend to keep writing. We’ll be seeing several plays in the near future and it’s almost “summer blockbuster” season so we’ll have tons of movies to review. In the interest of catching up, I’ll review “Meet the Robinsons” now . . .

-
I must confess I went in to the theater to see Meet the Robinsons with rather low expectation: something in the advertising campaign made me wonder if maybe I’d already seen the best part of the movie in the previews. And then there was the pesky problem of it taking seven (yes seven) screenwriters to transform the famous (again I missed this one) children’s book into a movie. I went in expect little and that’s pretty much what I got.

-
Meet the Robinsons is a pretty typical time travel story: each and every clichéd plot complication and contrived limitation is right up there on the screen and they creak along regular as clockwork. (Listen closely--you'll hear the creaking under the soundtrack.) Does it make it a bad story? Not really. Yes, any Sci Fi fan as seen it many, many times before: still, the story is handled deftly and there are some good jokes for the whole family. Even younger children will have no trouble following the plot and enjoy the humor. Anyone over the age of Twelve can find something to laugh at. Most of the jokes aren’t even remotely original but they are handled well enough and come at a fast enough pace that you won’t have time to think about that. In my opinion the single best joke in the whole movie involves Tom Selleck. (I won’t reveal it here: go see the movie if you want to find out what I’m talking about.)
-

Like most computer animation (the Shrek franchise being the notable exception) the visuals are slick to the point of giving everything a plastic sheen. (In this movie though, it actually works: the characters all look and act like dolls.) I particularly enjoyed the brief shot of Tomorrowland when Lewis first arrives in the future. (Robyn missed that until I pointed it out to her.) The visuals look great on a big screen but I suspect they will hold up quite well on your TV at home. All the voice actors (most of whom I recognized but few of whom I could actually name) did a fine job--especially considering how little they had to work with.

-

In the end, Meet the Robinsons is harmless and safe family fun--a safe movie for parents to take their kids to that won't be the older OR younger generation. It isn’t destined to go down in history is one of the great movies of our time but it is a pleasant enough way to while away a couple of hours to while away the time.

-

FINAL GRADE: C+

Celibrity Talking Heads: Whole Can Say What

Today's post begins with the fractal called "Rings of Rainbow" I picked it because it vaguely resembles an eye and that eye and this is is about looking in our our national debate.

-

Easter weekend I caught several bits on television that had me going “hmm” this weekend. (I wrote this a while ago and just haven’t had the time to post.) All of them are strangely related so I decided to comment. I’ll give you a bit of reportage, comment on each one separate then finish up with my larger point. Let us begin.
-
Friday morning (April 6) I saw a screaming fight between Geraldo Rivera and Bill O’Reiley on The O’Reiley Factor. Check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLPuGuaZTx8 if you want to see the whole thing. (Hopefully it‘ll still be up on YouTube.) O’Reiley was asking Rivera about “Sanctuary Cities” (towns where the administration has decided not to pursue illegal immigrants) but somehow dragged the fact that an illegal alien had killed a woman while driving drunk. Rivera’s contention was that this was simply a drunk driving story while O’Reiley wanted to make it a benchmark to condemn illegal immigrants and those who support them. The whole thing got amazingly loud and, frankly, if it wasn’t so sad the whole thing would have been funny.
-
OPINION BREAK: I feel very conflicted about this story. I agree with Rivera (shudder) that this is basically a “drunk driving” story. That being said, I’m not comfortable with the fact that the driver hadn’t been deported after committing other crimes. I’m not happy with a commentator using this case as a platform to condemn all illegal aliens or advocating mass deportation. Catching and deporting eleven million illegals simply isn’t feasible--physically or economically. But, then again, immigration a very complicated issue that will be with us for a long, long time.
-
Saturday morning (April 7) while Robyn and I were having our “continental breakfasts” at our Hotel Fox News (???) was on the TV screen. Four “talking heads” were “debating” (I.e. shouting at the top of their lungs) about Rosie O’Donnell and her ultra-leftist blog. Three of the four seems to think Rosie should be fired by ABC, never be allowed back on TV again and probably run out of the country as well. Only one, (the only woman incidentally) said that it should be left up to the market place whether she be fired for her viewpoint.
-
OPINION BREAK: no conflict whatsoever on this story. As a comedienne, actress and TV Host, I like Rosie O’Donnell a lot. But I think she can sometimes go a bit too far (OK way, way too far,) Still, she brings passion to her comments and I can’t see why her voice should be silenced--even if she is a crackpot. It seems odd that individuals who prides themselves on “defending freedom” should have citizens trying to squash that in another simply because they do not agree with their viewpoint. That’s just wrong. There ain’t no way to defend that no matter how hard you try.
-
What really disturbs me the most is this: why must our national debate be carried on shouting over one another? Why is nobody listening to the other side and why aren’t they bothering to take on what they are saying in a reasoned manner? Isn’t there a place in the world for “civil disagreement” or must we all simply shout over one another until the winner is determined by whoever can scream loudest and longest?
-
Sunday night (April 8) I was “channel surfing” and passed Fox News (seemingly my favorite channel for annoyance), One of their “talking heads” (again, I didn‘t catch the name) who was going on about how both the Far Left and Far Right “hated” Al Gore. Conservatives think his theories are “caca” (to politely paraphrase) while the Liberals deride him as a hypocrite for not “walking the walk” while he “talks the talk.” This gentleman (and I use the term very loosely) seemed to want to crucify Gore for both. He called Gore “stupid” and referred to him as “elitist” while never directly addressing what Gore said about global warming. He commented on the size of Gore’s home and the amount of energy it used--and even drug in the fact that Gore eats meat. (Cattle raising damages the environment but I’m not sure what that has to do with anything.)
-
OPINION BREAK: there’s nothing worse than unfair attacks on political opponents. No matter what the viewpoint is, I have no problem with disagreement--but the editorialist ought to stick to the point Bringing in things that aren’t even related just isn’t fair. Al Gore is far from perfect but at least he’s trying to bring attention to the problem of global warming. Yes folks, global warming is real and the problem is getting worse. Doing something is better than sitting back and doing nothing. Come on people!
-
Since I’ve been back home as of Monday (April 9) I’ve heard nothing but talk about Don Imus and has massive “oops” on the radio. (Can you believe that happened way back on April 4???) For anyone who has been living under a rock Imus characterized the Rutgers University Girl’s Basketball Team as “nappy-headed hos” among other things. Feel free to look for the whole transcript (I’m sure it’s on line somewhere) if you really want to know the rest, I ain’t printing it here . . .
-
Imus has since apologized nonstop and arranged for a private meeting with the team and their families. (Maybe he should call it the “Apologymania” Tour.) This hasn’t stopped luminaries such as Jesse Jackson and the Reverend Al Sharpton from demanding he be fired. (Even Today Weatherman Al Roker has jumped on tha particular bandwagon.) MSNBC has since canceled their simulcast of his radio show and CBS decided to fire him from the radio after several advertisers pulled their sponsorship from his show. (The Rutgers basketball team met with Imus and accepted his apology but I guess it was too little too late.)
-
OPINION BREAK: I’ve never been a fan of Don Imus (or any other “Shock Jock“ for that matter). What little I’ve heard of his talk show has always struck me as frankly mean-spirited and I don’t need that first thing in the morning (or any other time of the day). What he said was completely indefensible--not to mention monumentally stupid. That being said, I’m not sure Jackson or Sharpton have a lot of room to comment. Both these men have repeatedly bashed Whites in general and Jews in particular and gotten away with it. Not a good thing in my book. Don Imus has had a long history of denigrating pretty much everyone who crosses his path so it shouldn’t come as a big surprise when he’s insulting. That’s why his audience tuned in.
-
Maybe it’s just because I’m a white male but I don’t find this all that upsetting. To me, this is a tempest of colossal proportions in a tiny teapot. Rappers and black commedians routinely use words like “niggaz” in their lyrics and refer to women as “bitches” and “hos”. Could someone please explain to me why it’s OK for them to use these words but not others. I don’t buy the argument that it comes “out of their culture” and the words are simply part of their daily lives. If you don’t want the words used against you please don’t use them yourselves.
-
AND MY POINT IS . . .
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are long-standing privileges guaranteed by our constitution. And, like it or not that right includes speech that others might label “offensive.” Celebrities and newscasters are no different than anyone else: they have the same right as anyone else to speak--no matter how hateful or asinine their comments might be. We as entertainment consumers have a simple option. If we don’t like what we hear all we have to do is tune out, change the station or turn down the volume. Furthermore--we have the option of encouraging sponsors of their program to pull out. In the end--ratings and advertiser revenue will silence their voices and leave them to their fans.

"Targeting" American Idol

This post begins with a fractal image called Target Star. I picked it because Target is a major sponsor of American Idol and Howrd Stern is "targeting" the show. Ah well, here's my first (and hopefully last rant about the show).

-

I promised myself I’d never write a blog about American Idol. Reviews of the weekly shows and snarky comments about the contestants, judges and the weekly sacrifice seemed like too much work--especially since nobody is paying me to write this. Then something in today’s paper (April 3) compelled me to belly up to the keyboard (literally) and start writing.
-
It seems that notorious “shock jock” Howard Stern has decided to “ruin” American Idol. He has teamed with web site votefortheworst.com and is promoting minimally-talented contestant Sanjaya Melakar. “Were corrupting the entire thing,” Stern was quoted in the Orange County Register on April 3. “All of us are routing American Idol. It’s so great. The ‘Number One’ show on television and it’s getting ruined.”
-
I’m no fan of Howard Stern and this latest stunt doesn't change that in a good way. It seems like another one of his mean-spirited pranks. If “Idol” has run its course why not let it die a natural death as ratings decline? Television has always “culled the herd” in this manner. Is there any need to hasten the process along? What exactly does someone get out of destroying something just because you can? Does Howard Stern take some sort of perverse pleasure in wielding this kind of power or is it merely a publicity stunt? Maybe he's just delusional. As usual I seem to have tons of questions with no answers.
-
No doubt executives at the other television networks are on their knees praying Stern succeeds. American Idol routinely smashes everything put up against it (although Dancing With the Stars is getting better ratings--for now at least). And I must admit that American Idol often frustrates and annoys me: it is completely overblown and the never-ending product placement gets old real fast. Also lets not forget the cheesy production numbers that were old hat when “Up With People” did them in the 1970s. The weekly “results” show really ought to be done in five minutes--not stretched often to a full hour.
-
But in the end those are minor quibbles: American Idol is one of the few programs left on television with cross-generational appeal. How many other show have entire families sitting down together to watch? How many other shows have such a broad national appeal? Not very many I’d think . . .
-
At it’s core American Idol is an old idea gussied up for a new generation. Arthur Godfrey’s Talent Scouts and Ted Mack’s Amateur Hour were staples of early TV: this new version offers greater fame and a bigger prize but it’s still the same formula. Young people with big dreams (and hopefully big talent to match) compete to make their dreams come true. For the winners the payoff is huge--for a while at least. Do the producers of the show make their contestants sign draconian contracts that will keep these folk wrapped up like a spider in a web for the life of whatever career they might have? Uh, yes. Are the judges needlessly cruel to those auditioning before them? Again, yes! But then again, show business ain’t easy: there’s a lot of rejection out there and would-be actors and singers need to develop a thick skin. And surely by now prospective contestants must realize what they’re letting themselves in for. (Remember, like any other “deal with the devil” there’s a price to pay for the fast track to fame.) People complain but public eats it up so the producers are just going to keep dishing it out to eager pigs. And even with all its faults, does Idol deserve to be sunk by a megalomaniac just because he can??? I don’t think so.
-
David della Tezra, founder of votefortheworst.com claims to be a “fan” of American Idol. He just wants to keep the “funny and corny” guy around. (Dunno why--maybe that plays into our national inability to turn away from watching a train wreck.) He says he is simply helping Sanjaya “pursue his dream” so it doesn’t really bother him that his campaign may well be voting off better singers. Della Tezra is also quick to point out that other Idol ‘worsts” have included Jennifer Hudson (who eventually won an Oscar) and Taylor Hicks (who ended up winning the whole contest in 2006.
-
Will Sanjaya win? At this point I’d say no: there are a few more easy targets (Phil Stacey and Haley Scarnato) who will go before him then the quality will truly assert itself and Sanjaya will go away. Maybe he’ll develop a certain transitory fame like William Hung or he might actually develop into a real singer. (After all, he’s only 17 and has never had formal training. Given some sasoning the kid might actually turn out to be somebody.)
-
And no matter what happens Robyn and I will keep watching. (There’s nothing else even on at the same time anyway.) We’ll see if the prize goes to a true original (Blake Lewis) or if it’ll be one of the “three Divas” (Melinda Doolittle, Lakeesha Jones or Jordin Sparks) or will it be a complete upset (Chris Richardson). Right now I predict “Mindy Doo” (shudder--I didn’t come up with that) will beat Jordin in the finals. I think though that five years down the line Blake will be the only one we remember.
-
Hmm--I see I’ve wandered off topic (again!) so I guess I should try to drag myself back to the point. If you don’t like American Idol here’s an obvious solution. DON’T WATCH IT!!! Low ratings will kill off the show quickly enough. As for the contestants, talent will tell. Those with a real gift will do well--whether they win or not. (Chris Daughtry is a prime example: he came in forth place and now haw a multi-platinum album--which he made on his own terms.) But we don’t need to be encouraging televised train wrecks. (Our politicians do a pretty fine job of that on their own already . . .)

UNfriendly Fire

This post begins with the fractal image called Stained Glass 57, (It is one of a series of images created from an equation that creates images that look like stained glass.) I picked this one because of the cross motif and somber monochromatic colors. It just seemed to fit the subject matter. Ah well, on with the post . . .

-

If you don’t know Pat Tillman’s story you should: the aftermath of 9-11 inspired him to give up a promising career in the National Football League and join the United States Army and train as an Army Ranger, He was eventually posted to Afghanistan where he was killed in April 2004. It was a pretty big story for a while--that grew even sadder when it was revealed that Tillman had been killed by “friendly” fire.

-
The wheels of justice turn slowly so it took the Military almost two years to investigate the incident. On March 26 John Cochran reported on ABC News.com that the Pentagon had determined “no crime” was committed although errors were made. Here are some relevant quotes form the article. “. . . a three-star general is among those accused of mishandling the information released about the death of former NFL star Pat Tillman, who was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan in April 2004 . . .. Monday afternoon (March 24) officials said there was no criminal wrongdoing by the Army Ranger who'd fired the fatal shots . . . (Tillman's) death appears to have been a classic case of accidental death caused by the "fog of war." It took four investigations to come to . . . the final conclusions. Defense Department officials admitted the first three investigations were flawed. “

-
Continuing quotes from the article: “the men . . . knew he'd been killed by friendly fire. A number of high-ranking officers at least had a strong indication . . . Iit took five weeks before Tillman's family and the rest of the nation were told the truth. The report names nine army officers responsible for that mistake, including four generals.”
-

Quoting further: “we were told to keep our mouths shut," said Sgt. Jason Parsons . . . The truth came out only after a nationally televised memorial service in May 2004, where Tillman was awarded the Silver Star. The Army said commanders wanted to complete their investigation before telling the Tillmans. "The largest issue here is one of candor with the public," said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice. "This is, unfortunately, not an isolated incident."

-

NOTE: the above text was edited for space reasons. You can check out the entire article here. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2982976&page=1
-

Was it a cover up? I dunno--but for me the answer seems to be “yes.” Too many aspects of this story just don't jive and that makes me feel uncomfortable. Still, my feelings are irrelevant in this particular issue. Situations like this happen all the time in wartime and accidents do happen. That being said, I find some parts of the story particularly disturbing. Those involved being told to “keep (their) mouths shut” by superior officers, the burning of the uniform and other things make me wonder why those involved felt the need to behave the way they did.

-

Would this have even happened had Pat Tillman not been something of a celebrity? Was there a concerted attempt to mislead the public? Was this an attempt to “manufacture” a hero for a "war" that was already growing unpopular with the average American or was this just a colossal mistake all around? The only people who really know are those directly involved and I doubt they will be coming forward with the truth any time soon.

-
This is what inspired me to write this post: KTLA “talking head” Carlos Amescua suggested that Tillman’s death was covered up to “protect Tillman’s family.” Never having been a parent I can’t speak with any authority but I truly believe I’d want to know the truth about how my loved-one died. I wouldn’t want someone sugar coating (i.e. lying to me) the news to "spare my feelings". Even the suggestion that the news was covered up to protect the family completely offends me.

-
As an opponent of the Iraq war maybe I’m not the best person to be commenting on this story. My biases are pretty much out there for everyone to see. I believe situations like this needs to be part of our national dialog. It doesn’t matter whether you are for or against the war the sacrifices of the men and women fighting it should never be minimized and their service should be recognized and respected by everyone. That being said, the military leadership (and indeed the leadership of this country) owes a duty to the American People to be as honest and forthcoming as possible and to be called to account when they aren’t being truthful. Sadly, I fear that in this case that simply won’t happen: a few individuals will be "scapegoated" and the major playerw will walk away unscathed. That thought makes it just that much harder for the average American like me to trust our leaders in the future.