Why did Disney think "John Carter" would be a hit?

You've probably read by now that "John Carter" is a box office bomb. It's been all over that Disney will lose $200 million dollars because of it. Normally, a movie like this would come and go after making a modest amount, but the fact that it cost so much to make means that all conversations about the movie will be about it's box office performance, not it's quality. I have to ask, though - why did Disney spend so much money on this movie? They must have thought it was a safe bet. But why?

"John Carter" is based on a series by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the writer who also created Tarzan. He introduces the character of John Carter in the "Barsoom" series, which began in 1912. It is very old-fashioned science fiction in that it romanticizes the previously mysterious and captivating planet of Mars. The movie tells the story of Carter, a Civil War veteran, who gets transported to Mars and tangled up in the conflicts of the planet's inhabitants.

The movie currently stands at a 51% on Rotten Tomatoes, with a painful 34% among Top Critics. The summary of critical opinion is that "while John Carter looks terrific and delivers its share of pulpy thrills, it also suffers from uneven pacing and occasionally incomprehensible plotting and characterization." Audiences weren't wowed by it either since it wasn't the smash anticipated. It's worth noting that sometimes movies do very well but are considered flops because they are being measured against the cost in making it. "John Carter," however, only made about $62 million stateside, which is not impressive at all. To give you some context for comparison, "21 Jump Street" has already made $71 million domestic, and even "Act of Valor" made $66 million domestic. "Safe House," which also received a 54% from Rotten Tomatoes, earned $122 million domestic.

So here lie the two big questions - why did Disney put so much faith in "John Carter" and why did it fail? First, let's address why Disney invested so much into it. Large-scale, sci-fi/action adventure movies can be very lucrative if they strike a chord with the viewing public. If you can build off of nostalgia for an established series of novels, even better. In the era of "Avatar," studios are willing to shell out the big bucks for movies with stellar visuals. Additionally, the Disney name still carries some weight when put before a film title. But in the end, "John Carter" didn't perform.

Like many people, I have a few opinions about why this is. First, there were no big names to draw in the crowds. If you know who Taylor Kitsch is at all, you probably know him as that guy who was on "Friday Night Lights." You know, that critically acclaimed show that no one watched. Between Sam Worthington, Channing Tatum, and now Taylor Kitsch, there seems to be a sale on bland hunks in Hollywood for leading roles. The rest of the cast is equally obscure, with the exception of Willem Dafoe. Although looking at the cast list, it's a veritable who's who of "that guys." It's filled with people who you probably recognize, but would never be able to identify by name. "Avatar" was led by two semi-nobodies, but you had the pedigree of James Cameron behind the picture. "John Carter" was directed by Andrew Stanton, an established Pixar director making his live-action debut here. "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" was the live-action debut of another Pixar man, Brad Bird. One of these men hit it big in live-action, and it ain't Stanton. Also, never underestimate the importance of good writing. Even if a movie looks amazing, if the story lacks any impact, its chances for success are slimmer.

A minor point I'd like to mention is the presence of the word "Disney" in the marketing campaign. The movie is PG-13, but the Disney label might keep some folks away. Disney is still associated with children's entertainment. My youth was the time of the Disney Renaissance, filled with brilliant children's movies, but they were still aimed at the younger crowd. If all you know about "John Carter" is that it's that Disney movie set on Mars, you're probably not going to be dying to see it, in my opinion. That's just not enough for true mass appeal. On this topic, I think the story itself isn't a big draw. The concept of "the mysterious Red planet" is very old-fashioned. Mars once set the literary world ablaze as writers' imaginations overflowed with possibilities for intelligent life in space. But it's 2012, and while Mars fiction will always be around, it doesn't have quite the same appeal as it did in the early 1900s when John Carter first set foot there in Burrough's novels. The concept just felt painfully antiquated. And if you don't have big stars or a well-known director/writer or a premise intriguing to the mainstream, maybe you can at least draw in the fans of the source material. To be perfectly honest, I had never heard of the John Carter novels before this movie came out. I'm positive there are many people like me who saw previews for this movie, a Disney sci-fi epic with a (still largely) unknown lead with a title like "John Carter," and barely registered it.

Whether it's due to all of my reasons or none of them, "John Carter" bombed big time. A sequel was planned, but it's not clear if that's going to happen or not. Despite plenty of source material to draw from, it's unlikely Disney will sink more money into this franchise.

"Torchwood: Miracle Day" Premiere - American body, British soul

There are certain types of fans who are never satisfied. Some of the so-called diehard fans of a show will cry and complain when even the most minor detail is changed. I can see plenty of "Torchwood" fans whining about how different the show is and therefore how bad it is (primarily because fans have already been whining from the moment the new filming location was announced). This perspective never made much sense to me in terms of this show because "Torchwood" seems to pride itself on being able to evolve with the times and adapt to survive. Can't afford a whole season? We'll do a miniseries. That miniseries, "Children of Earth," ended up being an excellent sci-fi thriller with more focused story-telling while staying true to the show that spun off of the famous "Doctor Who." As far as I'm concerned, fans got extremely lucky that 1) "Torchwood" survived to see another season and 2) found a home on cable instead of a basic network that would water it down. Indeed, the show is different. But that doesn't always mean bad. Lots of people love tuning into a show that is the exact same every week. Hence the success of procedurals such as "NCIS" or "Law & Order." But "Torchwood" is not that kind of show and this next step in its evolution is welcome to this fan.

Probably my favorite thing about the new setting is the bigger budget. "Torchwood" was the kind of show that dreamed big, and now it has the budget to follow through with the heavy action it does so well. "Torchwood," in my opinion, was always meant to be the darker, more kickass, older brother of "Doctor Who." So imagine my delight when we have the Torchwood team taking down a helicopter with a rocket launcher!

This first episode was a whole lot of setting up - setting up the characters that some viewers know well and some viewers don't, setting up the plot of nobody dying (a simple yet horrifying idea), setting up the tone of a show that isn't a reboot but isn't the same animal as the last season. I love the possibilities set up with this plot and I am dying to know what and who caused the switcheroo on mortality. Was reversing mortality the only way to target Jack Harkness once and for all? He has made some powerful enemies over time (and this is my prime theory at this point.) Is it all some cruel lesson from some self-righteous humans who got their hands on technology beyond their comprehension? Or is it just a fluke in the space/time continuum? As long as the answer stays strictly science fiction and doesn't veer into magical/spiritual mumbo-jumbo (see: "Lost"), then I'm a happy camper. Now that we've brought the Torchwood team back together, I hope we see plenty more of the characters we know and love. While it was a good premiere, it had too little Captain Jack and Gwen for my tastes. Really, too little Jack. I was thrilled, however, to see Andy. Like Rhys, he's always been on the periphery of the cast which equals the best chances for survival - not so insignificant that they're glorified extras, but not so central that they get killed off. Of course, it would be Russell T Davies' cruel little joke to kill of Gwen, the last remaining team member. Or worse yet, Captain Jack Harkness. You've damaged our poor little psyches with all the character killing. Are you determined to be the British Joss Whedon or something?

All in all, a solid premiere. No sign of Lauren Ambrose yet as the evil journalist. I'm not sure if we're supposed to like Mekhi Phifer or not (guessing not considering that intro he got), but he manages to play a prick very well. Perhaps as he's burned from the CIA he'll come to appreciate and work with Torchwood and become a tragic hero (I don't see the mortally wounded coming out of this deal in one piece. After all, that would be the great sacrifice - say goodbye to your loved ones so we can all accept the necessity of death).

There were some great moments in the premiere. One came early, with a CIA agent correcting another that the Institute's name wasn't "Touchwood," a great reference to the series' sexual history. My other favorite moment came near the end, in the very quick montage of traveling to Wales. Mekhi Phifer's character hilariously describes Wales as "the British equivalent of New Jersey." In all seriousness, I was happy that they shot at least something in Cardiff. It would be odd to completely abandon their old home, so I'm glad they paid their respects. Another thing that stood out to me was that Jack used Owen Harper's name when posing as an FBI agent. I'm sure there wasn't much deep meaning to that and rather just a shoutout to the fans.

I'm very interested to see the terms of this eternal death thing. It clearly isn't like Jack's immortality, because as we learned in "Children of Earth," his body parts reassemble when detached and his wounds heal. Rather, this is more like Owen's eternal death, where he couldn't heal. Except he didn't have a pulse. But the factor that plagues me the most is the fact that the mortally wounded aren't dying and coming back to life, a la Jack and Owen. They just aren't dying at all. This leads me to believe that it isn't caused by some great time/space rift like in Jack and Owen's cases, but rather something artificial but powerful that is interfering with human life. Also, what was the Torchwood glitch in the CIA's computers? Is someone calling out for help to the one group who can solve this? Or is someone trying to call attention to the only group who can solve this in order to eradicate them once and for all? And on those overly analytical notes, I hope you enjoyed the premiere. I certainly did, and I am very optimistic about the rest of this season.

Remakes Galore: "Being Human" - the UK original vs. the US remake

"Being Human," at its core, is a show about a vampire, a werewolf, and a ghost trying to live normal lives despite their supernatural conditions. For any people uninitiated with one of or both of the versions, I'd like to outline the basic premise of each as of their first episodes.

First, we have the UK version. A pilot episode with different actors in most of the roles aired, but after the series was officially picked up, they recast basically everyone except the werewolf. I never saw that original pilot, so I can't comment on it. However, the new cast gels very nicely and two seasons have aired with a third in production. As of the beginning of the series, our cast of characters includes:Mitchell the vampire, as portrayed by Aidan Turner. Talents include being Irish and incredibly sexy as well as a vampire who gets to eat and go out in sunlight. In UK's version of the series, blood-drinking is treated more like an addiction than a nutritional necessity. Mitchell was turned sometime while serving in World War I. He has to deal with old alliances he wishes to rid himself of. Mainly, the vampires who turned him who also lead a secret, underground vampire community. He works as a hospital porter, which is British for 'orderly.'George the werewolf, as portrayed by Russell Tovey. Talents include being adorable, quirky, awkward, and having one hell of a "time of the month." Werewolf lore is pretty standard here. George has cut off ties with his previous life, afraid of hurting his loved ones. He works alongside Mitchell as a porter at the hospital as well, allowing them both flexibility in flying under the radar.Annie the ghost, as portrayed by Lenora Crichlow. Talents include a bubbly personality, being able to physically touch things and even move them telekinetically when upset enough. She is still mourning over the loss of her fiance, who also happens to be the landlord. She can be seen by other supernatural creatures at all times and occasionally can be seen by normal people if she's calm and collected. While she can cross the threshold and go short distances, she doesn't venture far from the house.

Next, we have the US remake. Despite what is plastered all over their advertising, Syfy's "Being Human" is absolutely, definitively, in no way an 'original series.' Like a lot of scifi shows, it's also Canadian by nature of where it's shot. Also, the lead actress is Canadian. So, really, it's a North American remake. Our cast with American accents includes:Aidan the vampire, as played by Sam Witwer. So far, our info about the new characters is limited, but Aidan seems to be much older than Mitchell. According to Wikipedia, he was turned during the Revolutionary War. 'Aidan' seemed like a very modern name to me, but Wikipedia also tells me that his full name is Ian Daniel McCollin. He can also go out in daylight, but blood is sustenance for him and therefore he can't abstain completely without dying. He works as a nurse in a hospital, which seems an odd profession for someone who apparently can't resist temptation when getting frisky with a girl but can hold it together helping with bleeding patients every day.Josh the werewolf, as played by Sam Huntington. He also left his family after getting 'the curse,' but has an unfortunate (and as-yet unresolved) run-in with his sister in the pilot. Also nerdy and awkward, he isn't getting along nicely with the ghostly roommate. He, too, works as a nurse in the hospital.Sally the ghost, as played by Meaghan Rath. She was in the pilot very little, but she seems to be a playful sort. I'm not sure how many people in this country ages 20-30 are named 'Sally' these days, but once again, I'm not going to split hairs over names. She can't physically touch anything, and even has problems staying visible sometimes. As of the pilot, she can't leave the house.

We also have two leaders in the vampire community, Herrick and Seth, in the UK original. In the US version, it's Bishop and some other guy. Bishop is played by cult fave Mark Pellegrino (Jacob on "Lost"). In the US version, there's also a nurse with an incredibly annoying voice. Like nails on a chalkboard, I swear.

Now, onto the editorial portion of this post. Instead of writing a review of just the US version, I'm going to compare and contrast the two shows, so spoiler alert! In preparation for writing this, I (of course) watched the American pilot that premiered this week, and I also rewatched the first episode of the UK series (what I consider the official first episode, not the rough pilot with the different cast). While having the same basic premise, they each start in different places. In the UK version, George, Annie, and Mitchell already know each other and live together. In the US version, Aidan and Josh know each other but the premiere episode follows them getting the house and meeting Sally. The US vampire also kills a girl in the beginning of the episode, but we don't see the girl's conversion into a vampire like we do in the UK version. The US pilot veers wildly into a different direction towards the end where Josh and his sister are trapped in a room together as he's about to transform. It's an intriguing cliffhanger, albeit a bit rushed. We barely know these characters and now they're placed in a very intense situation.

I am biased in favor of the UK version, just by nature of the fact that I watched it first and love it. I did my best to be objective with the new cast, but so far, I'm not very impressed. I felt like Aidan and Josh barely knew each other. In the UK version, you can tell Mitchell and George are friends. There's a visible camaraderie and rapport. Josh was my favorite of the new characters, but he can't quite pull off the lovable awkwardness that George can. So far, he comes across as whiny and he's kind of an ass with Sally ("you were supposed to marry whats-his-face, weren't you?"). I have to admit, I was a little perplexed at first when his sister was introduced, since I assumed that was his ex-fiance, like referenced in the UK version's first episode. Once I knew she was the sister, it made the lesbian thing a lot less confusing. I didn't mind the sister character, but I think she was shoehorned into the pilot when they could have held off on that for a few episodes. This is the US version, meaning we have more than 6 episodes to tell the story. No need to rush things. I don't want to make up my mind too early about Sally, since she was barely in the episode, but I didn't really like her. So far, she cannot pull off bubbly and endearing like Annie can. The perkiness was quite forced. Still, with barely any Sally and the tepid relationship between Aidan and Josh, the new cast doesn't have much chemistry that we can see yet. I really hope that changes.

I'm having big issues with Aidan as the vampire. Like other people have pointed out, he needs to smile more. He didn't get any fun lines like Mitchell's "I can actually talk to women without weeping or setting fire to myself." The UK series has a great sense of humor and the cast has excellent comedic timing. Humor was sorely lacking in the US remake. There was minimal friendly bickering and more irritating complaining that came entirely from Josh, which made it less fun. Watching the UK version again after the US one just cemented this for me. As I watched them both, I wrote down lines that stuck out to me. I ended up with more lines from the UK original. Look no further than the scene in each show where they meet the landlord/the ghost's fiance. The UK version of that scene is hilarious as well as touching. The US version is saddled with some awkward exposition and not much else.

But back to the actual character of Aidan, I didn't find him likable at all. That could come partially from the fact that Sam Witwer looks like the kind of guy I wouldn't want to find myself alone with in a dark alley. He's got the scary part down, but Mitchell had a dorky down-to-earthness despite being really hot. He didn't need to impress his date with being a know-it-all, quoting history or poetry or whatnot. And there's the ethical dilemma. Mitchell kills a girl, then we find out he turned her. He realizes again what monsters vampires are and, at the end of the episode, can't bring himself to turn another girl to save her from death. He learns the hard way that there are horrendous consequences for losing control. Aidan kills a girl, very briefly tries to abstain from blood, then quickly succumbs once Bishop leads him astray. He didn't get a grand moment like Mitchell's revelation with Lauren, where he realizes where his true allegiances lie. He didn't get a sympathetic moment like Mitchell's sad moment mourning the girl he got killed. His struggle to stay on the straight and narrow is painfully clear ("I'm not like [George], I don't have days off!") We learn Mitchell allowed himself to be turned to save other soldiers during the war. You know he has an innate good conscience. It's unclear what Aidan's motivations are for wanting to 'be human' without those moments.

The exposition with Sally the ghost also served to unintentionally distance Aidan from humans. He instantly knows all about ghost lore and it's kind of awkward. In the UK version, they gloss over how they find out about Annie's condition between worlds. Maybe Mitchell knew about it, maybe he didn't, but you don't hear him say "oh, yeah, you're not the first ghost I've run into." Another small moment I liked in the original is when George changes in their house. Mitchell, and eventually Annie, sit on the step outside, visibly uncomfortable and concerned. In that small moment, you can see how much they all genuinely care for each other. Aidan follows the American tradition of the stoic, calm and in control, aloof, authoritative vampire. Mitchell is vulnerable. We also get a glimpse into the reality of werewolves - not threatening the rest of the month while human, but they're damn terrifying when they change, even to vampires.

This brings me to the biggest problem of the US pilot: too much clunky exposition. The true test of the series will most likely be in the second episode where we leave that kind of dialogue that interrupts the pace and we're left with the characters and their troubles. The US remake was also a little too angst-heavy, as I mentioned regarding the lack of humor. The characters don't need to hash out all their deepest emotional problems in the first episode. Lastly, as I brought up, I'm afraid the US version is rushing things. While riveting, we didn't need that cliffhanger the first episode had. Let us get to know the characters first. Establish them as people we should care about first, then send them into tricky situations.

The special effects were fine, nothing spectacular, but slightly better than the original. Another thing I missed in the US version was any music. The first UK episode had some great music. It wasn't anything big, but I missed it (I also miss it on the DVD. If any Americans don't know what I'm talking about, the US release of the DVD doesn't have the songs that originally aired in the first episode. They didn't bother clearing the rights to the music, they just took it out. I'm a little bitter about it). There are times when I wish the US didn't feel the need to cast every part with someone super attractive. UK shows don't shy away from casting less than stunning, yet talented performers. Herrick looks like an average guy, which makes him that much more sinister. George is cute in a nerdy way, but still an average guy. UK casting helps increase a sense of realism. Also, it helps the hot vampire stand out even more when the rest of the cast doesn't look like models as well.

Overall, if you stuck it out till the end of this post, you can tell that I wasn't very impressed with the US remake. I kept an open mind and was willing to accept another version of the show. Why not have more of a good thing? But I have a feeling this is going to be just like the "Life on Mars" remake - trying to fix what isn't broken. The original is already so good, it's a small chance they're going to get it right again. But since this remake is on Syfy instead of a big network like ABC, it's probably going to survive much, much longer than the sad "Life on Mars" remake did. I'll tune in for a few more episodes and, if it gets better, I'll re-review it. Or, if it's still bad I'll do a season-in-review like I did with "The Walking Dead." Either way, I don't have high hopes. It looks like it could turn out to be a decent enough show, but I still recommend the UK original above this American one.

New "Fringe" promo takes on Death ("strawberry death!")

"Fringe" is being moved to Fridays, which should logically send a shudder of terror down the spine of anyone aware of FOX's track record with putting great genre shows in the infamous death-slot. But if you have to move a show to the death-slot, at least have the decency to make all the promos this fantastic. (I am very sorry about the cut-off, just follow the link on to YouTube. If anyone can help me condense the vids any more I'd be very appreciative).

Featured article: "'The Event' is One Big, Entertaining Disaster"

I came across this article on tv.com this morning and loved it. Whenever someone posts an article about how much they aren't liking a show or how much a show sucks, every commentor comes to its defense and insists that the writer is just a hater who doesn't even like TV. Yes, it's debate in its finest form. No one can acknowledge that some shows aren't as good as they think they are and some people aren't just being bitter, jaded, miserable humans when they criticize a show. I don't know why I'm still shocked every time a commentor insults the writer rather than their writing. Maybe because the writer made some good points and it's easier to attack a person you don't even know than address the points they raised?

Anyway, here's the link. "'The Event' is One Big, Entertaining Disaster"

It talks about how "The Event" is bad but, for the writer, it's still fun. I agree that it's bad but I was definitely not entertained. If anyone reads my blog and also watches this show, I'm very curious to know why you still do (watch the show, that is). I watched "Heroes" for years way after it got bad, so I'm always interested in why other people stick with bad shows. At least "Heroes" had one great season to get me hooked before it slid downhill.

"Fringe" - "Nobody's going to save you. Only you can save yourself."

It's amazing what can happen to a show in only a few seasons, especially if a network does the uncharacteristic thing of giving it time to develop. The previous seasons of "Fringe" were very low on my radar. I followed the show because people kept saying how good it was and I tried to get as enthusiastic about it as others were. But it was too procedural, too shy when it came to mythology, and it has realized its potential this season by diving head first into the mythology and the characters. The freak-of-the-week cases now serve the characters, not the other way around.
"Amber 31422" took place in the alternative universe with our Olivia, still newly devoted to the alternate Fringe division. I have to say, I'm almost afraid to root for Olivia getting back home because I love the alternate team so much. I hated that they killed of Charlie and love having him back, and Lincoln is great fun too. Charlie, Lincoln, and Olivia are so great together I wish we could take them with us. I'm able to respect their intelligence as well since they had the scene of Charlie wondering if their Olivia really was their Olivia, since she was saying that they were trying to make her think she was someone else. Charlie works in a very militaristic setting, so it's not surprising that he hasn't brought it back up since that is a wild theory, but it was smart to have someone just voice the idea. I think I love being on the alternate side of things because the team is great and we have our Olivia, not the evil Olivia of the home universe. My complaint all the way back in the spring about AltLivia was that she was too one-dimensional and I still have that complaint. I want some more moral ambiguity there and I know that "Fringe" can give it to me this season.

Speaking of moral ambiguity, Walternate is a fascinating character. He is taking drastic measures to protect their universe from collapsing and trying to maintain their amber protocols despite plenty of ethical questions. It's hard to completely condemn this seemingly nefarious character, however, since his drive in life is to protect their world. He views the incidents as attacks on their world as a result of some interdimensional war, but from his perspective, maybe that's not so crazy an outlook. It's hard to see the other side's almost totalitarian efforts at security, but when you look at their world events, you can see how that happened. 9/11 caused the Patriot Act. What would happen if the fabric of reality started deteriorating in some places, causing mass quarantines? This is SciFi how I love it - taking full use of its allegorical powers to ask "what if?"

The case of the week involved twin brothers, played by Shawn and Aaron Ashmore. I always love seeing them. They surface every now and then in SciFi productions. One brother a robber, the other a normal guy, struggle with guilt and shame as it's revealed that the robber was not the one stuck in amber. The conclusion to their storyline was touching, with the normal guy reuniting with his family while the robber paid for his sins and saved his brother from the big bad AltGovernment experimenting on him. This whole episode had the continuing theme of doubles, echoed wonderfully when one of the brothers stated that just because they look the same doesn't mean they have anything in common. By this point, Olivia's doubts about her identity were surfacing more and more and she felt this disconnect between who she thinks she is and who she really is. I like the addition of Peter in her hallucinations and the scene with them in the car at the end was so satisfying. Olivia tries to rationalize, telling Peter "you can't prove anything you're saying." But he counters with "but I know things." Of course, Olivia reminds him "you're in my head." "Exactly," he points out, "which means you know things too. Things about the other side. Things you couldn't possible know unless you'd been there. Unless you were from there." I also enjoyed the touch of Olivia saying "Rachel hates Chicago," using present tense, even though in AltUniverse, Rachel died in childbirth. I would pass it up as a slip of the writing or the actor, but "Fringe" is all about the details lately. I really think those obsessive "Lost" fans should join the "Fringe" fan club if they want to keep analyzing the details. I can't wait for the implications of Olivia's journey to the other side, confirming all her suspicions. Will she make more journeys? Will Walternate find out?

I'm still suspending my disbelief, but it gets tough sometimes. This is an alternate universe where smallpox is still raging, Watergate never happened, and they don't even use pens anymore, but somehow Obama is still president and "The Maltese Falcon" was still made, only starring Cary Grant instead of Humphrey Bogart. Okay, I like the little film trivia bits they add. Like the fact that in the alternate universe, Eric Stoltz really did become Marty McFly in "Back to the Future." But please, stick with the cute little trivia instead of drastic changes like people don't even use pens anymore. I guess no one jots down quick notes in their universe or enjoys simplicity. Maybe they just don't believe in Occam's razor over there in any form. Then again, I suppose simplicity is overrated.

"The Event" - a show that wants desperately to be riveting and intriguing

I was hoping the second episode would hook me, or at least get me more excited about "The Event." Alas, I'm still lukewarm on this show. But lukewarm is better than cold hatred, so I'm sticking with it for now.

I was really surprised that they decided to break out "not of terrestrial origin" in the second episode. So much for not embracing SciFi. That said, I'm still not intrigued by their human-looking aliens, why these aliens are here, what they're doing, are they good or bad, etc. I just suddenly feel like I'm watching the less promising bastard offspring of "V" and "Flashforward." There are aliens infiltrating our society for some unknown reason, there's a mysterious event that happened, and meanwhile Jason Ritter is off running around in the desert. The plane crash victims' untimely end surprised me, but I still feel like this show is incredibly scatter-brained. We know that Jason Ritter's missing girlfriend/plane crash storyline is somehow connected to the alien prisoners, but I just don't care because they're going to have to take some giant leaps to connect the conspiracies. I don't know what the plane stunt was for, but I highly doubt the answer is going to be anywhere close to satisfying. These days, shows write giant mysteries to hook viewers then write themselves into corners because they didn't think to develop an eventual conclusion to their narrative. The result is unhappy, bitter viewers who are less willing to trust the Next Big Show. After "Invasion," "Flashforward," "Heroes", and "The Nine," we're just less willing to commit and put our faith in the showrunners. Additionally, the fractured timeline is needlessly confusing and isn't adding much of anything to the show. There are bits and pieces of character development, (Jason Ritter meeting his girlfriend, the CIA agent who is an undercover alien) but not enough at any one time to make us care especially about any one character.

I will say this for the show: I can't help but like Jason Ritter as the sort-of protagonist. Yeah, he hasn't done anything really spectacular or heroic yet, but he does have that Everyman quality every critic has been mentioning. But I could just be getting that impression because I haven't seen him in many things. I think the show needs to stick with him for a little bit as the main protagonist to get us invested in at least one person's business, then they can add on all the other characters they want in more depth. If they narrow the focus from this epic scale a la "Flashforward" and give us a more intimate look at one man's struggle to find the woman he loves while being wrongfully accused of murder, they could just make viewers care about the vast conspiracy. I really think they should take some tips from an older, semi under-the-radar SciFi show, "The 4400." They managed a big mysterious event that changed the entire world while focusing on fascinating characters. That show made you care about what happened to their fictional world because you cared about the people in it. If "The Event" can focus more on its characters and less on its EVENT, then it will turn out to be a much better show. Oh, and if they could get someone to write dialogue that doesn't sound like it was written by a high schooler, it would be greatly appreciated.

"Fringe" Premiere - A Tale of Two Olivias

"Fringe" finally came back on Thursday with its premiere episode "Olivia." The episode completely blew me away. After two seasons, the show has finally lived up to its promise and become a fantastically complex, fantastically smart, fantastically well-done SciFi show. The premiere focused on Olivia in the alternate universe trying to escape and get home. The note it ended on was absolutely chilling. One of the things I loved about this episode was its focus on Olivia Dunham, who is my new favorite female hero on TV. I love Anna Torv's performance as Olivia because she's quiet and humble but strong, determined and utterly kickass. And while beautiful, she's not some hot actress in that she's unbelievable as an FBI agent. Olivia Dunham seems like a real person.

The nefarious government from the alternate universe found a way to implant Fauxlivia's memories into our Olivia, in an effort to make her their own agent. This development was so disturbing and I never expected them to take it as far as they did. I thought she would somehow get back home and then little memories would creep in from Fauxlivia. I didn't expect the full-on memory switch that happened and caused her to 'reunite' with the alternate Fringe division. My only question is how she isn't having a massive psychotic breakdown now. They said they were implanting Fauxlivia's memories, but they didn't say anything about taking away the preexisting memories. Or perhaps they were replacing her memories wholesale with Fauxlivia's memories? In which case I am curious as hell to figure out how they are going to get her out of this. I'm sure they can come up with some sciency mumbo jumbo but how on earth are they going to make it believable that they can just switch her back? It's going to be even more difficult to tell the two Olivias apart now that they tattooed our Olivia. I guess they'll just have to wait until her natural blonde hair roots appear through her dye job.

Meanwhile, Fauxlivia is back in our universe hanging with Walter and kissing Peter. Speaking of hair, how is she explaining not coloring her hair back to its normal color? Maybe she just likes it? Or doesn't have the time? Because I'd think our Olivia would want to be back to herself as soon as possible. But that's a minor detail. I want to know when Walter, Astrid, Broyles, or Peter will start noticing she's different. Peter noticed Fauxlivia's differences before, he should notice again, even if she puts on an act. She is in an alternate universe, after all. I'm also still dying to know how she's coping being on our side. She's meant to be an undercover agent infiltrating our side, but she has to notice more and more that we're not evil creatures bent on the destruction of the alternate universe. It's merely ignorance on our part that our actions in this universe have consequences in another. There is no war, as Walternate claims. Just ignorance. It's dilemmas like this that make me love "Fringe."

"The Event" - It's the next 'Lost'!

I had to title it that because you know it's what they wanted to market it as, but after the abysmal failures of "The Nine" and "Flashforward," they didn't want to go that far. But the "Lost" vibe is what it's going for, and it's no surprise that it's no "Lost."
Take the crazy crisis situations, minority President and Jack Bauer tactics of "24," add in elements of the first, second, and fourth "Die Hard" movies, multiply it by "Lost" with all its vague mysteries, throw in a little "Independence Day" action hero and "need to know" dialogue, add a whole lot of "Flashforward"'s ambitions, and "Flashforward"'s, "The Nine"'s and "The 4400"'s emphasis on a big occurrence, and you've got NBC's "The Event." I was struggling to find something, anything, that was original or at least a fresh spin on tried and true elements of the mystery/SciFi genres, but I don't recall finding any. So many elements just felt lifted from other projects with recognized, recently free actors thrown in. The dialogue was nothing special and downright irritating in the scenes with the politicians, where they talked in broad, noble rhetoric without any real arguments on the situation they were discussing. No one character had any distinct personality which made it hard to care about any of them in particular. "Lost"'s main strength was their characters and I give them all due respect for creating realistic, distinctive, multi-dimensional, morally ambiguous characters.


I'm suspecting I've become jaded after being let down by "Heroes," "Flashforward," and "Lost." Again and again, I've learned that the payoff is hardly worth the investment so you have to be content with the journey. The problem is when you get shows like this that so emphasize the mystery primarily, (it's called "The Event" after all. And no matter what fans say, "Lost" was unique and lit up the fanbase because of its mysteries) you have to hope they have a good plan for the mystery and they aren't just stringing you along.

"Flashforward," "Lost," and it looks like "The Event" as well all had the same problem for me. I feel like they were terrified of outright embracing their SciFi side. Executives still think SciFi could never be mainstream, so I get this feeling that these shows skirt SciFi, insisting on bizarre mysteries to draw in viewers but not going deep enough into the SciFi realm to give satisfying payoff to their mysteries. Everything stays in this vague middle-ground where they try to please everyone.

Regarding the event itself, I hate the whole "too soon to reference real-life terrorism in pop culture" argument, but it still bothers me a little to see a hijacked plane getting flown into a building in a fictional setting. It wasn't fun watching Clark Kent burn down twin towers on "Smallville" and it wasn't fun watching a plane plummeting to the ground on "The Event." I guess using planes gives you an automatic, built-in anxiety about the situation due to real-life plane crashes/hijackings and fictional ones. Still, when you name a show "The Event," I expect a little something bigger than a strange occurrence during a plane hijacking. This just felt like an old episode of "The Twilight Zone." So did they go through a wormhole? Was is some weird, man-made technology like on "Flashforward?" Were they transported through time like in "The Twilight Zone" or "The 4400?" Is everyone on the plane dead and now in purgatory, getting prepped for their journey to heaven? (I couldn't resist.) Did they just get transported somewhere else on Earth? That seems unlikely since the plane still would have crashed, just somewhere else. All in all, I'm not so sure I care. Maybe they'll do something interesting with the concept, but I'm not holding out hope.

There were so many moments in the pilot that took me out of the show. As a frequent flyer who gained all her flight experience in the post 9/11 world, a lot of security issues took me out of the episode. How did Jason Ritter get a gun on the plane? I saw that he ditched some clothes or something in the bathroom after boarding the plane, but didn't notice what they were. If they were a uniform for airplane personnel, wouldn't the other airplane personnel have noticed him? And if it wasn't a uniform, then still how did he get the gun on the plane? How did that guy in the car just drive onto the tarmac? Why were there no people on the tarmac at all? I was incredibly relieved they didn't ignore the existence of Air Marshals, though, so they gained a couple points back for that.

Stray other thoughts:

• So I figure some conspiracy group took Scott Patterson aka Michael Buchanan's daughters hostage after shooting his wife, then forced him to crash the plane. That was quite an elaborate plan then since they bothered to disappear the older daughter, going so far as to take out her cell phone.


• Couldn't Jason Ritter have just asked the guard or the hotel manager to look at the security footage to show he and his girlfriend were there? The footage would probably be gone since the kidnappers went through so much trouble to make it look like they were never there, but it didn't even occur to Jason's character to try?


• "I'll explain everything once we're on the ground." You can't at least say something, like someone is hijacking the plane as the pilot? Or just something?


• I'll be honest, it took me some time to realize that the names before certain scenes were the characters' names, not the credits. I was thinking the credits were taking a long time to come up, but then I realized that I wasn't recognizing any of the names. Yes, it was a dumb moment.


• Once they're on the ground, "you can arrest me all you want." Lol.
  
  
• Why didn't ANYONE try to drive the President away from a plane rushing towards him? Where was his Secret Service detail? He was already in the car with his family, and they all just sat there.


• That whole post-drowning scene where the couples are hanging out and drinking felt exactly like the setup for a horror movie. The young lovers on vacation, the exotic locale, the mysterious strangers forcing their way into your life, the odd way they met...


• Without distinctive characters, I still have to resort to saying "hey, now we're talking with Dr Kerry Weaver, and now we're talking with Luke Danes, and now we're talking to that "Joan of Arcadia" guy, and is Zeljko Ivanek on every single damn show?"
  

I'll tune in for the next few episodes. If it's going somewhere interesting or there's actually some character development, I'll stick with it. If the dialogue and cast are still bland as all get-out and they drag out the mystery forever like it's the most fascinating question to plague mankind, I'll drop it.

In Theaters: "Toy Story 3" and "Inception"

A few weeks ago, I had one of the best weekends at the theater ever. Because it was my own double feature, it beats out the weekend last year when I went to see "Star Trek." I rushed home, eager to blog away with my thoughts. But "Inception" was the kind of movie I just had to see again. This is high praise, since I have never seen a movie in theaters twice. That is, until today. I just came back from my second viewing of "Inception." I didn't plan for it to be weeks after the first time, but life got in the way, so I figured better late than never!

"Toy Story 3"
The trailers: I wasn't too invested since they were all for children's movies. Still, they weren't horrendously awful in that they make me fear for the downfall of mankind.

"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" - I didn't realize they were continuing the franchise. Up until this moment, I hadn't heard a thing about "Chronicles of Narnia" since the last one. After I watched the first movie on TV a few months back, I knew I had missed the boat for this franchise. I never read the books and I just did not care for the movie. I am very confused about how the kids keep getting into and out of Narnia via different means. Wardrobe? Painting? Train station? Stargate?

"Tangled" - the new Disney movie about Rapunzel, with a modern twist, it seems. I didn't notice during the trailer, but apparently Zachary Levi is one of the lead voice actors. Huh. It looks like they somehow smushed together Robin Hood and Rapunzel. Not sure why, though.
"Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole" - this is another film that I imagine is based on some children's fantasy book series I missed. Mainly because one of my friends at the showing, who is a children's fantasy novel expert, knew exactly what this strange owl movie was. I was just trying to place the lead owl's voice, which is Jim Sturgess. He has a very nice voice, especially when it's coming out of a cute furry owl.

The Pixar short: I didn't realize they even still did these, as the last animated film I saw in theaters was probably "Monsters Inc." But I'm glad to see they still do, because I really enjoyed "Day & Night." It complimented the film nicely with themes of togetherness and celebrating differences while recognizing similarities.

The film: Let me tell you, I had some high hopes for this movie. Rotten Tomatoes had assured me that my childhood wouldn't be retroactively destroyed, and they were right. My review for this one will pale in comparison to my review for "Inception," just because there isn't as much to say about this one. "Toy Story 3" was certainly different from the other two, but considering the giant gap in time between the second and third, I'll let it slide. Also, I'm viewing this one for the first time as an adult, not as a child. As an adult, I could more easily notice the dark tone of these movies. It's quite a feat to address major emotional and psychological issues and make them resonate with your audience, young or old. It's also quite a feat to get me not just into a kid's movie, but also get me laughing out loud at a kid's movie. Spanish Buzz Lightyear is the highlight of this movie. The visual gags alone are hilarious. But on the subject of the dark tones, "Toy Story 3" also had a lot of nervewracking, scary moments that would have had an impact on my psyche as a child. Watching your beloved toys and childhood friends get slowly forced into a burning fire is pretty affecting.

My favorite parts of this movie, aside from Spanish Buzz, are definitely the beginning and the ending. The intro fantasty sequence is an absolute joy. It was genius to remind all us twentysomethings returning for our 90s franchise what it was like when your imagination could actually create something like that in your bedroom with your favorite toys. The ending is sweetly emotional and is the perfect wrap-up to the franchise. It leaves us with the lesson that moving on is tough, but not always a negative. A perfect moral for us older kids reminiscing about our childhood and reflecting on the years gone by.

As a last note, the music was great as usual. "We Belong Together" is a touching song, but I wanted a little more "You've Got a Friend in Me." That song alone is enough to make me tear up. (It didn't help that I saw this movie with my best friends.)

My grade: A+

"Inception"

The trailers: I was really let down by the trailers. Maybe the movies they were advertising will be good, but I think the trailers themselves were pretty bad.

"The American" - George Clooney is...doing something assassin-y. That's about all I got from this trailer.
"The Town" - it stars Ben Affleck. And Blake Lively. Do I really have to go on? Jon Hamm is in there too as an FBI agent tracking thieves. Thief falls in love with victim, odd New England accents, you've probably seen this movie done before. I love how they tried to advertise it as "from the director of 'Gone Baby Gone'," who is Ben Affleck. "Gone Baby Gone" was an excellent movie starring his brother, Casey Affleck, and I'm going to say just rent that movie and skip "The Town." And, by the way, horrible title. Could we get any more vague?

"Due Date" - road trip comedy with Robert Downey Jr and Zach Galifianakis. I don't get the good-natured hobo moron appeal of Galifianakis. But I do get the appeal of Robert Downey Jr. This sounds like the kind of movie you know going into whether or not you're going to like.

"Devil" - from the mind of M. Night Shyamalan. That got snickers in many movie theaters, including mine, from me. I apologize to the other people in my theater, since I literally laughed out loud. The movie didn't look that great to begin with, but M Night's name on the project sealed its fate. I was, however, surprised to see the other guy from "Traveler." (The one who wasn't Matthew Bomer).

"Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" - I still haven't seen the first "Wall Street" movie, so I don't have much to comment on here. For the unitiated, the trailer didn't do much to explain what the sequel is about.

"The Social Network" - this trailer attempted to come off as dramatic but ended up confusing and boring. The behind the scenes drama of Facebook! How riveting...not. (A few days later, I found out that this movie is being directed by David Fincher. The man behind "Fight Club" "Se7en," and "Zodiac" made a movie about Facebook drama? I'm suddenly curious.)

"Dinner for Schmucks" - When I saw "Inception" again, the trailers included "Devil," "Due Date," "The Town," and these next two. I thought this was odd since "Schmucks" is already out, but oh well. I know this isn't my type of movie. I can't stand most everyone from the Apatow crew, and Steve Carrell's odd brand of awkward humor just doesn't do it for me. This movie looks like torture to sit through.

"Tron" - I know next to nothing about the original "Tron" movie, except geeks love it. I wasn't sure who this was marketed towards. Older people with 80s nostalgia? Young kids? (It is by Disney, after all). Older kids? The tone didn't seem super light and fun, and they aren't going to have someone as sexy as Olivia Wilde in there without doing something with her.

The film: After seeing it the first time, I had so many thoughts about it I just didn't know how to formulate and organize them. I was so excited that the movie didn't suck and, actually, was amazing. It was unbelievably refreshing to get such an intelligent movie in the middle of summer. I just got back from seeing it a second time, and I have to dispute right here and now the people who said it didn't make sense. I had no problem following it the first time. In fact, I think they spell out most of the really important stuff for you. Other things, you have to infer. Granted, you really have to be paying attention, but most every question I saw people raise after opening weekend was answered in the movie, if you were watching closely. However, a lot of times the explanations are there, but they come really fast so a second viewing certainly helped me there.

I saw it a second time for entertainment, not to try and understand what was going on. Although I did understand it the first time, the second time absolutely enhanced my knowledge of the events. You're able to pick up more and more of the details and foreshadowing. Once I knew the plot, the second viewing allowed me to sit back and just enjoy the movie without worrying about missing some crucial detail. And it gave me the opportunity to try and catch all of Saito's dialogue, because, I'll admit, I had some trouble understanding him the first time around. But I think wholeheartedly that this is a movie you should (but don't necessarily have to) see twice. If nothing else, Joseph Gordon-Levitt's shifting-gravity fight scene is worth the price of admission.

"Inception" is the trippiest movie I've seen since "The Matrix." But what I love about "Inception," and what others have criticized about it, is the emotion of it. Many others have criticized it for not resonating on an emotional level. Maybe I'm just a big softy, but Dom and Mal's story was pretty powerful, in my opinion. Cillian Murphy's character's problems with his father, while not nearly as strong, could easily have become insignificant boring afterthoughts. They had a hard task in making two catharses happen right next to each other and somehow make them affecting. Personally, I thought they achieved this. Character development, outside of DiCaprio and Cotillard's characters, was sparse, but this really is DiCaprio's movie, despite having an excellent ensemble cast. I also thought the film received undeserved criticism (mostly prior to its release) for its lack of female protagonists. I want to ask those people again if they think Ellen Page's Ariadne is a weak female lead, or Marion Cotillard's Mal. Ariadne was strong, sensible, and smart and was right there alongside the boys in every dream level. On a sidenote, speaking of the women, I thought Mal's name was Moll until I read the reviews. I pronounce Mal like in Malcolm, like the character on "Firefly." They pronounce Mal like Moll as in Molly. If they had pronounced it the way I do, I would have been more bothered by the not-so-subtle meaning, but I'm not sure how mal is pronounced in Latin anyway, so it didn't really bother me like it did some people.

Initially, I was irked by the ending. But after thinking about it, reading viewers' reactions to it, and seeing it again myself, I have to say I like the ending. I was so afraid that Dom was going to stay behind with Mal in limbo just to get Fischer and Saito out somehow, that he would just give into the dream world and fake happiness. So I practically cheered when he turned, and said he wasn't staying with Mal because Mal was only a shade of his real wife. The final scene was open-ended and it planted an idea in our heads: that Dom's world wasn't real. Christopher Nolan achieved inception with his audiences. I think that scene was a wink and a nod to the people who would question the reality of it all, no matter what. But, in my mind, that totem was going to fall. I saw it the first time and I made sure to note it again the second time: it wobbled visibly. In previous scenes, where the totem kept spinning in the dream, it didn't wobble that much. I think that scene was less to make the viewer question the reality of it and more to make the viewer realize that Dom would always question the reality of it. To make you realize that while you may be very sure of yourself, you can never be 100% certain. I think that if Dom had still been dreaming, it would have invalidated all the struggles he went through and been a giant middle finger to the audience just to enact one last fake-out. It reminds me of the ending of the original "Solaris," where the protagonist goes through hell and makes it home just to discover that, oops, he never escaped. That ending may be narratively intriguing, but it's emotionally cruel. What is so wrong with having a relatively happy ending once in a while, where the protagonists go through fire to be with loved ones and actually earn a real catharsis?

On a visual level, I loved the use of CGI in this movie. It was used, in a word, sparingly. The awesome shifting gravity fight sequence was done in a giant rotating hallway - an actual model, not a computer generated platform. In a movie where they could have easily gotten away with CGI-ing the crap out of every scene that might be difficult to do in reality, they didn't take the easy way out and I respect the filmmakers enormously for that. The CGI that was in the film wasn't flashy or over-the-top, in my opinion. Paris folding in on itself actually had a reason other than "wouldn't it be cool-looking if we did this?" Another one of my favorite bits in the movie had to be the paradox stairs, mainly because it gave Gordon-Levitt another opportunity to do something badass.

The score was done by Hanz Zimmer, and oh boy can you tell. At first, I thought it was bombastic and overstated. I thought we didn't need a booming score telling us that "this is tense and thrilling, damn it!" But the second time I saw it, I think it actually fit the film nicely. Yes, it was bombastic, but "Inception" is all about ambitious efforts from the filmmakers and the characters. This movie is epic, dramatic and grand in scale and the music reflected that well.

While it had the Christopher Nolan trademark gloom, there were some light moments. Arthur and Eames were a treat together and I actually wish we had gotten a little more banter. Fischer asking why someone couldn't have dreamt of a beach as they fought through snow and machine gun fire was a great moment. I also heard someone make a comparison I really loved, which compared the meeting scene between Eames and Cobb to something straight out of an "Indiana Jones" flick. Exotic locale? Footchase through a crowded foreign city trying to evade the bad guys? Secret meeting with the new recruit for the team? It was an entertaining switch-up from the other large-scale action sequences and I don't feel like it was superfluous, which it had the danger of becoming if it had gone on longer than it did. There were also some fantastic creep-out moments as well. I loved the eeriness of the projections in someone's subconscious all staring at once at the person invading a dream.

This was my perfect summer movie and I wish we were lucky enough to get a movie this smart and thrilling every year. It melded genres together to produce a unique film unlike any other. SciFi? Action? Heist/Crime? Psychological drama? Thriller? Romance? Thank you, Christopher Nolan, for not making me have to choose just one.

My grade: A+

(I apologize for the lateness of this most recent blog post. I've been realizing that writing a blog during the summer is a pretty difficult task, but I promise things will calm down soon in my life and I will be able to write to my heart's content about fall TV. Hope you're having a nice summer.)

"Fringe" Finale - Over There

I've had a difficult relationship with "Fringe." For two years I've been trying desperately to love it, but so far have only been able to like it. I keep waiting for it to grab me and, occasionally, it does. It grabs me in the moments where they address the alternate universe or the Pattern but for a good portion of the second season, it was a lot of monster-of-the-week episodes. The procedural aspect of it is sort of justified by being part of the mysterious Pattern or having to do with the alternate universe, but more often than not, I feel a "Lost"-like sense that none of it is really as connected as they want us to believe. Sometimes I feel like the show is a little too convoluted when it's trying to tie in lots of fringe science, but the last few episodes focused on the characters over the epic plot which helped the show immensely. My favorite episodes are the ones about Peter, Olivia, Walter, etc. The focus on their experiences elevates this show above merely being a procedural with a SciFi twist.

The two-part "Fringe" finale was the show at its bizarre best. Peter crossed over into the alternate universe with Walternate after he discovered a few episodes back that Walter plucked him out of his native universe after Walter's son died. Walter finds a way to go after him with the help of the other Cortexiphan kids and they go off on a quest to find Peter. We get plenty of fun alternate versions of our characters, including a still-living Charlie. I always was kind of ticked they killed him off; shows with lots of SciFi or technobabble need an everyman, and I thought he filled that void nicely. Walter reunites with William Bell and gets to ask some questions he's had, Peter gets to meet his original mother, everyone finds out that Walternate is quite sinister, Fauxlivia (also known as AltLivia or NoLivia or, my least favorite, Bolivia) also seems quite villainous, and Peter ends up back on our side in the end. Olivia is left behind, though, in a switcheroo that is going to have some very interesting ramifications in the fall.

I was disappointed with the fact that they killed off the other Cortexiphan kids, but I understand why they needed to get them out of the way for the plot to continue. It was just hard to see these people who had been through so much and come so far only to die miserably after a universe jump. This brings me to the alternate universe. I sort of liked their vision at first of a bleak world that is aware of fractures in the fabric of their universe. But the futuristic look of it threw me off because I had to keep reminding myself that this was supposed to be our universe, only slightly different. It's hard for me to imagine all these people and events as only slightly different when other things are radically different. I suppose I'm a believer in the "step on a butterfly, alter history" theory of things. Especially when the alternate universe had such advanced technology compared to ours. That was probably the most difficult leap for me.

I did like what this episode did for our characters. Peter had to confront the awkwardness that was his situation and figure out how to handle being with his real family. On one hand, this is his real family. But on the other hand, he was raised in a different world that became his home. He's right to be angry, but he was also completely right when he commented that Walter had crossed universes twice to save his life and that that had to count for something. I enjoyed the touch that Peter's abduction story is famous. I also enjoyed the revelation that William Bell cut into Walter's brain because Walter, fearing for what he was becoming, asked him to.

I was uncertain about the Fauxlivia and I wish they had made her less...cartoony. I don't mean she was completely one-dimensional, but I felt like they were trying too hard to make her Olivia's complete opposite that they turned her into a simplistic villain for next season. That leads me to another thing, regarding the alternate characters. I wish they all didn't seem so sinister. I know they have respected Walternate telling them how dangerous the people from the other side are, and I guess they don't question the Secretary of Defense's intel on the threat, but it seemed too simple to say "the people from the other side want our destruction, so let's destroy them first." I'm holding out hope that Fauxlivia has some doubts in the fall when she encounters her alternate sister and niece and finds out more about what our side is up to. This would make for an interesting conflict between loyalty to her side and what she sees with her own eyes and I'm really hoping they explore this.

Oh, yeah, Peter and Olivia kiss finally. I know this is supposed to be some huge development, but I'm perfectly happy with their relationship being completely platonic. I'd feel differently if they had some wild onscreen chemistry, but I just don't think it's there and I don't quite buy their romance. It feels forced in by some mandate that all TV shows involving two lead characters of opposite gender have to have sexual tension.

Season 2 of "Fringe" has been a rollercoaster ride of ups and downs for me, but when they focus on the characters amidst the backdrop of the mythology, this show works perfectly. I'm glad it's coming back in the fall and I'm very hopeful that this show could finally hit its stride.

"Lost" - I loved the series finale. I also hated it.

I think this is the first time I truly understand the meaning of the words "finale fever." I'm starting to recover and collect my thoughts though. I thought I'd tackle the most daunting finale first: "Lost." But how to do it? I could go the EW route and write a giant, philosophical essay about "what it all meant" and how poignant it all was. I could do bullet points and not even bother to form coherent sentences. I could do a stream of consciousness entry with plenty of expletives that would make JD Salinger proud. Well, I'm going to go ahead and write and you can be the judge of whether it makes sense or not. And I'll admit right now, I am not one of those crazed "Lost" fans who watches episodes a dozen times to search for hidden meaning and then consorts with their online cronies to discuss what it all means. I'm one of the fans who is along for the ride and enjoys it, but to a healthy degree. I say this in the intro as I have never seen the phrase "if you were a true fan..." bandied about so much before in my life as I have in "Lost" discussions these past few days.

I'm going to get right down to it. The revelation of the Sideways world as purgatory. More than that, it seemed to be more purgatory from Jack's point of view as it all went on. Everything that happened on the Island was real, Sideways world was not. This disappointed me immensely, and not just because it was what everyone sort of predicted in the beginning. It was almost like they went down the list of cliche series endings and said, "hmmm, well people really hate the 'it was all a dream' scenario. What's the next best thing? They all died!" I'll let that slide for the most part. If they had all died in the initial plane crash? That would have been unforgiveable. But I hated this reveal for a number of reasons. I thought one commentor summed it up the best: "If you're the Man of Faith, you loved the ending. If you're the Man of Science, you hated it." That's very black-and-white, but it's kind of true. I'm the (Wo)Man of Science, so it was admittedly frustrating for me to see the finale veer so much into the Faith territory. Until now, I thought the series had always done a good job of balancing the two and maintaining an interesting conflict. But in the end, Jack even admits that John Locke, Man of Faith, was right about almost everything. And then Jack discovers he is in Sideways world aka Purgatory and everyone is waiting for him so they can move on into the light. To many people, this is a very satisfying ending. For me, this was not the happy ending I was hoping for. For me, the Sideways world being real was satisfying. In that world, everyone got their happy endings with the people they loved. I viewed it as an alternate universe they created after the hydrogen bomb exploded and Desmond was brought in to help them snap back to that consciousness. All those reunions in Sideways world were incredibly touching so the purgatory revelation, to me, invalidated all those reunions. Going into the light is not a satisfying ending in my book. Getting your happily ever after is. Suddenly Juliet's sacrifice is meaningless. Suddenly Faraday looks like an idiot. For a show that took so much time explaining things in scientific terms, what with all the time travel and constants and electromagnetism, it felt like a cop-out to abandon logical explanations and settle on supernatural, spiritual forces.

Ignoring whether or not the ending was satisfying because of its focus on faith, I feel like the Sideways as purgatory storyline completely distracted people from all those other questions they had about the Island to begin with. It was established that everything that happened to Jack on the Island happened, so what about the Dharma Initiative? What about Widmore? What about the Others? What about the Light on the Island? What about Walt? What about WALT?!

Maybe it was naive of me, but I had hoped the writers knew what they were doing. I mean, I had hoped they had some ultimate blueprint for the narrative which is what prompted them to set a specific end date. I really believed that they had an explanation for these things, that they weren't just adding twists and mysteries just for the sake of being mysterious. A show that demonstrates what I had hoped is "Doctor Who," the new series. I know the seasons are much shorter, but they manage to have fun, adventure-of-the-week episodes with mythology thrown in. In the second episode of season 1, the first Bad Wolf reference is made. In the third season, the very first episode contains a Vote Saxon poster. Every season of "Doctor Who" has a clear narrative determined before they start writing themselves into corners. There are other shows that do this, and I had hoped that "Lost" would be one. That they would ultimately have some explanation that ties everything together about the mysteries of the Island. But no. Then comes the person who says "sit back, relax, of course they're not going to answer every question! How very demanding you are! Leave some things open to interpretation! Don't you see the genius in that?" But I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for some answers to make it seem like they weren't just throwing in lots of strange elements without a rhyme or reason. At some point, "leaving things open to interpretation" isn't genius and artsy, it's just not bothering to answer your questions.

Well, now that I've alienated any person who enjoyed the finale and thinks I'm an overly critical hateful shrew, I'd like to talk about some things I did like. As I said, I loved the series finale too. For the first two hours, in fact, when I still thought the main characters were going to transition into the Sideways world and get their happy endings, I really really loved the finale. Every awakening was emotionally powerful to watch. My favorite awakening was initially Jin and Sun's. Their death together was so jarring and unexpected that their awakening in the hospital, hearing that their baby was just fine and they were together and well was thrilling in its beauty. And then Sawyer and Juliet awoke near the hospital vending machines and it was even better. The juxtaposition with the scenes of Juliet's death and her new life, as it were, were fantastic. What a fool I was to think that so many characters would get their happy endings with their loved ones. I, like many other fans, had some problems with Sayid ending up with Shannon when Nadia was his true love, but it was so damn endearing that I let that slide. I was a little sad for Desmond, however, as he was too busy waking people up to have some grand reunion with Penelope. Their scenes together are always the most moving, but I guess with the Purgatory resolution it really wouldn't have made sense to stop everything and make it about them when, really, it ended up being all about Jack and his perspective. But the Kate, Claire, and Charlie awakening was just as touching as the others. I also loved that Lapidus, Sawyer, Miles, Kate, and Claire managed to get the plane off the Island. However, this was when I started getting confused and was forced to confront that my Sideways theory was most likely wrong. I also loved Sideways Kate pointing out the humor in Jack's dad being named "Christian Shepard." I loved the final shot of Jack's eye closing to end the show. I love that ABC admitted that the final shots of the Oceanic wreckage were tacked on as a breather before the news rather than parts of the show.

It's funny, writing this now and thinking back on what I THOUGHT was going to happen and what REALLY happened. I thought that the big ending would be that everyone gets to live. Everyone gets to live, everyone gets a happy ending, and people would complain because it was too perfect. But no. Everyone died. Not all at the same time, granted, but everyone was dead in the end. But in the eyes of the spiritual, the ending really was pretty happy. To believers, the ending was just. "Man of Faith is content here. So what's your problem, you cynical Man of Science? Why should the 'Lost' finale cater to your fringe beliefs?" Well, I am glad that the ending was emotionally resonant and had the ultimate theme of live together, die alone, but then move on into the light together too. But I'm a little let down that the finale had to get that divisive in the first place. Yes, no matter what it was, it would be divisive, but nothing is quite so polarizing as spirituality and religion. So inherent in the fact that they ended the series in a decidedly spiritual manner, it is likely to bother people who aren't of a spiritual inclination. I know many people who are not spiritual but still loved the finale and could still appreciate it. I think I can appreciate the beauty in the ending, even if it didn't completely satisfy me. I know that the Light in the church is supposed to be a good thing, so I should find solace in that. It's not MY happy ending, but it is a happy ending nonetheless.
Thanks for the memories, "Lost." You were never an obsession of mine, but you made the Top Ten list consistently. Now we just have to deal with all the annoying people asking what show is going to be the next "Lost." Which, I think, is unfair to any promising shows with great potential as people will assess it in terms of the "Lost" greatness formula. And no, none of them will be the next "Lost" because "Lost" is unique. But in terms of phenomenon, I'm sure something will come along in the near future. Who knows, what with "Glee" being renewed for a second and third season, maybe everyone will get onboard with that and people over the age of 23 will be head over heels about it. Or something amazing will come to HBO or Showtime or some other cable network that will have the creative vision and ingenuity to take the nation and world by storm. (I'm hoping for the latter.)

"V" - SciFi isn't dead yet! (So stop saying it's in trouble)

The year looked like it was going to be good for SciFi on ABC. I was psyched for "Flashforward," thinking it couldn't possibly go wrong (but wow, did it ever.) Then I was psyched for "V" and found it okay. It wasn't anything special and I just didn't care enough to come back after its three year long break, or however long it was off the air. Felt like three years. The concept felt so been-there-done-that. Alien invasion, no one knows they're sinister but the conspiracy groups who are pegged as terrorists, etc. etc. It didn't grab me right away. I was more distracted by Morena Baccarin's haircut as Anna than I was the plotlines. And Elizabeth Mitchell's irritating son, the embodiment of teenager stereotypes, was getting way too much screen time. Joel Gretsch was much more effective as Tom Baldwin at NTAC dealing with the 4400 than he is here as self-righteous Father Jack tangled up in the resistance. Don't even get me started on how much Scott Wolf annoyed me as Chad Decker. As all the articles about the political allegory of it all stirred about in the media, I found myself realizing that I rather do something else at 10:00 on a Tuesday. Like watch "Southland." Which was completely worth it. But when "Southland" ended its run on TNT, (it will be back, albeit in a painfully long time) I decided to revisit "V" after the whirlwind of "Lost." Although it's a wonder I forgave "V" for that dreadful countdown clock during Sun's "Lost" episode when it not only distracted from the show, but cut off important info Sun had written down. I guess I'm blaming that on moronic ABC execs, not the show itself.

To my utter surprise, the show has become quite engaging. The Fifth Column has condensed to a few people on our screens, including some new British guy that I'm liking. Erica and Jack are a little more tolerable, and I'm hoping Ryan hasn't disappeared for good as I liked his storyline with his human wife. Speaking of "The 4400," the plot of him and his wife running from the Vs in an effort to save their baby felt a lot like Richard and Lily running from Jordan Collier to save their baby Isabelle. But I digress. I find the most fascinating resistance leaders to be the ones who are Vs, like Joshua aboard the ship with Anna. He's in the most dangerous position of all and he's sacrificed a lot already. Lisa has also gone from being a bland robot sent to seduce Tyler to being a facsinating character struggling with newfound emotions. She's trying to protect Tyler, who she obviously has real feelings for, while keeping her emotions under wraps enough to not invoke the wrath of her mother. It's nice to have someone in that relationship be mature and adult, since Tyler is immature and, not really entirely his fault, doesn't understand the gravity of their situation.

I've read some articles that say Tyler and Chad are going to change soon into less useless characters. I really hope so. I think it will be a great moment when Chad realizes what he's done by being Anna's pet. And I think Tyler has potential to do something significant if he grows up and they strip those annoying stereotypes away that say he has to be whiny and petty. I liked the touch of appointing Erica as head of the committee investigating the Fifth Column. It's reminiscent of the FBI appointing real life infamous traitor Robert Hanssen to be in charge of finding the mole in the bureau, which was him. Great stuff.

I'm going to keep watching, and I'm actually hoping it gets renewed now. I think it's starting to get on a good track and it has potential to be a solid show as long as they stick to developing the characters. The plotlines aren't always riveting, so making three-dimensional characters you care about will elevate this show above being simply a bad remake. My last complaint is that I'd just like to get an inkling of a clue of why the Vs are invading Earth and why this way. If they wanted resources, surely they could wipe everyone off the planet in a number of different ways and just take what they want. Or maybe they want the humans for something and need to be able to control them first? I'm not asking for a "Torchwood: Children of Earth" scenario of aliens needing humans for something downright horrifying, but something more than the standard "they need resources, but are evil and want us to kill ourselves" situation. I like the route they're going with emotions too. We all know that creatures without emotions are evil, (Daleks, Cybermen, early Cylons, Terminators, replicants, those asshole angels on "Supernatural") so it's compelling to see more Vs realize they have the capacity for empathy when trying to trick humans. All in all, I like the direction the show has taken and hope it finds its rhythm. Because I love SciFi, and I'm sad to see it fail when the vision isn't cohesive or it doesn't find enough viewers to justify its renewal.

(And I'm just sick of hearing "there isn't a demand for SciFi shows," or "the SciFi genre is dying because fans aren't supporting these shows." We aren't supporting the shows because they suck. The genre is not dying, SciFi has never really been entirely mainstream, so it shouldn't shock people when these types of shows don't do blockbuster ratings. Don't blame us because we won't support poor writing, acting, etc. just out of some obligation to the SciFi gods.)