Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login

eTV Reviewer - May 2007

Miss Universe Pageant

May 30th 2007 09:28
Okay, so Miss Japan won. That everybody knows. But the rest I had to see for myself - in parts, admittedly - cos I didn’t watch the whole thing.

Because this is the land of Oz, we haven’t sent he pageant til it was on today at the same time as Dr Phil. So it was all new to me; who won and who fell over and who had a shaved head.

And my sister asked me an interesting question, actually. She wondered if I was for or against the universe and America pageants at all. And, after thinking about it, I still wasn’t sure. I mean, good looking women are nice to look at, its kind of the point, but is there goodness in it past that? I THINK there is. As far as I know, winners of said pageants tend to do charity events and actually illicit some good changes or movements or fundraisers for various needy and underprivileged people. So, ultimately, it’s a good thing, I suppose you’d have to say.


And I get when people say it’s a meat-market and its misogynistic and wrong and perverse and all these things. I mean, it’s a contest about attractiveness, it makes sense people would say that about it. But my main defense against that argument is: but the women CHOOSE to participate. They’re not forced or pressured (okay, maybe pressured by their scary mums or something), but as far as we can tell it is their choice that they are in the competition.

And I figure if that’s what they want to do with their lives and that’s how they believe they can help make the world better, then good on them. You go girl, sort of thing.

But, okay, so we’re past the ‘should they, shouldn’t they’ portion of the rant, my next point is that although beautiful and amazing-looking, I’m almost always disappointed by the women that get the highest placings. I mean, I get that it isn’t just looks, and I get that it is ENTIRELY subjective and biased and completely dependant on the judges personal preferences, but it annoys me that their preferences on what is good looking never line up with MY preferences.


I mean, like I said, they’re all attractive women, no one is contesting that. But there is that difference when anybody looks at anybody, between thinking someone is good looking, and actually being attracted to them. You know? That difference? Its like being able to appreciate the symmetry or colour of a beautiful piece of art, but not actually wanting to look at it all day. With art you are ATTRACTED to, you feel you could look at it for ages. It’s the same with members of the opposite sex.

And it’s kind of disappointing, but kind of enlightening, because I’m learning exactly what I find attractive in a woman, like the exact kind of look. And I realized the ladies in all the pageant are entirely too OBVIOUSLY good looking. Like, NOBODY could say they weren’t good looking. And I realized I tend to like women who are more the sort of woman who looks pretty girl-next-doorish, attractive but not a stunner, but then you look at her closer and there’s something in her eyes, or her smile, that just grabs you and that’s it – you’re hooked.

But, you know, that’s a very personal thing. And I did think Miss Japan was attractive and good on her for winning. I also thought Miss Tanzania (which I like to pronounce ‘tan-zane-ee-ah’, just cos it’s fun, like all the people there are so much more zaney than the rest of us and they all have tans) was very pretty. It was interesting to see a contestant with so little hair, mostly cos she was still an attractive woman.

Hmm, interesting.

Oh, and if anyone feels I’m being offensive with this post, please point it out to me, cos I’m not meaning to be at all. I just find the idea of a contest based on something as subjective as ‘What’s your favourite colour?’ to be pretty interesting.
43
Vote
Shared on
   


28 Weeks Later

May 29th 2007 09:02
A good movie. I liked the first one pretty much heaps – best zombie movie ever in my opinion. Purists don’t classify it as zombie, I think, simply cos they’re not actually undead, the folks in these movies, but ‘infected’.

I guess, then, I’ll say it’s the best post-apocalyptic movie I’ve seen. Cos it is.

And its sequel, 28 Weeks Later, is very good too. Just as creepy and tension-filled, and full of those horribly intriguing moments where people are being chased by crazy unhealthy bad people.

It’s good. If you haven’t seen it, please do. Unless you’re squeamish about gross blood and stuff. Don’t, then. I mean, I’m not a fan of gore for the sake of gore, but if done well and with intelligence, then I can understand its purpose/existence.


Okay, there are some SPOILERS coming up, for those of you who want to see the movie and haven’t. Stop reading now.

I really quite liked the inclusion of soldiers and a military presence in this one, past a few random soldiers who happened to be holed up together. The whole reaction of the military – and the fact that it was American – was really quite interesting and, as far as I feel, pretty realistic.

I liked the way they tried, as humans do, to illicit control, and really all they had was the illusion of control, which is all humans ever have, really – which I like thinking about. And the idea of a genetic immunity was interesting and not too hackneyed and gimmicky.

I liked the continuation of the idea that these films are really all about – pushing human character to the edge. Like with the father leaving his wife behind to be killed, and then lying to his kids about it. You kind of hate him completely but at the same time, you wonder if you would’ve done the same thing as him. You can’t be totally certain you wouldn’t react in a similar way, and I think that brings up interesting self-analysis questions. It makes us question who we are, which is always good.

And the end was cool too. I’m quite interested to see the next one now, which I hear they are currently writing – 28 Months Later. Cos France means Eurasia. Which sounds frickin massive in scale. Should be very interesting.

Some people say enough is enough, which I can understand. But I like the idea of just seeing how things turn out. Discovering what everyone does next, then discovering it again, and again. Its interesting, the on-going nature of a story of survival.

And if I’m gonna give it a score, which some people like and I’m iffy on….

I’ll say 74/100.

So pretty good.

For comparison, the best movie I ever watched – my favourite – is up around 92 or 93. There’s no such thing as perfect, in other words.

It is art, after all.
53
Vote
Shared on
   


What is reality TV?

May 28th 2007 06:56
Alright, so I was talking this over with my girlfriend the other day, then I put it to the people at the office I work at, and it seems there is a definite, if vague distinction between what is and what is NOT reality TV.

Basically, the conclusion I came to is that the point of reality TV – Big Brother, Survivor, Biggest Loser – is to show us a dramatic representation of real people in supposedly real situations, or even just real people in ridiculous situations. The essence of it, I think, is that they are real people and we follow them over the course of shows, which essentially means a development of a story for them as a televisual character.

So, really, reality TV involves a narrative, a story.

That is, as opposed to Lifestyle shows, like Oprah, or Ready, Steady, Cook. They involve real people in real situations, but there is no story that continues over any length of time outside the individual episode. Reality TV hooks us into human relationships and conflicts, which can’t really be dealt with all in one episode.

And so far my theory works. I’ve considered all the main ‘real life’ shows, and those that feel like they can be called reality TV always have some sort of conflict and story that continues over a length of time.

The funny thing about that is it pretty much means reality TV isn’t real at all, because reality doesn’t happen when its filmed. As soon as it’s filmed from a particular perspective for a particular purpose it is no longer real. It has a bias.

But that’s starting to get into mighty cerebrally hair-splitting thinking.

Funny thing, too, is that making this distinction makes me feel better about how much of what I watch ISN’T reality TV, but it doesn’t take away the agony of reality TV itself – or rather, all the stupid stuff that seems to come with it.

Like the idea that as long as you’re being ‘real’ and ‘true to yourself’ then its okay to be a complete tool on national television. Big Brother in particular breeds this sort of ‘being real can be being a wanker if that’s what you really are – and as long as you’re being real then nothing else matters’ way of thinking.

And that’s just ridiculous.

If everyone who was a wanker could justify it by saying its just the way they are, then nobody would ever be nice to anyone else, which would suck.

Conclusion: reality TV makes people feel okay about how much they suck whilst allowing them to criticize people who they think suck.

It's like massive negative group therapy.
39
Vote
Shared on
   


The title of this one pretty much says it all. I realised recently how many movies I am actually dreading the arrival of. I don't know if its a general disintergration of the movie-going populaces brains or the evil, money-grabber dudes at the top searching for more bucks on every franchise.

Okay, that’s a good point, actually. Let's look at all the franchises that have come out in the last decade - and more importantly, the ones that have actually been good all the way through.

Okay, so... The Matrix. That was widely hailed as an awesome movie on its own. Many people, however, said its two sequels sucked about four types of gerbil's butt. I didn't quite agree on that one, since I thought the second and third movies were decent enough. But I do agree with people who say the sequels didn’t have the same effervescent majesty of the first one…. cos lots of people I know use ‘effervescent’.

What, you don’t?

Hmm.. Spiderman. I have mountains of problems with this franchise. Mostly because Spiderman is pretty much my favourite superhero and I really liked the first movie. It was an awesome portrayal of Spidey, the story was well-written and walked that fine line of identifying that it’s a comic and therefore fantasy and so can’t take itself too seriously, but at the same time realising that it can still be touching and thoughtful and intelligent. It also was pretty much the first proper comic book movie of the recent bunch of them and it set a nice standard and showed comics can be done on film.

Then Spidey 2 sucked. It wasn’t complete crap, but… man it was a let down. It had some good scenes, but the schmaltz-factor zoomed up soo far, I kinda felt dirty for liking Spiderman after it. It was weird. I mean, “We’re glad you’re back, Spiderman,” and all that, “Noooooo!” from Doc Ock. I mean, give me a freakin break, alright? I can NOT take a bad guy seriously if he yells like that. Bad guys need self respect too, in my opinion. Green Goblin was a decent bad guy. Plus he was kind of funny, which always helps with bad guy legitimacy.

So that’s a big one for me. I know I’m gonna have to see Spidey 3 eventually, but it soo doesn’t look good. I mean, the fact that there are THREE bad guys is ridiculous on its own, but then they expect to deal with black Spidey AND a bit of Gwen Stacy as well. Myeah… I’m not hopeful. Not looking forward to it.

Pirates of the Caribbean. The first movie was on TV again the other night. And what a top film it is. Its just a fun, clever romp with a rollicking story. A proper adventure fillum. I liked it.

Then Pirates 2 was okay. Didn’t quite capture the clever of one, plus it tried to use a lot of the old jokes over… and over… again. “But… where is the RUM gone?” Then there was ‘bendy Jack’ tied to that pole and doing flips between cliff edges - I didn’t know it was THAT much of a fantasy.

I also thought Pirates 1 was a nice finished story all on its own. I didn’t think a second story could work. Admittedly, the same writers did the second one and the story wasn’t too bad, I just think it suffered from franchise-itis. Plus it left about 40 things hanging to be finished in the next movie.

Which I am not looking forward to. I mean, Keith Richards?

Shrek is next. The first one was written by the Pirates of the Caribbean guys, so, admittedly, it was quite a good film. The second one was void of anything good at all until the final rescue scene which was cool only cos of the song that played over it. But that movie just we-wrote old jokes and came up with very few interesting things. Admittedly, though, Puss n’ Boots was a decent character addition.

Shrek 3, weirdly enough, looks okay to me. I’m actually not NOT looking forward to it. Which translates to a good for those of you playing at home.

On to Fantastic Four, which was a really fun, well-written movie. It wasn’t super-smart or deep, but it did deal with superheroes in a fun and realistic way, which gets points from me.

I saw the trailer for the next one and it does actually look quite cool. It feels like there is actually more story there to be told, which doesn’t happen often with franchises, so, yeah, looking forward to it. Check it out, for sure, I reckon.

Fan Four 2 trailer

Xmen is another one. The first one was pretty good, the second one rocked, which is odd, and the third one sucked to the amount of a hundred and twenty-seven. They should’ve stopped at 2, really. There was no story, and no real need for three. And Brett Ratner is a weird director, too. Cos I like the Rush Hour movies – and actually am looking forward to the 3rd instalment, since 1 and 2 were both pretty fun – but he sucked at Xmen. I guess its just different horse for different courses or something.

Lastly, The Simpsons Movie. What a terrible disappointment the trailer is. I mean, ‘I’ll teach you to laugh at something that’s funny!” God, it’s so juvenile now. Its one thing for me to have to try and ignore the Simpsons since about 2002 when all their jokes turned into randomness or grossness, but to have to go through this movie, which I know I’ll have to watch if only to honour the memory that is golden quality Simpsons, is a horrendous thought, really.

I remember the days of Chief Wiggum’s: “Uh, no, you’ve got the wrong number, this is nine-one…. two.”

And Principal Skinner and Supernintendo Chalmers’:

Chalmers: Skinner, you’re fired.
Skinner: I am not a liar.
Chalmers: No, I said you’re fired.
Skinner: …Oh, that’s….. much worse.

Or the eternal classic between Homer and Lisa:

Lisa: How many roads must a man walk down, before you can call him a man?
Homer: Seven?
Lisa: No, dad. It’s a rhetorical question.
Homer: Oooh….. Eight?
Lisa: Dad, do you even know what rhetorical means?
Homer: Do I know what rhetorical means?!

I have this theory about when the show jumped the shark. I discovered a while ago that Brad Bird, the guy behind the Incredibles, was ons of the executive writer dudes on the show for its first eight seasons, but then he left. In my opinion, it was about then that it started to turn south. I’m probably wrong, but I need something to fill the void of crap-Simpsons hopelessness that lies in my heart.

So, yeah, I don’t have high hopes for that one either.

Mmm. So I guess all I can do is hope and pray that at least a few good movies come out of this insistence on making sequels upon sequels of movie franchise material.

I figure I’ll have to pray pretty hard, though.
78
Vote
Shared on
   


I admire ABC and SBS. Mostly because they have the balls to put on all the boring stuff that commercial TV knows it wouldn’t earn anything from because nobody wants to watch a bunch of old guys sitting around pretending to know what they’re doing with the country.

I also admire ABC and SBS for showing educational, and what I like to called sex-ducational television from Britain and, like, Iran, at all hours of the morning. You just don’t see enough singing goats on regular TV. Some, but not enough.

Anyway, serious news and actual politicians dealing with real issues and mass debates (I had to chuck that in somewhere) is something that I think is worthwhile being on TV.

Except for the fact that I never watch it.

The closest I come is Media Watch, and that’s only because it’s snappy and pokes fun at all the stupid human things those politicians do.

Ah, those wacky, wily larrikins…

But I was talking to some acquaintances the other day, who said listening to politicians talk and meander their way through topics and around answers was really interesting. I was forced to do that half-smile thing combined with the tiny exhalation of air masquerading as a laugh so as not to embarrass them, because I find it entirely boring to watch people in suits who are essentially talking fiction because they feel too pressured by us to admit they’re human and don’t know how to fix everything.

So it’s kind of a catch 22, but one I’m happy to live with. I mean, I would personally like to know what’s going on when it comes to the big stuff. Elections, budget releases, and George Bush calling the Queen 200 are all noteworthy events. But I don’t want to know about the latest bill for whatever, I don’t want to be outraged at how much the pollies are taxing us nowadays, I just don’t want to know.

Now, that may sound irresponsible, but I couldn’t do any better, so I don’t se the point in getting too involved. I can’t really do anything about it passed my own vote. That’s what politicians are for. And I don’t want to be a politician, and I think for what they do, they’re doing an okay job of it. Improvements are there to be made, sure, but I couldn’t make them, so I have no real right to judge on the vast majority of what they talk about.

Sure, if I want to feel superior I can jump on the back of that red-headed guy from The 7.30 Report and nod my head and wag my finger as Costello flummoxes around trying to excuse himself for yet another policy mishap – but I don’t really have the desire to do that.

But, like I say, I admire the fact that they put it on TV so that we, the public, can learn all about it if we FEEL like it.

I know, though, that I will never feel like it.


Probably because I’m not a judgmental person.

Or because politicians are all stupid liars who never do anything right, I can’t decide which.
53
Vote
Shared on
   


TV has changed...

May 22nd 2007 05:54
So I figure since this is an opening, the first exposure to me and the views about to be expressed herein, I should make it really, really good. But passed hoping that this ends up being really, really good, I don’t know how else to positively affect the quality-based assessment of its final form.

So I’ll jump in at the silly end with a topic all of us have no doubt thought about with furrowed brows at some point in our lives


[ Click here to read more ]
106
Vote
Shared on
   


More Posts
2 Posts
6 Posts
4 Posts
30 Posts dating from October 2006
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
Moderated by Christian Barratt
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]