I just finished watching Exit Through The Gift Shop, one of the films nominated for a 2011 Academy Award for Best Documentary. I was able to watch it on Netflix streaming, I suggest you do the same, it was pretty entertaining and put some things that have Boston connections into a bigger context, namely the Shepard Fairey vandalism case.
I won't sum up the movie or really even critique it as a film, I just am eager to release some emotions about the content before I take a shower and go to a brunch with real people who are smarter than more thoughtful than me.
Man, art, huh? What do you say? Within eyeshot of me right now is the following art, in my living room. And I am just using art b/c I don't know what else to call it.
> An It's A Wonderful Life movie poster
> a wall scultpure of 9 people riding their bikes
> an old tea blanket (no idea what to call it) from the mid 80s that explains the rules of Cricket to a non-cricket playing country citizen, its ironic and intentionaly confusing
> a painting given to me and Alison as a gift from our friend Josh for our wedding
> a painting made by alison's aunt of Newport, where we were married
> 2 astrological pictures that correspond to me & alisons signs
> I consider the Kermit playing a banjo on a log sittong on our side table art as well
All of those things have particular meaning to Alison & I, we were not driven by any factor besides personal "yes please" on those pieces. When you see people pursuing art, talking about art, wanting art, or creating art for any other reason than a personal piece of joy, it really starts to wear down on you.
Exit Through the Gift Shop is an hour and a half of the other side of art - its a cynical look at artists, and the junk that they create, but mostly how awful people who pursue art for any reason other than personal meaning are. I don't think the movie intended to be that, and if you watch it you may feel completely different, but that's how I saw it.
The first 40 minutes are spent trying to get you to buy into the fact that Street Artists are anything but vandals - they aren't, they are listless litterers with a great deal of talent for the thing they are trying to produce. I wish they were doing something useful like saving the whales or selling sneakers, like me.
To be completely transparent, these guys tried to deface Big Thunder Mountain in Disneyland with their vandalism, and that made me mad, so my judgment probably isn't very viable in this case, but you'll see. They also then made it sound like putting a fake guantanamo bay prisoner near the tracks of Thunder Mt. should be understood by all, and anger by the Disney Land security force was unwarranted.
But anyway, now that I get that out of my system....the rest of the film is the "What is art?" argument, which is a valid one, but it really rests on the fact that those seeking fame, fortune and celebrity the quickest way possible seem to always find the shortest path through art. They either create, like the subject of the flim, or purchase, like the celeb-hungry people who lined up at the art show at the end to purchase assembly line nonsense, created by interns, rather than the artist himself.
The funniest thing about it though is the vitriol that this dude's contemporaries feel towards him. They attack him like he has no right to subvert the whole process - the subject is someone who is taking all the shortcuts to millions, and the fellow vandals he associates with can't handle it. They think their fake names and hooded sweatshirts give them some sort of stamp of approval - as if spraypainting on a public or private building at midnight every night for 7 years builds up some inherent bank of carnival tickets that can later buy you credibility in the real world.
I enjoyed the film. I really did. I found it entertaining, and I don't know if I found it entertaining in the way the filmmakers wanted me to - or if I also took the shortcut and quit on connecting with the subjects early on, so I could poke fun of them later in my blog, but either way I recommend it, and I am not sure how it can be topped by the other 4 nominees - but I should see them before I speak.
Here is a trailer for the film
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
...Imagination Pavilion...
My insane love for Disney World is not matched by many of my peers. That's not bragging, I spend most of my life shy about it and don't really like to talk about it with people that I can't really, really trust.
That being said, I know that everyone who has been to Epcot has enjoyed the "jumping water" outside of the Imagination Pavilion. This video really captures why people enjoy it, and it's flat out entertaining.
Enjoy!
That being said, I know that everyone who has been to Epcot has enjoyed the "jumping water" outside of the Imagination Pavilion. This video really captures why people enjoy it, and it's flat out entertaining.
Enjoy!
...Pop culture concerns...
I am not going to write a dissertation on all the things in Pop Culture that irk me, because that's not a valuable use of anyone's time, especially my own. However, there are 3 or 4 things going on out there that confound me, and I'd like clarity, although the reason they confound me is that there is no clarity that can come from analysis - trust me, I've analyzed, and there's no clarity. But here are the irk-while events going on.
Birthers: (EDIT, 1:23 PM - Upon comments from Micah & Keely, primarily, I immediately regret writing this. Not in a 'woe is me' kind of way, but more of a 'this is what happens when you do anything without thinking first.' kind of way. I am leaving it up as another reminder that I am a flawed, flawed person. Enjoy!)
I don't have a liberal friend that won't cringe at this section of my post...but I'm really starting to think there is validity to the question here. I don't know, call me crazy, call me a fascist, call me whatever you want, but for those of you who know me, I think you know that I don't think of this whole "where was he born?" thing as a witch hunt. I don't want blood, I just sorta want to know if the process was subverted, and if chaos will ensue.
Let's pretend for a minute Barack Obama was not born in the US. Honestly, the only proof we are working off of here is his word, and the word of his friends. You can choose to believe that. The last Pop Culture Icon President we had was Clinton. He lied about his sex life in every creative way possible. He lied under oath. He lied in the Oval office. He lied, lied, lied. At the time, I remember defending him saying that the question should have never been asked under oath, but I was naive. Of course it should have. This is different though, it's more serious.
Doing the business in the Oval Office is one thing - that act doesn't mean that your Presidency is illegitimate, it means your behavior is awful, and it means your morals are out of whack, but it doesn't mean you had no right to govern in the first place.
Back to pretend land where Obama in fact was born elsewhere...that, under the Constitution of the US, Obama's presidency is illegitimate. As are his Supreme Court appointees, and all the legislation that was signed into law.
I guess what I'm getting at is, in the 2012 Election, the GOP will not let this, "aw, trust us" gig slide. Like it or not, fair or unfair, he will have to prove his place of birth. This reminds me SO MUCH of the movie, The Contender, one of my favorite political dramas ever, consisting of a role that I think may have been Jeff Bridges finest (yes, better than The Dude). In that movie, VP Nominee Laine Hanson had a choice - talk about her romantic past - discuss rumors and innuendo in an open forum, OR not do that. She chose not to, and she won out in the end, because the rumors were unfounded and she didn't want to dignify them with a response.
Will Obama take the same tact? The difference is, he is an elected official and I don't think the public will stand for it. Her fate was a positive one, but she was appointed, not elected, that's the rub.
The liberal argument has been, "Birthers are awful people, who are perpetuating McCarthy-ism and Obama has nothing to prove. This wouldn't be asked of him if his name was Barry O'Bonner, an Irish-Christian self made Republican from Templeton, MA". And they are probably right. Unfortunately, that isn't how politics works, and my personal opinion is Obama is in deep trouble unless he produces paperwork.
This is when we'll know it's all over, and it's coming soon, if it hasn't happened already. When the liberal argument shifts from what I wrote above, to "well, it doesn't matter anyway, he is inspirational, and the rule is DUMB!"
Get ready for it.
Glee v. Skins:
I have a mixed audience here, so I'll keep it PG-13, or at the most, NC-17. Wait, which is worse, NC-17 or R? I think R. I really don't know though. As you may have seen, MTV's Skins is in a boatload of trouble. Everyone is up in arms and upset about the possibility of flat out child-pornography, which we all know is MTV's hope - to get to a place where they are flat out accused and sued of it. They are the Larry Flynt of TV, and they want to be, and so does America. America wanted them to show child porn. I am not kidding.
Anyway, they are in trouble because the children on that show are depicted in realistic ways performing acts deemed as sexual by the FCC, and anybody with common sense. Okay, got it, I agree, that shouldn't be on TV, there's no place for it for public consumption, and it's not right.
But what confuses me is that everyone is okay with Glee, a show that is a permanent cash cow, a show that is generating numbers through the roof, that depicts people who are acting as children, performing and singing about acts that are gratuitously sexual. Yes, the difference is those actors are above 18, but they are playing children, sophomores in High School in some cases, and they are talking about things that I know Sophomores talk about - but is it Glee's job to depict it?
You can have the argument that we are too rigid as a society, that there shouldn't be these laws in the first place, but there are the laws, and they do exist, and I can't figure out why Skins loses advertisers, while Glee has advertisers and talent begging to be a part of it.
The Recovery of Rep. Giffords:
Nothing that has happened so far in the recovery of Rep. Giffords has alarmed me too much. There is not a person of sound mind that is doing anything but pulling for her physical and mental recovery from what obviously was a tragedy - a horrific act of a lone insane person. Politics aside, this story is covered in sadness, and Loughner did basically everything he could to sound every alarm within earshot of basically everyone he knew that this was going to result in danger, if not death.
The act and the motivations of the act aside, I want this woman to recover in peace. I am not sure why her Husband wanted to be on TV to talk about her story - his interview on Nightline or Dateline or whatever it was was very respectful, well done, and he is obviously a compassionate and warm man. I respect him and their story a lot.
Maybe it's for symbolism - you can't be a Politician or an Astronaut without understanding and overvaluing symbolism - but that image of them with the sun setting or rising or whatever, with him staring into her face while she lays on a hospital bed in Arizona, it just felt wrong, and I can't say why.
I want her to recover in peace - if she wants to rise to a political post again, I wish her all the best, I want her to do anything she wants, I just cringe a bit at the coverage of this recovery - because the bottom line is that the news cycle can't do anything with tact, and certainly doesn't have her best interest in mind, and I hope it all plays out in the most level-headed way possible.
Birthers: (EDIT, 1:23 PM - Upon comments from Micah & Keely, primarily, I immediately regret writing this. Not in a 'woe is me' kind of way, but more of a 'this is what happens when you do anything without thinking first.' kind of way. I am leaving it up as another reminder that I am a flawed, flawed person. Enjoy!)
I don't have a liberal friend that won't cringe at this section of my post...but I'm really starting to think there is validity to the question here. I don't know, call me crazy, call me a fascist, call me whatever you want, but for those of you who know me, I think you know that I don't think of this whole "where was he born?" thing as a witch hunt. I don't want blood, I just sorta want to know if the process was subverted, and if chaos will ensue.
Let's pretend for a minute Barack Obama was not born in the US. Honestly, the only proof we are working off of here is his word, and the word of his friends. You can choose to believe that. The last Pop Culture Icon President we had was Clinton. He lied about his sex life in every creative way possible. He lied under oath. He lied in the Oval office. He lied, lied, lied. At the time, I remember defending him saying that the question should have never been asked under oath, but I was naive. Of course it should have. This is different though, it's more serious.
Doing the business in the Oval Office is one thing - that act doesn't mean that your Presidency is illegitimate, it means your behavior is awful, and it means your morals are out of whack, but it doesn't mean you had no right to govern in the first place.
Back to pretend land where Obama in fact was born elsewhere...that, under the Constitution of the US, Obama's presidency is illegitimate. As are his Supreme Court appointees, and all the legislation that was signed into law.
I guess what I'm getting at is, in the 2012 Election, the GOP will not let this, "aw, trust us" gig slide. Like it or not, fair or unfair, he will have to prove his place of birth. This reminds me SO MUCH of the movie, The Contender, one of my favorite political dramas ever, consisting of a role that I think may have been Jeff Bridges finest (yes, better than The Dude). In that movie, VP Nominee Laine Hanson had a choice - talk about her romantic past - discuss rumors and innuendo in an open forum, OR not do that. She chose not to, and she won out in the end, because the rumors were unfounded and she didn't want to dignify them with a response.
Will Obama take the same tact? The difference is, he is an elected official and I don't think the public will stand for it. Her fate was a positive one, but she was appointed, not elected, that's the rub.
The liberal argument has been, "Birthers are awful people, who are perpetuating McCarthy-ism and Obama has nothing to prove. This wouldn't be asked of him if his name was Barry O'Bonner, an Irish-Christian self made Republican from Templeton, MA". And they are probably right. Unfortunately, that isn't how politics works, and my personal opinion is Obama is in deep trouble unless he produces paperwork.
This is when we'll know it's all over, and it's coming soon, if it hasn't happened already. When the liberal argument shifts from what I wrote above, to "well, it doesn't matter anyway, he is inspirational, and the rule is DUMB!"
Get ready for it.
Glee v. Skins:
I have a mixed audience here, so I'll keep it PG-13, or at the most, NC-17. Wait, which is worse, NC-17 or R? I think R. I really don't know though. As you may have seen, MTV's Skins is in a boatload of trouble. Everyone is up in arms and upset about the possibility of flat out child-pornography, which we all know is MTV's hope - to get to a place where they are flat out accused and sued of it. They are the Larry Flynt of TV, and they want to be, and so does America. America wanted them to show child porn. I am not kidding.
Anyway, they are in trouble because the children on that show are depicted in realistic ways performing acts deemed as sexual by the FCC, and anybody with common sense. Okay, got it, I agree, that shouldn't be on TV, there's no place for it for public consumption, and it's not right.
But what confuses me is that everyone is okay with Glee, a show that is a permanent cash cow, a show that is generating numbers through the roof, that depicts people who are acting as children, performing and singing about acts that are gratuitously sexual. Yes, the difference is those actors are above 18, but they are playing children, sophomores in High School in some cases, and they are talking about things that I know Sophomores talk about - but is it Glee's job to depict it?
You can have the argument that we are too rigid as a society, that there shouldn't be these laws in the first place, but there are the laws, and they do exist, and I can't figure out why Skins loses advertisers, while Glee has advertisers and talent begging to be a part of it.
The Recovery of Rep. Giffords:
Nothing that has happened so far in the recovery of Rep. Giffords has alarmed me too much. There is not a person of sound mind that is doing anything but pulling for her physical and mental recovery from what obviously was a tragedy - a horrific act of a lone insane person. Politics aside, this story is covered in sadness, and Loughner did basically everything he could to sound every alarm within earshot of basically everyone he knew that this was going to result in danger, if not death.
The act and the motivations of the act aside, I want this woman to recover in peace. I am not sure why her Husband wanted to be on TV to talk about her story - his interview on Nightline or Dateline or whatever it was was very respectful, well done, and he is obviously a compassionate and warm man. I respect him and their story a lot.
Maybe it's for symbolism - you can't be a Politician or an Astronaut without understanding and overvaluing symbolism - but that image of them with the sun setting or rising or whatever, with him staring into her face while she lays on a hospital bed in Arizona, it just felt wrong, and I can't say why.
I want her to recover in peace - if she wants to rise to a political post again, I wish her all the best, I want her to do anything she wants, I just cringe a bit at the coverage of this recovery - because the bottom line is that the news cycle can't do anything with tact, and certainly doesn't have her best interest in mind, and I hope it all plays out in the most level-headed way possible.
Monday, January 17, 2011
...A Brutal Reality...
2004 Patriots, 14-2 and win the Super Bowl
2005 Patriots, 10-6 and lose to the Broncos in Div. Playoff Rounds
2006 Patriots, 12-4 and lose to the Colts in the Conf. Championship
2007 Patriots, 16-0 and lose to the Giants in whatever
2008 Patriots, 11-5 and Brady gets hurt - miss the playoffs
2009 Patriots, 10-6 and get blown out by the Ravens, at home.
2010 Patriots, 14-2 and get beat bad in the Div. Playoff Round
The Steelers have won 2 Super Bowls in that time, and are working towards a 3rd.
I know Brady had a run that was unbelievable, and he is a great QB, but a Steelers win, with Ben coming off of the offseason he had, really may be vastly more impressive than Brady's run.
How many years can a team fall short and the Coach & QB are still called the greatest?
2005 Patriots, 10-6 and lose to the Broncos in Div. Playoff Rounds
2006 Patriots, 12-4 and lose to the Colts in the Conf. Championship
2007 Patriots, 16-0 and lose to the Giants in whatever
2008 Patriots, 11-5 and Brady gets hurt - miss the playoffs
2009 Patriots, 10-6 and get blown out by the Ravens, at home.
2010 Patriots, 14-2 and get beat bad in the Div. Playoff Round
The Steelers have won 2 Super Bowls in that time, and are working towards a 3rd.
I know Brady had a run that was unbelievable, and he is a great QB, but a Steelers win, with Ben coming off of the offseason he had, really may be vastly more impressive than Brady's run.
How many years can a team fall short and the Coach & QB are still called the greatest?
Friday, January 14, 2011
...Top 3 Guys In Sports I Wish Would Disappear...
I think if you want a Rex Ryan metaphor, here is a quick clip that explains how I feel about Rex Ryan. In this video, Jack Skellington is Bradykid, Oogie Boogie is Rex Ryan, and Santa's foot at the end is Danny Woodhead.
It's the unravelling that I really like. This list isn't a list of guys I only dislike - it's a list of guys that I dislike, but also I feel they detract, rather than add, to the glory and glamour of sports. Rex is a buffoon, but my argument would be that as a villain, he added more to this NFL season than he took away. These guys below are all about subtraction.
Here are the 3 guys in Sports I'd really like to just see disappear.
Here are the 3 guys in Sports I'd really like to just see disappear.
Craig Sager - It isn't his wardrobe choices that put him on this list, it's just about everything about him. I get frustrated when Bjork shows up at the Oscars wearing a dead swan and people say that she is the "worst dressed" - because she is obviously trying to dress like a maniac. That's what Sager is doing here, except he is forgetting he isn't part of the show at all. At least Bjork made "Dancer in the Dark," and was incredible. Sager offers nothing. Literally nobody would notice if he was gone, and he is pretty much on par with all sideline reporters, in all sports. The only difference is Sager draws unnecessary attention to himself with his clothes, and TNT encourages it.
I may come off as someone who likes Jay Cutler, and to be honest I don't really have an opinion. I often think at times he looks disinterested and I don't think he is a Super Bowl winning QB - his body language is confusing, but I am not on his team, and they did go 12-4, and I have some friends who are athletes who are maniacs (Hot Kyle, anyone?) but I'd put him on any team of mine for the rest of my life, he's my guy, and I am sure Jay is someone's guy.
But Rick Reilly is also a metaphor for all the sports journalism out there - folks who have nothing better to write about except sports where people literally die (Steam Room Competitions) and pictures on their books of people putting things in their pants. Rick isn't interested sports, Rick is interested in Dolla Dolla Billz. Loving money in itself doesn't bother me, but doing under the guise of my beloved Sports Journalism world is offensive to me
Do you have a list?
Friday, January 07, 2011
...iPhone to Verizon...
I got the iPhone the first week it came out, back in '07 I think it was. I think it was '07, wasn't it? Anyway, I didn't wait in lines, but I did go maybe 3 or 4 days later and bought it.
It changed my life, and frankly it changed all of our lives. iPads, Tablets, Netbooks, and the expectations of smart phones in general were blasted up into a billion bits and reformed by the technology breakthrough that was the iPhone.
The first 12 months of owning it, I loved it beyond belief. No need to go into detail, but it was incredible. But then, as the newer versions were released, and features were enhanced, more and more folks bought the phone, and the first thing I started to notice was my service getting worse and worse.
The principle that more people on a network the same size means a more downgraded and slow network, it makes sense. This past summer, I really came to the conclusion that I cannot own the iPhone anymore. It was something that wasn't manageable in my life anymore, and the network was so slow, and so unreliable, and I couldn't make a call without a 65% chance of the call being dropped.
Advance to today, and the news about Verizon getting iPhone looks more official than ever, and I have the following emotions:
It changed my life, and frankly it changed all of our lives. iPads, Tablets, Netbooks, and the expectations of smart phones in general were blasted up into a billion bits and reformed by the technology breakthrough that was the iPhone.
The first 12 months of owning it, I loved it beyond belief. No need to go into detail, but it was incredible. But then, as the newer versions were released, and features were enhanced, more and more folks bought the phone, and the first thing I started to notice was my service getting worse and worse.
The principle that more people on a network the same size means a more downgraded and slow network, it makes sense. This past summer, I really came to the conclusion that I cannot own the iPhone anymore. It was something that wasn't manageable in my life anymore, and the network was so slow, and so unreliable, and I couldn't make a call without a 65% chance of the call being dropped.
Advance to today, and the news about Verizon getting iPhone looks more official than ever, and I have the following emotions:
- Happiness for fellow Verizon subscribers, however, for those who use GMail and Google Calendars, I cannot imagine why you'd choose to avoid the Droid.
- Joy that AT&T is going to be visited by an angry ghost that will steal all of its non-contracted subscribers, about 80% of those who have 6 mos. or less on their contracts, and about 50% of the rest of the people to Verizon.
- Fear that my perfectly pristine, 100% connected, never a dropped call network will go through the same fate as the '08-'09 phase of the AT&T 3G network.
Verizon may have convinced everyone that their network is inherently better, but the world of Apple hasn't come in full force and shown how quickly the inundation and overpopulation of a network can really put a wrench in the gears.
I love my Droid X, I have no reason but to have faith in Verizon, but I am at the same time cautiously optimistic when I say, "I really hope my network doesn't suffer the same fate as AT&T's 3G did."
...Quick NFL Playoff Post...
Just for fun, and clearly not as an expert, and clearly not for betting purposes, this is what I think will happen in this weekend’s NFL Games. I am not going to get into reasons why, I will just list what I think the #1 factor of the game will be – not coaching, just player(s).
Jets @ Colts – Colts win by 10, Manning has essentially zero issues.
Saints @ Seahawks – Saints win in a squeaker, and just like every Seahawks game it is beyond painful to watch.
Ravens @ Chiefs – Ray Rice is a no-show, Chiefs win by a TD
Packers @ Eagles – Packers win, they continue the streak of not being down by more than 7 at any point this entire year, and end up winning much like they did in week 17…low scoring affair.
Leaving these matchups:
AFC:
Chiefs @ Patriots
Colts @ Steelers
NFC:
Green Bay @ Atlanta
New Orleans @ Chicago
The cool thing about that is the Patriots, if they make a Super Bowl, have a 50/50 chance of a Super Bowl rematch against a previous opponent (Eagles, Packers, Bears), and 2 of those they lost to, so that’d be neat.
Also, if the Pats advance, they’ll tie the Steelers All-Time for 2nd most Super Bowl appearances, and be only 1 behind Dallas.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
...Orton & Cutler...
Back in April of '09, Cutler & Orton were in a deal.
With the draft picks being made, the deal ended up being:
Jay Cutler to the Bears
Kyle Orton, Robert Ayers & Richard Quinn (via draft pick trade with Steelers).
Here are some notes about Ayers: http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17009731
Richard Quinn has 1 catch in 2 years.
Kyle Orton has been benched, in favor of a QB that nobody (but me, for some reason) has any faith in.
The Bears are 11-5, and have the #2 seed in the playoffs.
I wrote a blog post at the time of the trade, basically it was short and sweet, you can see it here.
I am writing this purely to say I was right.
With the draft picks being made, the deal ended up being:
Jay Cutler to the Bears
Kyle Orton, Robert Ayers & Richard Quinn (via draft pick trade with Steelers).
Here are some notes about Ayers: http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17009731
Richard Quinn has 1 catch in 2 years.
Kyle Orton has been benched, in favor of a QB that nobody (but me, for some reason) has any faith in.
The Bears are 11-5, and have the #2 seed in the playoffs.
I wrote a blog post at the time of the trade, basically it was short and sweet, you can see it here.
I am writing this purely to say I was right.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
...The West Wing, again...
Last evening at around 9:45 pm, Alison and I finished The West Wing, seasons 1-7. Prior to us kicking off a West Wing commitment, I had watched seasons 1-4 on Bravo, when it was airing every night for a few years, and then watched Seasons 5, 6 & 7 live as they aired – Alison had never watched an episode.
I was guarded to watch with Al, mainly b/c if she didn’t like I didn’t know how we’d continue as a married couple – what would it say about her if she couldn’t be moved to tears by Margeret or Charlie? What if she didn’t give a crap about CJ Cregg’s love life the way I did – it was a scary prospect.
Thankfully, by a few episodes in, Alison was hooked. I own seasons 1-5 on DVD, we Netflix’d some of season 6 and then borrowed from Wizzy season 7. Last night, the process came to an end, we finished the show.
I won’t spoil any endings, I won’t ruin anything for anyone, but watching it again was incredible, it didn’t have the same progression that I had remembered. I know that seasons 1-3 are incredible TV, and I know that seasons 6 & 7 are just a different show – but I was surprised by how I actually liked 6 & 7 more than 4 & 5 – how the magic seemed to go away for a period, then come back with a vengeance.
I know the backstories of contract disputes, and writer changes, and character plotlines based on things outside of the show, but overall watching this show again solidified my theory that the West Wing was the last incredible Network drama. With the evolution of our TV watching, the fact that with apple tv, google tv, on demand, Netflix and other devices, tv show watching is disappearing in the form that we know it.
Cable networks are dominating the drama genre – Mad Men, The Wire, Boardwalk Empire, Dexter, Weeds…all the critically acclaimed dramas are way outside of the reality-all-or-nothing mentality that is keeping ABC, NBC, CBS & Fox afloat.
The West Wing remains the most powerful TV viewing experience I can remember, and in my top 5 shows of all time, if not top 3.
Finally, here are my superlatives:
Best TV Show Ever: Mad Men
Most Fun Show Ever: Survivor
Funniest Show Ever: Seinfeld
Most Addicted I’ve Been To A Show Ever: The Sopranos
Not Even TV It Was So Good: The Wire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)