It Turns out Batman is a Boner!

This made me laugh.

First Thoughts on New Moon: A Step in the Right Direction

Almost a year to the day after Twilight hit theaters, it's sequel New Moon has teens--well women in general--flocking to the theater.

New Moon is by far the most internal book of Stephanie Meyer's Twilight Saga. Books that take place almost entirely inside of the protagonist's head are difficult to translate to the screen--see the labored adaption of Twilight. This and a thousand other reason had me worried when I entered the theater to see New Moon. The book centers on the Bella Swan's internal journey towards the light and away from Edward. When Edward leaves Bella for her own good, Bella spends nearly 200 pages learning how to live again after her world comes crashing down. Soon Bella finds Jacob Black, an all-to-willing family friend, to help her along in her journey. Meyer spends chapters cultivating, growing, and nurturing the relationship between Jacob and Bella. The quiet transformation that Bella undergoes under the warm and watchful encouragement of Jacob is what has so many...I want to say teens but sitting in the theater this afternoon with more middle age women than screaming teens makes me say women hopping on Team Jacob. The movie was bound by the constraints of time, already running at just over 2 hours, the movie does not quite do justice to the tender affection that develops so slowly between Jacob and Bella, but I think that this has more to do with lack to time than a lack of reverence for the relationship. Weitz, the director, and Rosenburg, the screenwriter, are incredibly faithful to the book on the whole. There will be no cries for scenes from the book that didn't make it into the movie like there were after Twilight, and furthermore Weitz and Rosenburg try to added just enough to the story to give the viewer something to care about, something to strive for--though this hook never quite sinks into the viewer. On the whole, Weitz's directing style is far less distracting than was Catherine Hardwicke's direction in Twilight. There were definitely moments that the camera movement detracted from the story rather added to it, but these moments occur far less often with Weitz at the helm. Furthermore, Weitz's camera direction kept the camera out of the faces of the actors and often allows several actors and even some of the background into the shot.

The acting in this movie is at least on par with the acting in the first film. Kristen Stewart definitely has the ability to portray broken-souled mopey-ness in spades. Her portrayal of Bella is a dark and broken exterior overlaying a stubborn will to live and a will to hold on that is at the best of times captivating and at the worst of times annoyingly pathetic to point of forcing the viewer to wonder why either Edward or Jacob would want her. When Bella is left by Edward in the woods with the promise that she'll never see him again, it's heartbreaking. When the directorial effort to keep the story moving gets out of her way, Stewart definitely will pull tears from even some of the hardest viewers. Stewart's performance is imminently watchable even if not her best. Stewart managed to be less...blinky than she was in her first portrayal of Bella and, mercifully, keep the lower lip biting to a minimum. Billy Burke is back as Charlie Swan and he is just as lovable in the role as he was last year. Robert Pattinson is largely absent from this adaptation except during the opening and closing of the film. When he does appear, Pattinson's acting is a bit labored but the hoards of "Twihards" wont mind because Pattinson still manages to throw heart-melting looks at Stewart. Pattinson's American accent is much better and much less like a bad imitation of a New York gang movie. On the plus side, Pattinson's Edward is enjoyable during the confrontation scene at the end of the movie. The problem with Edward is that he is gone from the screen so often that even the strong chemistry between Stewart and Pattinson seems to slip from the viewers mind. Then there is Taylor Lautner. Lautner is the most charming of the three principles in this film. Lautner and Stewart's relationship building scenes at the beginning of the film are sweet and enjoyable but the romantic chemistry between the pair is never quite where it should be. Overall Lautner's performance is strong and it should promise good things for Eclipse when the real Jacob, Edward, Bella triangle comes to a head.

On the whole, the film, though quieter than the first, is a better than Twilight. The movie is, as is the book, merely a transition from Twilight to Eclipse. In the end, the movie will be loved by Twilight lovers and hated by Twilight haters. Those who are neither lovers nor haters of the saga will feel somewhat ambivalent when the movie ends.

Old Shows I Still Love: The Office (Thursdays 9/8c NBC)

When I Started Watching: Spring 2007—middle of Season 3.

Why I Started Watching: I basically had to in order to understand half of the jokes being made around me. Plus my roommates and I would have DVD marathons or various shows and The Office season one came up one night (as the season is only 6 episodes long).

Why I Kept Watching: The show is hilarious. The awkwardness and absence of a laugh track made the show unique and enjoyable. Furthermore, the show as a prime-time comedy that played to both crude humor as well as more intelligent comments on society. Plus the Jim and Pam dynamic was enough to almost force me to invest in the show—that whole will they/wont they thing gets me almost every time.

What Worried Me When I First Started Following the Show: Nothing much, the shows awkwardness was very enjoyable. I began watch after the show had become a success with critics and viewers as was not in danger of being canceled as it had been at the end of season one and through the early part of season two.

What is Great about the Show: The ensemble cast. The cast encompasses a wide variety of actors, playing a wide variety of characters. The beauty of the show is that it aims at being very real and the jokes tend to be very narrow. Broad comedy can be fun but it is always nice when writers allow an audience to use their intelligence. The Jim and Pam dynamic was adorable from episode one, and the Jim and Dwight feud was hilarious from the first jello encased stapler. The show and characters it centers on have been allowed to grow allowing for well rounded characters and provides from great comedy highlighted by great dramatic moments.

What Worries Me about the Show Now: The Office used to be about crock-pot humor—the jokes were allowed to simmer rather than jumping for the quick laugh. Over time the show has moved from this slow-simmering humor towards more microwaves style humor—broad jokes for easy laughs. The desire for quick easy laughs has removed some of the charm this little British convert show that challenged prime-time comedic preconceptions. Furthermore, the Jim and Pam dynamic has changed. The army of writers (and it is large enough to be an army) did an excellent job of resolving the will they/wont they romance without killing the show. However, Jim and Pam are now married and about soon to be parents. I’m not sure how this dynamic is going to affect the show. To add to this problem is that Jim is now co-manager so the Dwight/Jim relationship is also off kilter, I think this may be a little too much change all at the same time. I’m not sure what the drive of the show will be in the wake of these changes.

Why I’ll Keep Watching: I’ve invested 5 seasons worth of episodes in these characters and they’re relationships. I’m invested in the future of these characters. I’m waiting to see how the Andy/Erin could be romance will work out, the Angela/Dwight romance will rekindle, and the continued shenanigans of Michael’s interaction in the office.

Favorite Episodes: “Diversity Day”, “Health Care”, “The Alliance”, “The Dundies”, “The Secret”, “Casino Night”, “The Negotiation”, “Product Recall”, “Traveling Salesman”, “Beach Games”, “The Job”, “Fun Run”, “The Deposition”, “Dinner Party”, “The Duel”, “Two Weeks”, “Niagara”

Old Shows I Still Love: Bones (Thursday 8/7c Fox)

When I Started Watching: During the freshman season in 2005 until the show was moved (for the first of a thousand times) and it conflicted with required activities. I rediscovered the show in the fall of 2008 almost by accident.

Why I Started Watching: The show started off with a lead in from House, it was only too easy to leave the TV on after House was over. Once the show began to be punted around the network line up I wanted to follow but was conflicted out.

What Worried Me When I First Started Following the Show: Nothing much, I was a little concerned about how the writers and producers were going to deal with the chemistry between Booth and Brennan (David Boreanaz and Emily Deschanel).

Why I Kept Watching: The show is smart. In a market cuckholded by CSI, Bones brings real intelligence to forensic crime solving. The chemistry in the show is both literal and physical. I enjoy the intelligent use of science behind the crime solving duo as well as the chemistry between the two leads. What can I say, I’m a sucker for a will they/wont they relationship.

What is Great about the Show: The producers of this show Hart Hanson and Stephen Nathan show adept handling of complex science and a willingness to tackle interpersonal relationships. The science in the show is real and supervised by real-life forensic anthropologist/novelist Kathy Reichs. But on top of tossing around 10 dollar anthropological concepts like its nothing, the writers have done a good job of giving the viewers just enough to keep them hooked on the Booth and Brennan relationship. Furthermore, the show runners have shown a remarkable willingness to shift the cast around. When the show was growing heavy on empirical sciences, the runners brought in psychologists—first a recurring role for Stephen Fry and then a cast membership for John Francis Daily. The addition of the psychologists on the show has rounded out the cast nicely. Then the support workers in the lab are fantastic, but again to keep the show fresh Zach Addy (Eric Millegan), assistant to Dr. Brennan, joins forces with a cult-based serial killer. The result was a refreshing breath of air in the form of a rotating troop of interns. The show has done a nice job of keeping things fresh and, as a result, has been able to keep a steady number of viewers as the show travels around the network—a journey that would have killed a lesser show.

What Worries Me about the Show Now: Originally the season 4 finale was a bit worrisome. All of a sudden Booth has a brain tumor, and he wakes up apparently not knowing who Brennan is—what?!? However, the season finale viewed through the lens of the first six episodes of season 5 is less worrisome. Apparently Booth’s “who are you?” did not mean that literally didn’t know who Brennan was but rather that he wasn’t sure if she was his wife or not, a much more palatable idea. However, I have a feeling that his may be the season that Booth and Brennan final push beyond the oft repeated “we’re just partners”. This prospect is simultaneously exciting and terrifying. By pushing the joining of forces between the pair into the late 5^th season, I fear that the writers may have written themselves into a hole. I worry the union may so disrupt the shows dynamic as to be detrimental.

Why I’ll Keep Watching: The best part of a will they/wont they relationship is the final “they will” moment. Additionally, the producers and writers of show have earned my faith. I think the show runners care about the characters as much as the viewers do and as such will hand the “they will” moment with care and an eye to the future.

Favorite Episodes: “The Man in the Fallout Shelter”, “The Man in the Morgue”, “The Boy in the Shroud”, “The Woman in the Sand”, “Aliens in the Spaceship”, “Death in the Saddle”, “The Santa in the Slush”, “The Wannabe in the Weeds”, “The Pain in the Heart”, “The Bone that Blew”, “Critic in the Cabernet”, “The End in the Beginning”, “Harbingers in the Fountain”, “Night at the Bones Museum”, “Tough Man in the Tender Chicken”

Old Shows I Still Love: House (Monday 8/7c Fox)

When I Started Watching: During the Summer re-runs of season 1 in 2005.

Why I Started Watching: A friend of mine who was about to start her pre-med curriculum in the fall was obsessed with the show and all but forced the whole group of us to watch the show with her every week.

What Worried Me When I First Started Following the Show: I was worried that the concept would get old. DDX, 50 wrong diagnoses, and finally—every time, just in the brink of time—the right diagnosis. I was partially right. There is always this underlying assumption that House and the Team will get the offending virus, bacteria, prion, or general body malfunction under control.

Why I Kept Watching: Hugh Laurie—enough said. Well also the gripping plots and the novel idea of a cranky genius doctor. The comfortable assumption that House will be victorious has allowed for some big shocks when House does not save the patient. The producers of House have shown that they’re not afraid to kill a patient and more importantly—and more interestingly—they’re not afraid to let that death have serious repercussions. All of that makes for a good show, but Hugh Laurie is the cherry on top.

What Worries Me about the Show Now: The show, through three strong seasons, had a formula that worked well. The dynamic between Foreman, Chase, and Cameron was comfortable and entertaining. However, the producers were not content they shook the show up in the beginning of Season 4, which was both entertaining and refreshing. This willingness to “shake things up” is important when shows reach into 5^th, 6^th, and 7^th seasons. Season 5 also ended with a bang, House checking into a mental hospital. I enjoyed the hallucinations suffered by House and the fact that House will finally be forced to deal with his viccodin habit in a real way. What worries me is that the beautiful 2-hour season opener felt more like a series finally rather than a season première. In the wake of this movie-like season opener, the show seems to be struggling to find its footing after altering the central character so much. The future of the show is a bit worrisome at the moment. Will House relapse back to the drugs? This would be one of the more frustrating avenues the show could take. How many times are the producers going to pull viewers through that story arc. Will House stay clean? If he does will he be crankier? That would certainly be entertaining but it isn’t really new territory. The viewers have seen time and again how the pain winds House up, how would another journey down this story arc lane be different and refreshing? Furthermore, in the season première, House developed a new outlook on life. Will this outlook make him less cranky? If he does become less cranky, the procurers are messing with their central hook, which is dangerous. In the episodes that followed the season premiere, the show has struggled to find its equilibrium in the wake of all these character changes. There has been less medicine and more inter-personal drama. I for one like the medicine aspect of the show. If I wanted interpersonal drama with a gossamer thin veil of medicine, I’d watch Grey’s Anatomy or ER re-runs. As season 6 matures, I’m worried that House will deviate too much from the show that it was and the show that it could be again.

Why I’ll Keep Watching: Does it need to be said again? Hugh Laurie—how does he still not have an Emmy?!? Additionally, over the past 5 seasons I’ve become attached to the characters, their backgrounds, and their interpersonal ties. I don’t think that the shaky legs the show is standing on at the moment will be inevitably fatal. I think that with the proper defribulation the show can revive into greatness and the journey should be entertaining.

Favorite Episodes: "Three Stories", "Hunting", "Failure to Communicate", "No Reason", "Needle in a Haystack", "Mirror, Mirror", "House's Head", "Wilson's Heart", "House Divided", "Under My Skin", "Both Sides Now", and "Broken"

Old Shows I Still Love

Thinking through shows that I have just begun to watch has made me look at the shows that I watch that are not new and evaluate why I first tuned in, why I kept watching, and why I love the show. Over the next few days--in an attempt to dampen the stress of the end of the semester--I'm going to look back as shows I tune into every week as well as shows I still revisit on DVD every now and again.

Batman the Brave and the Bold: Mayhem of the Music Meister

"The music meister sings the song that the world wants to hear"--and that is the truth. I tuned into this episode of Batman the Brave and Bold because of Neil Patrick Harris. NPH's songs from the 2004 Broadway revival of Assassins and performance of Evening Primrose were--and still are--on repeat on my iPhone. Neil Patrick Harris singing in anything, even a Batman cartoon, was bound to catch my attention. I tuned into the episode not knowing what to expect. I fell in love with the music. The episode had Broadway style and--what sounds like--a large orchestra behind it. While the drive of the episode was more than entertaining, the drive behind the Music Meister was less than compelling. NPH voiced the orange-haired Music Meister a man who can control anyone who hears his "booming voice". This drive in the epidsode is unique and entertaining, but exactly what the Music Meister was trying to achieve by controlling the world is not quite clear all he really manages to do is hijack a satellite and force the world to "steal all you can, while you're under his sway". But the songs "Drive Us Bats", which is delightfully glib--"He always has a sidekick/Some Boy Wonder at his call/His utility belt holds everything/Can’t find that at the mall--and the duet "If Only" with Black Canary are reason enough to checkout the episode and (most definitely) the soundtrack.