The burrito was generic.
The salsa non-existent.
Chicken in sauce – not too salty. That’s good.
And the tortilla chips were
Simple. And forgettable.
Yet, today is still okay.
Because mundane is quite alright
Once in a while.

The morning greeted me, and you, and us
With clouds and chill
And almost empty pot of coffee.
I forgot to go to the store the night before.
And the morning came too fast,
From the longer evening spent
Not soul searching, not imagining, not creating,
Just playing, just reacting.
Lost in something insignificant.
Yet, today is still okay.
Sometimes, mundane is good.
Once in a while.

In passing conversations –
The topics of yesterday’s reality check
Were of tragedies and terrible misfortune
Of mothers not meeting their babies,
Of mothers saying good bye too early,
Of mothers. Of sisters. Of daughters.
In heartache.

In passing conversations –
Other people’s pain, mere strangers at the end of the day,
Spark the sadness
Inside me. Cold. Distant.
Far from their realities,
Yet just trying to imagine,
In an effort to gain empathy
Proved more than enough to wade in emotion
Then get swept away to drown in the sorrow.
No, I couldn’t imagine
because my body needed protection.
Still. Overhwhelmed.

The coffee at lunch was popular brand
Of more of the unnoticeable – the often regarded
Last resort.
It was filled impotent by design:
Half decaf. Half flavored. Wholly weak.
Yet it was warm. Comforting in the mix
Of creamy softening and sweet distinction
In its favored pop of earthen bitterness.
In background, the sips matched pleasant,
Yet less regarded lounge music
Like that in the old romantic Hollywood yarns
That mixed bravado, wit, and often impending doom.
But today, it was just a backdrop
Of mellowed notes
Like that of the coffee and irrelevant burrito.
Yet, today is still okay,
Because breezing through the unspectacularly mundane
Is life in its sweet fragile essence.
And it’s great.
Once in a while.

Wednesday nights this summer have turned me into art whore and recently also angry art whore.  I’ve never shared anything otherwise the fact that I love seeing artists in their process.  I’ve also been open to getting caught up in silly televised contests.

So, last week I went on a twitter rant against art critics because many of them bug the shit out of me because they base their “critique” on their personal biases, rely strictly on their reactions (that rely on their expectations), and often laud art on the basis of their acceptance by other critics because they have too look like their knowledgeable and cutting edge and not pretentious in there pretentiousness.  Insert some of the food critics on Iron Chef America in this group and I wouldn’t skip a beat.  Same with some film critics, television critics, etc.

So, I’m biased in this show.  I like Abdi’s work.  Dude is talented as an artist and as someone dedicated to bringing art to the people as resources and for show.  A lot of the artists featured are fabulous at their crafts.  Just like other silly reality shows, they’re thrown into challenges that move beyond their work style – their voices – their artistic process and are forced into producing art pieces.  Fine. No big deal.  They reap the rewards from the exposure.  They’ll all be surrounded by more buzz now and some will get commissioned for commercial art that they might not otherwise have been candidates for – some I can see making covers for comic books.

Admittedly, his last two weeks were weak.  Judging is based off the critics, the network, and the show producers.  We know this already.  I think he should stay safe from his work from earlier in the series and because he’s a vibrant young person.  And of course, we only see snippets of conversation to play with our emotions as viewers.  But one of the critics has come out blasting at Abdi with some questionable comments regarding “self congratulatory” and “commercial” (maybe not in those terms).  For the past two challenges, he’s had artists block.  It happens.  When you’re playing a game and being asked to.. say take a shit on command.. sometimes you get constipated.  Yea, yea.  It’s all sound byte-ification for television.  FINE.

But Jackie – who is a great realist artist – has continually created pieces on the theme of overcoming her own insecurities often placing herself and her naked “vulnerable” body in the middle of the pieces.

And Miles wins on structures that have evoked simplicity and vulnerability and emotional disorder.

Abdi last won a challenge by creating sculptures of young angry black men as actual bombs/grenades.

Peregrine won last week because she depicted her childhood in San Francisco surrounded by drugs and AIDS and eventual tragedy and innocence lost.

So, apparently if you play into the stereotype of whatever PHYSICAL LOOK you present, you become more “real” for the judges.  Peregrine as the child of haight ashbury – the typical hippy San Franciscan.  Jackie as the pretty woman held back by her own lack of comfort with her own femininity.  Miles as the emotionally troubled kid.  And Abdi as the young black male needing to show his anger and deficit as a young black male in America.  Neither Peregrine or Abdi have played into those stories.  They tell more or at least try to even if they don’t succeed.  They’re high in conceptual effort and have tried to depict different stories.

Miles is highly conceptual also and damn good at what he does.  But he’s continued to present the SAME.  Jackie is a phenomenal painter.  But she keeps presenting the SAME.  And, as you’d expect, they’ve ridden high most weeks.

And this is the problem when high brow “art critics” are responsible for passing or failing diverse artists.  They see an artist for their socio-cultural identity and expect, too many times, to set their biases on these identities (or stereotypes for most critics).  I have no empirical data on this, but that’s what I think I see in this show – and I can see this in other realms of art – say for instance: hop hop.

Who sells the records? CEOs.  What do they want to sell?  Angry, gangster, loser black males.  Why can’t calm, methodical, highly intellectual and charming young black men be promoted?

I have no problem with artists telling stories of the populations they identify with.  It’s THEIR art.  It’s THEIR stories.  Go with it.  Same if they DON’T want to tell the stories of the populations WE identify them with.

There are these racial dynamics and sociocultural biases we all bring into pieces of art as consumers – and it’s no different for critics. Except, other than for commercial art, we don’t define what is proper art.  And, that power to utilize whim, no matter how technically knowledgeable, to define art bugs the shit out of me.

“Work of Art” airs on Bravo on Wednesday nights.

I’m not a war movie afficionado.  I’ve seen some good ones.  Avoided a bunch of bad ones.  I’m relatively lost in mixed feelings about them as I am in the reality of war, military, and all the politics that get wrapped into them.

But, at the core of any story, are the individuals involved: the soldiers, the opposition’s soldiers, and all the family, friends, neighbors, residents, people that are affected by those in the military (and militarized aka imperialized area.)  And, ultimately, that’s what The Hurt Locker is about: it’s about three soldiers involved in one of the most dangerous jobs of any soldier can face and it’s about the reality of Iraq.

The Hurt Locker hit for the most part.  It was an intense and sad account of a reality that most of us will never know.  The three main actors were SUPERB in their portrayals of their soldier counterparts. 

I wasn’t in love with the first quarter of the film.  The first part – the tragic intro to the life of EOD – was well done.  The introduction of Sgt. James, though, was too much for me.  Yes, he’s the epitome of a soldier with an addiction to war – and yes, I knew that the bravado would be deconstructed (very well, btw) – but it was too much.  In essence, I thought that a piece that was excelled in the simple and subcontext was marred by a spoonfed intro to a archetypical rogue-ish lead.  Plus, I couldn’t believe someone as good at his craft as he was would intentionally and irreverently endanger his team with his ego.  Not in this story, at least.

Where I got hooked was a slower scene (gunshots and deaths not withstanding).  When the American soldiers ran into the British and were subsequently caught in the sights of snipers.  If a scene could make you itch with irritation from sand, parched by desert heat, and fear for unrelenting vulnerability from the comforts of a suburban home with the blu-ray playing - there would be no better option than those.  Bullets fired were low.  Triggers pulled even lower.  There were no overtly athletic action-hero type movements – just a clusterfuck of a situation and it had my heart racing and jaw dropped like nothing that Avatar ever made me feel.

It was so intense that my adrenaline shot up and I think I crashed a bit by the end of the third act.  I felt tired – fatigued – and all I was doing was sitting on my futon sofa.

What I appreciated only slightly more than the pacing, direction, cinematography, acting performances, and script was the lack of overdramatic scoring.  The thrills, sadness, anger, vulnerability, and all other emotions that sparked through experiencing the film were enacted mostly with no score other than that of the environment – wheels rolling on gravel, exasperated breathing, scraping boots, etc.

Sadly, this act of restraint is ignored in most films (and tv.)  I mean, I LOVE beautifully scored scenes, but there are definitely creators who are guilty of overscoring their poignant moments – like we don’t know better how to feel or react to what we see or hear in the natural environment of the scene.  (Ahem, Smallville.)

This beautiful restraint made the final seconds a bit disappointing when the film ended and kicked into gear harder – adrenaline pumping rock music.

But, the film was very satisfying nonetheless – and I hate war even more.

The first attempt to watch Alice in Wonderland didn’t go particularly well because it was late and I basically was in and out of sleep for most of it.  Of course, that meant I left watching it thinking it was disjointed and kinda bad.

Then, I watched it just now in the middle of the afternoon, and my thoughts are very different!  I read reviews that said the story had no plot and it was only a visual piece – but it was MORE than that – in my amateur opinions.  So, here goes.

Lewis Carroll, who wrote Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, was part of the “genre” of “literary nonsense”.  There’s always been debate about the quality and content of Alice and Looking Glass.  Questions whether the nonsense was symbolic and meant for more social commentary – or whether the nonsense was in fact just nonsense.  Carroll wrote the Alice books for his friends children.  So, there are a lot of evidence to support the various arguments.  For now, let’s assume there was content to the nonsense.

“Literary nonsense” spawned in the 1800s within a diverse range of victorian literature (ranges from stuff like Jane Eyre to A Tale of Two Cities).  Victorian morality was strong throughout and as England was imperializing immensely at this point (and satirized or mocked in the literature), those values moved across the world.  In the beginning of the film, Alice is in her victorian reality at an upper class party with formal dancing, formal roles for genders, and about to accept a proposal to marry even though she isn’t necessarily ready – which leads to her running away, falling in a hole, and entering Wonderland (or Underland in this case.)  This contrast spoke to me as a contrast of cultural ideals – where Alice was stuck in a role she didn’t believe she should be and Underland was her way of her finding herself – the non-Victorian Alice.  So, with that, I feel the film itself was a shout-out to the movement of literary nonsense – and it’s role in the lexicon of victorian literature and it’s role in Victorian (sub) culture.

I also felt that the movie as a whole, and the Mad Hatter even moreso, was an ode to Lewis Carroll.  Questions of his sanity and the sanity of is work must’ve been abound – as present are the debates about the content and importance of his work.  The quote early in the movie that was repeated later, “You’re mad,  bonkers.  But I’ll tell you a secret. All the best people are.”  In a sense, I feel like Tim Burton must get the same kind of questions about him, his imagery, and his work.  There are debates about him, also.  Maybe, to Tom Burton, Lewis Carroll’s a creative influence.  Makes sense.

The plot of the movie and the characterization was simple.  Alice had to find herself.  Wonderland had to be saved – and with it – the people would be saved too.  The visuals were great.

To a point, I felt that story was kind of a nod and contrast to “Wizard of Oz” – fantasy versus reality and which was more ideal (if any) was more ideal.

Great idea to give it another go and not quit on it.

Baseball: The Love Stories Project (Title will likely be changed or altered after all the content is in.)
Mix media compilation

Call for blog entries, diary entries, short stories, photos, graphic art that relate to your personal connection and experiences with baseball. New or existing. Some are silly. Some are tedious. Some are immensely personal.

(No, they don’t have to be about “love”.)

You share.
I compile into a publication.

We get to love baseball even more. Together.

Deadline: July 11, 2010

***

What I’ll do is go on a self-publishing site. Either I’ll use their layout software or I’ll do it myself and hopefully it can be laid out as such. Can’t put any money into it ourselves, right?

If you’re in, all you have to do is:

email me your post, story, graphic, photo, etc. (no limit to submissions – likely can’t use them all though.. so choose your faves)
again, you can create new stuff
you can write up a short description of each – maybe 30-50 words (tell me why you’re choosing/writing/offering that piece)
bio info (150-200 words) – including info on blogs, bylines, etc.

***

Regarding the final product, it would be nice to turn a “profit” out of it – but I would prefer to take any profit and donate it. Of course, we don’t need to price it to make any profit. I haven’t thought about this as much. So, I’m open to suggestions.

***

By the way, I’m sending this to you because I know you’re all into baseball someway somehow. If you’re not interested, just let me know. You can pass it on to peeps that might be interested also.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

***

THANKS for reading.

The second viewing of films/movies (and tv for that matter – or anything – a view, a scene, a face) should amount keener observations.  The second viewing of 500 Days, even despite doing so in a bit of distraction, proved even more eye opening for my layman eyes.

Things I noticed more clearly the second time around:

-         the color palette: completely stood out but I guess it made more visual connection as I was watching it on a smaller screen via blu-ray

-         the symbolism of the IKEA scenes – sure, they were probably the easiest metaphors for others, but I think I was just enjoying the experience the first time around.  I tend to lose enjoyment of movies when I watch them for their hidden meanings too much, so now I try to release any intellectual (quasi?) anchors before I go into a theatre or blu-ray.  First IKEA scene (in terms of their relationship): early in the relationship/honeymoon phase – the idea of love is in its glittery, innocent, pre-packaged glory.  The later IKEA scene: the realities of the relationship come to the forefront and the once comfortable pre-packaged/mass produced idea of love is replaced with feelings of blandness and/or wrongness.

-         When Tom first brought Summer to Angela’s Park, he talked about how he wished people “saw” the buildings/ the architecture/ LA in general more, I realized that it happened (what Tom wanted.. and essentially what the writers wanted).  The whole world now, at least for a few minutes especially if they ever visit Angela’s Park, sees “it” more.  (Wholly cemented since we actually were there two days ago – and there’s a plaque on the “Tom” bench in the park signifying that it was the actual bench in 500 Days.)

“If it helps – I forgive you” – Locke

Although we started and ended the journey through Jack’s eyes (eyeballs to be exact), it was through both his and Locke’s catharsis that we entered and left the island with.  From the beginning, Locke was the explorer of the island – the one enthralled, in love, in hate, in accordance, in too deep, in belief (and disbelief) with the island.  Like we were.  Jack may have been the other part of the brain – which engaged the rest of us in demanding answers – demanding order in the vast chaos of LOST mythos.

I wanted to focus on Locke, but in writing about how we have processed the information we’ve been fed throughout the last six years, but I really can’t do it without mentioning Jack. Yes, it’s like a “duh” moment since he was the main protagonist (or antagonist for those in the Locke camp.)  But they were both essential in representing our questions as the audience.

But, the reason I wanted to focus on Locke was after the point of his “enlightenment” after the successful surgery with Jack.  When Locke woke up from his sideways dream, he was content.  He smiled bigger than anyone.  He was appreciative and calm.  More than any of the other characters, his change of demeanor was striking.  He accepted all that he had experienced and was ready to move on.  He exhaled.  Seeing his smile and his forgiveness of Ben allowed me to exhale too.

For certain, many people have mixed feelings about this final chapter in LOST.  There were a ton of questions that were brought up even to the final moments and answers to those questions have been limited if at all answered adequately.  It was frustrating to see the ebbs and flows of the final season fluctuate between the interesting sideways lives of our favorite characters and the ongoing juggling of the darker, less clearly defined stories that were supposed to unveil the meanings of the largely opaque mythologies that the writers had brought up.  I believe in the suspension of belief, but I also believe in the integrity of storytelling.  Sure, I’ll take the leap with you (writers) just as long as I’m jumping to something meaningful and defined.  As this series has gone on, it’s been an uneasy alliance between our trust and the writers’ ability to follow through – even culminating to my disappointment with the episode two weeks ago that showed us the origin of Jacob and the Man in Black.

What I loved about LOST in the first two seasons were the stories of the characters – what their lives before the island meant to their actions on the island.  And, I felt that when the writers were in full stride, they were able to explore the island’s mysteries while doing it through the backstories of our characters – not in spite of them.  At times, the narrative of the show came to grinding halts – where, let’s say, three days of the story spanned five episodes or more.  No, it wasn’t a perfect show, but I still loved it a majority of the time.  And that is why I loved the most of the final season – seeing the back/forward/sideways stories and instead of seeing how those actions influenced what occurred on the island they showed the stark contrast of the relative joy for most of the characters in sideways-verse to the misery on the island.

And that brings me back to Locke.  And Jack.

We’ve known them to be the man of faith and the man of science.  Locke was the dreamer, the believer, the crusader.  Jack was the order, the logical leader, the methodical savior.  In the end, they saved each other.  On the island, Jack and the smokemonster finally came to the battle that had been brewing since the beginning – transcending beliefs and moved into full blown war.  And while it wasn’t actually Locke who he was fighting, there was a piece of Locke’s belief system that still drove the monster.  But Jack wasn’t fighting Locke or any piece of his soul.  He wanted to honor him, share a mea culpa, and free Locke from the evil that had now take over his body.  In sidewaysverse, Jack was doing the same – not exorcising any actual demons – but he was freeing Locke from ideological shackles that, too, held him down and subsequently led to Locke’s moment of “enlightenment.”  And, enlightened he truly was.

The Locke we saw at the end of the episode, at the end of this series, was the optimist and the believer we first met – but now he was truly at peace.  Seeing that peace, through his smile and the glimmer in his eyes, I too felt the same contentment.  Sure, we didn’t get all the answers.  Sure, we actually got more questions.  Yet, what mattered most, to me at least, was the journey of our characters and for the most part they evolved. 

What would have been terrible, as I thought about it afterwards, was to not have them all entering a peaceful unknown, and instead live in real time as broken, terrorized, and isolated soulless bodies.  Even as Sawyer, Kate, and Claire were catching up to the plane I thought, “just die already” – and not in an angry, passive aggressive way.  I considered their survival and essentially what they would’ve had to live for or live with.  Think about all the pain and hell that the writers had put these characters through.  No magical spaceship that could’ve saved them as the wind swept through their tired and crying eyes would’ve let us see a future of tranquility and happiness for them.

We don’t know when the characters actually died.  We don’t know what kind of lives they led before their moment gathering – at Jack’s enlightenment.  We don’t know if they were happy or not.  But what we do know is that at the final moment that we saw them together, they were happy, at ease, and smiling.  Just like Locke.  Just like me.

TV Upfront season is here and it’s definitely one of my favorite times of year as a fan, or maybe more of an amateur analyzer, of tv politics.

NBC’s just a mess.  All of the foundations its relied upon over the past decade and a half are now officially gone.  Wait, is ER still on?  It’s not right?  Law and Order officially got canceled today and officially completed the purging of the 1990s dominance of NBC when it had the Law and Orders, Friends, Will and Grace, and ER.  No really, is ER still around?  Wait.  Is Law and Order SVU still around on NBC?  Jay Leno?  Of course.  The article I read earlier mentioned that due to diminishing ratings, L&O was being cut.  It also had to do with the, I’m paraphrasing, highly regarded new dramas NBC had in coming down the pipe.  Keep smoking if it makes you see it like that.  I’m sure they were as highly regarded as Trauma, Knight Rider, and Bionic Woman.

Three of the new dramas that were announced are: The Cape, Outlaw, and Harry’s Law.

Because NBC is also canceling HEROES (which has been dead-on-arrival since the abbreviated 2^nd season), they are replacing the geek chic with The Cape.  It’s a cop show but with capes and stuff.  The description of it makes it sound like a 4 episode collapse: good cop gets ousted from a bad police force but continues to fight crime his way by becoming his son’s favorite comic book hero.  Will this be a family dramedy dressed up in spandex or will this just be badly scored action scenes with empty characters?  TV shows rarely last without characters.  24 and Law and Order lasted for so long with rotating cast members and with the plots being more important than the characters (you know, minus Jack Bauer and the lead detectives and lawyers) because they didn’t pretend to be anything else.  Yes, of course the plots were nothing without the soap operatic twists in 24, but, c’mon, you know the show was about watching a train wreck every week for 24 weeks.  The train wreck WAS one of the main characters along with the convention of time.  Other shows that tried to be serialized and forewent honest connection with characters didn’t work.  LOST has been strongest when telling the stories of the lost islanders and weakest when trying to wade more deeply in the overall mythology.  LOST is full of crazy, cooky, and crappy mythos sometimes, but most people have been able to stay on board because we cared about Jack or Kate or Sawyer or Jin or Hurley or mangoes.

The other two are legal dramas.  Both involve two law-folks leaving jacked up systems and getting in touch with the real people.  I can feel the sentiment since I just left that at my own last job.  But I don’t think I’d watch any of these shows.  I’m not into legal dramas – and I only lasted so long with Eli Stone because I was into the quirk.

What’s up with these three dramas having three leads that left broken systems to fight for good?  Ah, right.  We’re in a political climate of mass “eff-the guvment” and “unemployment”.  We also need enlightenment.  So, with my bleeding heart speaking, I hope these shows, if successful, ask us to reflect on our kindness and hopes.  (And you know, not sucking at TV.  And to revive NBC – tv competition’s good.)

Now, this is a synopsis of a Brian Grazer produced sitcom “Friends with Benefits” from Michael Ausiello at EW.com (plus info on the previous 3 dramas, also):

“From Oscar and Emmy winner Brian Grazer, Friends With Benefits is a half-hour comedy revolving around a group of twentysomething singles as they navigate the difficult, and often confusing, world of dating. Ben Weymouth (Ryan Hansen, Party Down) is on the hunt for the perfect woman who meets his unique set of standards, while his best friend, Sara Maxwell (Danneel Harris, One Tree Hill), is just looking for a man to settle down with and raise a family. Ben and Sara have fallen into the habit of turning to each other for moral and physical support as they wait for Mr. and Ms. Right to arrive. Their friend Aaron (Fran Kranz, Dollhouse), a romantic at heart, doesn’t approve of Ben and Sara’s complicated friendship, but he, along with womanizer Hoon (Ian Reed Kesler) and straight shooter Riley (Jessica Lucas, Cloverfield), are all distracted with their own dating trials and tribulations.”

I’m not down to hope for less Danneel Harris on the screen, but aren’t these the SAME sitcom characters we see ALL the time?  I don’t hate on sitcoms – just on the ones that aren’t really that funny.  In terms of these sitcoms aimed at the 16-35 demographic, FRIENDS has done it all already – and they did it well.  The writing was sitcom funny, but it was lastingly funny.  The jokes still hold up now.  Plus, the cast worked great together.  Now, HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER is carrying the mantle for this 20-folk sitcom and doing it well because it has its own style and conventions.  Some of the scenarios are recycled from FRIENDS, but they’re creative and performed well enough that I don’t care.  It’s one of my favorite shows hands down.  But looking at FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS, I don’t see anything different from what HIMYM brings.

5 friends – all going through life as 20-somethings trying to deal with the dating world.

Ben = Ted

Riley = Robin

Hoon = Barney

Sara = Lily

Aaron = Marshall

Yes, there are some alterations, but essentially these characters are the same with different initial relationship dynamics.

By November sweeps, if it lasts and it should because of Brian Grazer, Ben and Sara will be crossing the will-they/won’t-they threshold.

I’ll still give it a chance.  But if it’s anything like ROMANTICALLY CHALLENGED (which had similar characters), I’ll be opting out of those benefits right after the first “oh, that shouldn’t have happened” morning guilt.

What can I say?

It was waaay better than I thought it would be.  AND, it was waaay better than Transformers 2.  I know, that’s not saying much, but I mean it in affection (a feeling that can’t be quantified scientifically – just like me.)

This was a blockbuster movie adaptation of a 80s cartoon/toy line that had it’s cliches, logical errors, campy shoutouts for the original fans, and all the goofy highs and lows that you’d expect.  But I was entertained the whole time.  It definitely had its cheese, but it didn’t sit around in the melodrama too much.  It actually tried to build some characters (okay, maybe just Duke and Baroness – and a bit of Storm Shadow and Snake Eyes.)

I didn’t think the flashbacks really worked that well in terms of flow for the movie, but they did give some texture to the characters and their motivations.  They didn’t seem all that necessary until some of the twists at the end.  Yes there are twists.  Minor ones that I’m sure most people can see coming from the start – but at least they’re trying.

I appreciated some of the editing effects that interspersed each of the climactic action sequences for each of our Joes.  I thought the effect was very comic booky – and even brought me back to the epic action sequences of Return of the Jedi.  Yeah, I just made a hefty Star Wars connection.  No, it wasn’t as good.  I just said it brought me back to it: sword fight within electrical zapper things, epic take down of the enemy headquarters by a squad of jet (wet) fighters, showdown between the hyper-hero and the hyper-baddie, and… okay.  Fine, just those two.  But whatever.

Some writing pieces that made me cackle though (spoilers in case anyone else in the world is actually going to watch it – since you will now that I’ve shown my support.  jk):

1) When Duke saved Baroness, he carried her out.  Wasn’t she fine?  She could’ve kicked Duke’s ass if she wasn’t just zapped, but he had to carry her out?  I know, it adds to the “I’ll save you” image, but still.

2) When Ripcord caught up to and destroyed the missile headed towards Moscow, he had to head towards the one going to Washington DC.  He flipped his jet around.  Okay, none of us know what direction he was headed.  But since it’s coming from Antarctica, we can assume it was going maybe Northeast.  Now, after the the missile is destroyed, he flips his plane around – assuming that he had to go the opposite way.  That makes a lot of sense… if the world was flat.  Actually, change his directory to due east would’ve got him to the US faster.  I know, I’m thinking about this too much – even after I said the rest of the movie was enjoyable.

So, the nods to the cartoon were:

1) Ripcord said that one of the Joes in the van had “kung fu grip”

2) Ripcord parachuted after his mission ended – like in the cartoon when no one died and always parachuted to some place.. we assume.. was safe

3) the first action sequence between the US military (non-Joe) and Baroness had them shooting lasers at each other – yes, not bullets.  ”air quotes” LAY-ZERR “air quotes”

Anyone else have any that they noticed?

Anyway, it wasn’t a film of the year candidate and it was relatively cheap writing.  But it was enjoyable – much more so than I expected.  So.. I’m not going to complain.

Went to the first Giants game of the season last night and it was the first time I’ve been in the bleachers in a few years.  When I first started coming to ATT, the bleachers were my hood.  Actually, behind.  I would come in on standing room only seats so that meant I just stood around the whole time.  Hmm.  I guess by myself at times.

Anyway, I used to tell Rob that I only liked the bleachers because that was where the real fans were at ATT since I felt the other places were full of stuffy ATT-fans (and not real Giants or baseball fans).  Some of that I’m sure still stands true.  My perspective is a little different now.  And this isn’t about ATT only – but also at the Oakland Coliseum.

Last night – it was fun, lively, and a memorable bleacher experience as it should be.  It was also ridiculously cold.  But aside from that and my lack of preparation.. or moreso my follow-through. (I brought a thermal shirt and extra layers to San Mateo and didn’t bring them before I jumped onto the train.)

The highlights:

- less stickly rules about standing and sitting

- good view as usual

- some dude looked like Alex Baldwin. I whispered to Huong at some point that I thought the dude looked like the alter ego of Jack Donaghy.  She said she noticed also.  Then, he got up to leave.  Before he could officially leave the section, some folks started a chant: A-Lec-Bald-Win (clap clap clap clap clap).  He played along.  His lady friend busted up laughing.  I chuckled about it for a few minutes after and still do when I think of it.

- some dude in a dodger hat and draped in a dodger fleece blanket walked in to expected jeers.  It got the section riled up as it usually does and should.  Two of his friends were obviously with him because one was next to him cracking up and the other was videotaping him on her camera.  All good, right?  All fun and games – a healthy rivalry.   He took it well too.  It seemed like he had lost a bet of some kind.

NOW, that leads to the frankly annoying:

- The guys behind us, both in their 40s or early 50s, were really amped up.  One in particular.  He was screaming “fuck the dodgers” the whole time.  Alright, cool.  Not a problem.  It happens.  Then he wouldn’t let it go.  He kept pontificating about how this wouldn’t happen at Candlestick.  ”This” being some dude wearing dodger gear in the bleachers.  Okay, I can understand that.  Fine.  But he still wouldn’t let it go.  Once dude moved up towards the upper part of the bleachers where we were, he kept screaming at the guy to the point that he obviously wasn’t paying attention to the game.  Then he started laboring on again about how if this was Candlestick, that the dude would be tackled or punched or something.  He said he would do it.  I’m thinking, I should egg him on to get physical with the dude.  He said he didn’t care if he got kicked out.  Fuck it, right?  Okay, fine.  Fine.  It’s a dodger fan in San Francisco.  Whatever.  I think violent-ish antagonism around sports is lame, period.  Stupid hateful violent ignorant dumbasses don’t only wear one color or one hat.  But aside from that, I was just annoyed that dude wouldn’t let it go and get back to the game.  ”Why” he kept asking.  ”Why?!?!!?!? would he do that???”  He got talked to by an usher to watch his language.  Then, he asked the usher if he was a Giants fan.  Usher said yes.  Then he asked.. “WHYYYY would you let him be here?!??!”  Usher said he was just doing his job.  And he was very patient and cordial with him.  I’m thinking, “dude, if he paid for a fucking ticket, get the fuck over it.  HOW OLD ARE YOU?”  Then, for the next couple innings, that’s all he kept pining on and yelling at the dude: “WHHHHYYY?!   Why would you DO THAT?!” You know, like the dude kicked his dog or stole his beer or something.  Finally, the dodger fan probably got sick of it and left.  He was really good at taking the shit, btw.

Then, there was some other dude in the same section next to us wearing a blue fleece jacket – with his child, with his mom, with his sister, with his wife (I’m guessing at the relations).  He started going at HIM like he was a dodger fan.  He wasn’t.  His whole fam was wearing Giants gear.  He just had a blue jacket on.  He kept at it here and there.  Finally, he let most of it go as some chick behind him kind’ve was entertaining his anti-dodger hatred but doing it with humor and defusing the aggression.  Was he planning on doing anything?  Likely not.  He just talked a lot of shit.  But it was way too much.  And he was coming at the Cardinal fans too.

So, okay. You want to call me a bitch or say whatever about me expecting it in the bleachers or whatever – fine.  But I think fanatical aggression is stupid whether done in orange, or blue, or green, or whatever.  Really – fans need to stop drinking too much beer and get a hold of themselves.  Disagree.  I don’t really care.  WHHHHYYYY?  WHYYYYYY?  Jk.

Then later on, some dude finished his beer, shook out the remaining beer.  Got some on me.  Got some on some kid behind him.  Got some of some other dude behind him.  That other guy must’ve said something about.. “hey man”.  Dude turned around and asked the dude, “WHAT?!” while puffing out his chest.  Asked what again then threw the empty cup at the guy and said.. guess it.  You can guess it.  The other dude didn’t do anything and the beer splatterer said….. “Yeah!  That’s what I thought!!”  I don’t know if they’re friends.  But it was weird.  The same girl that defused hothead’s hot head told him that the cup he threw bounced up and hit a 2 year old in the face.  This dude said to himself and his buddy next to him, “oh.. my bad”.  Yeah, dumbass.  Your bad, you dumb fuck.

Then, here and there, a lot of people around us, if they weren’t sloppy drunk, aggressive, or crying about Candlestick and a fleece dodger blanket, were more busy getting drunk and acting a fool than actually watching a game.  Call me old.  Call me lame.  But fuck that.  I’m there to have fun but WHILE watching the damn game.  This is what’s annoying with the cheap seats, not so much the bleachers, at the A’s games too.  A lot of the lillies from Dublin, Pleasanton, etc. get drunk, get loud, play around and beg for attention.  That’s what the bleachers at ATT were like last night.  They must’ve been closely related in the gene pool to the folks on CalTrain.

WHY, by the way, are a whole bunch of kids that look WAAAY too young to drink seemingly drunk on Cal Train?  No really.  This is a problem.

Okay.  Back to the better.

Huong and I left the bleachers after the 7th because it was just too damn cold.  We walked over to the over hanging area behind the lower level seats.  There, we eventually made friends with a 4yo named Dante that was making her guess answers that he apparently only really had clear questions too.  But nonetheless, it was fun.  And we also talked briefly with another usher whose full time job is being a librarian at the Excelsior branch.  Good times.

Baseball rules.  Drunk fans suck.