Don't Tell Us Who to Like

The inspiration for this entry may be a surprise, as I tend to avoid anything to do with "American Idol" as a general rule. However, the ending of this year's edition and the reaction to same has moved me to comment. Yeah, once again I'll be offering commentary on something I know little about. That's just how I roll...

I'd been hearing for a few weeks about how the judges loved Adam Lambert and the show was pushing Adam as the clear-cut favorite. That's why I wasn't surprised when I found out he almost got voted off before they even got to the finale. In today's "Vote for the Worst" world, making somebody a favorite makes him/her a target, and once you get down to 3 people, it's not difficult for people to vote like crazy for the two non-favorites and totally upset the natural order of things. When I saw that happen, I immediately knew that Kris Allen could sing completely off-key on the final night and he would still beat Adam.

This is because America doesn't like to be told what to do. We are the original rebellious country. When we didn't like what the British were doing to us, we said, "You can't tell us what to do," and we declared our independence. More recently, the youth of America have become experts at rebellion; it's now expected. From the 1950s on, you can pretty much expect young Americans at one point or another to tell somebody to take their point of view and shove it. This time around, it was Simon Cowell. Put simply, the youth of America had had enough of Simon fawning over Adam Lambert and the TV critics fawning over Adam and everyone saying that the ultimate outcome of "Idol" was a foregone conclusion. Combine that with a website dedicated to causing chaos on shows like this (VFTW), and you have all the impetus you need to trigger an upset.

Well, the response from some really made me scratch my head. Some said it was homophobia due to Adam's scrutinized-but-as-yet-unknown sexual preference (count Adam himself as one who thinks that), or that in the end, America wants the bland choice and fears what it doesn't understand. Great, more "middle America" bashing. And of course, those with musical taste (although that's debatable if they're watching "Idol", IMHO) said that the better singer lost, and that's what "Idol" should be about. Ahem, I think Season 5 firmly established that "Idol" is NOT about who the best singer is, it's who the best performer is. How else would you explain Taylor Hicks winning and Chris Daughtry finishing 5th?

Now you have Clay Aiken saying what many former AI fans have been thinking or saying for a while: the show has jumped the shark. I've heard others say, "If the singers this season are so good, why weren't they finalists the first few seasons?" More and more, we hear of people with backgrounds in theater (like Adam) or previous competitive or recording experience making it into AI's top 10, and also rumors of results being fixed so that many of these "not quite amateurs" get voted out and don't figure in the the final vote. Now conspiracy theories have been around as long as there has been organized, well, anything, so this is nothing new, but I don't think that "American Idol" is orchestrated, certainly not like pro wrestling or the NBA playoffs. Yes, I said it again, the NBA playoffs are fixed... look at all the "Kobe-LeBron" media hype and tell me David Stern will let anything other than a Cavs-Lakers final happen. Not on his watch...

So once again, America is talking about the way "Idol" finished, and I guess buzz is what it's all about, but in the end, the ratings were down (again), and rumors of the show making more drastic changes to right the ship are flying (again). Is Kara gone? Is Paula gone? Is Simon gone? Will they change the rules again after the "judges saving someone" stunt this year (which was a joke because it just meant that 2 people went home the next week, and the one who was saved was gone 2 weeks later)? More importantly, will they keep the show going even after it ultimately falls out of its dominant spot atop the ratings? We certainly have examples of hit scripted shows that went on too long ("ER", "Friends", the original "90210", just to name a few), and examples of hit scripted shows that went out on top (like "Seinfeld" or "Mary Tyler Moore"). Reality/competition shows don't really have that right now. Of course, to me it seems like they ALL go on too long. "Big Brother" should've been gone years ago, "Survivor" has fallen out of the top 10 and is still coming back next year. I guess that also shows how Americans rebel against something... they just stop watching.

Another example of how Americans don't want to be told what to think and who to like? How about the fact that a good segment of us hate teams like the New York Yankees, Dallas Cowboys, Duke basketball, and Notre Dame football because we don't like how it seems like we are told that you HAVE TO like these teams. We don't like the media fawning all over these teams, and we really don't like the hubris of these organizations as best portrayed by their fans. This despite the fact that these teams have combined for ZERO championships since 2001. I get the nostalgia aspect for the Yankees and Notre Dame, but the fact that they were dominant teams once upon a time does not merit the degree of genuflection they get.

Therefore, we laugh heartily when Notre Dame goes a decade without winning a bowl game, when Duke falls shy of the Final Four every year, when the Cowboys' "golden boy" QB can't win a playoff game, and now most recently, when the Yankees can't sell tickets to their $1.5 billion monument to hubris, the new Yankee Stadium. I've heard it described as a "mallpark", like some combination of Destiny USA and sports stadium. I'm sure Congel-haters are among the many who are loving the empty seats at the new Stadium, but I digress. NO stadium is worth $1.5 billion, particularly when some of it came from the taxpayers.

Yeah, it's not a bad-looking stadium; it is a faithful replication of the old stadium, an obvious upgrade over a crumbling 85-year old structure... but do we really need a freakishly-large jumbotron in center field? Or a shop that sells fresh produce? Or $2000-a-game seats? The Yankees franchise gets so much added luster from just BEING the Yankees that they could have built a decent update of the original Stadium for half the price and garnered just as many oohs and ahhs. But no, they have to be big and luxurious, because they are the gold standard franchise. A gold standard franchise in 3rd place, but still.

While I regret not having gone to a game in the original Yankee Stadium (after all, nostalgia IS pretty cool), I'm in no big hurry to see this new one, certainly not for what they're charging. Next Saturday, I'll be at Citi Field watching my Mets, and I'll find that much more enjoyable and exciting than any trip to the New Big Ballpark in the Bronx. After all, I'm an American; you can't tell ME to go to a Yankee game...

So, It's Summer

My summer has begun, as has that of many people across this great nation, and as we survey the summer pop culture landscape, one question comes to mind... Where are the summer movie previews? I usually can expect to find something in my local newspaper breaking down what is coming out when so I can do one of my world-class summer movie entries. Is it because of the newspaper cutbacks, we don't have the reporters or newsprint to do these anymore? Whatever it is, I've got nothing convenient to help me. Which means I have to actually now do research to put together this entry. Yeah I know that's pretty much what I do these days, but this IS my time off.

OK, if you're familiar with this, I'm just gonna list out the movies that are coming out this summer in close to chronological order. In most cases, I will just give my opinions based on the trailers or commercials that I've seen. I will single out the movies that I'd like to see... but likely won't because I don't have the money.

First of all, we've had the problem this year of not really having a demarcation point where we could say, "Ah, that's the first movie of the summer blockbuster season." Was it "Star Trek" last weekend? Was it "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" a couple weeks ago? Could we even go all the way back to the "Hannah Montana" movie in April and say that was the first one? I won't... I'm a firm believer in truth in advertising, so anything that comes out before May is, by definition, NOT a summer movie.

Therefore, we started the summer movies with a new question this month: When will we get the first non-geek blockbuster? "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", "Star Trek"... you know, people who don't live in their mom's basement go to movies too. Well, thank goodness for "Angels and Demons", which hit theaters this weekend. I haven't read the Dan Brown books but I enjoyed the movie version of "The DaVinci Code". It's funny because I really want to dislike Tom Hanks for all of his blatant attempts to win Oscars ("Apollo 13", "Saving Private Ryan", "Cast Away", "Green Mile", etc.), but he keeps making the occasional movie that I can't help but enjoy. "DaVinci Code", "The Ladykillers", "Catch Me If You Can", just to name a few. So this may be the first summer movie I'd like to see. Then we get more explosion-filled sequels, in this case, "Terminator: Salvation", otherwise known as the movie that will forever be remembered for the Christian Bale meltdown that occurred during filming. Get used to this, folks, every summer has its overkill of sequels, and this summer is no exception.

Later in May, we have "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian". Another sequel. Always glad to see that Ben Stiller has found work. Hope you caught the sarcasm there... Then there's "Dance Flick". The 19th generation of "Scary Movie", ironically released by MTV Films, which of course gave us the movie ("Save the Last Dance") that was largely ripped off for this one. Also in May is the perhaps aptly-titled "Drag Me to Hell". Thus proving that bad horror movies can now be released at any time of year.

On to June, which brings us... "Land of the Lost". Another TV show ripoff, this time starring Will Ferrell. That's the other thing you have to worry about in summer movies, imitation of other styles of movies that work. All of which only just proves that for the most part, Hollywood is out of original ideas. Another example is "The Hangover", which pretty much looks like an imitation Judd Apatow movie. However, I've gotta give them credit for getting Mike Tyson to make fun of himself (and Phil Collins).

That's just the movies I've seen trailers of. I will have to base the rest of the summer on my inherent biases and general opinions of the movie business and the people who inhabit it. First I whine about having to do research, then I do a bunch of biased reviews... gee, let's just make this the most un-academic exercise possible...

Rounding out the month of June, we have "Year One". Jack Black in a caveman flick. Finally, the perfect role for this guy. That may be on the "I'd like to see but probably won't" list. Then there's "Whatever Works". Woody Allen + Larry David. The meeting of the neurotic minds. That alone makes it one people should go see. Finally, we get "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen". Aaaaaaand back to the geek sequels.

4th of July weekend brings us "Public Enemies" with Bale and Johnny Depp, and also "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs". The first two were really good, but I feel like this shows they're running out of ideas. Gee, let's take something that doesn't belong in the time period we're working with, and that will make it funny! Instead, we have to rely on Sasha Baron Cohen to save the month of July, with his new movie, "Bruno". Oh wait, I have seen the trailer for this one. I actually spent most of it with my jaw dropped in shock as to all the ways Cohen crosses the line this time around. If you thought "Borat" was over the top, you ain't seen nothing yet. "Borat" is tame compared to the exploits of Cohen's supermodel character. The lawsuits from unsuspecting participants in this movie will start immediately.

Also in July, there's "I Love You, Beth Cooper". Yeah, a formulaic teen movie, but let's face it, we need these once in a while. Plus one can never get too much Hayden Panettiere. Then there's "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince". See "Transformers". Back to the romantic comedies for a moment, July also brings us "The Ugly Truth", with Katherine Heigl as a TV producer being coached on how to land a guy by the dashing guy TV show host and he falls for her and blah-blah-blah, "Pygmalion". Heigl better hope and pray this is a smash, cuz it's not like she has a regular TV gig to go back to in the fall.

On July 31, "Funny People" hits the theaters. Adam Sandler + Judd Apatow & Seth Rogen. I'm intrigued. I will see this one. Sandler's actually demonstrated some staying power the last couple of years; for every "bad" movie he puts out like "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry" or "Reign Over Me" (both of which I've said I wanted to see in past summer movie previews... just goes to show you what I think of so-called "bad" movies), he does a nice one like "Click" or "Bedtime Stories". He usually produces his own movies as well, so letting Apatow and co. take the reigns on this one should produce interesting results.

July ends with "Aliens In the Attic", where teenagers have to chase out the cute-looking aliens living in their summer getaway house. Didn't I see this movie before, about 20 years ago? It was called "Spaced Invaders"? Oh wait, that one didn't have Ashley Tisdale from "High School Musical" in it. My bad.

Next up is "G.I. Joe: The Rise of the Cobra". Yeah, I know, "Transformers" made it cool to do live-action versions of hit 80s cartoons (and there's a "Voltron" movie in the works), but I still feel like watching the screwed up versions of the end-of-show PSAs would be more enjoyable than this movie. By this point, we're in the dregs of August. Ya know, the movies that they shovel out to us when we're numb from having seen so many blockbusters. Stuff like "Bandslam", another "High School Musical" knockoff with Vanessa Hudgens, yet another "Final Destination" movie, Rob Zombie's 2nd "Halloween" movie. Yet we also get some possible diamonds in the rough like "Post Grad" (which includes Carol Burnett in a rare movie role), and the long-awaited Quentin Tarantino production, "Inglourious Basterds".

Ya know, I'm sure I probably get a lot of people asking me why I am so darn cynical, sarcastic, and bitter about all the summer movies I talk about. Well, sarcasm just comes so easily to me. Also, when you see, for the most part, more of the same every summer, you can't help but be this way. So when do you know that I like a movie? Simple, when I'm not being sarcastic. Just have to read between the lines and do some digging, which come to think of it is pretty much how I had to do this whole preview. It's not so bad, isn't it?

Speaking of Sports... and "Scrubs"

Well geez, I already had a lot I wanted to talk about today, and then bam, Manny Ramirez goes and gets suspended for 50 games. Guess I obviously have to lead with that one.

When I first saw Manny's statement about taking a medication that his doctor thought was okay, I wanted to give Manny the benefit of the doubt. Love him or hate him, I would think he certainly would not want to do something to jeopardize his career or his good name in Los Angeles. However, as the day progressed and we saw what he got pinched for, I'm kinda back on the fence on this one. He tested positive for a substance found in female fertility drugs... so maybe Manny is using Octomom's doctor. All kidding aside, this is used for athletes primarily when they are coming off a cycle of steroids. The question is if he's passed 15 tests in 5 years as he said in his statement, how do you sneak in a cycle of steroids?

Obviously there's a lot we don't know about this, but that certainly hasn't stopped many from passing judgment. Considering Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens, and most recently A-Roid, we don't really get surprised when something like this happens now. It's just another baseball player from that era getting caught. All the same, when noted Manny-hater Bill Plaschke of the LA Times comes on ESPN and says, "I had no idea the guy was a druggie; I had no idea the guy was a cheat," I put on my Com Law hat and think that Plaschke better be rooting for a legit instance of Manny trying to evade the drug policy. Otherwise, Plaschke's comments are borderline libelous. But then again, what do you expect from a guy (one of many, unfortunately) who gets paid by ESPN to be obnoxious on television?

And this idea that Manny was stupid enough to get caught when Bonds, Clemens, and A-Rod never got suspended is ludicrous. All 3 used before there was a testing or suspension policy, THAT'S why they never got suspended. I still think A-Roid should get 50 games, but that's a pipe dream. A-Roid went 5 years without saying anything and was outed by a Sports Illustrated article, Clemens is suing anyone who thinks he did it, and Bonds is defying the U.S. Justice Department. Not exactly model citizens. I guess we'll have to see where this goes, but it certainly is not a good day for baseball.

And now for the story I was going to lead with but has now been rightfully bumped off the top spot... a hockey story. The Phoenix Coyotes are going Chapter 11 and one of the guys behind the Blackberry (a Canadian, eh?) is making a bid to buy the franchise and move them to Southern Ontario. Apparently, this has raised hackles in NHL Commish Gary Bettman's office because they don't like the idea of a publicity hound like Jim Balsillie having a NHL franchise. My question is this: why the hell not? Every league NEEDS a Daniel Snyder or Mark Cuban; they keep life interesting. You can't tell me that it doesn't benefit the NBA or Dallas every time Cuban gets into his little tiffs with David Stern or does some other crazy stunt. There is no such thing as bad publicity for this guy. Sure the NHL probably fears another Harold Ballard, but last I checked, Balsillie's no Harold Ballard.

The NHL claims that since they have been operating the team since last fall, they can stop the Coyotes owner from going into bankruptcy. Here's my problem with this: if they really wanted to take over the franchise, they should have TAKEN OVER THE FRANCHISE. Like Major League Baseball did with the Montreal Expos. Instead they have nominal control over a team that still has an owner who is still losing money. They further contend that they want to keep the team in Phoenix and are trying to sell the team to Jerry Reinsdorf (owner of the Chicago Bulls and White Sox). Bettman explained this by saying, "We generally try to avoid relocating franchises unless you absolutely have to. We think when a franchise is in trouble, you try and fix the problems. That's what we did in Pittsburgh and Ottawa and Buffalo... We fixed the problems. We don't run out on cities."

Here's the difference: Pittsburgh, Ottawa, and Buffalo are dyed-in-the-wool hockey cities with rabid fan bases. Phoenix is not a hockey town, and probably never will be. I'm not sure whether Wayne Gretzky was brought in to be the coach of the Coyotes or the NHL ambassador to the American Southwest, but the fans aren't showing up and the team hasn't won since 2002. Admit you made a mistake, Bettman, and let the future Hamilton Bulldogs (or London Monarchs or Waterloo Napoleons or whatever they're gonna be called) play to full houses and make money.

Enough of sports... on to television. "Scrubs" ended last night with a one-hour finale that was nothing short of excellent television. If you're a fan of the show and missed it, you have to watch; the last 15 minutes will make you cry and I'm not ashamed to admit it got me. I also feel like (going back to an earlier entry) this could be the end of good comedy. "How I Met Your Mother" (more on that in a minute) is now carrying the banner for the TV sitcom. "Scrubs" is gone, and even the Canadians are SOL since "Corner Gas" also wrapped this season. I know there have been rumors that "Scrubs" will continue in some form next season without many of the stars, but I don't think that's gonna happen. At least I hope it doesn't. Have we learned nothing from "Mayberry RFD"?

Back to "How I Met Your Mother"... we had the big "reveal" this week about who the long-awaited "mother" really is: Stella, played by "Scrubs" star Sarah Chalke. Of course, she's already been a major character in this show for the past season-plus before she left Ted at the altar to go back to her ex-husband. Forgive me for going into sitcom conspiracy theories here, but it seems to be that they introduced Chalke as the Stella character last season when many thought "Scrubs" was facing imminent cancellation on NBC. However, ABC picked up the show, and not being able to do 2 shows at once, "Mother" wrote Chalke out of the show. But now "Scrubs" really is over, so she can go back to "Mother" and bingo, Stella is destined to be Ted's soulmate. So on the one hand, we got one more solid season of "Scrubs", but on the other hand, they had to delay telling us who the "mother" is by a full season. Yeah, I read into this stuff too much... I'm in Media Studies, it's what I do...

And on top of everything else that's going on right now... we have a wallaroo on the loose near the Thruway in Madison County. The obligatory jokes have started, such as he got on the Thruway through the toll booths (my joke), he's already being treated as a high-occupancy vehicle so he'll have to pay higher tolls, etc. Given a choice between Manny coverage and wallaroo coverage... I think I'm enjoying the wallaroo coverage more. Stay tuned...