Nightmaref5 - "Optimism Wins The Day" - Tumblr Blog

State Of Mind: What Makes A Hipster?

For whatever reason (I can’t exactly pinpoint why), I’ve been very intrigued lately by the concept of the hipster. More to the point, I’ve been wondering what makes someone a hipster. Is it clothes? Taste in music/TV/movies? Personality? Lifestyle? I know that there are bits and pieces of all of those things that come into play, but I want to dig a bit deeper than that. I want to know exactly what divides a normal person with some odd and obscure tastes and tendencies and an out-and-out hipster.

(A note before we really dig in: I’ve been thinking about this in terms of me, so, if it comes across as me asking questions about myself, that’s probably why. I will use myself as an example for a lot of these arguments, just for the sake of having a real world example without having to implicate any of my friends, but I’ll try to keep it as hypothetical and objective as possible. Feel free to throw in your two cents with by inboxing me or reblogging this with some thoughts attached. For the record, though, I don’t consider myself a hipster.)

Now, the first thing that a lot of people think of when they think of a hipster is a sense of pretension. Hipsters tend to look down upon things that aren’t traditionally hipster as “too mainstream” and beneath them. What if someone liked very similar things and didn’t have that sense of pretension, though? For example, I love cult classic and so-bad-it’s-good movies and TV so much that I would consider myself something of a connoisseur in that regard. However, I would never look down upon someone just because they didn’t like a movie that I liked or because we don’t have the same tastes. Does that automatically exclude me from being a hipster?

Another important aspect to the hipster lifestyle is the aesthetic. Unneeded glasses, bright colors, ironic shirts, and various other fashion statements have all become staples of hipster closets, and antique, out-of-date possessions have become mainstays of hipster living spaces. It is said that this style developed from people appropriating things from other subcultures and using them for themselves. The end product is both a form of artistic and ironic expression. What if you do all of these things without a sense of ironic detachment, though? I’ve been wearing ridiculous T-shirts and bright, clashing colors just because I like the way that it looks. I’ve also been known to wear fake glasses simply because I’ve wanted to wear glasses since I was about 6-years-old. I also have records pinned to my bedroom wall, and I’ve been trying to find space for some old film reels, a foghorn-like speaker, an old music mixer, and a mini record player. I don’t have all of this stuff because I don’t like listening to the man or mainstream culture; it’s because I honestly think that it’s cool and interesting looking.

Last up (at least for the purposes of this thought piece) is the hipster personality and lifestyle. Like I said before, hipsters are known for their condescension and ironic detachment. This applies to their taste in music, movies, clothing, humor, etc. However, does enjoying irony automatically add points to someone’s hipster score? Irony is the source of almost all comedy. What kind of irony, then, is exclusive to hipsters? Does it have to be mean-spirited? Can a hipster enjoy some unironically? I always make extremely racist, misogynist, homophobic, and generally nihilistic jokes with my friends, but I always do it with a metaphorical winking eye and lack of any mean intentions. (This relates to my beliefs about political correctness, both in general and how it is filtered through comedy, but that’s a topic for another thought piece.) Where, then, does that type of well-intentioned ironic humor fall on the hipster humor spectrum? Is it less hipster for not being mean, or is it just as hipster because it’s irony pointed at social norms?

The lifestyle is probably what I have the least to say about, since it involves having money and being over 21 (neither of which apply to me). From what I understand, it involves being somewhat aimless after college and basically living in certain types of bars/restaurants/record stores and at concerts. While I can admit that my life after college will be somewhat aimless (simply because what I’m studying doesn’t really match up to what I really want to do with my life), I can’t say for sure until I get there, so I guess my stake in this article is over.

Reading it over now, I realize how much this whole thing comes off as me either really trying to prove my hipsterdom or trying way too hard to disprove it. You know what, though? So be it. I just really wanted to write something like this and get it off of my chest. Am I a hipster because I listen to some bands that no one has heard of? Because I dress weird? Because I like certain types of movies and TV? Because I like a retro aesthetic? Because I have an ironic sense of humor? I can’t say for sure, and everyone has a different opinion on what makes a hipster. I just know that, no matter what, I would never put someone else down for not liking the things that I do or lord my tastes and opinions over other people. Negativity begets negativity, and isn’t there enough of that in the world? And maybe my positivity and enthusiasm is the only thing keeping me from truly being a hipster. I don’t care. I’m going to do what I like because I like it, with or without a label.

I realized that I might have been a bit hasty in that last post. After talking it over with one of my friends, I realized that I could just post links to the reviews on the other website here. It means that you guys could still get reviews with some measure of consistency. So, here's the first (of hopefully many) of my reviews for The Trendy Spoon: Community, "Conventions of Space and Time".

The End...

Hey, everyone who follows this blog. I just wanted to thank the few of you who followed me consistently, threw some asks at me, and enjoyed my ramblings. I'm posting this to say that I got an internship writing reviews for a website called The Trendy Spoon. Because of that, my reviews and thought pieces here will probably be considerably less frequent, if not nonexistent. I won't take down the blog, just in case someone wanted to reread a review or something, but there probably won't be much new content. You are always welcome to continue asking me things and following me over at The Trendy Spoon. They're still my thoughts on things, just less rambly and formatted differently. Thanks again for your support. It was these articles that got me the job there in the first place!

A Review: The 2012 "Les Miserables" Film

As a huge fan of musical theater, I think it goes without saying that I was extremely excited for the new "Les Miserables" movie. The closer the release date came, the more excited I got. Even if some of the reviews and production choices made me a bit wary, I was still hopeful that this movie would rock. So, did it?

"Les Miserables", based on the musical of the same name based on the Victor Hugo novel of the same name, follows Jean Valjean, a convict who reforms his ways to become a wealthy man and mayor of a town in France. He is followed by Inspector Javert, a policeman who believes that a criminal can never truly change their ways. The movie/musical/book follows their exploits, the people whose lives these two affect, and the growth (or lack thereof) that these men go through. This is all set against the backdrop of a student revolution occurring in France at the time.

One of the most eye-catching things about this movie is the huge cast made up almost completely of big name actors. Jean Valjean is played by Hugh Jackman. Valjean is a famously difficult role to play, both in terms of acting and singing. Jackman does fine in the film, but not quite as well as I was expecting. His singing is oddly annoying, though he does a good job of nailing the more difficult songs (I was impressed by his renditions of "Valjean's Soliloquy" and "Who Am I?"). His acting is very good, if a bit overwrought at times. He’ll probably get nominated for an Oscar (he does an obscene amount of crying in this role), but I don’t think he’ll win. He definitely wasn’t my favorite performance in this movie.

Anne Hathaway plays Fantine, the endlessly unlucky single mother of a girl that ends up being adopted by Valjean. She plays the part for all its worth, making the most of her rather meager screen time. Her rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" is simultaneously heartbreaking and well-acted. Her singing is also very good (well, as good as possible considering that she's sobbing her way through every song). This will probably go down as one of the defining performances in this role, and I predict that an Oscar will soon be in the hands of Ms. Hathaway.

Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter play the Thenardiers, the opportunistic couple that takes in Fantine’s daughter. These two are delightful. They are a joy to watch whenever they are onscreen. Most of their despicable antics are played for laughs, and it almost always works. Some may take issue with the fact that the Thenardiers are portrayed as villainously as they sometimes are in other productions. I, on the other hand, think that “Les Miserables” can use any comic relief it can get, as long as it works as well as it does here. I welcome the Thenardiers both as villains and as clowns.

Eddie Redmayne plays Marius, a rich schoolboy who renounces his wealth to join the revolutionaries. Marius isn’t the most interesting characters, defined mostly (if not entirely) by his renouncement of his wealth, his position as a revolutionary, and his love for Cosette. Redmayne does well with what he is given, however. He gives Marius a kind of wide-eyed idealism and naivete that at least begins to get at a bit of a characterization. His performance of “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables” is affecting and very well-performed. I was surprised by how well Redmayne sang. However, he does sometimes sound as though he’s trying to force an operatic voice that is only sometimes there. Other times, he ends up sounding a bit like Kermit the Frog. He also does this thing where he shakes his head when he vibratos. It’s probably just me, but it bugged me when he did that during songs like “Red and Black”. Overall, though, he takes a character that can very easily be flat and boring and makes him interesting and a pleasure to watch.

Amanda Seyfried plays Cosette. If Marius has a bland character, Cosette has no character at all. Serving as more of a symbol of love than a character, Cosette is defined almost completely by her love of Marius (and, to a much lesser extent, Valjean). Seyfriend does her best with the very little she is given to do. She acts the part fine, but she’s not onscreen for much longer than Hathaway, and she’s has much less to work with. She doesn’t quite have the voice for Cosette, either. This is one of the ultimate soprano roles in musical theater. Seyfried sounds fine, but she’s not powerful enough. She lightly chirps and trills her way through the score like a songbird, but she tends to get drowned out when other people are singing with her. It doesn’t sound bad, but it doesn’t sound great either. Seyfried does a fine job, but her limited screen time and character mean that she doesn’t really stand out.

Samantha Barks plays Eponine, the daughter of the Thenardiers who is hopelessly (and one-sidedly) in love with Marius. As one of the lesser known stars in the film, Barks was picked because she had played this role numerous times before. It shows. She has this role down. She perfectly portrays Eponine’s coy friendship with Marius and her hopeless and unrequited devotion to him. Her singing is pretty, and her acting is superb. She probably understands her character the most out of anyone in the film, and turns in great, layered work because of it. It may not be the showiest role in the film, but I personally enjoyed this performance the most.

Aaron Tveit plays Enjolras, the leader of the revolutionaries. In the right hands and in the right production, Enjolras can be a real scene stealer (for proof, see the 25th anniversary concert). However, he isn’t given a lot of screentime in this production. With more things to do, I think that Tveit could have been great in this role (I know he’s capable of great things), but this movie somewhat shortchanges Enjolras. He does fine with what he has, but he’s generally unmemorable. I understand that things had to be cut for time’s sake (especially with a story as long and packed as “Les Miserables”), but it’s still a shame.

Russell Crowe plays Javert. This was almost definitely the most divisive casting choice of them all. In the end, I didn’t hate him in the role. He’s definitely the weakest singer, always sounding as though his mouth is full of cotton balls. His acting is fine, I guess, but I’ve seen Javerts that imbue him with so much more emotion, presence, and power (once again, see the 25th anniversary concert) that I was disappointed. Personally, I didn’t think that he ruined the movie or anything, but I do think that there were better casting choices that could have been made. Honestly, I liked him more than I thought I would. It does bear mentioning, though, that his renditions of Javert’s two big solos (“Stars” and “Javert’s Suicide”) are quite weak, especially when compared to the other major solos in the movie.

This movie is great to look at. The film’s main aesthetic goal was obviously to combine grand and grimy. The film succeeds in its pursuit of planned ugliness, making its cast decidedly unappealing, as they sing covered in layers of filth, blood, tears, and, at one point, literal crap. It’s an effective device to hammer home the destitution, poverty, and hopelessness of these people. These aesthetic choices also extend to the singing, in which acting and emotion is valued over sounding pretty. Almost everyone sings while crying, so pitch and lyrics are sometimes sacrificed in favor of dramatic line readings and sobs. It doesn’t sound bad, and some of the actors still manage to sound fine, but it does make listening to the music without the visual of the person acting a bit awkward. I still think that that was the right choice to make, though, considering the needs of a film versus the needs of a stage musical.

Another thing that has been quite divisive was the direction of Tom Hooper. For this film, he seemed to have two shots in his repertoire: extremely long close-ups and extremely shorts and scattered shots. The long close-ups are reserved for major solos (“I Dreamed a Dream” and most of “Valjean’s Soliloquy” are done in one continuous shot), while the short and scattered shots are meant for crowd scenes (Hooper’s goal during “At the End of the Day” seemed to be to give each citizen of France their own two millisecond close-up). It’s not terrible, but it can be, at different times, both boring and distracting. The longer shots sometimes go on too long, and the staging for them can be awkward. The shorter shots tend to be all over the place, to the point that I was sometimes confused as to what was supposed to be going on in the 27 shots that occupied the last two seconds of screen time. Some shots are great (my personal favorite is the slow motion shot of furniture falling out of windows to form the barricade), but too many are redundant or distracting. I wish that we had just gotten a bit more room in some of the shots (the aerial and panoramic shots that we do get are great, particularly when it comes to the finale) and a bit more time to breathe (Fantine dies, and, a second later, Javert has teleported into the room to kill Valjean). I understand that, with this material, there’s a lot of ground to cover in not a lot of time, but I think a few more establishing shots and couple more seconds for emotional beats would’ve done this movie some good. Once again, the direction isn’t terrible, but it is very flawed. Good direction should inform and add to what happening onscreen, not distract from it.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It’s not a perfect adaptation (I don’t know if that’s possible with this material), but I think it’s worthy of the “Les Miserables” name and legacy. There are many flaws and perplexing choices, but the good very much outweighs the bad. It is almost guaranteed to be a big player at the Oscars this year and rightfully so. This movie is worth seeing if only for the great cast and outstanding performances. I say go see it, and don’t wait one day more. (Yay! Forced musical theater humor!)

P.S. My favorite numbers were the finale reprise of "Do You Hear the People Sing" and "At the End of the Day" (I really liked the group numbers in this movie).

P.P.S. I know that more casts exist than just the 25th anniversary concert cast, but I really liked their Enjolras and Javert. Also, it's easily used as a reference point because the entire thing is on YouTube. Their Valjean is amazing, too. 

P.P.P.S. I wasn't crazy about the new song. In a movie that already felt like it had a lot to get through, the new song felt unnecessary and obviously put there to give the movie a shot at the Best Original Song Oscar. 

State Of Mind: "Final Fantasy XII"

People who know me know that I make no secret that this might be my favorite in the "Final Fantasy" series of games. However, this seems to be among the most divisive entries for some reason. I'd like to examine why I love it when other hate it.

"Final Fantasy XII" follows the story of a rebellion attempting to put the proper princess, a young woman named Ashe, back into power during a major war between two large countries. There's a lot more to the story than that, including magical crystals (when aren't there magical crystals?), a war against the gods, and several plot twists and reveals. I never quite understood the story. It starts out simply enough, with the story being told from the perspective of street rat Vaan, who lives in the country in between the two warring ones. However, it quickly becomes tangled, as many more characters are introduced and plot elements begin piling up. You find out that this was never really Vaan's story, the bad guy isn't actually the bad guy (this actually happens several times), the war has more motives than originally thought, and something about the gods seeing the future and controlling minds. It all becomes really hard to follow, especially on a first play through.

In addition to the muddled story, the characters are also pretty forgettable. After X did such a great job of creating colorful and interesting characters, it was disappointing to see XII take a step backward in that regard. None of the characters really have any real personalities. They are all pretty much just serious, strong, goal-oriented blank slates that aren't given any defining characteristics apart from whatever goal it is that they are trying to achieve. There are two exceptions, though they are on opposite ends of the spectrum: Penelo, Vaan's childhoos friend, and Balthier, a sky pirate. Penelo, I can only assume, was supposed to be the perky young girl archetype, a role previously filled be characters like Yuffie In VII and Rikku in X. However, to match the game's atmopshere, her "perkiness" is severely toned down, so it ends up just coming off as a couple of random quips and stupid questions throughout the game. To make matters worse, she has absolutely nothing to do with the plot of the game. She is there for no other reason than to give you a sixth party member. It's even worse than the also superfluous Vaan, since he at least has the excuse of avenging his soldier brother. (The original lead character was supposed to be a soldier named Basch, who, while still a major character and party member, had the focus taken away from him when it was thought that a more relatable protagonist was needed.) Penelo is, by far, my least favorite character in the game, both for her "personality" and her complete irrelevance to the plot. On the other hand, there's Balthier. In a game with so few good characters, Balthier is so memorable that it almost makes up for the general lameness of the rest of the party. He is an arrogant, but secretly caring, sky pirate who insists that he is "the leading man" of this story. He's a funny, compelling, well-designed character with an interesting backstory. Plus, in a story where half of the party is along for the ride for no adequately explained reason, he is actually pretty deeply intertwined with the matters at hand (for reasons both obvious and secret). In addition to his countless comedic scenes, he also gets some good tearjerker scenes and some show-stealing moments of heroic badassery. He is easily one of my favorite "Final Fantasy" characters of all time.

So, why do I love the "Final Fantasy" with the confusing story and forgettable characters (Balthier aside)? It's all about the world and the gameplay for me. Ivalice is enormous. You can spend all day just adventuring to all of the corners of the world and still probably miss a ton of stuff. Every corner is teeming with life, both friendly and malicious. There is a well-defined government, environment, social system, and mythos. There are tons of places to go and things to see. You can go somewhere a hundred times, and there's still a chance that you haven't seen everything that there is to see there. I spent over 100 hours on this game, and I still wasn't nearly done with everything it had to offer. Ivalice is a textbook example of building a complete and vivid world.

I may be alone in this boat, but I also love the battle system. I was wary at first, since this was the first "Final Fantasy" I had played without a clear turn-based system. I also feel as though other people hate it because it's so far removed from any previous battle system that the series has used (except maybe XI, which I never played). It definitely took some getting used to, but I ended up finding the new MMORPG-like system very deep and interesting. I loved being able to run around, see enemies on the field, and kill them as they appeared. It helped add to the world that they were trying to build, and it made it feel slightly more real when battles weren't taking place in some random dimension apparently reserved only for stabbing things in the face. Granted, I've heard some people say the opposite, saying that running away wasn't as effective as it would be in reality and that things could hit you when you were obviously far outside of their attack range. I guess those were all just covered by willing suspension of disbelief for me, that and the understanding that that was necessary in order to create a more balanced and challenging battle system. By the end of the game, I loved just running through earlier areas and killing things in one hit, racking up tons of LP as I went. One surefire way of gauging my enjoyment of an RPG is by how much I enjoy grinding in it. By that standard, XII gets a huge thumbs up from me.

So, there you have it. That's why I love one of the most divisive and detested games in the "Final Fantasy" oeuvre. Mind you, I sometimes go back and forth between this, X, and VI, but this one ends up on top more often than not. I love the world, the hunts, the Balthier, and the battle system enough to vastly outweigh any negative thoughts I may have toward this game. So, go forth, and happy hunting!

11 of the dwarves' actors from "The Hobbit" (taken at an advanced screening of the movie)

After seeing the Hobbit, who is your favourite dwarf?

Thorin is kind of a given, considering that he's such a huge part of the story. The friend that I went with and I had a soft spot for Ori by the end, though. He can be so derpy sometimes that it's really endearing.

Just Saw "The Hobbit"!

My friend got me into an advanced screening of "The Hobbit"! I won't spoil anything here for those who don't know what happens, but it was very good, and did its job of living up to the "Lord of the Rings" name. Spot-on performances, great sense of humor, stellar special effects, and all of the epic shots and battles (and walking) that we've come to expect from the series. I think I sense another Best Picture nomination in this series's future...

A Review: "Wreck-It Ralph"

Oh, Disney. I thought we had lost you for a bit there. After Pixar became legendary, you were just kinda left there pooping out movies like "Home on the Range" and "Chicken Little". You had gone from "amazing" to "meh", and, for a while, it seemed as though there was no going back. However, like many characters from your movies, you pulled yourself up, dusted yourself out, and started pumping out great movies again. "Princess and the Frog", "Tangled", and now this.

"Wreck-It Ralph" tells the story of Ralph, a classic video game villain from the arcade game "Fix-It Felix, Jr." On the game's 30th anniversary, Ralph isn't invited to a party being thrown by the citizens of the video game. He had already been disillusioned with the concept of being forced to be the bad guy by the game's programming, but this was the last straw. He sets out to other video games in the arcade in an attempt to win a medal and prove his heroism. However, he doesn't realize that he has set in motion a plot that may just ruin his own game and get several other unplugged for good. 

This movie's strengths lies mainly in it's characters. Our leading quartet is very likeable (and the villain is very interesting, but I don't want to spoil anything). You always root for Ralph to succeed, even when his actions cause more harm than good. John C. Reilly is perfect at playing the misunderstood sad sack who just wants people to notice him (see also, "Chicago"). Felix is the perfect foil to Ralph. He's so pure and perfect (even when he doesn't want to be) that it becomes simultaneously hilarious and endearing. Jack McBrayer brings just the right amount of peppy and old-fashioned heroism to the role, while still knowing when to tone it back for more emotional scenes.

I did have a few issues with Vanellope, the glitchy outcast of a "Mario Kart"-esque racer called "Sugar Rush". She's meant to be the annoying sidekick who the viewers are supposed to grow to love. The problem is that she's a bit too good at being annoying. It's not so much her demeanor or her character; it's just that some of her jokes go on for too long. This lead to her rubbing me the wrong way in her first appearance, which kept me from liking her as much as I wanted to later. To the movie's credit, though, emotional scenes revolving around her still work, and I never wanted harm to befall her or anything. I just wish they'd toned her down just a bit. I don't dislike Sarah Silverman, but she needs to be used correctly.

The clear standout of the four leads is Jane Lynch's Sergeant Calhoun. As an amalgam of Samus Aran, female Commander Shepard, and pretty much every other "strong, independent woman" character in video games, the irony lies in that she probably is better written than most of them. She has an interesting backstory which actually informs her actions as she proceeds through the story and interacts with other characters. Not to mention that she has many of the best jokes, and Jane Lynch is a pro when it comes to snappy one-liners. Many of my personal favorite scenes were the ones between her and Felix which examined their different game styles and personalities.

The story is also great. It goes by at a decent clip, though it does get a bit bogged down in the middle while Ralph is trying to help Vanellope get a kart and learn to drive. Other than that, though, this is an original and interesting story, with a few more twists and turns that I was expecting. It's also very good at getting legitimate emotion from the audience. There were a couple of moments where I was questioning one or two things, but the movie is so good at world building that I could let it slide and just allow myself to be immersed in the world of the arcade.

Speaking of the world of the movie, it is beautiful. Everything is beautifully and diversely animated. Different characters and games are done very differently, down to the way that the citizens of Ralph and Felix's game move very choppily while characters from "Hero's Duty" are animated hyper-realistically. There's so much care put into every characters and detail, especially during crowd and panoramic shots and in Game Central Station. I just wish that we'd have had the opportunity to visit more game worlds. If there's one reason I would want a sequel, that's it.

I would be remiss to end this review without mentioning the various video game cameos. As a gamer, it was a lot of fun to point out all of the references that popped up. I was impressed by how numerous, varied, and accurate they were (for the most part). I also give the movie credit for letting them occur naturally and not allowing them to bog down the movie or make it purely a game of Spot the Reference. I don't know if they would alienate anyone who doesn't play video games as intensely as I do, but I think Disney managed to strike a very good balance.

"Wreck-It Ralph" is superb. You don't need to be a gamer to get it, though it does add a bit of an extra layer to things. It's full of great characters, amazing visuals, and real emotion. It's wreck-tacular (that's the tagline on the poster, and I really couldn't think of a way to end this...)!

P.S. The short that accompanies the movie, "Paperman", is really cute. I thoroughly enjoyed its story and its interesting animation style. I sense an Oscar nomination in this short's future.

P.P.S. You can download an actual version of "Fix-It Felix, Jr." for your phone that looks and plays exactly like the 8-bit version featured in the movie. It's free and a lot of fun. Check it out if that sounds cool to you.

Hi. So. I know we've never really talked or anything but I wanted to tell you how much I enjoy reading all of your reviews. Keep doing what you're doing, man!

Thanks so much! That means a lot to me. I'm glad people are enjoying my ramblings. lol

State Of Mind: "'Community': Why I Love One Of The Most Frustrating Shows On TV"

Upon the request of a friend, I watched the entirety of the TV series "Community". It was amazing, and I am now a full-fledged fan. However, there are still certain things that bug me about the show...

The show follows a study group (nicknamed the Greendale Seven) as they come together to take classes at Greendale Community College. This group is made up of seven people (hence the nickname): Jeff, the not-as-apathetic-as-he-seems leader; Britta, the incapable and overenthusiastic rights activist; Troy, the fallen high school football star; Abed, the odd and media-absorbing savant; Annie, the tightly wound, yet sugary sweet, heart of the group; Shirley, the devoutly Christian and secretly rage-filled mother; and Pierce, the racist, homophobic, and cruel old guy.

What makes this show great is that these seeming disparate characters grow together over the course of the three (going on four) seasons. Though each may seem like a cardboard character trope, they grow out of their molds rather quickly. "Community" may seem to be too cool for school on the surface, but its characters always provide a window into its big, warm heart. However, it is these same characters that cause me to have issues with the show. I'll give each character of the Greendale Seven their own section (along with an extra two sections for the incompetent Dean Pelton and the outright insane Ben Chang) to explain my grievances.

Jeff Winger: Jeff is supposed to be the straight man on the show. He's supposedly too cool to be bothered with the problems of the rest of the group, but we all know that, deep down, he cares. The issue is that he keeps regressing to the point that it seems as though the lessons he's supposedly learning at the end of each episode are pointless. Because he's the straight man, he also sometimes ends up being the least interesting (though not the worst) character on the show and the one that it's hardest to get emotionally invested in. I actually don't have many problems with Jeff beyond his occasional blandness and inability to learn lessons, though.

Britta Perry: I may stand in a minority here, but I love Britta. That may come down to Gillian Jacobs jumping through flaming hoops to make the character great, but I just can't bring myself to dislike her as much as the characters on the show (and certain portions of the fanbase) do. I do, however, take issue with her characterization. She started the show as a smart, capable woman who could see right through Jeff's crap. She was the original heart of the group, as well as it's voice of reason. As time went on, however, she got significantly less capable and more idiotic. It didn't make her any less funny, but it did make it harder to take her seriously. She had suddenly become the buffoon character, and she can't do almost anything without messing it up. I still like her, but I do wish that they'd bring back a bit of that intelligence and cunning that made her so appealing to Jeff in the first place.

Troy Barnes: Troy is probably the character I have the fewest issues with. He's funny and ditzy, but he's grown significantly since the series began. If I do have an issue, it's that sometimes Troy just becomes Abed 2 as opposed to staying his own character. That's been becoming less and less the case now, though, as Troy is growing to realize that he has to grow up, not only for his sake, but for Abed's as well. Other than that, though, I don't really take issue with Troy, even if he's not my favorite character on the show.

Abed Nadir: Abed is the resident "meta-guy", the one who points out all of the hackneyed plots and tropes that the Greendale Seven go through. My main problem with him is that he can be kind of a dick. I understand that he has some issues, but, at the same time, he still sometimes recognizes the bad consequences of his actions and continues with them anyway, hurting his friends in the process. The show has begun to address this more, which I like, even if it does seem to be making a bigger deal out of Abed's condition than it was in the first two seasons.

Annie Edison: I really like Annie. She's sweet and tightly wound, which makes her great for certain comedic set pieces. I also really like Alison Brie, who does a great job with this character. My issue with her, though, is that the show kinda forgot what made her great for a bit in the middle. She became not much more than someone to stare at Troy and later Jeff. As with Troy, however, she's begun to grow back out of this through he moving in with him and Abed and her positioning of herself as the heart and matchmaker of the group.

Shirley Bennett: I think Shirley is really underrated and underused. I love Yvette Nicole Brown, and I sometimes feel as though she's being underutilized. That's not my issue with her, though. My issue is that she is probably the least fleshed out of these characters. She hasn't gotten a chance to branch out too much beyond the Christian mother stereotype she started with. The show has gotten slightly better with this with the foosball and marriage episodes, but she stills feels a bit underdeveloped, especially when surrounded by other characters who are as rich and rounded as these characters are. Hopefully, the show will give her a bit more rounding in the coming season.

Pierce Hawthorne: Pierce is in a two-way tie for my least favorite character on the show. He's hateful and villainous and has almost no redeeming qualities. That's my problem with him. His jokes are almost completely one-note (yeah, we get it, he's old and bigoted), and this is despite numerous episodes fleshing him out. To be perfectly clear, he's not a flat character; he's just an extremely annoying and almost infuriating character. He also got a bit better in the third season, but I still don't like him nearly as much as I like the rest of the Greendale Seven.

Dean Craig Pelton: I used to dislike this character a lot more than I do now. The zombie episode almost pushed him off the deep end for me, but he managed to claw his way back into my heart. My issue with him used to be that he was so stupid that he was putting people in danger (and also his one-note jokes, but, for some reason, it never bothered me as much with him as it did with Pierce), but that seems to have been evened out a bit as time goes on. By the time the second fake clip show with the therapist rolled around, I was rooting for him to make it out okay. I even started to like his different outfits after a certain point.

Ben Chang: Here's my other pick for least favorite character. I don't quite understand why this character exists. I almost never find him funny, and he doesn't fit in with the rest of the show's universe. When a character is too crazy for a world as ridiculous as the one created by "Community", you know something is very, very wrong. By the time he was living with Jeff, I had basically decided that this character was pretty much beyond me liking him, and this is one case where the third season probably made him worse in my eyes.

Beyond the characters, this show's writing is impeccable. It mixes intelligence with heart and never talks down to its audience. I know that "Community" is known for its high-concept episodes (and, trust me, "Epidemiology", "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons", "Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas", and "Remedial Chaos Theory" are possibly my four favorite episodes), but I think the show is just as good when it has its feet firmly planted on the ground. I like when the show calms down a bit and really puts its characters under a microscope. For as crazy as this show can get, it's the realness of the characters that keeps you coming back for more.

The reason that the title of this article is what it is is because this show really does frustrate me sometimes. I know that it's capable of so many amazing things, so when it kinda half-asses an episode or does something that was obviously meant to appeal to a wider audience, I just have to shake my head. I understand that it needs more viewers, but I'd honestly prefer a shorter show that was great the whole way through than a show that compromised its ideals for a few more episodes that ended up being only mediocre. There's also the occasional character moment (or character in general, in the case of Pierce and Change) that I just can't get on board with.

For now, though, I'm glad it got a fourth season. I'm interested to see what happens with the Greendale Seven. I'm a bit worried that Dan Harmon is around anymore, but I'm confident that the show can still stay good. While I don't know if the show can (or should) make it to six seasons and a movie, I'll enjoy it while it lasts. "Community" is an experience that should be had by everyone. I can't count the reasons I should stay.

State Of Mind: "'Smash': Its Rocky First Season And Its Bright Future"

"Fade in on a girl with a hunger for fame and a face and a name to remember." So begins one of the most thrilling show tunes in recent memory. Interestingly enough, it's not from a musical, at least not one on Broadway. It's from "Smash", one of the best shows to premiere in recent memory.

"Smash" is about "Marilyn: The Musical", a fictional Broadway musical about the life and hardships of legendary actress and sex symbol Marilyn Monroe. More specifically, the show details the production end of the musical, from its inception to its casting to rehearsals to its premiere in Boston. The two main characters are Ivy Lynn, a veteran Broadway actress who's ready to sink her teeth into a leading role, and Karen Cartwright, a newcomer who the production team believes may have the chops to star in the show despite her inexperience. Other leads include Julia Houston and Tom Levitt, the show's book writer and composer, Derek Wills, the show's director, and Eileen Rand, the show's producer. The show follows these characters and their hardships as they try to cobble together a show in a unusually short amount of time.

The show's pilot was one of the most critically-acclaimed premieres for a show that I've ever seen, but critical and fan opinion of the show turned sour unbelievably quickly. People thought that the show became too focused on the personal lives of the characters as opposed to on the show. They also thought that the show was too reliant on viewers feeling a certain way and attaching themselves to certain characters. Many people jumped ship as the show decreased in quality. Why do I still watch it then? Why did it get so "bad"? How can they fix it for the now guaranteed second season?

I love this show, even if the pilot was the best episode thus far. The critics are right, though, it is at its best when it's focusing on the musical and its production. Anyone who read my ramblings on "Glee" know that I thought the first thirteen episodes were near perfection, while the rest of the first season was very good, but not quite as good. For "Smash", the first two episodes were "Glee"'s first thirteen, while the first seasons of these two shows as a whole matched up pretty well. The first two episodes of "Smash" focused on the casting of Marilyn Monroe in the musical and made clear the show's focus before it got muddled in personal stories and unimportant side characters. Ivy's cover of "Crazy Dreams" was the perfect capstone to that perfect little arc, with Ivy' s years as a chorus girl paying off and Karen realizing that she still has a ways to go before she gets her chance to shine. It was a fitting end, so what happened?

I was hyped about the third episode. However, that was when the show started getting kinda soap opera-y. New love interests and affairs came rapidly into play. No couple was safe, no matter how stable they had been up to that point. As the season went on, I began to wonder if I had accidentally switched to "Desperate Housewives" with musical numbers. Ironically, plot lines like these are exactly the reason that I've never watched "Desperate Housewives" and shows like it. Therefore, there must have been something special there that kept me watching despite the increasingly ridiculous story lines. I think I can pinpoint, at least for me, the reasons why I kept watching.

The first is the premise. I love Broadway, particularly musicals. To see a show that was this knowledgeable and true to its Broadway roots was like a dream come true.  It was like "Glee" before it sold out and began doing hit songs almost exclusively. It was completely and unabashedly about Broadway, and it consistently contained show tunes (both original and well-known), Broadway actors, and theater references. I love the world that "Smash" puts a spotlight on.

The second is, interestingly enough, the characters. As much as people say that the characters are random and inconsistent, I've found the characters (or at least the performances of the actors portraying them) to be engaging. It's rare that shows elicit as much of a reaction from me as this show does, and I believe that the characters and their actions play a large part in that. Ivy Lynn, no matter what the writers make her do, will always be my favorite character on the show. I think she really does make the better Marilyn, and Megan Hilty deserves an Emmy nomination (at least) for her amazing performance. On the other hand, there's Karen, played by Katherine McPhee. I've liked her a lot more than I thought she would. Even if her character isn't as complex as Ivy, she's still talented and a surprisingly good Marilyn, even if her incorrect body type and pop voice kind of kill the image for me. I love Tom (Christian Borle), Julia (Debra Messing), and their relationship, even if I could do without the intense focus on Julia's love affairs and home life. I even love Derek and Eileen, despite their opposing personalities and apparent divisiveness among the fanbase.

The third, and possibly the most important, is the moments of sheer imagination and awesomeness that shine through the occasional murkiness. The original musical numbers are almost always bright spots, with songs like "Let Me Be Your Star", "Let's Be Bad", "The 20th Century Fox Mambo", "On Lexington and 52nd Street", "Second Hand White Baby Grand", and "Don't Forget Me" being constantly repeated on my iPod. There are also character moments and rehearsal and production scenes that prove that this show has the potential to be the most compelling thing on TV. The show is just too bogged down with the relationships and the personal lives of the characters.

I think the main problem with the show are these personal stories. I understand that personal stories are important and that most of the character dimension and development coming from these subplots, but it was getting kind of ridiculous. I also get some people may want to see what happens in the personal lives of these characters. That's fine, and I admit that I did find myself becoming invested in some of these subplots. It's just that the show got  bit carried away. As the side stories became more and more outlandish, I found myself caring less and less. The show's supposed to be a realistic backstage drama, so realism is key. I don't mind the personal stuff, but they just need to bring it back down to Earth a bit. There is a such thing as a stable relationship, and not everybody sleeps with everybody else.

The show was written and filmed before the first episode aired, so the writers couldn't change anything based on fan reactions and backlash. Therefore, the writers were writing based on assumptions about what viewers would want to see and which characters they would like or be interested in. Ellis was obviously written as the villain viewers would love to hate, but everyone just ended up loathing every second he was on the screen. The writers also assumed that the we would be more interested in Julia's home life than "Bombshell" itself.

Possibly the most egregious error they made, though, was assuming that everyone would be on Karen's side. While it is true that a large portion of viewers did side with Karen for various reasons, a huge part of the fanbase was immovably in Ivy's corner, myself included. This wouldn't have been so bad if the writers had been a bit more subtle, but it was clear from the very beginning that the writer's loved Karen and didn't care much for Ivy. This left viewers with scenes full of characters applauding Karen's unbelievable talent and perfection while Ivy became crazier and more cartoonishly evil with every passing episode. I think the writers actually ended up achieving that exact opposite of what they set out to do. By giving Ivy the short end of the stick in almost every situation, she quickly became a Woobie, and people began feeling sorry for her instead of hating her. Here's a woman who's struggled for her entire life to get where she is today. She's been overshadowed by other, and she has an overbearing mother. Here comes her one chance at the starring role she's waited her entire career for. She even gets the part at first, only to have it ripped away from her by the total newbie who hasn't paid her dues in the business yet. Now, don't get me wrong. I like Katherine McPhee. She has an amazing voice, and she's very pretty. However, I know that even some of her fans admit that she's just not right for Marilyn. She's too tall and thin, and her voice is too "pop". She'd do better in either a different musical or as a pop star. I want success for Karen; I just don't think this musical is a good fit for her.

The news recently came out that certain characters, including Ellis, Frank (Julia's husband), Dev (Karen's boyfriend), and Michael (Julia's lover), will not be returning next season. Personally, I think this is a good omen. Hopefully, this means that the writers are listening to the fans and that there will be more "Bombshell" and fewer personal stories next season. I know that I'll be watching this show until it gets cancelled, even if the second season still has its flaws.

"Smash", you already are my star.

Underappreciated Musical: "Lysistrata Jones"

Here's a musical that never really stood a chance. Even after seeing it and seeing how amazing it was, I knew that it was not meant to last long. If there's a definition of "Too Good To Last" in the dictionary, "Lysistrata Jones" is the picture next to that definition.

I wasn't really interested in seeing the show, as weren't most people. However, I got a discount that allowed me to see the show with three friends for $5 per ticket. I decided it was too good of a deal to pass up, so I went. I soon realized that the show would've been worth full price.

"Lysistrata Jones" follows the Athens University basketball team. They haven't won a game in the last 30 years, and they seem content enough to not even try to change that. In comes Lysistrata Jones, a peppy blonde who forms a cheerleading team in an attempt to get the basketball team to win. When they continue losing, Lyssie J. gets the idea (from the SparkNotes version of "Lysistrata") to get the girlfriends of the basketball players to withhold sex from them until they win a game. Great songs and a copious amount of hilarity ensues.

"Lysistrata Jones" takes the usual high school and college movie tropes and flips them around. Some of the opening couples end up together, while others don't. Every character (with the exception of two) grow past their usual stereotypes to become full and interesting characters. There's a reason that this show got nominated for the Tony Award for Best Book of a Musical. It's as hilarious as it is heartfelt. You can tell that this was a pet project of the writers and that the actors really did enjoy themselves every second of the way. It has "little show that could" written all over it, and I wish more people could've seen that.

The score is an impressive mix of song styles. Most of the music is somewhat pop-ish, but there's traces of R&B and Latin in there, too. Pretty much every song is good and memorable, though the best two, by far, are "No More Giving It Up" and the amazing Act I finale "Where Am I Now". There was maybe one or two songs that dragged on a bit, but most became better as they went on, which can be hard to do.

The cast was incredible. Patti Murin was energetic and likable as Lyssie J. Lindsay Nicole Chambers was very funny offbeat as Lyssie's slam poem-spouting friend Robin. Arguably the best, however, was Liz Mikel as the narrator muse Hetaira. Her voice was amazing and her comic timing was perfect. She literally had the entire house on the floor with some of her line readings, particularly when she was a prostitute (it's a long story). The rest of the cast is talented and play their parts well. It also bears mentioning, considering that everyone gets almost naked at some point, that the entire cast is very attractive and all have amazing bodies.

This show had it all: a funny book, a great score, a talented cast, and fast-paced and impressive choreography. So, why didn't it last? Well, there's a few possible reasons. First off, there was no precedent for it. It wasn't an adaptation (well, technically it was, but not really), and it didn't have a big name attached. It was also a rather small show. Small shows can do well on Broadway (see "Avenue Q" and "25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee"), but it tends to be a rare occurrence. There's also the fact that it was very modern. While this isn't necessarily a detriment, the audience tends to be a bit older for Broadway shows. It also doesn't help that jokes about current events and iPhones won't be funny forever. The iPhone jokes were even used as plot points, so they couldn't even be written out. That means that it runs the risk of not having lasting appeal, which can hurt a show even in the short-run.

I think this show has the potential to continue to pull people in. Sometimes, the "little show that could" that made it to Broadway against all odds after a long time and many different locations and productions can build up an impressive fanbase even after closing. I think that the show is quirky and good enough that, despite it's short run, it will become a cult theater hit, like "Carrie: The Musical" and "[title of show]". I know that I will be firmly in that cult, and I'm so glad that it's getting a cast recording. I believe in your magnetic power, "Lysistrata Jones". Hold on, and don't give it up. 

Underappreciated Musical: "Carrie"

"Carrie" is that special kind of bad. It's a bad that causes it to be remembered throughout time as one of the worst things that ever happened to popular culture. What made it that special kind of bad, and why do I think that maybe it got less credit than it deserved?

Based on the Stephen King novel of the same name, "Carrie" tells the story of Carrie White, an outcast who is bullied by both her peers and her psychotic, insanely religious mother. When she gets her first period in the locker room showers and thinks that she's dying, all of the other girls make fun of her. This one event snowballs into a climax involving the prom, telekinetic powers, and the death of almost every character in the show.

"Carrie" originally opened in 1988 to some of the worst reviews Broadway has ever seen. It closed after only 5 performances, causing it to be considered one of the biggest bombs in Broadway history. Many critics pointed to the odd directorial and choreographing choices. One of the interesting things about "Carrie" was how it took supernatural things and put them into a realistic setting. The original production didn't seem to realize this, putting all of the actors in weird space age bodysuits and being extremely literal with some of the "Greek Tragedy" aspects of the plot. All of these decisions, however, led to "Carrie" earning a spot in Broadway history as a benchmark for bad musical theater.

Over time and thanks to recordings taken of the original performances, people have begun to think that "Carrie" may have gotten more than its fair share of ridicule and shame. I am one of those people. Lately, I've found myself watching clips from the original musical repeatedly, and, while I do find the directorial and choreographing choices extremely out of place at times, I find myself oddly entertained and enthralled. I haven't seen the entirety of the original production, but the bits that I have seen have been fun and interesting to watch. The performances are good, particularly those given by Carrie (Linzi Hateley) and her mother (Betty Buckley), and the songs are surprisingly well-written and tuneful. Of particular note are the songs given to Carrie's mother, Margaret White, which include "And Eve Was Weak" and "I Remember How Those Boys Could Dance," two of my favorite songs in the entire show.

Recently, a completely revamped revival was put on Off-Broadway. Being incredibly interested in the original production, I refused to allow the chance to see it live pass me up. I went to see it and was very surprised. It was great. The performances were strong and the new choices made by the new director really helped tone down the camp value of the original. I did have a few problems, however. I didn't like some of the cuts they made to certain songs. For example, during "The Destruction," the scene in which Carrie kills everyone at the prom with her telekinetic powers, Carrie sings reprises of several songs from earlier in the show. In the original production, Carrie sang a bit from the chorus of "And Eve Was Weak" as she began her murderous rampage, giving the audience and the other characters the impression that this was their comeuppance for all of the stuff that they put poor Carrie through and that the judgmental hand of God was coming down upon them. In addition, it showed that Carrie had snapped to such an extent that she was agreeing with her insane mother. In the revival, she stops after reprising a bit from the song "Carrie." While the whole scene still works, it doesn't have the same intensity or bravura that the original did.

Don't get me wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed the revival, and the cast deserved the standing ovation that they got at the end. However, I do get this certain feeling when I think about it.The original was memorable because some of the more out there decisions during production created an oddly attractive monster to be born. It was bad enough to be remembered for as long as it has been remembered, but good enough to have fans and supporters. The revival, on the other hand, was great, but it didn't really have anything that made it stand out. It was better in some ways and worse in others, but the sum of its parts didn't equal the horrible greatness of the original. It attempted to modernize everything while firmly grounding it in reality. It was obviously looking to rid itself of all of the camp that made the original a cult classic.

The revised "Carrie" didn't last that long either. Maybe "Carrie" just isn't meant to appeal to a broader theater-going audience. I, however, will always appreciate "Carrie," both for its legitimately bad and legitimately good qualities. There's never been a musical like her.

State Of Mind: "Film Unoriginality"

I've begun to notice more and more that there are almost no truly original movies coming out right now. Everything is a sequel, remake, or just formulaic.

I understand that there are only so many concretely original storylines in existence and that everything we see as original is really just a riff on a previously done storyline. If that's the case, why are one movie great and another movie terrible if they are both riffs on the same basic story? There are a lot of factors in that, but the most important is presentation. For example, let's take the movies "Avatar" and "Pocahontas". People berated "Avatar" for being "Pocahontas" with blue aliens in space. That may be true, but there are tons of stories like that. Stories of one man entering a new culture and messing with their way of life have been around forever. People seem to immediately deem a somewhat unoriginal idea or storyline as automatically inferior to its predecessor. However, a quick trip to Rotten Tomatoes reveals that "Avatar" got significantly better reviews than "Pocahontas". This may be due, in part, to our nostalgia filters blinding us to the flaws in one of the movies of our childhood. We need to realize that similar doesn't automatically mean worse. Personally, I don't think the story was what "Avatar" was really meant to be about. It was meant to be an experience that brought you to a completely new world. In that respect, I think it succeeded. I saw the movie in 3D IMAX, and I was completely blown away the visuals. Yes, once you look past that the story is silly and the characters are pretty flat, but I still believe that the movie succeeded in what it set out to do. I'd also like to note that, when looked at in the right light, "Finding Nemo" and "Taken" can be viewed in a similar way.

My main issue lies with the remakes and sequels that are made as nothing more than cash-ins on certain properties. The films that continue or retell stories that were fine the first time. Did we really need a new Freddy Krueger or Jason Voorhees? Do we really need to see an old movie again in 3D? Do we really need another "Transformers" movie? And yet, we continue going to these movies for one reason or another. I don't really understand the attraction. I get excited when I see fresh and new ideas being explored on the big screen in new ways. That's one reason why I love Pixar. They can always be counted on to present an original idea in a fresh way. For example, "Up" is about an old man who uses a horde of balloons to fly himself, his house, and a boy scout to Venezuela in order to set the house in the exact spot where his deceased wife would have wanted it. There are also subplots involving the man's childhood hero and his talking dogs and a giant bird's attempts to escape capture. This movie covers themes such as loss, going on without loved ones, and life going on even in old age. These themes have all been done before, but never like this. Name one movie that has a plot synopsis similar to the one I just gave for this movie. The writing, characters, and animation are all beautiful. This movies shows exactly what a creative spin on an old idea can do. It wasn't the second animated film nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars for nothing.

What I'm trying to say is that unoriginality has its good and bad parts. We shouldn't snub a movie just because it's similar to one we've already seen. It's all in the presentation and execution. "Friends With Benefits" was way better than "No Strings Attached", and they're basically the same movie. It's incongruities like that that prove that movies made based on the same idea can have radically different results. I just think that we need to stop supporting all of the terrible sequels and remakes that are coming out that are trying to cash in on our childhoods and don't deserve our money.

Great Songs From Great Musicals: "How Glory Goes"

Once again, the title of this segment is tested. I've never actually seen "Floyd Collins", the show that this song is from. I haven't even listened to all of the songs (despite the fact that I have the entire soundtrack on my iPod). However, I've heard that the show is great, and, if the rest of it is nearly as good as this song, I'm inclined to agree. 

The musical tells the story of Floyd Collins (crazy, I know), an explorer who gets caught in a narrow crawlway while inside a cave in 1925. His entrapment and the efforts to rescue him become a media frenzy. After a few days during which he can get food and water from the people outside, the cave collapses, leaving him nothing but voice contact from the outside world. This is the final song of the show, sung by Collins as he prepares for his imminent death. It involves him asking God what happens next, what heaven is like, and if there even is a heaven. This song is absolutely beautiful, and it perfectly marks how people would actually react if they realized that they were going to die soon. The song is composed almost completely of questions. Floyd starts out shyly before becoming more agitated near the middle of the song. It's clear that his rapidly approaching demise is beginning to sink in. Near the end, however, he realizes some of the good things that might be waiting for him in heaven, such as his mother. What started out as a series of existential questions becomes a calm acceptance of his fate, and one might even say that Floyd's penchant for exploration excites him even now as he prepares to venture into the unknown. I literally have no criticisms for this song. Performed correctly, this just might be the perfect song. It's sad, triumphant, insightful, emotional, simple, and gorgeous. I almost cry every time I listen to it, and, for those who know me or have read my opinions on the Oscars, that's saying something. What makes this even more moving is that the story of Floyd Collins is real. He really existed, and all of these things really happened to him. That's what makes this song perfect. I can completely imagine exactly this going through his head as he died. When a song can illustrate thought processes and complex emotions as well as this one does, that song deserves all of my praise. My one issue is that the version used in the recording is not the best version that I've heard. While opinions will differ, I just don't like the way the actor on the CD sings it. I prefer this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCYQ3ewIpUs. The orchestration are magnificent, and his voice is just the right mixture of country and showtune. I could go on forever about how much I absolutely adore this song. It's one of those songs that you listen to, and, as soon as it's over, you want to start it over. I try not to listen to it too much because there's no way to spoil something great than by overindulging in it. I'm going to end this now because, at this point, the song can't possibly live up to my praise. Either way, prepare to be incredibly saddened yet compelled to listen to it several times.

Favorite TV Series: "Futurama"

This is my absolute favorite TV show of all time. While I will admit that there may be shows out there that are better written or more refined, this show is just perfect to me. I first discovered this show during its time on Adult Swim. On a side note, I love Adult Swim. Anyway, I first saw the episode "The Sting", and, while the randomness and general instability of the episode did freak me out a bit, I was totally hooked. While I was bummed that the series had already been cancelled, I made it my mission to watch every single episode that had been made. That goal was accomplished fairly quickly considering how obsessed I was, and the last episode I watched was the actual last episode of the series, "The Devil's Hands Are Idle Playthings". While I do really like the way that they ended the series with that episode, the fact that the series was over still made me kind of upset. Needless to say, I was unspeakably happy when they brought this series back. I thought "Bender's Big Score" was great. The other three movies, on the other hand, were a mixed bag. I thought the weakest was "Bender's Game". The plot was convoluted and didn't make a whole lot of sense. That's not to say it was bad (even the worst episodes of "Futurama" are better than good episodes of other shows), it just wasn't my favorite. After being brought back, I personally think the series is just as good as it's ever been. It took a few episodes to get back in the groove, but I really do like the new episodes. The only difference is that these do not have the nostalgic value that the old ones do. My favorite thing about this show, besides the smart and witty writing, is the characters. Zoidberg and Fry are my personal favorites (though I do concede that episodes centered around Zoidberg tend to be below average). Another thing that I love about this show is that it has actually formed its own mythology. It has a consistent history and universe that it inhabits. While the episodes are largely...episodic, there are almost constant references back and forward to other adventures that the Planet Express crew has been on. I absolutely love everything about this show. I hope this time it stays on for as long as it deserves (which might just be forever). 

Underappreciated Film: "Scott Pilgrim"

I absolutely adore this movie. It's basically exactly what I want from a video game movie. However, it's not actually based on a video game. It's based on a comic book series, which is itself underappreciated.

The story follows Scott Pilgrim as he tries to win the love of Ramona Flowers. In order to do so, he must defeat her seven evil exes. The world of "Scott Pilgrim" runs on video game logic, in which it is totally okay for people to have superpowers and in which people explode into coins when they die. I love both the movie and the comic series for different reasons. The movies is hilarious, and the special effects are top-notch. The performances are great, and the music is varied and memorable. The comic, on the other hand, is more thoughtful and focuses more on the characters and their development and growth. They are both exceptional in their own ways, but I think I like the comics just a bit more. They are both still very underappreciated though. I personally think that this had to do with an odd marketing campaign for the movie combined with its relatively small target market. The comic's performance and general obscurity can simply be chalked up to generally lackluster sales for comics in general in any demographic that's not nerds and geeks like myself. It doesn't help that, in order to get the most out of the movie and the comic, you also have to have a relatively deep knowledge of classic video games. This tightens the demographic even further. It's also not really meant for older audiences. For example, I went to see this movie with my mother and my younger brother and sister. While my siblings and I enjoyed it, my mother didn't quite understand the movie. The tinge of hipster and slacker mentality also slims down the target audience. At this point, the film and comics will appeal to young hipsters, slackers, and nerds who play video games and read comics. While the movie and comics obviously appeal to people outside of this demographic, it is still usually only liked by people who fall into at least one of those categories. That's enough to keep most people away. I'd say give them a try. I love "Scott Pilgrim", and I think more people should give it a look. Maybe you'll find something of yourself among the hipstery slacker nerds.

P.S. In case anyone is wondering, I also love "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: The Game". It's a great throwback to old-fashioned beat-em-ups, and it's totally worth the price you pay to download it, especially if you can get a group of friends together to play with you.

Nicki Minaj's verse from "Monster". Nicki Minaj, I am not.