American Godz on Starz

When it was announced that Neil Gaiman's American Gods was being made into a television show and a good portion of my Twitter went wild, I decided I should read the book (before watching the show, of course, like a good doobie).  When Tom + Lorenzo started posting their reviews and I would catch a glimpse of a costume in their thumbnails, I thought, Now I really need to read this.  And then, eventually, I really need to finish this book.

~Spoilers Follow;  You've Been Warned~

It was a beast of a book to read.  And I'm still not entirely sure why.  Yes, it's 600-some pages long, but I've read longer.  Yes, it deals with a lot of mythology, but hello, Tolkien nerd here.  If I had to try to verbalize (in bullet-point fashion, of course), why getting through this book sometimes seemed onerous, I'd say:

• Non-linear timelines
• Non-tangential tangents/storylines
• A lot of dusty, back road travelling
• Some tough visualizations (mostly with the coin tricks, but I eventually had to accept that my spatial recognition is sub-part at best and just move on)

Some of those may seem odd (especially the travelling bit), so let me explain.  American Gods the novel is very interior; it is almost entirely Shadow's story with a lot of important pieces taking place entirely in Shadow's memory and/or subconscious.  American Gods the novel is also a literal journey (not just the figurative hero's quest, which it also is); Gaiman does a good job conveying the sense of wandering and sometimes isolation/desolation when traveling the dirt roads of the Midwest and other places.  For someone who doesn't enjoy that sensation (one too many road trips in Midwest growing up), that can be a bit headache-inducing.

There were some points that left me hanging and some things that I just didn't "get."  Many of the "non-tangential tangents" are simply there to show how the old gods came to America.  And that's it.  They are part of a larger tapestry, but on their own, they're sometimes just loose threads.

But I finished it nonetheless and wasn't entirely dissatisfied with the process.  And then my Unit and I started to watch the first season of the television adaptation via Starz.  And damn.

Shit just got real, as they say.

I could write an entire paper on the opening credit sequence alone.  The visualization and symbols used are amazing and intense and I have yet to get tired of watching it.  It's even been nominated for an Emmy (did you know there's a category for opening credits?  I didn't.).

I had read on Twitter from Gaiman himself that:

• Season 1 ends at House on the Rock
• Some things happen out of order

I remembered getting to House on the Rock in the book, and I thought Wow, it takes an entire season to get there?

And then shit got even real-ER.  As in there is a veritable shit-ton of stuff happening in this series that simply does not exist in the book.  A friend said, "Oh, so they're expanding the shit out of it?" but I'm still not convinced "expand" is even the right word.  More like "created mythologies to go along with the other mythologies [that Gaiman invented to go with existing mythologies]."  Are you confused yet?  Good.  

First and foremost, Gillian Anderson is a goddess.  Watching her as Media in these different representations is a fucking master class on acting.  She's amazing.  She's never quite doing an "impression" of the famous person/character, but she is unmistakably them and also herself as Media.  And here's where we differ from the books.  Media talks to Shadow as Lucy ("Hey, you wanna see Lucy's tits?") from I Love Lucy, that's there (and awesome).  But then, THEN, THEN Media shows up as:

• David Bowie (in his blue "Life on Mars" suit)
• Marilyn Monroe (white dress from Seven Year Itch, complete with wind effects;skirt-blowing)
• Judy Garland (in her final costume from Easter Parade, complete with a dancing Fred Astaire, of sorts)

It's brilliant and makes me think, Why didn't Gaiman do that?  In fact, I find myself asking that a lot whilst watching.  But more on that later.  Watching Anderson in American Gods is worth the price admission, period.  Any other faults, supposed or real, are washed away.

Another major difference is the treatment of Laura (a.k.a. "dead wife"), as in, she actually gets one.  There's little background to Laura in the book, and I was fine with that.  In fact, I am strongly disliking this extra treatment of her in the series.  I'm not sure if it's the actress or the character, but I am so over her.  Shadow could do so much better than her.  Her initial boredom with life, her treatment of him -- she has few redeeming qualities.  I think I'd rather know nothing about her than know that she really is a horrible human being (dead or alive).  The book offers a small bit of redemption for her, and that was all we needed.  I also appreciated the fact that in the novel she only sporadically showed up to Shadow; we have way too much Laura in this visual version.  It also doesn't help that they cast an actress whose nude body looks like a 12-year-old child, therefore making all of her nude work and sexual interactions really, really uncomfortable.  Eww.

On the positive side, in this incarnation, more Laura means more Mad Sweeney!  Yay!  I am really enjoying Pablo Schreiber's performance; you could have fooled me that he's not actually Irish.  And his IMDb.com headshot makes him look like a psychopath; I think I prefer his Mad Sweeney look.  But I often wondered about Mad Sweeney and the coin (with regards to the book); maybe I just wanted things spelled out for me more.  At any rate, him saying, "She's a lepre-cunt" made me LOL.

More thoughts, Leonard's patented (not really) bullet-point style:

• Ricky Whittle is a STUNNING man and does very solid work as Shadow Moon
• Ian McShane does some darn good work as Mr. Wednesday, too.  Not quite the casting coup as Gillian Anderson, in my opinion, but a close runner-up.
• Hey look, it's Cloris Leachman!
• "Vulcan."  I see what you did there.  (That entire episode is not in the book, nor are any swords, but I enjoy Corbin Bernsen, so I'll let it slide.  Plus the gun commentary is timely, appropriate, and terrifying.  P.S.  Did you know a Psych movie is coming??)

Unfortunately, I call bullshit on the casting of Kristin Chenoweth as Easter/Aostara.  Yes, she's adorable and should probably always dress in pastels and be surrounded by bunnies.  But in the novel, Shadow specifically uses the word voluptuous to describe Easter.  Despite her many other qualities, wee Chenoweth is decidedly not voluptuous.  It's important because Easter represents life, fertility, the bountiful plenitude of spring and harvests.  She should practically be bursting with womanhood.  They should have cast Christina Hendricks (a.k.a. Joan from Mad Men) as Easter.  Or, y'know, me.  But whatever.

I can see a bit why Hendricks may have scared them off; she plays a lot of strong characters.  They would have missed the adorable "cuteness" of Chenoweth's candy-colored extravaganza.  They would have missed the (cheap?) joke of her getting upset at her own swearing.  I know Hendricks can play sweet and girlie because I've seen Firefly, but I can see that thought process against using her.  Nonetheless, her body type (not to mention her acting chops!) is what Easter requires.

Other changes (really without commentary):

• Laura interacting with Audrey post-death
• Ibis and Jacquel sewing Laura back up
• Mr. Nancy sewing Easter suits for Shadow and Wednesday
• More of Salim (who is still looking for his Ifrit-lover).
• Bilquis' back story.
• Bilquis interacting with Technology Boy
• Wednesday and Shadow getting caught, arrested, and then an entire police station of workers murdered.
• Easter joining "the fight."
• Taking back the Spring.

Continually comparing the show to the book is not necessarily an exercise in futility but not always helpful either.  Sometimes it is just comparison for comparison's sake with no real purpose (English teacher habits die hard).  Having read the book helps point me in the right direction, but (and my English teacher self cringes typing this) I don't think it's all that necessary in order to watch and enjoy the television adaptation.

I've read this far; where the fuck are the pics, Leonard?

I couldn't possibly do them justice, friends.  Do yourself a favor and go read TLo's breakdown and costume analyses of each episode (which is what I'm going to do in a hot second).  They go episode by episode and are therefore much more in-depth than Leonard is here.

Downton Rant-y

Now that most of the U.S. masses have caught up, I can post this small rant regarding this most recent (and final) season of Downton Abbey.  What has stood out to me most so far are the incorrect literary references made by the upper-class characters!  What the hell, Julian Fellowes?  Let's take a look-see.  (WARNING:  Spoilers for episodes 6.1-6.5)

Episode 6.1:
The family is all atwitter about another great estate being forced to sell their home and family heirlooms.  When getting ready to go view said auction, Mary comments, "The Fall of the House of Usher."

Oh, Mary dear.  Perhaps do more research next time, rather than trying to sound smart.  In Edgar Allan Poe's The Fall of the House of Usher, the "great house" is ruined not because of (lack of) money, but because of incest. illnesses (mental and physical, possibly results of said incest), and lack of an heir.  Unless you know something about the Darnleys that we don't, I'd say this one is way off the mark.

Episode 6.4:  This one's a two-fer.

I'm sure we've all commented and ranted about the family's inability to call the new Mrs. Carson "Mrs. Carson."  But Lady Rosamund takes it a step too far.  During the welcome back party for the newlyweds, Lady Rosamund says it's like "Jane Eyre insisting she be called Mrs. Rochester."

No, Lady R, it's nothing like that.  While Jane is well within her rights to be called by her married name, she did, indeed, marry far outside of her sphere -- a governess to a landed gentleman.  (Although technically, governesses were neither servants nor family, but existed in a strange limbo in between, but that's for another time.)  Carson and the former Mrs. Hughes are both servants. Moreover, they are "equal servants," if that makes any sense.  They are both at the top of their respective household lines as housekeeper and butler, as opposed to a scullery maid marrying the head butler, or a kitchen boy marrying a lady's maid, or, I don't know, the chauffeur marrying the daughter of the house.  I love Rosamund (that woman can work a chair!), but she would have been better off keeping this remark to herself.

Posture, bitches!
Screen grab courtesy of Tom and Lorenzo

In the same scene, Lady Mary actually says something kind to her sister, Lady Edith; she encourages the hiring of a woman as editor as "it is a woman's magazine."  When Lady Rosamund remarks on her unusual niceness, Mary says, "A monkey could type out the Bible if you leave it long enough."

You were so close on this one, Mary!  Emile Borel's theory, commonly called "the infinite monkey theorem," states that an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters would eventually type out a specific text (usually Shakespeare's Hamlet).  Some people say they will type out the Bible, so I may be able to let this one pass -- if the other two weren't so egregious.

Now one could posit that Fellowes made these incorrect allusions purposefully, in order to make the upper classes look foolish.  I call shenanigans on that theory!  Since when has Fellowes ever allowed his upstairs characters to be or look stupid without someone calling them on their stupidity?  Nope, I think this is just bad writing.  Perhaps less time should have been spent on making sure Lord Grantham's demise was grotesque and medically accurate, and a little more spent on researching actual dialogue.

In Defense of The Big Bang Theory

Alright, Leonard is fed up with people trashing one of our favorite shows!  So the following rant is an attempt to refute claims that The Big Bang Theory is sexist, anti-women, and/or "nerd minstrel."

First:  Nerd Minstrel.

I must quote Wil Wheaton here, who, when asked this same question, said:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if someone believes that about Big Bang Theory, they’re certainly not obligated to watch it.

That said, I completely disagree with that assessment based on my knowledge of the writers and producers (all of whom are giant nerds), and the knowledge that the person who popularized that sentiment you referenced is deliberately provocative and kind of a jerk.

The writer in question is James Peter Gates, or "Jimmy the Saint" on SickChirpse.com.  And that's all I can say about him.  I've never heard of him before, and taking a glance at his writings (including his TBBT article), I can say that I doubt he and I see eye to eye on...almost anything.  What I can do is define "minstrel" or more specifically, "minstrel show."  According to Wikipedia (source of all knowledge), a "minstrel show"

 was an American entertainment consisting of comic skits, variety acts, dancing, and music, performed by white people in blackface or, especially after the Civil War, black people in blackface. Minstrel shows lampooned black people as dim-witted, lazy, buffoonish, superstitious, happy-go-lucky, and musical.

So lampooning people of color (especially by white people) is BAD, I think we can all agree.  So I guess Gates is saying that non-nerds are lampooning nerds on a TV show.  I suppose, he's half right.  The actors who portray Sheldon, Leonard, Howard, and Raj are just that -- actors.  They may or may not also identify as "nerds," "geeks," "dorks," etc.  But people portraying people who they really aren't is the very nature of acting and television.  I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Gates is saying that non-nerd people "lampooning" nerds is the problem.  (I am not, however, going to address each of the characteristics the Wikipedia article addresses ["dim-witted," "lazy," etc.] as those clearly don't apply.)

And I guess I just don't see this.  I don't see it as portraying nerds in a negative light, let alone by people in "nerdface" (what would THAT even look like??).

I consider myself a nerd, geek, dork as well.  I enjoy many of the same hobbies and games and movies and things the characters on the show enjoy.  I do not find the jokes offensive to my nerd status.  I do not necessarily laugh "at" them.  My laughter is recognition of the situation.  My laughter signifies, "Oh yeah, I've had that happen!" or even "Oh man, I wish that could happen to me!"  It is not schadenfreude or even self-preservation ("Thank God that's you and not me!").  It is recognition, community, and overall joy.

I also feel that comparing the writing style of a single television show to an entire entertainment movement which exploited and was offensive to an entire race of people to be just slightly hyperbolic.  Just sayin'.

But like Wil Wheaton said, if you feel that The Big Bang Theory is somehow lampooning nerds and all of the jokes are at their expense in a hurtful and offensive manner, then by all means, you do not have to watch.  However, how many of you have watched the show?  How many of you out there have seen it and felt it matches Mr. Gates' description, and how many of you are simply repeating what you've heard other people say?  If you have watched, great!  If you haven't, then stop saying "It IS this," and start saying, "I've not watched it, but I don't think I'd like it."

Then there's this comment from Tumblr user lauriejuspeczyk:

If you don’t understand why people don’t like the big bang theory, once in an episode the cast was at a comic store browsing and a woman walked in, and one of the leads said “Is she lost?” and that was the joke.

Okay, at first I thought I was all over this one.  I thought this was referring to S02E20, "The Hofstadter Isotope," which is the first episode where we see the comic book store as a physical location, and Penny stops in.  However, I just watched said episode and this line of dialogue is never uttered.  Never fear!  This Leonard (not be to confused with Johnny Galecki's Leonard) is not to be daunted!

[Sidebar:  Big shout-out and "thank you!" to the Big Bang Theory Wiki which helped me find which episodes featured The Comic Center of Pasadena, a.k.a. "the comic book store."]

So I next went to Season 6, Episode 13 "The Bakersfield Expedition," which is probably one of my favorite episodes to date.  In this episode, the three female characters -- Penny, Bernadette, and Amy -- decide to check out some comic books.  If these things are so important to their partners, perhaps they should give them a chance?  They walk in and the line "Is she lost?" is again never uttered.

So it's hard to take a stand and/or defend something that didn't actually happen in an episode.  Please, if you find this episode, let me know -- either in the comments here or an "Ask" via Tumblr -- so I can watch it.

I'm a little sad because my defense of this scene was going to harken back to my very first night at my very first Comic Con *le sigh*  Another time, I suppose.

Lastly, the idea that The Big Bang Theory is sexist.  I thought I had read a user post somewhere saying the show tries to "put women in their place," and now I can't find that. Let's look at the female characters to determine if sexism is occurring.

Penny:  If sexism was possibly going to occur, it would start here.  Penny was the only female character for a long time, and a major premise of the show were here interactions with the boys across the hall. At first her character was an amalgam of stereotypes:  she's blonde, boozy, sexually promiscuous, a struggling actress/waitress, without a college education, and from Omaha, NE.  If anything, I could get offended about the Nebraska thing, having been born there myself.

However, she's also in a loving relationship with one of the "nerds," did start taking college classes (because she wanted to), has used the science she's picked up around the guys in conversations with other people, and is no longer a waitress.  She's also an entrepreneur (S02E18 "The Work Song Nanocluster," S04E12 "The Bus Pants Utilization").  She and Sheldon have a sweetly complicated friendship as well, part friendship, part owner/pet, part parent/child.  He's driven her to the ER (and he HATES driving), and she, of course, has sung "Soft Kitty" to him.

Also, one of the fun things about the show's writers is their ability to poke fun at themselves.  In S02E19, "The Dead Hooker Extrapolation," Penny hates a fellow actress for all of the same characteristics I listed above, and we're able to see the depth that makes her good person and friend, not some shallow floozy (like the aforementioned actress).  Also, while Penny does not necessarily like comic books, she did spend quite a bit of time playing World of Warcraft (and enjoying it! S02E03 "The Barbarian Sublimation").

Bernadette:  Bernadette is probably my favorite of the three.  She's all of 4'11" with a squeaky, high-pitched voice and a violent streak (probably why I love her).  She also disproves the possible stereotype about waitresses.  She started off working at the Cheesecake Factory with Penny (who set her up with Howard, BTW), working her way through school.  She's a brilliant scientist working for a large pharmaceutical company, and she is the bread-winner for her family.

I suppose you could say she "wear the pants" in her marriage with Howard, if you wanted to use such a term, but this show never falls into that annoying, wife-as-nag-husband-is-henpecked trope like Everyone Loves Raymond or Home Improvement did.  She is fiercely loyal to her spouse (S06E09 "The Parking Spot Escalation") and to her friends (S07E13 "The Occupation Recalibration").
So how is this sexist?

Amy Farrah Fowler:  she's a fucking neurobiologist!  She's also very well-rounded; she enjoys both Chaucer and playing the harp.  She has her own apartment and her own car, so she clearly knows how to manage her funds.  And don't forget:  when she and Sheldon first began their relationship, she was just as analytical, literal, and standoffish as he is.  Their relationship has changed and evolved, just like Bernadette and Howard's, and Penny and Leonard's -- like all good relationships (and writing) should.

So, again, I'm afraid I don't see how the show is sexist.  Do these three women enjoy comic books?  Not necessarily, no.  Does the show say that NO WOMEN enjoy comic books?  Absolutely not.  In fact, Raj met his (now ex-) girlfriend, Lucy, in the comic book store (S06E16 "The Tangible Affection Proof").  Additionally, in "The Bakersfield Expedition," these women do take the time to explore comic books and actually have very involved discussions/arguments about them.

The long and short of it is, nothing I say here will convince you to watch the show if you've decided not to.  If you have watched it and decided you don't like it, nothing I say will convince you otherwise.  You don't have to like everything, and you and I don't have to like the same things.  But please stop badmouthing the show and saying it's things it's not, especially when the proof is lacking.

And how here is a clip of one of my other favorite episodes, E02E11 "The Bath Item Gift Hypothesis."  Penny's gift proves that she pays attention to what Leonard and Sheldon like because say, for instance, you've never watched an episode of Star Trek in your life (I know it's hard to believe, but such people do exist).  And then you start hearing about it from friends and acquaintances.  And you hear characters' and actors' names (like Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, Leonard Nimoy, etc.) tossed around.  You would REALLY have to be on your game to put all of that together AND recognize Leonard Nimoy currently, as an elderly man, when out in public.  It's like my friends who talk sports a lot.  I hear the names, I know the team names, but I wouldn't be able to pick any of them out of a line-up.  So what Penny did is actually quite impressive (and Jim Parsons' acting in this scene is just phenomenal). 

 

Moral of the Story: Don't Ride Roller Coasters

In 1983, TSR and Marvel Productions started a cartoon called Dungeons & Dragons, based on the role-playing tabletop game.  Yes, long before other game-to-movie abominations like Battleship hit the screens, TSR and Marvel already thought it was a good idea to turn games into TV shows.  As the show was canceled after twenty-seven episodes, leaving the finale (which would have wrapped everything up) un-produced, I'm going to say no, it's not a good idea.  And sorry, hard-core RPG fans, there are no dice, characters sheets, or hit points in this show.

A group of kids, aged 7-15, go on a "Dungeons & Dragons ride" at an amusement park.  Where are their chaperones?  Who lets kids just run amok at an amusement park??  D&D the cartoon may actually be a commentary on laissez-faire parenting.

As you can see from the opening credits, this roller coaster of doom transports the children into a scary, magical land, complete with unicorns who jump into your arms.

In each episode, the kids would have a "quest" thrown at them, and at some point they would have to choose between helping other denizens of this realm or going home to the real world.  Invariably, the good-hearted children would help the others, sacrificing their chances to return home.

I remember thinking these children were idiots when I watched it.  In one episode a character could only make one wish:  go home (alone) or save his companions.  I thought, "You moron.  Simply say 'I wish to go home with my friends'!"  (Even at this tender age, Leonard was all about semantics.)

As mentioned earlier, there are only twenty-seven episodes.  The series was canceled in 1985, leaving the finale episode unfinished, although word on the street is that you can find the script floating around on the Interwebs.

The moral of this story, of course, is don't ride roller coasters.  I didn't ride roller coasters until I was at least fifteen or so; I'm pretty sure this show is what instilled the fear in my young mind.

Here's the first part of Season 1 Episode 1 "The Night of No Tomorrow."  Enjoy all the 1980s animated feathered hair.

Throwback Thursdays: Hugga Bunch

Aren't they adorable?  Just wait, they'll get creepy in a moment.  (And if you already think they look creepy, they're going to get creepier).  The Hugga Bunch dolls were a franchise started in 1985 by Kenner and Hallmark Cards.  Each fuzzy, candy-colored doll came with a smaller doll, called a "huglet," which they would, well, hug.  The dolls had velcro on their hands (hey, it was the 80s; velcro was still a big deal) so they could "hug" the smaller doll or even each other, I guess.

Please note the shiny material on the dolls' dresses.  The velcro could catch on this fabric and then leave nasty snag marks when you ripped it away (as I often did).  My mother noticed this imperfection and made an angry phone call to the manufacturer.  Soon I had a second set of Hugga Bunch dolls.  You didn't think I came by my habit of Strongly Worded Letters all by myself, did you?

Because Hallmark Cards was involved, they made a Hallmark family "made for TV" movie of the Hugga Bunch called The Hugga Bunch.  Apparently the title/marketing department had no cash to come up with a better name as the entire movie was produced for $1.4 million, "making it the most expensive TV special ever produced at that time."  Presumably most of the money was spent on "special effects," as it earned one Primetime Emmy for "Outstanding Visual Effects."

Why Castle's Season Finale Pisses Me Off

 

River is correct.  This post contains spoilers.  Read after the jump at your own risk.