Supernatural and Sherlock Reviews

Having a bit of a lazy day today. Wherein I did a vaccumned, cleaned my bathroom by spraying tilex all over the tub, ate fresh homemade marshemellows (note to self marshmellows are now officially on your do not buy list - I bought fresh homemade marshmellows - I didn't make them), did some painting or watercoloring, read, and marathon watched five episodes of Supernatural...while basking in the sun that is pouring in through my windows like a cat. (there's a reason I don't call myself shadowdog, outside of the fact that it sounds really really stupid.)

Saw Sherlock last night - was not as good as the opening episode. But then it was also written by someone other than Moffat. ( mini-review with vague spoilers that probably won't make much sense to anyone who has not watched it )

Supernatural - I enjoyed as well, more than I thought I would. I don't do scary well, but Supernatural outside of maybe two-three episodes during the first three seasons, doesn't tend to scare me.

Here's a mini discussion between Momster and I over the phone, regarding horror films, tv shows and books. Momster isn't scared by horror. Grossed out occassionally. But that's it.

Me: Horror shows don't scare you, do they? I mean you weren't phased by Jaws or Alien at all.
Momster: Nope. Poltergeist didn't bother me either. It's rare that something does - usually pyschological horror, if that.
Me: Why?
Momster: Because I know it's not real.
Me: But.. How do you know it's not real? It could be real. You have no evidence that it isn't. It is totally possible that an alien creature could impregnant someone and leap out and devour everyone in sight, and that ghosts have taken over a house, or...see this is the problem with having a vivid imagination...


What works best for me in Supernatural is actually what works best for me in Sherlock - the B plot-line about the characters, not the mystery of the week plotline (which often serves as a way of exploring them further - if done right, which it is in shows like Supernatural.).

The story here is basically the "bro-romance". That's all this show is at its heart of hearts, one big long bro-romance. If you don't like that sort of thing? You won't like Supernatural.
So why are you hanging out here reading this review? Go away. Shoo! I don't discuss stuff I don't like. If I don't like it, I probably rarely if ever mention it. Not good for the blood-pressure.[Note I don't dislike or hate the Buffy comics - I'm frustrated with the Buffy comics, because I actually do like portions of them, but they are disappointing me, because there's so much potential and the stupid writer is falling down on the job. That's different than ranting about something you dislike or hate. Just in case you were wondering not that you were...but just in case. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.]
( spoilers )

(no subject)

Well it occurs to me tonight that if I want to re-watch Farscape again...occassionally I get the urge or Buffy for that matter, or my netflix DVD's - I have to lug my ass to Manhattan, go to Best Buy and buy a new DVD player. That's for tomorrow. Today I decided to do nothing.

Oh, look, my radiator is hissing to life. It sounds a bit like a cat wheezing. I guess the landlord did turn it on after all.

Read in the paper last week that they (they being the biological scientists who apparently have nothing better to do or have a lot of time on the hands - it's a toss-up) discovered a gene for liberalism. The statement was something to the effect that there may be a gene that predisposes people to choose more unconventional paths, partners, etc and question traditional norms...hunting change. Hmm. Not to be confused with the gene for homosexuality - of course. This is a new one. So my first thought? Does this mean there's gene for conventional, conservative thought too? Or is that the typical chromosome and the nontypical is the liberal gene? And shouldn't these scientists be hunting for, I don't know, the gene that causes althezimers and resolve that problem first?
Maybe they already have? And they are just bored? Clearly as you can see I inherited the gene for liberalism - since I'm questioning all of this.

I'm admittedly liberal. In my workplace? Radically so. In my family, moderate. In my church, very moderate. On livejournal, moderate to conservative. It really just depends on who I'm interacting with at the moment. Is there a gene for moderates? Does it matter? I mean really...what are they planning on doing with this knowledge anyhow and do I want to know?

I'm somewhat tired of the extremists, who actually make up no more than 20% of the general population but appear to be the most vocal, so look like they make up a bigger portion of the population than they actually do. It's a lot like fandom actually - people think the insane fans make up 85% of the fandom, when in reality they make up 2-5% of it. They just whine the loudest, that's all. The rest of us roll our eyes and wonder if we just ignore these people, will they disappear? There's hope. So far hasn't been working...but that could be partly because not enough people are ignoring them?

By the way, my favorite sign from the John Stewart Rally Against Insanity Campaign was:

"Zombies for the Restoration of BRainnns" - LOL! (Apparently the zombies can't eat most of the radical right-wingers because they have no brain...so there's no protein, and zombie is going away hungry or just weak. Poor zombies. On the plus side, if you don't have a brain, you don't have to worry about zombies. On the minus side, if you don't have a brain - you are most likely a zombie to begin with - because sort of hard to be alive without a brain. Yes, this logic gives me a head-ache too.)