Kitchen Sink: Books, Trains, and TV....

[shadowkat]

1. Finished reading The Other Guy's Bride by Connie Brockway, which was okay. I agree with shipperx's assessment of it. The ending was a bit silly. And the love scenes felt like satire...or just fell out of nowhere. Brockway isn't good at building a sex scene or writing one, they are unintentionally humorous. I think sex scenes are really hard to write well. Few men can do it, so they avoid or they deliberately right bad ones. *cough*ThomasPynchon*cough*. I think The Last Hellion by Loretta Chase was a tad more subversive though. The heroine is smarter and tougher in that romance, she saves the hero. Actually in most of Chase's novels the heroine saves the hero...which I found interesting. Spent a good portion of the morning reading it. Then watched the abysmal The River - people find this show scary? I don't find it scary. Maybe in a tepid sense. Somewhat grating and silly, but not scary. Also oddly predictable. I baked brownies and made icing during it. Not because I want to eat the brownies or the icing, I don't really. I just wanted to make them. Now I need to figure out what to do with it. If they weren't gluten-free I'd take them to church and to work. I could, but I'd have to lie to people. Because people who aren't on gluten-free diets refuse to try gluten-free baked goods. Weird, I know, but there it is.

2. I love trains. Was thinking about this the other day...I'm in the wrong country or continent. I should have been born European - they have cool trains. Did you know one of the fastest trains in the world is in France?

Isn't that cool? And still safer than driving or buses.

Compare to the 1955 World Speed Record - also France.

The reason trains are safer is that they are more controlled. Set brakes, lots of safety mechanisms in place. While cars and buses really don't have any. You can't control the other drivers, or road conditions etc. While with trains, the tracks are maintained, checked continuously, and if an engineer falls asleep or is drunk, it isn't a major problem, because there are automatic brake and control mechanisms in place. Is it perfect? Of course not. Are there derailments? Of course. But far less than car accidents or bus accidents. I work in the field of transportation, and I spent hours discussing this with a switch signal engineer.

Also in a train? You can sleep, read, write, walk around, there's a bathroom, eat, and barely feel the movement. Smoothest ride on the planet. I get motion sickness, only place I haven't is on train's, unless I'm going backwards. I can't read or do much more than try to sleep as a passenger in a car or bus. Trains - you can always see the world and beautiful things floating past your window. One of the most beautiful trips by Train in NY is up the Hudson River Line. Far prettier than by car - where you see mostly highway and food franchises and hills. On the train you see the river and the mountains. Another plus about trains - at least modern trains - is they are electric no pollution. Save energy. No need for gas or oil. And don't pollute the environment.

A fast train...that could go 574 miles per hour - could get you to Chicago in less than three hours, faster than a plane from NY. And take more people. Trains can carry over 1000 passengers.


3. How to know you are a geek?

* You can list off the top of your head every Star Trek series that has been on TV and all of the movies...and well you know all the characters more or less by name.
* You know who Joss Whedon is. More importantly you can tell people all the shows he wrote.
And list your favorites.
* You have a weird knowledge of arcane facts and trivia that blows people's minds.
* You actually identify with the cast of Big Bang Theory and Community.

There are others...but my neck hurts and I want to watch Merlin and I'm not sure anyone is really reading this anyway. If so, feel free to list at will in comments or not as the case may be.

4. I'm about to give up on Ringer. I don't like anyone but the poor husband, Andrew, who I am starting to feel really sorry for. The poor guy is being scammed by everyone in his life, talk about your schmuck's. His daughter, his wife, her twin sister, his business partner, his friend, and the new head of one of his companies. Sad. I can't think what he has done to deserve this. Except that he has really bad taste in women. Oddly misogynistic series. It wants to be femme noir, but isn't quite cutting it.

Revenge on the other hand is a lot of fun. Don't have a great deal to say about it, except that it entertains me. And I think I know who killed Tyler. Pretty sure it wasn't Daniel, but rather Takada. Takada is like the evil Nolan. We have Nolan on one side of Emily-Amanda, who wants her to give up the Revenge biz and run off with Jack, and we have Takada on the other side - her mentor, who wants her to be a cold bitch and carry out her Revenge scheme to the letter. Takada tells Emily - he's taken care of her problems. He returns her father's box to her, which Tyler stole, and tells her to bury it where no one can find it. He also gives Amanda-Emily a ride. Convienently after Amanda is discovered by Jack with Tyler's body and has run off. So I think, Takada killed Tyler, set it up to look like Daniel did it, and got Amanda-Emily out of there. Tyler had intended to set it up to make it look like Emily killed Daniel and would get Amanda-Emily out of there. But Tyler misread Amanda-Emily, when he told her that Emily set him up for Frank's murder to protect herself. (No, she was protecting Amanda-Emily),
and second that they were rivals for Jack (no, Emily told Jack not to give up on Amanda-Emily and go off with her.)

This show unlike Ringer is written tightly and does achieve a noirish tone, also all the characters are interesting, somewhat likable, and complex.


The Vamp Diaries - a bit slower this week, but some nice cliff-hangy moments. I'm not as besotted with Elijah as everyone else is. He's hot, but also a bit stiff. While Ian Sommerhands bug-eyed reactions to things crack me up, that's Damon. He's hilarious. He reminds me a little of Jim Carry in the Mask. That man has a rubbery face. Vamp Diaries has hot men, you have to give it that. They definitely know how to cast their male lead eye candy. Nik-Klaus on the other hand is growing on me, he is hot in this episode, and I like his chemistry with Caroline. Tyler has competition. They still don't appear to know what to do with Matt though.

The brother who is Momma's favorite and whose name I can't remember...is quite attractive. Would like to see more of him.

Bad Damon for killing Bonnie's Mom, Abby (we hardly knew yah). Good Damon for doing it instead of Stefan, who he has decided Elena truly loves and he won't stand in the way of true love.
Such a martyr. But a more appealing martyr than Stefan. I rather like the Damon/Stefan relationship. As do the writers obviously - they clearly are investing more in it than other relationships on the series.

Can't blame Bonnie for not wanting Elena hovering around any longer. Seriously, Caroline is right.
Elena has taken everything from Bonnie. Literally. Including Jeremy. How these two are still friends, I don't know. Also can't blame Bonnie for wanting the vampires dead. I would if I were Bonnie. Although I'm glad they aren't dead, I find the originals highly entertaining. Let's keep them alive for at least another season.

Am beginning to understand why Nik-Klause staked Cole first. I would have. Cole's annoying.

Rebecca/Damon make a good pair - more of that please. Particularly if it succeeds in making Elena jealous.

Nik-Klaus arty ways reminded me of Angelus in Buffy, but I find Nik-Klaus hotter and more interesting than Angelus, also more complicated.

Goody, next week, we get Damon flashbacks. I was getting bored of the Stefan one's.



* Secret Circle - why do they always write the girl meeting her father in these stories in a such a disappointing way? And make it all about her boy friends of the moment? They'd better not write the father out quickly or have him disappear like the Grandmother. I find this trend in teen supernatural shows grating. Yes, I understand how troublesome it is with adults in the story too, but it's not realistic to have these teens living on their own.

My problem with this show is I'm not interested in what the writers are interested in or the fan base, I'm guessing. I don't care which guy Cassie gets together with. Jake reminds me too much of a young David Boreanze, except blond, he even has the same brood down and cynical remarks. While Adam...appealing, is also grating in his over-protectiveness. I also don't care if Melissa decides to do drugs - that story line is too close to Willow's magic arc in S6. What I care about is why John Blackwell left, what happened all those years ago to cause the elders to strip them of their powers, why Blackwell was extranged from Cassie's mom, if Faye is his other kid - how he'll reacte when he finds out. Also...the bonding between father and daughter. And again what went down between the parents, why Ethan is scared of Blackwell, why Dawn wants him, why Charles despises him...and what they did. Also who Eamon is. And more on the elders.

I basically want the Cassie/Blackwell show and the focus to be on the adults not the kids, because I think the adults are far more interesting and complicated, not to mention played by better actors. But I'm not going to get that. Instead they'll tease me about it for five-six episodes before going back to the grating love triangle, which makes me feel sorry for Diana and Faye.
Also, seriously? Do we have to put Cassie in danger in every episode? I know they aren't going to kill her, come one. Although I was worried about Daddy. I'm afraid they'll do to him what they did with Granny...have him show up, then go again.

All that said? I rather like Joe Lando in this part. He's unrecognizable. (Used to play Scully on Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman...not that I watched it, too sweet for my tv taste buds even back then.)

Comments

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I have to say that I'm surprised that SMG is so unappealing and unrelateable in this show. I had always found it easy to identify w/her on BtVS, even in the 7th season when she was giving speeches and being all Generalisamo. I had thought that her personal appeal would make 'Ringer' work, but somehow she isn't coming through.

It doesn't surprise me that much. In the last two seasons of Buffy she was losing her luster just a bit, not quite connecting. The problem is that Gellar is limited. She can do the "big" emotions and the quippy humor, but can't do subtlety - which is what a role like the one in Ringer required. All you have to do is watch one episode of Revenge and see how Emily Van Camp and Madeline Stowe handle a similar role...they emote with eyes and so subtle. Gellar hasn't figured that out.

And I say that having seen her in a lot of things since Buffy. She's weak in everything. From Grudge to Revolver to Surburban Girl (which is cringeworthy). None of her films have been successful. It may be in part direction, or writing, or whether she can connect with the character. But I think it's just she hit a brick wall acting wise somewhere around the age of 25/26 and that's well just that.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Although to be fair to Gellar, Ringer has got to be the worst written television series that I've seen in 10 years. I'm not sure an A list actress could have saved that role. Anyone in it would have tanked.

Ringer makes General Hospital look like Shakespeare in comparison.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

It is too bad, I had been looking forward to SMG's return to TV (I had missed all of the movies she made... which of course means I didn't miss much). I'm afraid she not only isn't a very subtle actress, she also doesn't seem to be very good at picking material (she is a producer on 'Ringer' so she does have to share the blame for the whole package).

They really had some good supporting actors (I love that guy who plays her husband!) but clearly that wasn't enough.

I was also thinking that no 'geek' criteria would be complete without some questions about BSG and/or Terminator... There have been so many great shows with loyal fans. I know a woman in Iowa who is still upset that Sheldon on Big Bang won't watch Babylon 5, which is one of her favorites.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

To be fair to SMG, she probably doesn't have many choices. I know and have known so many actors in my lifetime, most give up eventually and just do something else. They are great actors, but there are about ten roles for 1000 people. It's insane.

Theater is easier but you don't get paid much and getting on Broadway is almost impossible. Because again competing against so many people. And acting like any type of art is subjective. And so much of it is based on looks. They have to have thick skin and most of them if they are smart don't read reviews or pay attention to them. They just do their work and go home. I know Gellar doesn't. She stays away from it.

Ringer was perfect for her - she could stay in NY. She could work 9-5, no weekends. And she could have day-care on the set. She just wants to make a living like the rest of us, to Gellar it's just a job. She works hard. Goes home. Tucks in the kid. And employs a lot of people.
And that I think is what she was hunting for - a way to act and have a family.

I think the problem with doing art for a living is people think of it as art, but it's really just paying the rent. I love what Marsters will often state about the biz - "Look as long as I get paid, I don't care." That may sound crass to fans, but actors don't always get paid.
Sometimes, they won't get paid unless the film sells and their pay is a percentage of the profits. Which means you work your ass off for six to ten months, then the film goes on the shelf, doesn't get distributed, and you get no money. Ouch. This has happened to everyone in the biz. I know one friend who told me a horror tale of how she was a producer on a film, they filmed on an island, she lost money on it, but she took the risk because it was a good script and she got a major role and who knows? But instead of being a hit indie, like the Melissa Leo film that got her nominated for an Oscar, my friend's film never got seen. It's gone. No one ever saw it. Not a soul.

IT's like winning the lottery in a way. You can't tell from the script if the film or tv show will be good or not. It's in how all the pieces come together...and whether people you've never met, never see, and don't know get turned on by it.

All of the above is why I decided never to get involved in the film or entertainment biz. Painful biz.

Even Whedon? Hardly successful. Few people know who he is. Every series he's done was either canceled or on the edge of cancellation. Buffy certainly was - I was always worried about it being canceled. We were surprised it came back after S5. WB and Fox lost money on Buffy. He's a cult sensation. The biggest film he's done is The Avengers. But in comparison to so many others?
He's incredibly lucky.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I agree about show business being a painful biz... of course being a painter/artist is worse (you can't expect to be taken seriously until after you are dead). It is hard to be in any of the creative fields (music, writing, as well as acting) because even just being able to support yourself is an up-hill battle.....
And I can sympathize with SMG's desire for shorter hours close to home so she can spend as much time as possible with her family (it is why Alyson Hannigan is happy on HIMYM: she gets her evenings and weekends free).

It is hard to really pity those who are successful (and starring in your own mediocre TV show is still huge success financially) when there are so many really brilliant actors who are still just scraping by (Juliet Landau or Armin Shimerman are people who probably can do anything who don't get the chance to star in anything major). It is an unfair system... Luck plays a big part (so do producers who like to hire the cute instead of the interesting).

I'm rambling....

BTW I meant to mention how much I the European trains: I spent three weeks traveling on the British rail and found it easy and comfortable and convenient.... Even Italy (which is prone to random strikes) was a pleasure to use. But the USA (at least the trains I've taken) just doesn't measure up. I traveled from Denver to Seattle in a sleeper (keeping my Mother company) and it was horribly uncomfortable and arrived 6 hours late (and cost more than flying first class would have).
*sigh*

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

*The US just hasn't spent the money on its rail system that Europe has, in part because of the auto lobby and the American desire to invest the funds in "highways" and "cars". It's our own fault that our rails aren't as good as theirs. We chose to invest in automobiles. Obama is at this very moment attempting to change that and put into place a high speed rail system, upgrade the rails across the US.

Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged is in part a libertarian rant about the governmental investment in rails. Rand felt that US rails was a perfect example of how big government screws up something. Except - she didn't look at China and Europe, who have excellent rails and are government funded. Nor did she consider that the reason the US rails aren't up to snuff is our government puts the majority of its funds in "roads" and "highway construction" and supporting the auto industry. There's currently a bill in the House that will remove federal funds - the fossil fuel taxes from Mass Transit and Public Transportation.

As my father always states, the American people have gotten the government and the country they deserve. They have.

That said? The US has the best Mass Transit system in the world in NYC.
It's the only one that is 24/7. And can go practically anywhere in the city. Also the rail system for the NorthEast corridor from roughly Washington, DC to Boston is amazing. Driving is idiotic if you live in NYC or in these areas.

* It is hard to really pity those who are successful (and starring in your own mediocre TV show is still huge success financially) when there are so many really brilliant actors who are still just scraping by (Juliet Landau or Armin Shimerman are people who probably can

Agreed. Like I said, I have had friends who didn't even get as far as Juliet Landau or James Marsters or Armin Shimerman who have had great parts. And then there's Ben Browder and Claudia Black - who I adore but can't find in anything new.

Same with writers and directors. It grates on my ever living nerve that male writers and directors get the big projects.

In the arts it is all about connections. If your parents are in the biz, you got an easy in. If your relatives are - you got an easy in.
Examples: Michael Douglas, Joss Whedon, Kate Hudson, Ron Howard,
the list goes on. That said, you do have to have talent. Or John Wayne's kid, Patrick Wayne would have done better. Yet, there are so many who so much more talented than those four guys, yet can't even get through the front door. Worse - men in the writing and directing fields get noticed more and get more projects. How hard would it have been to hire a woman to direct Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? In Hollywood impossible.

And even those four...two are second or third strung, their success is sort of similar to Gellar's although a bit more so. Yet they are all in the 1%, all have more money than we can imagine, and they can pretty much do anything. They are more successful than other's...

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

When I was on the long slow rough train ride from Denver to Seattle I asked people running the train about it and I was told that the freight companies own the tracks... and they see no reason why a smooth ride is important, AND they always take the right of way (so the passenger trains wait so that the freight trains can keep to their schedule, making the passenger trains later and later the further you travel across country).

But yeah, I traveled from DC to NYC many times (I lived in DC for 8 years) and loved that train: it was comfortable and on time! When I was in NYC for a month I stored my car at talimama's house because having a car in Manhattan is insanity (expensive and inconvenient to the point of being useless).

LA has made it cheap and easy to drive, when I was staying there for a couple of weeks I consistently found it cheaper to drive and park than to ride on public transportation (and way more convenient).

San Francisco is almost as bad:
the train system doesn't go every where, and the connecting buses have a very short day (so if you can't be home by 10 pm then you have to drive your car...).

The West coast just doesn't have nearly the public transportation system the East coast has (and of course the mid-West has none at all). Luckily I enjoy driving. I hope that Obama's attempts to get high speed rail supported gets passed!