Spontaneous Musings

Just finished binge watching the final five episodes of Mad Men, and..well, I have the same reaction that I had to the last season of Breaking Bad, The Wire, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, MASH, and Justified, yes, I liked the ending but the middle seasons were better. I don't know what it is about television series and final seasons...but they feel as if the writers have gotten tired? And maybe the series should have ended a year earlier?

That said, they did wrap up all the story arcs rather neatly in the finale, and everyone got a happy ending but Betty Draper Fisher and her kids. ( spoiler )

Loved Joan, Roger, Pete, and Peggy's endings. Those worked for me. And their arcs actually worked throughout the series. The only characters that I had issues with were Don and Betty...I found them sort of boring and a touch cliche. The show worked best when it focused on the AD industry.

But, there are some nifty isolated moments in Don's finale story arc...that sort of save it.

I may have to write a meta on this at a later point. All in all, I enjoyed the final four episodes quite a bit, the first couple were a bit slow. And I will miss the series, it was amongst the few that I felt was well written with consistently strong performances, and production.

And ( spoiler )

Vincent Kartheiser amazes me. I saw him in the cast roundtables, after they'd finished filming, and he looks nothing like his character on Mad Men. He's actually attractive. In fact I didn't recognize him. Nor did I recognize Elizabeth Moss. Those two actors are insanely good. You don't recognize them from one role to the next, they disappear into their roles.

Kartheriser who had formerly played Connor in Angel the Series, has impressed me for a while - in that he was riveting as Connor. (At least I found him to be riveting. He upped David Boreanze's acting.) He pulled off the same thing in Mad Men that he did in Angel, for me at any rate, in that he made me care about a very complex and not necessarily likable character.

Overall it was a good finale. Not quite as good as the Justified finale, or the Breaking Bad finale, but close. And definitely better than Battle Star Galatica, Buffy, or Lost.
(I didn't like the finales all that much of BSG, Lost or Buffy - they all felt forced, preachy, and over the top. I prefer subtle endings.)

1. Is it just me or has Mad Men been really good this season? The last four episodes are superb character studies. Indicative of the time, and examine mid-life crisis and the monstrosity of the mundane. Watching is reminiscent of those glorious 1970s and 1960s movies: Carnal Knowledge, Five Easy Pieces, An Unmarried Woman, Lovers and Other Strangers,
and the later ones - The Ice Storm, Little Children and Revolutionary Road. Middle Class angst. Or as Don Draper puts it so well..."Nobody grows up wanting to be in advertising."
Last week's episode focused on Peggy and Joan, this weeks on Pete and Lane. This series, like a good wine, gets better with age.

2. After a brief exchange on an unrelated topic online...I found myself pondering the writers and novels and for that matter stories that resonated and influenced me the most as a youth. The stories that I remember. I've read a lot of stories in my lifetime and a lot of writer's, many of them award-winning and highly acclaimed, and yet often the one's I remember aren't either. Odd that. I've read Toni Morrison and Ursula Le Guinn but I can't remember their characters or the plots of their tales. Any more than I appear to able to remember most of Carey Grant's films for some reason - although I've seen all of them, they sort of blend together. I do remember Father Goose - actually that stands out.
As does Charade and To Catch a Thief. It's odd, Grant's older films seem to stand out in my head more than his early ones do. But back to books...

Here's 16 books that I vividly remember and re-read with obsessive devotion as a child between the ages of 7-14. The fact that I can remember them more than 30 years later, says something, I suppose, about their effect on me.

( 16 memorable books from childhood )

3. Was anyone else disappointed by Mark Watches reaction to Restless? Just me then?
Also, he seems to understand it pretty well, that was Restless in a nutshell. It's a far more interesting episode though...in retrospect. And it reminds me what Whedon can do when he focuses on the psychological and emotional journey's of his characters, delves deep into them, as opposed to philosophy, theme, or political allegory. Whedon? You are not
George Orwell, Stanley Kubrick, or Aaron Sorkin - stop trying to be! You are falling into the same trap George Lucas did - getting a bit too self-congraulatory (I blame Whedon fans and whedonseque for this) and a bit too into the sfx and meta/philosophical stuff. It killed Lucas and it is killing you. (Okay in my opinion, admittedly, I know there are people out there who dig the prequels to Star Wars and like what Lucas did post his earlier works, just as there are people who adore Whedon's latter works and think Buffy is silly. Mileage varies, folks, we know this. It makes life interesting..etc. Difficult, but interesting.)

1. I am being stalked on Facebook by an old high-school classmate, who...well, suffice it to say was not exactly a friend. ( personal )

2. Watched Mad Men tonight. The season finale. Was rather interesting. Not surprising, I found the plot twist people were talking about rather predictable - saw that coming a mile away. During it, I goggled Draper Daniels - who Don Draper is in part based on. Draper Daniels did Marlboro Man, Motorola, and Tony the Tiger - he worked for Leo Burnett - a major firm out of Chicago in 1950s and 1960s. Was a bit of a womanizer, very charming, and an excellent conceptual writer and copywriter - he developed the concept in the ad game, and literally changed it, by directing ads to the individual consumer. Addressing their individual needs and desires. Another bit of gossip about Mad Men - John Slattery's real life wife is playing his ex-wife Marge in Mad Men, and she was in real life - an ex-girlfriend of George Clooney's. (this is courtesy of Momster who read it or saw it somewhere).

( Mad Men spoilers )

Cross-posting from DW again, because I'm tired of lj's slowness and ad problems. Still on fence about importing and just posting from here.

Had a relaxing weekend, played on the net, read and laughed at a comic, wrote a review about it, played some more, took long walks, went to church (which is always a new experience everytime I go), drew and painted. Have four drawings to start painting now. That should last the week. Also watched Discs 1 and 2 from S1 of Big Love (which were good, but not gripping), and two brilliant episodes of Mad Men which blew me away. S4 Mad Men is by far my favorite season of this show. Best thing I read or watched this weekend was Mad Men - it's character focused, and quite subtle with its themes, unlike some writers who I shan't mention.

At church - it's a Unitarian Universalist Church - which basically means open to all religious and non-religious faiths (ie, all are welcome - whether you are theist or non-theist.) Anyhow - we basically just met in groups and discussed stuff on our minds, such as the on-going Mosque debate. The Mosque debate which is not going away and continues to grate. I do not understand the people who are offended by it or against it. I just can't wrap my head around their argument, it makes no logical or rational sense. It's pure emotion - and based on fear and anxiety, which ahem, was the all intent of the terrorist attack. Hello? Terrorism is about instilling terror and anxiety in the target. There were two readings. I wish I knew where they came from...so I could google them.

The first was about listening. ( Read more... )

The second reading was a quote that has haunted me for the past two days. "Too often we ask the question 'who we are', when the question we should be asking is 'whose we are' - who do we belong to? Whose lives do our decisions/choices touch? Whose lives are affected by what we do or say? Whose lives are touched by ours? Who are we responsible to? Who trusts us? Instead of the self-asborbed question who am I? Perhaps the more meaningful one is whose? And not in the religious sense, but the spiritual one." (This quote was read and written by an atheist.)

It's funny - I had a discussion about writing in the last post (a snarky review on a comic book posted in LJ only) - a brief one...and during it the question was once again raised - who do we write for? Ourselves? And as a writer - whether it be solely on a blog under a crazy name like shadowkat or as a well-known comic book and television writer - do we have a responsibility to those who read and see our work? Does what we produce in part belong to them? It's an odd question for a former copyright specialist to ask - since copyright law firmly states the opposite. Yet, when I read a comic book this weekend and the numerous posts on it - I noticed in both the posts and the comic - ideas and items borrowed from other writers works. Our writing informs one another's, we react to what we've read. And what we put out there, whether we like it or not does affect someone else for good or ill. ( about online posting and responsibilities to readers )

Watching Mad Men tonight...it hit me how true this is. Two episodes back to back, last week's and this week's - about the consequences of Don Draper's actions. How he affects those around him. You wonder watching them why people tolerate Don - until towards the end of the second episode about the suitcase. In that episode - Don oddly comforts Peggy, after he's ripped her to shreds. It's an episode that depicts the complexity of both Don and Peggy, in detail. Showing the good, bad, and ugly.

( spoilers on Mad Men - this sunday and last sunday's episodes )

As a final closing statement - I read another flist meta today (it's flocked, so no, I can't link to it or tell you who it was) where the writer analyzed the Buffy issue 36 comic from a perspective that none of the other metas/reviews that I've seen considered. This post looked at from a purely political and philosophical stance - stating that it is a metaphor for religious zealots - who place far too much trust in holy oracles or biblical text. Angel who trusts an God to tell him what to do, then becomes elevated to God himself - and everyone follows him blindly. Or Buffy who doesn't trust Angel, but gives him her faith and heart - and gets elevated to Goddess status - while all follow her blindly to their doom. The analogy can also be linked to political leaders - who people follow without question, place faith in - without the political leader earning their trust first, and the leader acts as if they are on a mission ordained by God. A holy jihad. The slayer jihad. And Twilight's just war against their unholy religion. This in a way circles back to the debate on the Mosque and how we are responsible for one another and belong to one another, not just to some heavenly body. And it can as well relate to parents, since many see God as a parent of sorts - that we are not just our parents children, we do not belong to them solely. Our actions do not only affect them. Sometimes our parents can be wrong. At church there's a fan that states Question Authority. It's important I think to do so. Trusting blindly in anything can result in horrific consequences as the up-coming anniversary of the 9/11 bombings is testament to. You need look no further than 9/11 to know what blind faith in anything can do.

Off to bed

Taking a breather from book revisions and tv watching. More of one than the other. Guess which? Book revisions are hard right now - because I'm currently absurdly critical of my own writing. It's because I'm reading a well-written literary novel, Monsters of Templeton and am doing myself the disservice of comparing my own writing to it.

The opening or first paragraph from said novel: "The day I returned to Templeton steeped in disgrace, the fifty-foot corpse of a monster surfaced in Lake Glimmerglass. It was one of those strange purple dawns that color July there, when the bowl made by the hills fills with a thick fog and even the songbirds sing timorously, unsure of day or night."

Opening paragraph from my poor belabored effort: "Caddy tottered at the rim of the subway platform and stared downwards at the narrow gully between the tracks where a solitary rat scurried, sniffing out crumbs. The name Caddy was short for Candace, which she despised, hence the Caddy. Even though Caddy sounded chirpier than she usually felt, one did not pick one’s own name. She blamed her mother, a frustrated English Lit professor, who had named her Caddy after a Faulkner character of the same name. Naming a daughter after a traumatized and suicidal character may not have been the best idea, although the fictional character’s life, as was the case with most fictional characters, was far more interesting than her own."

Sigh. Wales tells me not to worry so. She loves the way I write and thinks it is just fine and my own style. She doesn't want me to write like the "first" paragraph above. This in a nutshell may be one of the many reasons Wales's friendship is so precious to me, even if I don't always show it. We need a few cheerleaders in our lives after all, makes it easier to get to the tops of those craggy cliffs.

Yes, I know, part of my problem is I suffer from Miss Malprop syndrom. Miss Malprop was a character in The Importance of Being Earnest - I believe. Should google to be certain. Who made up words and often used the wrong word or wrong syntax. It is a family malady. My brother does it and my mother does it - as did my grandfather - a symptom of our mutual dyslexia. Highly annoying trait for a writer and one I continue to struggle with. Often I do not trust the beautiful words that wander off my fingers and onto the page, regardless of how pretty they sound. Since I am highly self-conscious of it, and annoyed by the fact that it often happens subsconsiously - so I don't always know - particularly when speaking, I tend to be a bit, shall we say, sensitive to criticism regarding it. I can't quite abide being corrected or criticized and will most often react rather immaturely by lashing out at the critic. You'd think the mere fact that I'm aware of this flaw in my nature would inspire me to change it, but it doesn't. Annoying that. What can I say I'm quirky. But those who are my friends appear to love me anyway. Those who don't...there's little one can do about that.

Quickly before bed, because did not intend to write any of the above - I always do this, write something I did not intend. Hence the title of the journal - spontaneous musings.
Anyhow...

*Was rather amused by my father's take on Mad Men which is not as my mother described it. I asked him how he was enjoying it? He replied that they had finished watching the first season DVD and rather liked it. He admitted to having troubles with it at first, because there weren't any characters he liked or cared about, that is until the very end, when Don Draper, the lead character, changes his mind and decides at the last minute to join his family for Thanksgiving, but alas is too late and they've left without him - so he is sitting on the steps all alone. My father felt sorry for him. My Dad said Mad Men makes him think of a comic strip or graphic novel - it is so perfectly drawn and painted. (I should state that amongst other things, my Dad is a frustrated cartoonist and used to draw cartoons and comic strips when he was younger.) It's very stylized. He also said that he entered the world of Madison Avenue, and interacted with Advertising and Marketing people in 1968 and the early 1970s. He did it in New York, when I was a baby. Used to go after hours to The Four Seasons - where the characters of Mad Men hung out. And every thing in that show, according to my Dad is EXACTLY like it was back then. People did drink constantly at work, they did smoke constantly. Women, Blacks, Jews were all treated that way. The ad industry was like that and the guys in it were like the people in Mad Men. The accuracy, according to my Dad, is spot on. It brought back memories. So apparently kidbro wasn't as far off base giving it to my Dad, as I thought.

*I'm watching How I Met Your Mother for one reason only. I am a Robin/Barney shipper. I adore Neil Patrick Harris - have a little crush on him actually. He's so adorable and hilarious as Barney. Much better than he was as Doogie Howser. So I watch it for him and try to ignore Alyson Hannigan and Ted who get on my nerves - except when they are interacting with Barney.
Barney and Robin are perfect together...and it's so angsty, because player Barney finally has found a woman he can't seduce, a gal who he loves, but can't have. (Yes, this is apparently a story kink of mine - an attractive, playboy guy who falls deeply for a girl who does not fall for his act and he can't have. It's why I loved Spuffy and why I love Blair/Chuck on Gossip Girl.)

*Picked up Buffy S8, issue 21, Harmonic Convergence - written by Jane Espenson. It's basically a joke-fest. Per usual, Espenson weilds her satiric wit - this time the target is the reality tv show industry. Can't say I blame her. I more or less share her sentiments towards that industry and the people who watch it. Also I did appreciate the sly and somewhat witty critique of Anderson Cooper. Jeanty actually did a pretty good replica of him - it actually looked a bit like Anderson Cooper. This is the idiot on CNN who was cracking me up on election night by stating how he kept trying to find ways for McCain to win, but there just was no way, no matter how many times he did the math.

I should state that I've never been particularly fond of Harmony as a character. I find her a bit of a one-note character or joke. Also a bit on the offensive side. She's the type of girl I always wanted to slap really really hard and repeatedly - which may explain why I enjoyed seeing the crap get beaten out of her on occassion - somewhat cathartic, regardless of who was doing it. So, I can't really bring myself to feel much sympathy for her. The only time I sort of liked her was in the Angel S5 episode Harm's Way. She wasn't bad in Angel. In Buffy - she always set my teeth on edge. I think her sort of character almost works better in a noir story - as a femme fatale type. At any rate, this story basically proved that Angel and Buffy were idiots for not staking her ass a long time ago, when they had ample opportunity. I can see why Angel never did, but why on earth didn't Buffy? That never made much sense.

But, Espenson is actually pretty good at writing her and here, she does a good job with sight gags. There's a rather funny bit with Dawn, Xander, Willow, a book, and another horse - that made me laugh out loud and had no dialogue - it's reminiscent of the asburdist sight humor in sections of HIM in season 7 - also written in part by Espenson. Espenson is a master of the absurdist sight gag. The "Why Do Slayers Hate America" gag on the front cover by the way is not Espenson but rather Georges Jeanty. He's responsible for that one and yes, I think he probably knows the background of it - since he's an internet geek. I didn't know the background of that joke nor had I ever heard of it - until liz_marcs wrote a post on it in her journal. Rather informative and quite funny. This is one issue where Jeanty's cover is actually better than Chen's and I picked it over Chen's.

Also Jeanty's art is getting better, I can actually tell Harmony and Buffy apart. I also recognized Andrew, go figure.

The story is progressing nicely - in more or less the direction I thought it was going. I know what Whedon is doing and the whole thematic arc he's building towards and has, ahem, become somewhat annoyingly obsessed with of late. Part of me, obviously likes it, or I wouldn't still be reading the comics and/or anything else Whedon is doing. The other is a tad irritated by it and keeps wishing he'd focus more on well the things I want to know about.
The normal dissonance between a reader's wants and an author's desires. Sometimes the two converge - which is what happened to me when I was watching the series - my wants converged with Whedon's & Company's, but they are a bit dissonant at the moment, not entirely, just a bit. Apparently I'm in the minority, AGAIN, so ...whatever. (According to the comic book shop owner - Buffy is doing great sales wise, Angel makes about half of what Buffy does, and the Spike comics half of what Angel makes. Also Lynch is not as popular as the other writers. Damn. Stupid fandom. You're supposed to like the same things I like!!! Which no doubt means there were probably a lot of people jumping for joy over this and last weeks issues, while I was sort of ...meh, that's okay, its interesting I guess.)

Okay, shower and bed. Dammit.

Finished watching last season's Mad Men via my DVR finally. At least I think it was the complete season, not sure if it went past 13 episodes or not, will most likely find out Sunday - I set the DVR to record all episodes. The nifty thing about DVR's is you don't have to hunt down when the tv show is reappearing, the DVR automatically selects and tapes it for you, once you program it to record all episodes. It did this with Doctor Who last night, even though I didn't realize it was on.

From a purely objective point of view, assuming such a thing is possible in regards to pop/media culture criticism, Mad Men may be the best thing I've seen on TV in quite some time. But that was also true of the first season of BattleStar Galatica. In BSG's first season - it was tightly written, acted, and produced. Almost flawless. Mad Men is similarily flawless. The objective criteria is its structure - how the individual parts fit together. Story, plot, theme, setting, characters, dialogue, costumes. It's no different than reviewing a play or book - from a technical pov, does everything fit? Do the characters remain in character as the plot plays out, does the plot come from their actions or are they mere pawns of the plot? The plot MUST come from the characters actions, it must be a logical outgrowth of the characters, or otherwise it is ludicrious. A mistake many tv show writers (and comic book ones) make is they come up with this great plot idea and then attempt to cram their characters into it - much like a child might use paper dolls. The audience who has been following the characters storylines rather closely, far more so than the writers or actors performing them have, becomes confused, frustrated, and loses interest, or they may just laugh. This is why critics revile comic books and television shows on occassion or don't take them that seriously. The writers have a tendency to play rather loosely with their character's story arcs, and continuity not to mention logic often can go out the window. Often, as a viewer or comic reader, you are better off if you haven't followed the story from its inception and are not paying close attention or better still, aren't analytical and don't think logically, so don't really notice. If you are paying close attention, etc, you may have compensated for this tendency, by coming up with your own logical explanation for the inconsistencies otherwise known as fanwanking. Or, you are like me, and choose to shrug it off as well one of the many flaws of the tv/comic serial medium. These things are produced too quickly, are too volumnious, and have far too many chefs in the kitchen to hope to be perfectly consistent. It's not like JK Rowling plotting out seven books. It's more like a committee, an ever-changing committee with a high turn-over, with another committee overseeing and threatening them with cancellation, attempting to plot out seven books.

Mad Men has managed for at least 13 episodes, to maintain a tight logical structure. It never veers from its course. The five or six characters that it focuses on, all are complex, and all build on each other's stories. Even the subject matter - the advertisements that the men and women are working on, add a layer to the proceedings. One story for example focused on how to sell a kodak slide wheel. ( spoilers, because impossible to discuss without them, well you can, but not nearly as effective )

When I first attempted to watch Mad Men, last year, I was put off by what I considered at that time to be a somewhat cliche premise, with cliche and well-worn soap opera situations. Having given the show another chance - mostly because my kid-brother and his wife couldn't stop talking about it (they're both in marketing) - I've discovered it's anything but cliche and that I was wrong in my initial assessment. ( example that contains major plot spoilers )

Like most good shows, Mad Men takes a while to build, but does reward the patient viewer. The central character is Don Draper, we see the world through his eyes, and veer into the characters that most effect him. And it's pretty world but not a kind one. Don's cynicism colors everything he sees. He paints a pretty picture, but he doesn't trust in it. And will often, with a somewhat chauvinistic air, undercut his pretty model wife who sits bored and inactive with the kids, while he stays late in the city and sleeps with intellectual and witty women who are sharp boned with dark hair and dark eyes, a sharp contrast to his wife's Grace Kelly looks.

Mad Men takes great pains to be historically accurate, so spends a lot of time and energy on it's setting, set design, costumes, hair styles, etc. Everything from the old 1960's tv newscasts to the products being sold at that time. Not a hair is out of place. Quite remarkable considering how quickly the show is produced, although being on cable with just 13 episodes, may have provided it with more time and flexibility than the shows on the broadcast networks.

Mad Men is not always an easy show to watch, it drags a bit in places. And the characters are not likable. You feel sympathy for them, but they do not really enter your heart. With the possible exception of Peggy, Don Draper's secretary, who follows a different path than all the other secretaries. Peggy is the only female character that does not look like she stepped out of a film reel or fashion magazine. Don, you care about, but you don't necessarily like. He reminds me a great deal of the traditional noir anti-hero. A character who appears to be doomed by his inability to rise above his own selfish impulses. A true Mad Men - who is both the product and the creator of the industry he thrives in.

Similar to the remake of Far From Heaven, Mad Men by going back to the 1960s, shines a light on history's ironies. What we've succeeded in and where we have failed as a culture. Rampant consumerism, promoting the lie or a view that image, how something appears is more important than what it is, demonstrated by the fact that almost every character smokes on the series - stating they must because it is the product they promote, it's an image they must protect and push. The fact that the image is killing them is of little consequence. They ignore reports about the dangers of smoking, in favor of the fact it makes them feel good and looks good. The TV show constantly contrasts the image against the reality. Showing that what is being sold isn't necessarily what is available. A fitting and timely theme.

If you haven't given Mad Men a try, you should. It is a show that stays with you long after it has aired. And those are rare commodities.

After spending two hours this morning doing laundry in a sweaty crowded laundramat,complete with a mosquito who bit me on the leg, retreated homewards, made bed up clean and broke in the new air conditioner by reading, watching the telly, and knitting all day. Good day for it too, since the sky threw a tempertantrum complete with thunder, lightening and pouring rain.

Anywho... I feel I should apologize to the folks on my flist regarding Supernatural. I was wrong. You were right. Yes, I've changed my mind. It happens.

( Why I've changed my mind about Supernatural for the remotely curious. )

I'm also watching Smallville - which was really good last year, again with a few minor exceptions. Welling actually has figured out how to act and keep his own opposite Rosenblum. And Kristen Kuerk is doing more than just looking pretty. Eric Endurance's Lois is a great addition, as are Jimmy Olsen, and Oliver Green - who is clearly taking Bruce Wayne's place in this series - since they can't get the rights to use Batman. Sort of happy about that, since I know less about the Green Arrow. Smallville is doing some interesting things and entertaining the heck out of me.

Tried Mad Men with Wales, we were both bored. Of course it did not help that the actors mumble and are difficult to hear. We had to keep rewinding to figure out what they were saying. Also as Wales put it - it is a bit too blatant about its sexism and racism.
Yes, we know the 50's were a bit like that...but we don't need it repeated in every frame.
We gave up on it twenty minutes in.

Also gave up on Rescue Me finally. Again was just bored. The characters don't appear to be evolving and it is just depressing. I'm tired of watching people scream at each other. I can see that in my real life on a daily basis don't need to watch it on television. Also Denis Leary's character is terribly whiny and starting to get on my nerves.

Saving Grace ? Not sure about this one. A bit too preachy. A bit too obvious. But I like Holly Hunter and the rest of the cast. I'll watch two or three more then decide.

Doctor Who - the jury is still out. It's incredibly campy and silly. And Freema Agyman isn't impressing me. Tennant is almost too twitchy for my taste. And the monsters a tad over-the-top. I should state at this point that I'm not overly fond of camp. The campier episodes of Buffy turned me off as well - never liked Go Fish, Reptile Boy, or a good percentage of the episodes in the first season. I found them silly not funny. It's my sense of humor, which is admittedly on the dark side of the fence. At any rate - I did not like the second episode with Shakspeare and the Witches, nor did I like the episode with the Runaway Bride, but I did like the one with the hospital on the moon. Have not seen the last two - still on DVR. So will wait until I see a few more before deciding one way or the other.

The previews for Torchwood look like a lot of fun and much better than Doctor Who.
(No, James Marsters isn't going to be on it yet. We're getting the FIRST season. The episodes with Marsters won't premiere in the States until Fall 2008 - if that. So, when I say that Torchwood looks interesting, it is not because Marsters is going to be on it.)

Anyone watching The 4400? Is it just me or is this beginning to resemble the X-Files? Or rather the X-Files meets the X-men? It even has it's own version of the lone gunman and the cigarette smoking man. Not sure I like the similarities - X-Files government conspiracy stuff got on my nerves.

PS: Does anyone have any cool Jo or Ellen icons from Supernatural? Really like those two characters.