America's Got Talent...I Swear I Didn't Know

     AGT, as it is affectionately known, is currently in its seventh season and, apparently, has undergone some major changes. I say "apparently" because I have never seen the show before this season (I had mistakenly assumed it was a bastardized version of the Gong Show) and had to rely on friends, who have watched the show since its beginning, to verify a statement by the show's executive producer, Simon Cowell, that I read somewhere promising a "top to bottom makeover". According to my friends, swapping Piers Morgan for Howard Stern at the judges table does not a "top to bottom makeover" make. The show looks the same to them, right down to the acts that look suspiciously like slightly modified ghosts from seasons past, and some of them, I won't say who, want Mr. Cowell branded an oath breaker, or worse (I believe one of them muttered something to the effect that drawing and quartering was too good for him). To this I say...THBPBPTHPT! and stop picking on my new favorite show.
     How can anyone not love this show? It has everything. It has ordinary people with extraordinary talent and, in some cases, stories with the power to motivate you or maybe even break your heart. What's that you say? American Idol already has that? Why yes it does. It also has its fair share of talentless hacks, some of them also certifiably delusional, who beg the judges for a chance to prove they really do have talent after they've already proven, often in a way that's spectacularly cringe-worthy, that they don't. But what American Idol doesn't have (anymore) is a panel of judges so entertaining that we hang on their every word.
     Sharon Osbourne has a wicked sense of humor tempered by a gracious charm that cracks me up as it puts the contestants at their ease. She is someone that you could take to your obnoxious, Christmas hating in-law's house for the holidays and a good time would be had by all.
     Howard Stern, her polar opposite and AGT's much hyped "larger than life personality", keeps viewers and contestants alike on edge as we all wait on bated breath for whatever profanity laden or politically incorrect (or both) atrocity that past history tells us he is easily capable of spewing with or without provocation. So far, he seems to be on his best behavior. I credit NBC's fine people in charge of editing for the kinder, gentler version of him that we have been treated to thus far because something (past history again) tells me that once the live shows begin airing we are going to get the rule breaking Howard Stern that should make NBC honchos fear the wrath of the FCC. I, frankly, will be disappointed if we don't.
     And then we have Howie Mandel. There is something about the sound of his voice that makes me laugh as soon as he starts talking, and the things he says never fail to be hilarious. He has a sharp mind, a quick wit, and an impulsiveness that makes him the most fun of the three judges and the one that I hope Mr. Cowell keeps the next time he decides to do a "top to bottom makeover".
     Of course, no show of this nature would be complete without a host, and if there's anyone out there more adorable in this capacity than Nick Cannon I don't know who it is. Whether he's outside amid the crush of hopefuls, backstage with the contestants' families, or onstage with the contestants themselves, he is always interested as well as interesting (not easy to pull off), supportive, caring (all those nervous kids got themselves a great temporary big brother), and, best of all, he's game for anything...check out his turquoise duct tape bikini top wearing self pole dancing with Lulu on YouTube if you don't believe me.

     As for the acts, it turns out that America really does have talent. Among my favorites are musician William Close who played what he called an "earth harp", a giant instrument with strings that spanned the entire length  of the Orpheum Theatre, and escape artist Spencer Horsman who managed to extricate himself from a straight jacket while hanging upside down beneath a giant steel trap being held open by a burning rope with only eighty seconds of life before it was extinguished, springing the trap. Both performances were seriously cool, but the act that made me cheer out loud (and draw unwanted attention of the creepy variety to myself) was Andrew De Leon's. ***Note to self...never watch AGT in the electronics department at Walmart.*** It was amazing. Now, I do not like opera and don't allow it to be played in my general vicinity (it's one of my hard and fast rules), but I was mesmerized by Andrew's performance. It could have been partly due to shock. He confessed to the judges that he was self-taught and had never performed for anyone before, not even his family. Since this is almost never good, I cringed. He looks like he could be Marilyn Manson's kid brother so I broke another hard and fast rule of mine and, adjusting my expectations to his appearance, waited for him to belt out Personal Jesus or Disposable Teens. Then the most amazing aria poured from him as effortlessly as most people talk. It was powerful and filled with raw emotion, and I couldn't have walked away from its beauty if I had tried. It would have pulled me back. I have never heard anything like it before but will get to again on Monday. ***Reminder to self...NOT at Walmart.*** I can't wait.
     So, what do you think? Are you a new fan or an old fan or no fan at all? Have you picked an early favorite for the win? And how about those judges? Are they the funnest bunch of people to watch, or what? You've seen it. It's fair game. Let's talk about it.

Another Blown Call...Expansion of Instant Replay in MLB Long Overdue

     Memorial Day. Boston. Tigers vs. Red Sox. Bottom of the second. Two outs and a runner on second. Mike Aviles swung with two strikes on him. He missed. It wasn't even close. Tiger catcher Gerald Laird caught the missed ball cleanly. No bouncies. No dropsies. Replays confirm this. Mike Aviles was not called out however. His clean swing was ruled a foul tip by plate umpire Jeff Nelson, and the clean catch wasn't clean because the ball was in the dirt first according to first base umpire Bill Welke. So, what should have been the end of the second inning became a rally for the Red Sox who scored three runs, which, incidentally, was the number of runs that the Tigers lost by that day. All courtesy of bad officiating.
     Jim Leyland, the Tigers manager, wants some accountability. Tiger fans, most of whom are still irate over Jim Joyce's bad call at first base that cost Armando Galarraga his perfect game two years ago today, want what most baseball fans want...Recourse.
     Wish granted. Sort of. While the latest officiating debacle did not instigate next season's expansion of instant replay, it did underscore the necessity driving it and prompted much discussion, as well as speculation, about the specifics of the expansion and how it will impact the game.
     According to ESPN's Jayson Stark, who appeared on the Mike and Mike radio show the day after said debacle, there is a strong possibility that, under the expanded instant replay, appeals of calls pertaining to fair vs. foul balls and caught vs. dropped balls would be decided by a panel of umpires from a central location. It is believed to be a plan that would satisfy its opponents by allowing final determinations to be made by umpires in a system that would create more jobs for them. It would also satisfy arguments that an already lengthy game would be subjected to unnecessary delays since the umpires on the field would remain there while others reviewed the play being appealed. So, the proposed solution to the problem of bad officiating is meant to satisfy the same officials whose inability to make the right calls in obvious situations necessitated an expanded system in the first place? Not exactly the accountability that I think Mr. Leyland was talking about.
     Or necessarily the recourse that the fans were hoping for. Mr. Stark tells us that the expanded system next season will be "introductory" and limited in its scope. It could be further expanded, he says, to cover "all sorts of calls after a year or so" pending successful negotiations. Translation:  A year from now the Tigers will still be getting hosed on the same calls that cost them a game against the Red Sox on Memorial Day and one of their pitchers a perfect game two years ago. BUT they can hope for some fairness the following year, or the year after, should negotiations favor expanding instant replay to include reviewing plays involving clean swings vs. foul tips and runners being called safe when the ball clearly beats them to the bag.
     It's also probably important to note that no amount of expansion of the instant replay will resolve issues involving calls open to interpretation to the satisfaction of everyone. Trapped balls and fan interference, for example, may or may not be ruled correctly initially or on appeal, which makes overturning a correct ruling a distinct possibility. Is it just me, or does it seem like the expansion has the potential to create more problems than it solves? Oh wait. How silly of me. Of course it does. I know this because I see it every fall when Michigan plays football.
     To sum up...It's pretty clear that an expansion of the instant replay is needed, but the expansion being negotiated is insufficient and seems to be tailor made for the people responsible for the mess requiring its solution. Jim Leyland has been preaching "patience" to Tiger fans who had hoped for a better start this season. I guess we're going to need it because, while a sufficient expansion won't solve all the Tigers problems (stranding WAY too many base runners, for example) it would have given them the win that they earned on Memorial Day.
     So, tell us what you think. Are you in favor of an expansion of the instant replay? If so, is the proposed solution sufficient? Or do you want human error to continue to determine the outcome of the game? You've seen it. It's fair game. Let's talk about it.

Game of Thrones Season 2...TV Series Winner

     Game of Thrones. An epic fantasy bestowed upon us courtesy of the imaginative genius of George R. R. Martin. His series, A Song of Ice and Fire, took us to Kings Landing, Winterfell, The Wall, The Eyrie, Pentos, Vaes Dothrak, Pyke, Harrenhal, and Qarth where he made us care about the Starks, the Baratheons, the Lannisters, the Night's Watch, the Targaryens, the Dothraki, the Greyjoys, and a host of others too numerous to name. Whether we loved the characters or hated them (or loved to hate them), we followed their journeys to places that became as familiar to us as our own stomping grounds and were as eager to learn their fates as we would our friends. And then David Benioff and D.B. Weiss brought those wondrous places and complex characters to life and HBO gave them to us.

     Currently in its second season, Game of Thrones is everything that a true fan of Martin's books could hope for. Except for the gratuitous sex scenes that are a hallmark of HBO and expository conversations that never took place in the books, it is a faithful adaptation in that it mirrors the works that it is meant to represent in a different medium.
     The characters and their places in Westeros and Essos are exactly as Martin wrote them. I had expected to be presented with familiar actors who bore a passing resemblance to my favorite imaginary people and behaved in ways that were merely pale imitations of them. Instead, I was blessed with a gifted ensemble carefully chosen for their uncanny likenesses to the characters they portray and amazing talents that transform them in ways that make believers out of even the most hardhearted cynics.

     My absolute favorite, hands down, is Peter Dinklage who portrays Tyrion Lannister, the only Lannister that possesses a sense of humor or anything that remotely resembles a moral compass. The character on paper often made me smile at his quick witted sarcasm and ability to turn any situation to his favor. The character brought to life by a gifted actor deftly commands every scene, often before uttering a word. And when he speaks, we are immediately rewarded with such acid pronouncements as, when referring to his nephew, "We've had vicious kings and we've had idiot kings, but I don't know if we've ever been cursed with a vicious idiot boy king." It's just not possible for me to feel anything but nirvana every time that sharp tongued, self-serving speaker of truths no one else dares to utter opens his often profane mouth and takes someone down a peg or two. A wonderfully entertaining (because it was perfectly executed) example of this is the following exchange (shamelessly hijacked from IMDb).

"Game of Thrones: Garden of Bones (#2.4)" (2012)

Tyrion Lannister: What kind of knight beats a helpless girl? 
Meryn Trant: The kind who serves his king, Imp! 
Bronn: Careful now. We don't want to get blood all over your pretty white cloak. 
Tyrion Lannister: Someone get the girl something to cover herself with. 
[Sandor Clegane gives Sansa his cloak] 
Tyrion Lannister: [to Joffrey] She's to be your queen. Have you no regard for her honor? 
Joffrey Baratheon: I'm punishing her. 
Tyrion Lannister: For what crimes? She's not fighting her brother's battle, you halfwit. 
Joffrey Baratheon: You can't talk to me like that. The king can do as he likes! 
Tyrion Lannister: The mad king did as he like. Has your uncle Jaime ever told you what happened to him? 
Meryn Trant: No one threatens his grace in the presence of the Kingsguard! 
Tyrion Lannister: I'm not threatening the king, Ser, I'm educating my nephew. 
[to Bronn] 
Tyrion Lannister: Bronn, the next time the Ser Meryn speaks, kill him. 
[Back to Ser Meryn] 
Tyrion Lannister: THAT was a threat. See the difference? 



Educating his nephew indeed. And Ser Meryn too just for kicks.

     The rest of the cast should be commended as well. Most notable among them are Maisie Williams (tomboy Arya Stark) and Sophie Turner (Arya's proper, love struck older sister Sansa) who are perfection in demanding roles, which is impressive as hell considering their ages, fifteen and sixteen respectively, and the fact that (I'm relying on the accuracy of IMDb here) neither of them had any professional acting experience before Game of Thrones. Wow. I'll say it again Ladies. Wow. You should both be very proud of yourselves. And thank you.

     Also a standout is Jack Gleeson who portrays the aforementioned vicious idiot boy king with such ease that one might begin to wonder if there really is an evil heart beating in there somewhere. That is, if one didn't read the kindest things said about the young actor from a variety of sources. Amazing. Thank you.

     I could go on in this same vein, but there are so many rich characters brilliantly portrayed by gifted actors that I couldn't possibly do them all the justice that they deserve. So, with a final thank you to Sean Bean for giving us a Ned Stark that made us weep along with his daughters, Arya and Sansa, when he was executed on the steps of the Great Sept of Baelor, I will leave it to you to tell us what you think. Did David Benioff and D.B. Weiss get it right? Is Peter Dinklage's Tyrion Lannister the most interesting character in a TV series for the second season in a row? Or is it someone else? You've seen it. It's fair game. Let's talk about it.

Survivor: One World...Game Over

     Survivor. Once upon a long ago time, twenty-four seasons ago to be exact, it was the ultimate game played by a diverse group of people intent on outwitting, outplaying, and outlasting their way to the ultimate payday in the realm of reality TV. Those people were marooned with nothing but the clothes on their backs and given nothing but rice and water. Filthy and desperate to stave off impending starvation, they dragged their emaciated, crusty bug bite ridden bodies through the jungle to scrounge for rats to eat. A Reward Challenge winning tribe received canned goods and a candy bar and were ecstatic to get it. An individual Reward Challenge winner received a single slice of pizza that he shared with his starving tribe. Those people fought hard for every scrap of food that they could get, and we cheered them on. Why? Because they were Survivors.
     Twenty-four seasons later, no one seems to be cheering. The contestants (I can't make myself call them survivors, no matter how hard I try) are, for the most part, a motley collection of the most unlikable characters ever assembled for a reality show. The only things that could have made this group more detestable would have been yet another appearance by that troll Russell Hantz or for some brain-trust at CBS to allow that vile woman, Rachel Reilly, to wreck another of their reality shows with her borderline personality disorder and intensely annoying whiny teenage girl voice.
     As a fan since the Tagis and the Pagongs ate live beetle larva for immunity in Borneo, I am bitterly disappointed that I haven't been given a Survivor I can root for. Instead, I have HBIC Kim Spradlin, shamelessly channeling Rob Mariano, and her sheep: mean girl Alicia Rosa, desperate to belong Christina Cha, freeloader Sabrina Thompson, and constantly suffering from diarrhea of the mouth to the point of blabbing alliance secrets Chelsea Meissner.
     Really? This is what I'm stuck with? Four of the five people who formed an alliance on their way to camp on Day One because they had seen it work on a previous season are present and accounted for going into Finale Night, and I wish I cared.
     No one else seems to care either. Certainly not the fans who have been vocal, verbally and in print, about their need for their favorite reality show to return to its former greatness. We don't want contestants who simply follow a declared cookie-cutter leader and hope for a free ride to the end as they all feast every third day. We want Survivors who think for themselves and devise original strategies to get themselves to the end. They need to be hungry for a victory and willing to "dig deep", to borrow a Probstism, to make it theirs, not laze about camp waiting for someone else to hand it to them wrapped in pretty paper (or a yacht, as the case may be).
     Speaking of Jeff, he doesn't seem to care either. At the beginning of this wretched season, he seemed to be challenging those poor examples for women who were content to bargain with the men (and then break their word once they had gotten what they wanted), pitifully attempt to use the men by playing the helpless female card, and outright steal fire from the men because those dimwits signed up to do a reality show where, as everyone that doesn't live under a rock knows, the ability to build and maintain a fire is essential to the game...and not one of them could do it.
     Jeff also seemed to try to take the guys, who pretty much treated a survival game like an extended frat party minus the beer, to task for stupidly surrendering their immunity idol to the girls and marching their foolish looking selves into Tribal Council to vote out one of their own. Every single one of those idiots got what they deserved.
     But at some point Jeff seemed to give up trying to salvage this wreck. He has not been Enthusiastic Jeff at all this season, but a Snarky, Ready To Call People Out Jeff was, at least, an Entertaining Jeff, and the only person on that island worth watching. Now we have Going Through The Motions Jeff, who referees reruns of challenges past when he bothers to show up at all. If what I've read is true, and he was off getting a pedicure during one of the Reward Challenges, I can't say I blame him.
     And that brings us to the contestants, who don't seem to care either. Not one of them has fought hard for anything. Kim will probably get the most votes tomorrow night for doing nothing more than what actual Survivors have done before her, but, lucky for her, was more than anybody else was willing to do. I think she might have thrown a few challenges so that she "wouldn't be perceived as a threat". If so, she needn't have bothered. No one was paying attention.
     Season 24 ends tomorrow night, but Survivor, the game that so many have loved for so long, is already over. I won't be watching the finale or the reunion tomorrow night. I'll be waiting for Season 25 and hoping that I'm wrong. Unfortunately, when the most interesting thing there is to remark on over the course of a season is Jeff's footwear, the end is clearly here.
     So, tell us what you think. My day would be made if you could point to at least one thing that has made this mess worth watching, or to any signs I've missed that Survivor will be (hopefully in the near future) the show that it once was. You've seen it. It's fair game. Let's talk about it.

Lifetime's Inferno...Dance Moms: Miami

     Dance Moms: Miami. Wow. I had originally planned to discuss Survivor this week (hence my reference to it in my last post), but my daughter was planted on my "writing couch", a giant bowl of popcorn in her lap and a liter of Dr. Pepper at hand, engrossed in her current favorite reality show, and nothing derails me faster than the spectacle of grown women verbally abusing one another like hysterical teenage girls. I'll say it again. Wow. The most unlikable cast in Survivor history and Jeff's prison issue shower shoes are just going to have to wait.
     My initial reaction was disbelief. Grownups occasionally suffer from terminal adolescence, but this tends to manifest itself in mothers dressing like their teenage daughters and flirting with said daughter's guy friends. It's awkward for everyone involved and repulsive or entertaining (depending on your point of view) for anyone forced to bear witness, but essentially harmless. Women well into adulthood just don't behave like savages ready to tear into each other at the least provocation. Right?
     Wrong. I am forced to recant this silly notion at the behest of my daughter who reminds me that I encountered this same phenomenon when she was a competitive figure skater, and then voices her concern that  I must be suffering from early onset Alzheimer's since there is no other way I could have possibly forgotten it. I briefly explain repression and selective memory to her and then force myself to recall the three years that I spent with my ass frozen to a bench in the forced company of the most vicious women I had ever encountered. It had been a most painful contact with the previously unknown existence of the tenth circle of Hell, which, apparently, is reserved for the pathologically jealous with a low threshold for losing any semblance of self-control.
     Watching it on television was definitely more fun than living it. But then it's almost always better to be an observer. The requisite personalities part and parcel of a reality show formula are present and accounted for. Newcomer Abby breezes into the dance studio every inch the "rich bitch", deliberately fostering envy among the other moms, and sucks up to Victor and Angel, the dance instructors, who play along but later inform us that they love the kids but cannot stand the "psycho moms".
     Debi manages to comport herself with civility, but it's obvious to all that the animosity radiating from her is in imminent danger of going nuclear. Apparently, there is ugly history between her and Abby, and their daughters, something involving Abby's daughter being mean to Debi's daughter at another studio and Debi and her daughter being jealous of Abby and her daughter. I've seen that little scenario played out in real life, and I can tell you right now Victor and Angel, capable as they seem, are going to have big trouble when that particular high pressure storm of irrationality breaks over their heads.
     Their only hope of keeping the fallout to a minimum may rest with Ani, self-proclaimed peacemaker and the only mom presently choosing to take a strictly supporting role, sitting quietly in the background as her daughter strives to achieve her dreams.
     Ani's polar opposite is Susan, a controlling, obnoxious woman that would eventually make even the most stringent pacifist eventually want to punch her in the mouth. It's tough to call at this point who the most likely candidate would be for such an inevitable reality TV moment, but I can tell you from experience, it's always the last one you'd expect to blow their shit that eventually does...to the amazement of all.
     Brigette could prove to be the catalyst that takes poor Victor and Angel to DEFCON 1 with her penchant for allowing all the thoughts roaming around her head to exit by way of her mouth. While it's true that she may be saying what everyone is thinking, it's also true that there's a good reason why no else is saying it. It's unclear whether she just believes in speaking her mind or she's a troublemaker deliberately adding to the considerable tension already present, but, regardless of her motives, she definitely stood her ground with Mayra, Victor's mother and the studio's manager, who took offense at Brigette expressing her unwanted opinion regarding the care of Mayra's son when he was ill. They fought to a draw, but my money's on Mayra in future confrontations; she's got the authority of her position, the support of her son, and the experience of a battle-hardened warrior who was, once upon a long ago time, a dance mom herself.
     I can't say that I'll make it a point to watch the drama play itself out to its inevitable conclusion because, while the dancers are very talented, some of them are imitating the behavior of the mothers who should be setting a better example for them. I've already had a ringside seat for that and it's not something I want to see again.
     So, tell us what you think. Defend the moms or skewer them in the court of public opinion. You've seen it. It's fair game. Let's talk about it.

If it's public...it's fair game.

     Walmart. If you've never set foot in one, you can't know what you're missing. It can be a cringe-worthy place where grossly overweight women, all their bulging parts spilling from too small bathing suits, can waddle unchecked, bringing traffic to a screaming halt in the narrow aisles with their abandoned carts filled with Ruffles, Oreos, and Diet Coke. It can also be a seedy place where a teenage girl (at least I think it was a girl) can fellate her slightly older boyfriend (I hope it was her boyfriend or, at the very least, someone she knew) without concerning herself about such trivial matters as the appropriate limits of public displays of affection or the discomfort of kneeling amongst a variety of sporting goods equipment. There was some irony in play there...I'm sure of it.
     What could have been a routine trip to the local super center to "save money to live better" becomes an unexpected trip of an entirely different kind. What do you do? You do what any self-respecting person, whose retinas will be forever burned with images of public indecency that would draw attention of the law enforcement variety anywhere but the confines of Walmart, would do. You talk about it.
     So, that's what we're going to do. Every week, we're going to meet here, so to speak, and have an open discussion about whatever has recently drawn our attention, whether by its flagrant obscenity (see above), its desperate pleas for attention (celebrities and reality television), or its success or failure to entertain (books, movies, and television shows). If it has been put out there for public consumption, it will be considered fair game.
     In the interest of avoiding complete anarchy, there needs to be some ground rules (subject to change at the whim of the moderator, of course).
     First, there will be no intolerance. Ever. Comments flagellating someone for their behavior will be accepted with whatever degree of hilarity they merit. Under no circumstances, will comments that attack someone for their race, religion, sexual preferences, etc. be accepted. Ever. So, please don't waste your time or mine. Thank you in advance for not subjecting the rest of us to your bigoted self.
     Next, be relevant. Confine your comments to the topic currently being discussed. Suggestions for future topics are always welcome and appreciated; ramblings about the current state of affairs on The Big Bang Theory while the rest of us are dissecting the latest Tribal Council on Survivor, not okay. Either tell us what you think of Jeff's increasing snarkiness this season, or move on.
     Finally, please, for the sake of my proper grammar, correct spelling and punctuation loving soul, DO NOT submit comments that read like poorly done third grade homework. I see enough of that already.
     Incidentally, profanity, if spelled correctly and used in the proper context, is acceptable when warranted. I believe that the excessive use of profanity demonstrates a limited vocabulary; occasionally, however, the right profane word can be helpful for emphasis, or for laughs.
     Now it's your turn. Tell us about your Walmart experiences. Make us laugh with your descriptions of the Walmart People you have encountered while grocery shopping. Outrage us with your accounts of perversion you witnessed while perusing the selection of yoga mats.
     You've seen it. It's fair game. Let's talk about it.