Letters to the Editor
EMStoveken
Published Letters: 391 Editor's Choice: 44
-
Bingo, Heroes, Lorne Michaels, Oh My!
[Read the article: I Like to Watch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So the game show people have finally done it, they have completely and honestly reduced game shows to purest chance. This is clearly what the public wants anymore.
There was a time when we as a culture watched Jeopardy because we wanted to match our wits against bright people addressing a challenging series of questions. A single randomizer (the Daily Doubles) helped to potentially keep all three contestants viable, but ultimately a form of intelligence (even if it is only the ability to retain massive amounts of borderline useless information) would win.
And that was really the format for the majority of the most popular game shows since even the time of radio.
With devolution of modern culture, our society has become more obsessed with the possibility of blind, dumb luck rewarding anyone in the right place at the right time whom the caprices of random chance choose to favor.
The most insidious form of this has been Deal or No Deal. This loathesome cultural exercise has the contestant do EVERYTHING that affects the outcome at the very beginning. Once that 1st suitcase is picked, the ultimate outcome is determined, and yet the producers make sure that contestants weigh their selection of the other suitcases as if they can affect the contents of their chosen suitcase.
The deal or no deal buy-out offers are nothing more than a periodic barometer of the hapless contestants greed, since even the lower offers (often in the 50k range) can outshine the winnings of a solid Jeopardy contestant.
Like DOND, this bingo nonsense presents the general public with a show where an illiterate mouth-breather with a 2nd grade education can be placed between a Nobel Laureate and Rhodes Scholar, and fair just as well as them. It's a tribute to the lottery mindset that inspires inaction on the part of so many of the world's bleary-eyed dreamers.
National Bingo Night at least has the merit of being honest in it's complete pointlessness.
Heroes, to some extent, tries to subvert this idle wish fulfillment mentality by showing the consequences of fate granting strange and mighty gifts. The heroes are trying to come to terms with their abilities and make things happen. All the same, they seem constantly swept up in the current of events beyond their control. Still, it is an improvement over the empty entitlement fantasies of the modern game show.
Of far more concern to me (especially in light of the recent episode)is the fact that the causality paradoxes created by show's time travel make the Terminator movies seem almost viable by comparison.
At this point, I just want to sacrifice a Ferby to the pop culture Gods in the hope that when Heroes is cancelled, they will have the unbashed gall to end it with a complete ripping of space/time when the story collapses in upon itself.
And last, but not least, we have the venerable Saturday Night Live. Each cast/epoch of SNL's existence is a special little snowflake, unique unto itself. The early years are amazing because of their iconoclastic stance. To admire the original cast is to admire a group of mavericks forging new ground.
Through the early eighties, we get to see a group of variously talented actors (watch some of these cast intro openings and you'd be amazed how many people you forget were on the show because you associate them with movies of the period) trying to emerge from the shadow of the original cast (who, ironically enough, had become icons).
The late eighties heralded a renaissance as a new generation found group forged a new style for the show, making an art of the recurring character.
Then came a strange time of dryhumping the show's legacy in a grotesque spectacle that periodically yielded what I liked to call "the surreal 30", that last half hour of the show when they let the crazies show their weirder sketches.
The last several years have proven a similarly mixed bag, from what I can tell though, honestly I kind of tuned out for the last 4 years or so. I'm still up at that hour, I just feel like have better things to do.
Whatever the case, looking back at the 90's era of ANYTHING reeks of manufactured VH-1 brand nostalgia. Revisionist interpretation of recent pop culture in the hopes of making everything seem cooler than it is.
-
No spine
[Read the article: The disconnect]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Of course politician have a disconnect with the will of the American people! If all you did all day was watch the news channel that corresponds to your political view, interacted only with members of your own party and appeared before crowds that were hand picked for the sympathetic beliefs (self-parody "town meetings") or solemn duty to show respect (captive military crowds), you would believe that you're views were the only ones with any validity.
If you went to Iraq, and travelled a preswept itinerary with a batallion of soldiers in an armored humvee with two Apache helicopters providing cover, you would believe that the surge is going great.
If you never spoke to an anti-war American, you would have carte blanche to project whatever sort of pro-war justification onto their views.
What I don't understand in this whole absurdist stand off is, why the Democrats continue to allow themselves to be painted as "withholding funding from the troops"? Would it be so hard to make the rounds on the talking head circuit stating clearly and concisely:
"We handed the president legislation that would put the money he requested in the hands of our brave soldiers. He has turned it down. As a result of HIS veto, the money is not making its way to where it is needed."
They also need to explain time and again that the Army is all too capable of deficit spending to cover immediate costs. The entire idea of a here and now funding shortage is a complete fallacy.
It's all just a typically sad spectacle.