Archive for October, 2009

You will never ever ever ever find a bigger “Scrubs” fan than me.  I think that show is one of the funniest and most underrated comedies of our time.  I was actually annoyed when Comedy Central moved their syndicated repeats to the 8-9 hour (even though I’ve seen all the episodes many, many times) because I liked to watch them while I eat dinner.  It was like sitting down with old friends.  If that makes me sound like a sad loser, then that just about explains where I’m at socially at this point in my life. But I digress….

I read this news brief on EW.com today.  http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/10/29/revamped-scrubs-coming-to-ab-on-dec-1/  Instead of filling me with joy, it actually irked me.   Admittedly, the show had some hiccups in the last few seasons, but overall they had a pretty great eight-season run.  The series finale of that show was the best I’d ever seen, where Zach Braff’s character, J.D., sees flashes of his life to come – all set to Peter Gabriel’s song, “Book of Love.”   Having watched this show over the course of eight years (and again, loving it so much that I actually felt like I knew these people*), it was such a sweet, wonderful emotional way to end this journey.   It was absolutely a classy and high-note on which to leave.

Bringing it back, even though it’s not really the same show, just feels weird. What is Turk without J.D.?  What is Dr. Cox, for that matter, without J.D. to pick on?  Because I love all things “Scrubs” as much as I do, I fear dragging it out in this way will sort of lessen the overall quality of the show as a whole.  It hurts to say good-bye, but it’s time to let go.

* A few years ago I was at an industry party and Zach Braff and Donald Faison walked by me.  My instinct was to say, “Hey guys!” because, for a brief second, I forgot that I don’t really know them.  I should really start getting out more.

Click here for updated thoughts on the subject: https://twynne105.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/scrubs-youre-breaking-my-heart/


Read Full Post »

u kant rede

Dear Rubes,

Plopping your child down in front of the TV will not make your kid smart. Also, rubes, while I’m doling out parenting advice, putting diet Coke in your kids’ sippy cup won’t make him fit. And, and, giving him those new “smoke-free” cigarettes will not build healthy lungs.

It has recently been reported that “Baby Einstein” videos don’t make babies into Einsteins. In a related story, it has been reported that sometimes ‘twin lobsters’ aren’t even related.

Yes, rubes, as implausible as it seems it is true that if you want your kid to read, you have to sit down with him, turn off the TV and read. Let me double back on a step there, you’re going to have to shut the TV off. Yeah, it’s that big button on the top of you remote. Trust me, you’ll be able to turn it on before “Dancing with the Stars” is over.

About a year ago there was a similar report that said that due to the depth of story and sheer volume of characters on modern TV versus earlier decades people were actually developing brain density from watching shows like “The Sopranos” or “The Wire”.

You can misconstrue this in whatever way you see fit but to my reading even that doesn’t say that watching TV is making people smarter, it says that watching alot of TV makes someone a better watcher of TV.

Which stands to reason, muscles become stronger with use. Like your reading muscles become stronger as you read more. Or, rubes, an example to which you can relate, if you sit watching videos all day, you will be getting better at…(go ahead, you can do it)…become conditioned to watch videos all day.

So, dear rubes, I hope this has been helpful to you in your child-rearing. I wrote as slowly as I could knowing you can’t read that quickly. Do yourself (and your progeny) and read your kid the 18 lines of “Where the Wild Things Are” before putting the DVD on a loop while you order Dominos.

Besides, the only people dumber than those expecting TV to educate their kids are those expecting the schools to do it.

Read Full Post »

Rod Stewart is releasing a new CD tomorrow, “Soulbook.”  As with his “Great American Songbook” series, this album is a collection of cover songs, although different in that it focuses on R&B classics vs. American Standards.

It is undeniable that Rod Stewart is something of a legend in the world of music – after all, he’s responsible for some true classics like “Maggie Mae” and “If You Want My Body.”  Even his 80s albums yielded great hits like “Forever Young.”  

So at what point did he decide to give up completely and just re-record stuff that belongs to other people?  Will he never record an original song again?  I’ve been annoyed by this since the first “Great American Songbook” album dropped because 1) he’s British and 2) his voice is novel, but why would you ever listen to him sing “The Way You Look Tonight” over Frank Sinatra?  His scratchy warble is no match for one of the greatest crooners of all time.  But for some reason, people just ate that album up, prompting him to create three sequels as well as an album dedicated to rock covers. Now he’s tackling R&B, which, admittedly, seems like it might be better suited to his voice than Standards. But it’s still annoying to watch him make barrels of money by poorly rehashing other people’s work.

Read Full Post »

Glee is probably my favorite new show of the Fall TV season.  At times, it’s a little cheesy, but it just makes me feel good to watch it and I love hearing talented people sing.  It’s really the only show I look forward to all week and watch on the night it airs because I can’t wait to see it.

Even though I think Jane Lynch is a genius and probably the best character on the show, I’d like to call for less plotlines around the adults and more around the kids.  I also am a fan of Matthew Morrison, who plays the teacher Will Schuester. He’s ridiculously cute and very, very talented.  However, the plot where his annoying (stop talking in a breathy baby-girl voice!) and self-serving wife is faking her pregnancy (is he so stupid that he really hasn’t noticed?) crosses the line of cheesy and passes into telenovella/soap territory.  I could do with a lot less of the wife – and by extension, her sister, who just makes my skin crawl.  And going back to Jane Lynch –  I guess I’m a bit torn, because I’m all for her having more screen time, but her character Sue Sylvester’s romantic storyline in last Wednesday’s episode felt awkward and out of place.

I’m also a bit over the Emma/Ken Tanaka storyline – he’s desperately in love with her and she’s desperately in love with already-married Will Schuester, yet she agrees to marry Ken anyway.  Although, again, I’m a bit torn – living in LA, I know people who know Jayma Mays, so by association, I am always rooting for her to succeed in whatever she does.  She really is great on Glee, and the moment when she accepted Ken’s marriage proposal was, for me, one of the saddest and most real moments on the show since it started.

Yet despite all of this, the parts I most look forward to revolve around the kids.  Will Finn and Rachel ever get together?  Their chemistry is undeniable.  Although, perhaps Lea Michele, who plays Rachel, just has good chemistry with everyone, because I did melt a little bit on Wednesday when she sat on Puck’s lap and helped him wash slushie out of his hair (not that much slushie could actually stick to a mohawk, but still, it was a good moment).  I want to hate Quinn for being a bitch, lying to Finn and being the roadblock between him and Rachel, but I just can’t help but feel sorry for her.  Her character could have been very one-dimensional  and she’s developing some wonderful layers.

At the end of the day, it’s a show about high school, isn’t it?  So please, give us a little more of the high schoolers.

Read Full Post »

Can we please let this be the final word on the matter?

The thing that bothers me the most about people like Richard Heene is that, in the end, they get exactly what they want. He is clearly an attention whore motivated by a desire to be famous.  We are condemning his actions yet giving him what he craves because no one can stop talking about him, and his face is constantly on the news – both national and local.

Of course, none of this is to be outdone by the fact that he wasted who knows how much tax payer money in the law enforcements’ efforts to “find” his son and that his poor kids are growing up in an environment where this behavior is the norm.   I pray there are fewer people like him in the world than I fear there are.

I’m not really a fan of passing judgement on people (really, who am I to criticize?)…but what a jackass.

Read Full Post »


I have been instructed not to push my own political agenda in this space.  Why twynne105 has such objections to the abolition of the phone book* is beyond me.

(*It is an antiquated precept at best and an ecological nightmare at worst.  All the information is available on-line and so the phone book should be available, upon request at the Post Office (until Grandma dies), not stacked up on the steps of urban apartment buildings so some dude can say he delivered them all.

If Obama (and/or Congress) wants to curry some favor with the populace, there is no better place to start (with the possible exception of outlawing earrings on guys) than finally ridding us of this scourge.  But I digress, I wonder if all this will be redacted in the editorial process because my boss thinks this is too decisive.)

However, if the Wall Street Journal can use it’s considerable pulpit to push for changes in professional football today, I don’t see why I can’t do likewise.

Rarely is there an idea that comes out of another’s mouth of which I am left wonder-struck and (if I am being honest) jealous.  But the following is such a concept:


This would exponentially improve the over-time process in NFL games, making it that much more intriguing than a mere coin flip.  Now the onus is on the NFL ownership as to whether or not they want to improve their product.

You can tell the Red Sox must be out of the Play-offs if I’m writing about football 2 days in a row.

Read Full Post »

I generally try to stay away from anything resembling a movie review on this site because, let’s face it, who cares about someone else’s opinion of a movie?  There are certain movie reviewers who are great at summing up the good and bad parts of a film, but most people don’t know how to do this and just ramble on, in love with their own thoughts.

However, I’m feeling compelled to break my own rules.  I saw ‘Where the Wild Things Are’ over the weekend and just fell in love with it.  So to hear people hating on it the way they are is befuddling to me.  It’s only at 68% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.  I thought it was visually stunning, the little boy is perfect, and the overall tone is so emotional and heartfelt, yet very subtle. I never at any point felt like Jonze was trying to hit us over the head with the movie’s theme. Which I appreciate. Last night some people I was with were bagging on the ending, but I appreciated the fact that the filmmaker let us infer the lesson learned without having the characters clumsily spell it out.  I hate when movies do that – I find it insulting.

If you like Spike Jonze, quieter indie films, or even just monsters and sweet little boys, don’t be deterred by the reviews. This is a gorgeous little movie and deserves more accolades than it’s getting.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »