SAG awards

It's awards season! the SAG awards were last night, and we've still got a host of other shows before we get down to the big night, the oscars. which are annoyingly on the day that I go back to uni, and thus the only ones that I can't watch despite being the ones I want to watch the most (side note: why do award shows always have to be on sundays? Like wouldn't Saturday be an equally good night for them, and would allow australians to actually watch the ceremony, ohh thats right football on saturday, I hate sports) Now I'm much more of a TV person than I am a movie person, but still, its the oscars!

anywho, I'll post more on the problems I have with award shows in general tomorrow, but some quick thoughts on the SAG awards

• TV nomination sucked. especially for actor/actresses Dude seriously did anyone actually watch any TV last year? I swear the only reason The closer and suits got a nom was because they were on cable, and theres this assumption that stuff on cable is always good, news flash, not true, I comment much on the winner, because I rarely watch american horror story, but no breaking bad, no Homeland  and although I'm biased, no Fringe? and then Harry's Law got a nomination? now that just adds insult to injury, well I guess the tourist scored a golden globe nom last year, so the SAG is entitled to a similar stuff-up
• movie winners were not at all what I, or probably anyone else was expecting, the guy from the artist beating out Clooney for best lead actor, not to mention the help upset, I mean good for them, and they were all very good films, but I am surprised, the SAG usually is pretty conventional, probably trying to rise in precedence to be taken seriously as an award ceremony
• The Help surged to victory, mainly because it wasn't excepted to pick up really anything, I suspect the african american factor, but good for them, this and more importantly the press now actually puts them in Oscar contention
• conversely comedy TV and miniseries awards were as stock as it comes, did the same group of people really vote for both? 

what really struck me is how important the BAFTA's are going to become in the Oscar race, with a much more spilt pack compared to most years, should be interesting by any matter

How much do debates have on polling?

Romney made a fantastic recovery this week in the polls, up between 10-14 points and is now almost a shoo in for Florida, pretty remarkable considering the fact that only two weeks ago he was trailing desperately, and people were saying that it could be Gingrich for the nomination. Or is it, as I have said before, I've thought for a long time Romney's going to win the nomination, he's got the most methodical, most well thought out national campaign, which instantly puts him above candidates like Santorum and Paul, who have much smaller focused campaigns, but even so, did the debates really cause the recent shift in polling, first lifting Gingrich up, and then dropping him?

On a basic level it could be seen to be debate performances, Romney numbers dropped after New Hampshire, when he did very poorly in some of the debates compared to Gingrich. Basically he got cocky, started talking like the nomination was his, which no one wants to here, especially not the third state to vote. however after loosing South Carolina, he's really picked himself up, and gave a really well prepared debate, and look his numbers started to rise, and low and behold, Gingrich correspondingly por performance caused his numbers to drop. Well look at that, theres practically a clear correlation.

Well yes and no, while a strong debate performance certainly helped Romney, Gingrich surge was really that, a surge, and like all the other candidates to surge (remember when Bachman won the Iowa straw poll?) they drop, Gingrich surge just lasted longer, because, after Romney, he has the second most constant and well planned national campaign. I'd have been willing to bet, that had Gingrich still given a good performance in the debate (as well as Romney's correspondingly good performance) Romney still would have gone on to win the nomination.

Why well firstly although momentum is hugely importance in the race, the next lot of states to vote in early February are already pretty favourable to Romney, he won Nevada by a stagering 40% in 2008, Maine's part of new england and Gingrich isn't even on the ballet in Minnesota, not to mention the large percentage of Mormon voters, (who vote in the republican caucus) who almost always vote Romney. Another important point here, caucuses (which all the states are), not to mention non-binding caucuses always have a lower turnout rate, and so really benefit a long term, grass roots campaign, which Romney has.

In fact the next primaries, Arizona and Missouri aren't till the end of February, so even if Romney were to looseFlorida, he would have plenty of time to turn his campaign around, admitably so would everyone else, but point being, Romney could recover because of his strong campaign, and quiet frankly funds. Especially in the bigger states, air time is very expensive, so with the much bigger 'super-pac' and own personal funds, Romney is in a very good position, in fact I believe another large reason florida turned around so easily for him, was because of the amount of advertising dollars he poured into it

So to bring upon the original question, how much influence do debates have? I'd have to say not a huge amount. In the way that debates can either help or hinder momentum, they are definitely important, but important as momentum is, it cannot replace a well thought out and executed campaign (see: Santorum) which is the reason why every person other than Romney has surged, every other campaign has a rather ad-hoc nature, not strong enough to sustain the length of the campaign, while Romney has remained consistant, despite bad debate performances, despite other candidates surging, because his campaign is the best. and that campaign may very well lead him to victory.

An open letter to the creators of fringe

Dear creators of fringe

Its a good thing your show is freaking fantastic otherwise we would be having some very stern words now, Look I love fringe, I mean I LOVE it, but I have to say the 4th season is not a highlight for me. I see what you're doing, to get to the fringy stuff I love, involves working deeply threaded plotlines throughout many seasons, so to do that you have lay those threads, and because you thought you might be getting cancelled in the third season, you tied up a lot of the threads, and really used all the groundwork they had put in and got some fantastic storytelling, and so to get to that level of storytelling requires more groundwork

But I'm sorry, look I do trust you, because I know whats your capable, and even though season 4 isn't the best season its still absolulty amazing and better than almost everything else on TV, as much as it pains me to say this YOU MAY NOT GET MORE SEASONS, so please, please, do not waste the precious few episodes you may have left laying groundwork for stories that you will never get to tell

I know that this would hurt your artistic sole, but could you possibly take a few short cuts? seriously? because while I think its really interesting what your trying to do with this new timeline, did you have to suck all the things I love? Sam Wiess, Walternate, evil brendend, Peter and Oliva, just how hard it was to travel between universes, and how much the doplegangers hated each other, dude even Walter isn't as funny, and Damnit I want my inter-universe war and I want it now.

Also are you deliberly planning on making season 4 so season 1-like (don't answer that) because seriously, it feels like season 1, Jones, the cases feel familiar, and the style with the new characters, but while I do love season 1, thats because some of the great character growth and exploration of relationships, which isn't happening, because the characters are half old and half new, can't you choose? preferably old, because I know and love the old characters. Also in season 1 you were trying to grow an audience, so you weren't making fringe as serziled to attract new viewers, but lets be honest, your not getting any new viewers, the only ones you have left are the hard core fans who know the show inside out, so would it be too much to ask to cut back on the standalone episodes and go more for the mythogically awesome ones? 

So please, for all the fringe fans out there, pull whatever awesome plot twist you have coming up soon. I know you have something, and its going to be great, and make season 3 pale in comparison but it cannot come soon enough. Please, just get away from season 1 style and start knocking our socks off again.

Actual good spectator sports

Its the Australian Open time down here in australia, which is probably one of my least favourite times of the year. Non-ratings peroid is so close to being over, but before it is, we have to endure weeks of non-stop tennis, which for someone who watches as much TV as I do is absolutle touture. Not only is tennis the only thing on TV, but people are talking about the tennis, and as someone with absolutly no interest in the tennis I hate the australian open.

 Its not that I find tennis that boring a sport to watch (that honnor is a tie between cricket and lawn bowls) its just that I don't see how people can watch it for up to 6 hours. I mean for starters, you need at least 3 sets to win, and so you have to wait for forever before the competition actually starts to heat up and secondly they are doing the same time over and over and over again. I mean theres only one camera angle on the court, and the bulk of every single match basically consitis of each guy running a bit to their left, hitting the ball, shouting, while the other guy runs to the left, shouts and hits the ball and it takes them a gazzilion of these before someone scores, let alone does an actual good shot. I bet I could record a tape and play it at any tennis competition and no one could tell the difference.

No to be a good spectator sport, stuff has to actually happen, and I never get why people pack into see 8 men swimming a thousand laps in a pool, or run around a field for 90 minutes, thus I present to you my list of actual good spectator sports

1. Figure Skating- Ok well as I figure skater I was always going to put this at number one, but it actually is a really good spectator sport. people skate for either 2 1/2 or 4 minutes, both times equally within someones short attention span, and the skating is interesting. Instead of doing exactly the same thing, figure skaters jump, spin, footwork sequences, its to music, and everyone is wearing a pretty costume, not to mention that part of the point of figure skating is to look good, so theres tons of audience interaction and its designed to be interesting, how can you not like a sport that is designed to be interesting. Also unlike many sports *cough*cricket*cough* they don't take forever in between programs, no theres skating, the skater gets off the ice where they wait for there scores which are delivered in less than a minute, after getting the scores the next skater gets on the ice, and we begin again. bam, its that simple, and although they do sometimes go over the highlights of the program, it always under a minute and there is not incessant repetitions of the same throw from 50 different camera angles in slow mo and whatnot.
2. On a similar note, Gymnastics. Very similar to figure skating, its a sport that is ment to be watched, so and contains the vital 3 things, short periods of time you have to pay attention 2, interesting (and really incredible things happening, thats the thing with these sports, everyone can run around on a field, but very few people can launch themselves into the air, or comptenplate some of the spin positions like a gymnast or figure skater)  things happening constantly happening, and no repetition of said things happening. Gymnastics loses out to figure skating, because figure skating is just the best, and also because some of the events like the vault theres a long waiting time between stuff happening, although you can usually spot someone warming up something cool, anywho
3. diving- again like figure skating and gymnastic, drivers do incredible things, always interesting, always different, downside is there is usually a long wait between dives, but still, very impressive and good to watch

Notice how small the list is, that is because there are very few actual good spectator sports, I mean I am not a higly sporting person, but I'm pretty athletic, and even when I was really into netball, I still couldn't stand watching it being played, thus I've come to the conclusion that all sport is intrinsically boring and we should find a better way to waste our time, like write a blog that no one reads. Ohh I really need non-ratings to end

good, Good and GOOD

I went and saw Sherlock Holmes yesterday, and was blown away by how fantastic it was, especially considering how I thought it was going to suck, and ruin the first movie for me, the way the sequels unfortunalty have a way of doing, thus and since I am in a philosophical mood, I was thinking about what makes a good movie/tv show/book/whatever

I think a large amount of being good has to do with how much the movie draws you in, makes you connect with the characters, makes you invested with the movie, is is bassed almost entirely on the suspension of disbelief, because lets face it, we all live fairly boring lives. and thus to entertain us, movies, and TV and books present us with interesting situations, which are interesting to us, because they are so unusual, and thus by definition fairly unrealistic. Thus the mark of a good show is how much it can draw you into the world, and make you look past how unreal it may be, but there are different ways, and different levels of doing this

good shows ave these elements of interest, however not much else, explosions, hugely different worlds, life or death situations, these shows drive have a plot composed entirely of completely unrealistic situation, but you go with it, because it is so much more interesting than your own life. My guilty pleasure of choice is nikita, which features a host of explosions and girls kicking some serious ass, but not much else, better good shows fully embrace their own unreality, (usually through humour see castle) so you forgive them, because and embrace the show, just for going where no other show dares to go, (in bending suspension of disbelief waaay to far)

Good movies feature talent. These are the serious movies the one winning the awards (I cannot even remember the last time a comedy was nominated for a best picture oscar) Movies like The Social Network, The Iron Lady which you sit back and go wow after you've watched it, movies that you could study for english, that have deeply layered symbolism, that make a point, and don't bang you on the head with it. Instead of using unrealistic situations, they use the raw talent, depth and exceptional film-making to draw you in, make you connect with the movie

However bring me to my original point of this blogpost GOOD movies (and my personal favourite) however do both, ie they have both technically brillent, but have interesting things like explosions, Sherlock Holmes is a GOOD movie, while the acting was not phenomenal it was certainly very decent, but what really stood out for me was the film making, where you went inside Sherlocks head during a fight, the slow-mo explosions or everyone running (note to all film makers out there, do more of this!) how they took you inside the machinery, it was hilarious and witty and just plain fun to watch. The Tv equivalent of GOOD shows usually ends up as a leaning towards the serialised spectrum with Fringe and Homeland insistently coming to mind (after all when you can suck an audience member in that well, you can basically do what you want with them) and some of the movies do attract a bit of a cult following, I suppose because they are so deep, meaning you can read so much into them, and for such a long time,which can sometimes give them a bad rep but whatever I really enjoy this type

Of course the main purpose of a movie/tv show is usually to entertain, and all of these categories do entertain, in fact most of the stuff I watch I would classify as 'good' especially TV, not because there aren't talented people working in TV, its just that if you have to make a 45min episode practically every week there isn't a whole lot of time to perfect performances and deeply layer an episode

Anyway in completely unrelated news after we watched the movie, we went shopping, were we saw an american horse in myer, more than a bit weird considering its australia day today

I love how in both photos there brand labels perfectly positioned, very consumerist, anyway that plus the 1891 setting of Sherlock Holmes, made me very reminiscent of modern, and in a way school, although I think that feeling will rapidly go away once I see everyone else waking early again

Why Romney lost South Carolina

The third stop in the presidential nomination campaign, and possibly the most important so far had an upset for Romeny, but really one to be expected. While doing a great job managing expectations in Iowa, he completely screwed it up once he got to new Hampshire. New Hampshire which he would have won anyway on account of it being one of the more liberal states, Romney then started talking like he had won the candinancy, in speeches he focused on Obama instead of his opposition, which would have been great ground work had he actually won the nomination. South Carolina voters were always more likely to go for someone like Gingrich, not only being the much more conservative candidate, especially compared to how quite frankly liberal Romney is for a republican, not to mention the fact that South Carolinians (Carolinens?) like to feel like they are an influential state, who can decide the nomination, especially compared to the very small New Hampshire and Iowa. Romney really took his lead for granted, which is never a good idea, especially when it was achieved more or less by luck. Romney was leading really by default, due his opponents fighting against each other, while he escaped relatively unscathed and due to strong performances in Iowa many people called the presidential campaign a three way race between Paul, Santorum and Romney, but in reality Romney was the only one with a national campaign, and thus Santorum and Pauls lead would have to be really based on momentum, something that was note really going to happen due to the real reversal of ideologies going from Iowa to New Hampshire. Romney also really didn't perform spectactually in New Hampshire, given the competition, and got no momentum off either, so it isn't really suprissing that another candidate was able to beat him, and with a very strong showing in the polls and a strong national campaign, that candidate was Gingrich, who really is, Romney's real competitor

Does that mean all is lost for Romney, well no, but he'll have to work hard to get it back. Firstly he'll have to start talking like he's the nominee already, and he'll have to go hard with the adds, he has the rather large advantage of having a huge personal fortune so spamming adds in Florida can only help, especially if they are targeted against Gingrich who if he was paying attention to polling figures, is going to offer up the stiffest competition

Spring TV shows

As part of my life-long (well not really life long, its really only about 4-5 years old, and growing stronger as of late) obsession with TV, and in my post-HSC boredom phase, I make a point to watch all the new drama pilots of TV shows, partly because I am bored, and partly because if there are any good new shows I really want to start watching them from the start, and not only get into them several seasons down the track, because fun as it is to spam watch a show (and trust me, I have spam-watched many a show, in a scarily short time period) I prefer it so much better when I have to wait for an episode, I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but a cliff hanger is not a cliff hanger unless your tortuously waiting for at least a week, there should be anticipation, its so much more exciting to finally get to watch the episode if you have to wait, and when I start a show, theres no way I'm waiting, I really like having that mulling over time, trying to think of theories, and what can I say, I get really invested in my TV shows, plus theres that whole thing about saying you were hooked from the beginning, and never any risk of spoilers, because no ones watched the next episode

Any way, original point, I've watched all the new drama pilots, and I have to say, compared to fall, which was completely lack-luster, nothing really jumped out at me

Smash--- I actually kinda really enjoyed it, It feels really like a grown up glee, complete with ridiculous characters, but not lovable like on glee, and not as funny as glee, although the seriousness could make it better than glee, but saying that first season glee was really good, it was the later seasons which weren't so good, so I think the same will happen with smash, but ultimately, although I liked it, it isn't enough for me to go out of my way to watch, which is a shame, but it just didn't capture my attention enough, I may check it out again in a while, because pilots usually suck by comparison, but a no go for me for now

Alcatraz--- Similar story to smash, Alcatraz feels like an episode of Fringe, but just falls short, while the premise sounds interesting, it just doesn't capture my attention, in a good tv show you look past all that is unrealistic, infact that usually becomes whats cool about it, but all I could think about while watching Alcatraz was, are they seriously going there? it was beyond unrealistic, and I watch a lot of unrealistic shows, I think a lot of its short comings come down to the fact that the characters seriously suck (especially young blonde haired chick-ohh don't get me started on my hate for her), but honestly the show is just bad. Just because its JJ Abrams, and it may be replacing Fringe, I'll come back for another episode, but seriously not impressed

The Finder--- funnily enough for being a spin off, this show felt the least rippy-offy of all the new shows this spring season, and it actually had an excuse. Also funnily, I liked the pilot a lot more than I liked the second episode, which had Sweets from Bones cross over, whom I love, and usually I don't like pilots. But besides that, I actually really enjoyed The Finder. Capturing the hilariousness of Bones, and not much else, it's definitely quirky, and what a TV show should be, completely ridiculous it draws you in, with a host of equally crazy characters, it doesn't take itself seriously, (take note Alcatraz) and while there could be more of her, there is in fact a girl running around with a gun, so clearly I must love it. Unfortunalty it looks to be following down the path of many recent spin-offs aka flopping, so it doesn't look like it will be around much longer, but while it is, I'll think I'll tune in

Are there more new drama's this spring season? Possibly, but those three are all I've watched, and while I'll be tuning in again, which is more than I can say about the fall pilots, that is partly due to boredom and not quality, but hey, entertainment it entertainment right

Hello blogging world!

Hello to the 0 people probably reading this, this as of now is my blog, in which I will post completely random stuff, usally about TV, statistics, chemistry, more TV, physics, politics, stuff happening in my life and just random things that interest me, basically stuff that I really want to rant about but other people proabably find really boring, and knowing me, will somehow be related to statistics in some form or the other and pretend like I am an expert in such matters. I have no idea how long this blogging phase will last, but at the moment I'm really into blogging, so hello!