So at the request of TAB, I watched the new "Doctor Who" show on the SciFi Channel last night. I look forward to reading his review of the new show -- I'm curious about how it compares to the old version -- but I can't say I found anything to be terribly interesting about these eps. I suspect that the show's appeal for a lot of people will be based upon its connection to the old show and the simple fact that it is science fiction, but when I get into scifi -- or anime, or horror, or anything really -- it's not just for the sake of the genre, but for more the more substantial stuff. I really dug the neat alternate Earths to which they traveled in "Sliders", for example, but that would've meant diddly without complex, likable characters and a pleasant group dynamic. Buffy worked not only because of the interesting life metaphors presented in her battles with the undead, but also, again, because of likable characters and the group dynamic (until the latter two seasons, which is one of the reasons that they pretty much sucked). People have recently expressed surprise at my affection for the earlier seasons of "Dawson's Creek" -- but given that it was largely founded upon (again!) likable characters and the group dynamic, it's really not all that shocking. Same deal with "Teen Titans", Ninja Turtles, X-Men (at least in the comics and the cartoons; the lack of these elements in the live action movies is one reason that they've been such disappointments), etc., etc. Hell, in addition to the batshit insanity, the interplay between characters was even central to the appeal of "Pee-wee's Playhouse" .

Anyway, with the new Dr. Who, you get a goofy dude making Pee-wee faces and a displaced girl with a connection to each other that is shallow at best (yeah, I know, first episodes and all, but even the depiction of the bonding efforts between the two was extremely superficial) and situations that aren't terribly different from stuff I've seen before. Mindless mannequins might as well be zombies (and next week's episode actually features zombies, so whoop-dee-doo), and processions of wacky aliens making passing references to current pop culture is pretty standard fare even in popular scifi. Maybe "Battlestar Galactica" deals with "deep, philosophical questions" (I kinda doubt that, and seeing as how it would cost me in the neighborhood of $40 to find out I doubt that I will anytime soon...), but this Dr. Who seems like pure conceptiovisual geekery. Which is to say that people will simply get off on the wacky visuals and the idea of this guy traveling to alternate universes, because that's pretty much all the show has going for it thus far. Maybe things will change as the series progresses, but these initial episodes lead me to doubt it.

Speaking of things I doubt, following the parenthetical link in the first paragraph (or just clicking here) will take you to an article in which I explain why I doubt that X3 will be worth watching at all. Scary-Crayon has been plugged. All for now -- ja ne, minna-san!

Man, I'd forgotten how much I liked this show. It's kinda weird watching it without the commercials, though -- I keep expecting the dancing frog or Nikki Cox to pop out and say something about tonight's sponsors. When DVD-9 discs become the norm, I think they should start making television series DVDs with commercials which, like commentary and subtitles, can be activated via a submenu. Not only would they considerably ramp up the nostalgia factor -- especially if they could get current advertisers to provide their old spots for older shows -- but the advertising revenues could allow companies to sell DVD box sets at significantly lower prices. Why hasn't anyone thought to do this? It's a total win-win.

Does anybody remember that South Park episode when Cartman went back to colonial times and beat that messenger boy to death with a 2x4 while singing the Dawson's Creek theme song? Why the hell was that so funny? I crack up every time I think about it.

And for those of you who've enjoyed our culinary experiments over at Scary-Crayon, there's a new sandwich in town. It's legendary.

It now appears to me that it is a speck of dust/lint somehow trapped underneath the screen's protective covering, judging from its position relative to the angle at which I view it (as opposed to the fixed position of the pixels on the screen image itself). There must be a way to rectify this matter, but short of cracking open the lid I am at a loss for answers. Outsourced tech support, I imagine, will be of little assistance.

Those of you used to chatting with me on AIM may have noticed that I haven't been around too much lately. That is because I'd kind of gotten used to using the laptop as my primary computing device, and then I discovered... a stuck/dead pixel. Actually, there may be several of them in the same vicinity, but one is darker than the others and really really bugs me. Could it always have been there? I don't know, but now that I've noticed it I can't take my bloody eyes off of it. Hell, it's basically rendered the rightmost 150 pixels of my monitor useless, since I'm running all of my program windows dragged that much to the left to avoid making it show up on white backgrounds. I hate it. But as far as I've been able to discern, there's nothing that can be done about it. So I haven't been using the laptop much and have only been using the desktop for work (not much these days) and to check e-mail. It kinda sucks -- this thing cost $4K and I can hardly stand to use it now. What a waste.

Anyway, since my laptop looks almost exactly like Foamy's laptop and is (also) a Dell, I found the latest Ill Will Press cartoon (Tech-Support III) to be especially relevant (and fairly humorous, especially given that I have had similarly infuriating experiences with outsourced Dell tech support since getting the laptop). Unfortunately, the creator isn't taking e-mails so I can't ask him if Dell actually gave him a working solution.

Don't buy a Dell.

I could care less about the Oscars, so I only caught a few parts of it in passing. Thoughts:

Can somebody who finds Jon Stewart funny explain to me... why? No, seriously. Pick a joke he's told and explain to me, in the comments, what's funny about it. Then, provided that you can, convince me that he regularly tells jokes of that nature. I've never found the guy to be terribly amusing -- not on "The Daily Show" (which largely consists of people making idiotic remarks that speak for themselves, so the bullshit he adds is pointless and unnecessary), not in the related books supposedly written by him, not on his guest spots on talk shows (though that may not quite be his fault), and now, not on the Oscars. As best I can tell, people find him amusing because of that one goofy face he makes, but if you think about it, that is, quite literally, infantile humor. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people find it funny, given that humanity almost entirely consists of gibbering idiots figuratively regurgitating on themselves and pissing in the air. Goo-goo, ga-ga, bitches.

Reese Witherspoon. Fucking hell. I listened to a brief commentary about the Oscars on a random news site, and the commentator went on for a bit about the "fantastic" speech that she gave. Excuse me? I actually caught that speech and I wanted to punch her in the fucking face the entire time. Was she irritating or what? The only movie I ever thought she was good in was Election, and only then because it was her only believable performance. Reese Witherspoon is annoying as all hell -- she's not a sweetheart that I can see anyone genuinely desiring (unless that desire includes a certain element of brutality and hatred). I seriously wish I'd been at the show (like Tamara -- updated link!) so I could've yelled, "HEY! SOMEBODY SHUT THAT BITCH UP!" And then when people gasped and inquired aloud who said it, I'd jump up on my chair and shout, "IT WAS ME!!!" And then crayons would rain from the sky.

A movie about gay cowboys actually won awards. Does anyone else have a craving for pudding?

And Crash for Best Picture. Now, I didn't see any of the other nominated films, so I can't comment on how deserving Crash was in comparison, but I didn't think the movie deserved that kind of award. It certainly wasn't the best picture that I saw in 2005. (Of course, with the exception of The Godfather, I've found very few of the winners that I've seen to be worthy of that distinction, but still.) And Crash had a message? It struck me as a pretty shallow and cartoony depiction of racism with an artsy "everything comes full circle" undercurrent that offered very little in the way of actual depth, solutions, or even condemnation. You want to talk about real racism, we'll talk about how films like Hustle & Flow further negative stereotypes and hinder actual progress in this department. "It's hard out here for a pimp?" It should be fucking harder, because pimps should be in jail getting anally raped. Fuck that movie.

All for now -- ja ne, minna-san.