Notion Motioned: Where I Motion Some Notions

Please spell... weltanschauung.

2011-11-14T10:17:00.000-08:00

Yes, I did spell that word without looking it up.
No, I didn't sing Barfee's part while doing so.

Shortly after the last post I made here, I auditioned for a community theatre production of William Finn's The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. Quite honestly, I thought my solo audition was horrendous. Before and after an audition is the only periods of time when I feel nervous and/or uncomfortable, but once I get up on that stage, I calm down and feel at home. I love musical theatre that much. After everyone's [closed door] audition, we all went into the theatre and read from the script with one another, several times. This helps the director get a sense of how he wants to cast the show, all the while keeping in mind what he heard from our solos. After readings, we quickly learned a section from "Pandemonium" that involved harmonies, got split into a few groups so that they could pick out voices individually. There were 2 people per soprano/alto/tenor/bass -- though, technically, there's no bass in this show, everyone's parts are higher than usual as we're meant to be kids. There are a few moments in the show that the sopranos are hitting notes you typically hear in operas. I believe I heard the woman who played Rona in the original production ended up speak-singing at some point in the run of the show. Whether or not this is true, I wouldn't doubt it happening. I think there was only one moment that I actually sang higher than our Rona did.

On that note, yes, I was cast.

I'm not much of an actor but I gave it my all in the reading and group song because I really did think I botched my solo. I mean, I forgot to breathe properly! Which, of course, messed up my technique completely. Anyway, the day after the audition (rather, the night after my audition, as my phone started playing the Doctor Who theme at 11:30pm) I got a call from the director and was offered the role of Logainne Schwartzandgrubenierre, an ambitious girl with gay dads and a lisp. I accepted, we talked about how excited we were for the show, he told me we had a great cast, I bounced around a little bit after hanging up the phone, and then I told my parents I was going to be in the show.

Here's the thing... I don't really have a dream to be on the stage. I enjoy it but I just don't have a passion for it. I've been finding I don't really have a passion for much of anything. I enjoy many things but not to the point of "I want this to by my career." If anything, I think I'd want to direct. I feel I'm better at telling people what I want to see rather than doing it myself. In the same sense, I think I'd be a great casting director. But I digress! The rehearsal process was fun and stressful -- the show ended up being more difficult than any of us expected. *shakes fist at William Finn* Nevertheless, we had a good run and I loved my castmates. I'm in a singing group with a few of them, but I miss everyone else's faces very much.

We had a lot of good times during those 2 1/2 months. For our last show, we asked Francesca (our show's Rona) to use the "Mrs. X lives her life according to the gospel of Spongebob Squarepants" line, and we all agreed to do a little improv, if you will. If you're unfamiliar, typically for last shows, cast members have a little fun during scenes without throwing anyone off too much. When Francesca used the line, we all put up our hands and simultaneously said, "Preach!" Good times...

The Writing on the Wall

2011-07-27T11:45:00.000-07:00

I clearly fail at meeting goals I set for myself here on this blog. (re: Sondheim posts I claimed I'd be making in the previous post.) I'm therefore never promising any posts and will just post as I please. Moving on!

The Mystery of Edwin Drood is a musical based off the Charles Dickens novel of the same name. The novel was never finished and therefore Dickens' intended ending remained a mystery itself. Rupert Holmes (Drood's composer and book writer) decided to create alternate endings for the show, every possible ending, and every night the show's audience as a collective was allowed to participate and decide "whodunit". For this show, Holmes won Tony Awards for Best Book and Best Original Score, and the show won a few other Tony Awards, including Best Musical.

Betty Buckley is one of those Broadway legends who will make you glad you saw a show even if the show itself was the worst piece of garbage to ever exist. Luckily, this show is not one of those and Buckley is in RARE form here. Just listen to that big note at 2:55!

Art Isn't Easy: "A Little Priest"

2011-04-23T11:17:00.000-07:00

The purpose of this song was to introduce a big piece of the story to the audience, and to do so as carefully as possible. I mean, let’s face it, the audience is going to be grossed out. (Half of the audience left during intermission on opening night. No doubt this occurrence continued for a few weeks at least.) Sondheim’s main purpose for adapting Christopher Bond’s play in the first place was to see if he could write a musical that would scare people. But even so, he had to reveal this bit of the story lightly and decided to do that with using something familiar to musical theatre audiences: a list song. Even though “A Little Priest” does qualify as a list song, there’s certainly more to it that it ultimately can’t be considered only a list song; “Let’s Fall in Love” it is not. There’s intent, there’s development, and while it may be very slight, it’s still there. This song introduces a new plot, after-all.

It’s well known (and, quite frankly, easy to tell) that Sondheim’s inspiration for Sweeney came from Bernard Herrmann’s movie scores. That quality is not so much present in this piece, apart from the first several bars. The music changes slightly with one instrument [forgive me, I won’t try to even guess what instruments take part in pieces of music, even if I am 98% sure] that comes in right when Lovett mentions Pirelli’s “plump frame”. The mood becomes lighter, it’s the first hint of the playfulness. Listen to what is going on outside of that one instrument though, there’s still a sinister sound underneath. (Appropriately so.) I love moments like these in Sondheim’s music. Those moments that you don’t notice until your 7th, 20th, or 51st listen. Typically, Sondheim would use mood like that to build on what is going on, but here it’s strictly to accommodate the audience. Well, that’s my best guess anyway from what I know of Sondheim’s work and what this piece is trying to accomplish. But it does seem clear that Sondheim made “A Little Priest” upbeat, clever and fun for a specific reason - to help the audience remember that they are indeed at a musical. He knew full well that one shouldn’t send an audience to the lobby with a dark number about killing people and baking them. Instead he used a well-loved musical theatre device, composed in waltz-time, and made pun after pun about one’s occupation.

There’s also the matter of Sondheim using this piece as an opportunity to show off his rhyming skills, particularly with “The trouble with poet is how do you know it’s deceased. Try the priest.” Not only does he use the familiar poet/know it rhyme, I think it can be assumed that the "s" sound in “it’s” is intended to go with "deceased" and "priest". (It goes with the waltz-time anyway.) Sing it aloud and you’ll notice “it’s” gets dragged out in the delivery. This pattern is revisited with “Beadle isn’t bad ‘til ya smell it and notice how well it’s been greased. Stick to priest.” Then there’s the moment where Sondheim admits that not even he can find a rhyme for every word. (In a different context, I bet you he could have.) Lovett offers various meat pies to Sweeney, but he rejects every offer, asking for something more *insert adjective here that rhymes with previous offer*, and Lovett finally outwits Sweeney by offering him “locksmith”. ~~Sondheim~~ Sweeney is at a loss. Finally, there’s the lyric that always seems to get the biggest laugh: “And we have some shepherd’s pie peppered with some actual shepherd on top.” That Sondheim is a clever clever man. :)

p.s. Something I credit Sondheim for may actually be something Jonathan Tunick (an orchestrator who worked on most of Sondheim’s shows) did for the piece. For example, in “Not While I’m Around” when Lovett sings to Toby, I’ve heard it was Tunick who put in that haunting violin accompaniment.

p.p.s. This is a new series of write-ups on Sondheim's music that I've decided to do. Figured it'd help me get back to blogging more. (I'll actually most likely have another post up this weekend on tonight's season premiere of Doctor Who.) These posts may not always be as informative, they could just turn out more fangirl-y, but I will try my best to avoid that. And again, anything I point out are simply my observations and not facts, unless I say so. (e.g. Herrmann being an influence on Sweeney's score.)

Geronimo!

2011-03-19T19:35:00.000-07:00

Matt Smith has signed on for Series 7 of Doctor Who.

This news pleases me so. I am a big fan of Matt's portrayal of the good Doctor. He portrays the Doctor as very much an old man in a young man's body, and the signs of the old man peak through a couple times every episode and they are wonderful moments. It will be a sad day when Matt takes his leave, but I will be just as excited to see who jumps on board next. I'm new to Who, but I know very well that the change is nothing new and to be expected - certainly nothing to get too upset over. (Cue me side-eying some so-called Whovians.)

This week there was a special 8-minute mini-episode on BBC's Red Nose Day, a biennial telethon event for Comic Relief. Embedded below is the first part of the episode, and here is a link to part 2. Enjoy! And enjoy! (You will only understand this once you've seen it.)

It's a city of strangers; some come to work, some to play.

2011-01-12T16:23:00.000-08:00

I was watching the recording session of Stephen Sondheim's Company last night and felt the urge to make a brief Pamela Myers appreciation post.

Stephen Sondheim and Pamela Myers (1970)

A 22-year old Pamela Myers auditioned for Stephen Sondheim's Company in the late 60s. Sondheim & co. loved her, they couldn't imagine not giving her the role, but they had doubts doing so because appearance-wise she wasn't fit for it. Luckily, they were able to "easily" change the character's original description to fit her because they couldn't let such a remarkable talent go. Sounds like the plot of a movie, right? There was also no solo originally written for the character and they all decided she absolutely had to have one. She had to be shown off! They managed to stretch said song across 3 separate scenes, connecting purposeful moments with each woman the main character was seeing. The song was "Another Hundred People", a challenging number that put Pam's talent on display. Needless to say, she and the song were a show-stopper for the unconventional 1970 musical. Myers received a Tony nomination in 1971 for her performance and is adored to this day. At a 1993 concert, she received a minute-long applause after a "reprise" performance of the song that made everyone remember her name.

(Myers also impressively performed this song 3 years ago - putting her, at the time, at 60 years old!)

Television! Teacher, mother, secret lover.

2010-11-10T14:59:00.000-08:00

Yes, that's a quote from The Simpsons up there. I found it appropriate. Now, this won't be a negative post. Well, it will be in a sense but I'm not ranting by any means. I'm simply sharing some thoughts I've had recently.

On television shows, the writers seem to be focused on making an important issue they tackle as real as it can be. That's fine, it's good even, but it seems as though it is the only thing they think they can do. They never seem to consider, "How about we show this differently in our made-up world where everything else is unlike the real world." What I'm talking about is when a show tackles a story about, say... cancer or the gay community, to start with two separate examples. One specific example I want to start with first is The L Word's 'Dana'. She had breast cancer and the show runner killed her off because "Women do die from breast cancer and I felt it was important to show that, especially with a character everyone loves so much." What she failed to understand is that we're all aware women die from breast cancer, we're well aware many people die from all sorts of cancer. (What she also failed to understand is that killing off a fan-favorite doesn't bode well for your show.) To address my point re: this issue though, how about showing the process of fighting cancer year after year? I personally think that'd make a bigger impact. I mean, if you really wanted to "remind" the audience of the possibility of someone losing their battle, then introduce a new character Dana could have befriended and ultimately lost along the way. There's a lot more available there story-wise; there are three big stories I can think of off the top of my head, actually.

As for my other example, I've decided to use a different topic instead because of a show I've been watching lately. Degrassi has a transgender character, which is impressive considering I can only think of one other show that has done this, but I am frankly scared for this character. The show has a tendency to kill off someone every other year and I fear they may go the more realistic route with him eventually. By 'more realistic' I mean that half of transgender people attempt suicide (this Degrassi character has inflicted pain) and many are raped/murdered. I've been wondering lately if it'd be best for the show to create a better, more accepting environment instead. Mind you, only the 3 bullies (who pick on everyone for anything at all) have bothered 'Adam', while everyone else is very accepting of him. But why not create a story to have at least 2 of them reconsider their views? It may not seem realistic to most people, but I think it'd be much more beneficial to the audience. I mean, even with how well the show's been addressing this, I've seen a few forum posts and video blogs on YouTube of viewers still saying things like "Well, Fiona won't be with Adam because Adam's actually a girl and Fiona's not into girls that way." Even after an entire season of episodes, including one almost completely devoted to Adam's story - showing Adam will not accept being referred to as a female by anyone and when changing to "Gracie" for his step-mom, he started hurting himself again - viewers are still not accepting it themselves even though they claim to "not have an issue with Adam". Some of them still refer to the character as Adam/Gracie or he/she. Mind you, it's a lesser amount than one would expect, especially with a big teen audience that are most likely learning about trans people for the first time. The show really has positively informed many about this topic, which is wonderful. It could do even more with handling Adam's story in the way I mentioned, especially if they were to have Fiona remain interested in Adam after finding out he is transgender. To those unfamiliar with her character, her choosing to stay with Adam would definitely fit the character as she has quite a handful of issues herself and doesn't judge anyone for theirs. It's curious to me why half of the fans assume she won't, though, but I think that may be a general assumption of their own and not one of Fiona.

I do know it's important to show these very real situations that people go through in their lives, but again, sometimes I wonder if it's just as important to create a "less realistic" community of characters that are entirely accepting. I just feel that the only way people are going to start changing, or even re-considering their views, is if they witness little to no negative behavior. None of us are born close-minded and ignorant. And true, bringing up these issues even with the best representation is never going to change every person's views, but I think it'd help a large percentage to one day help us get certain laws passed without heavy resistance. Think of it as tv adapting a sort of zero tolerance policy, if you will.

Am I completely off-base here?

To sum up, I just wish television programs would mix things up a little. As I mentioned before, I find it so odd they make up these fake places with occasionally over-the-top situations, but then any sort of real issue has to be dealt with in the most "realistic" and dramatic way. I feel like they could say so much more by tackling these stories differently, in a more positive light. If you don't think you can create an interesting story out of something like that, then your characters are clearly not at all interesting on their own. Here's where shows could learn a thing or two from AMC's Mad Men.

A decent amount of work but still plenty of play.

2010-09-30T13:58:00.000-07:00

For the past several months, I've become a bit of a "gamer". I'm very much a beginner, though. I quit Mass Effect 2 only a few hours [if that] into the game because I happened upon a mission that I found myself struggling to beat. I had to destroy these huge robots before they destroyed all of the crates I was sent to retrieve. I clearly have advanced in my gaming skills since then (ME2 was the first game I played after getting my Xbox360) because I played that mission again last week and beat it in 1 minute. We can definitely chalk my first failure up to not paying close enough attention to the game.

Video games sure have come a long way since I last played them about a decade ago. Though, admittedly I played the games I see today's gamers scoff at and do everything to avoid, sports games and whatnot. That is, unless they're exceptionally well done, because serious gamers do appreciate hard work from developers. Before picking up my Xbox360, I researched video games thoroughly, finding out what's the most critically-acclaimed and most played. The one thing that separates video games from other forms of media is that the best games end up being the best sellers. Sure, sometimes a really good tv show or film gets proper recognition, but 90% of the time they don't. 90% may be generous, actually. Anyway - I had no idea how involved I was going to have to be with the games I started picking up, particularly ME2. I read about the individual experience and all, but I guess I still didn't think much of it.

I found myself aggravated when nearing the end of the game because my character was in a state I wasn't too pleased with: I lost the loyalty of Miranda (face and voice provided by the lovely Yvonne Strahovski) after an argument was had between her and another crew member and I didn't finish 2 other teammates' loyalty missions properly. The latter was due to my being foolish. Ah well, next time! Regardless of my failures, I was still excited about the end of the game. Which was surprisingly easy. Easier than most of the levels, actually, but unfortunately more tedious as well. I won't go into detail to avoid spoiling anyone who has yet to play or even purchase the game.

On that note - there are a few amazing games coming out in the next couple months I'm very much wanting to get my hands on, namely Fable III, Medal of Honor, and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. I figure I'll wait on Call of Duty: Black Ops since I still haven't played Modern Warfare 2, will be busy with the other new releases, and I certainly have plenty of other games to finish; I have started all the games I have purchased this past year, but I haven't gotten too far in most of them.

What I've found from my 8 months of gaming is that I prefer shooters/action-adventure and action role-playing games. Games like Fallout and The Elder Scrolls are where I fail, which is unfortunate because they are interesting gaming experiences. I think what I might do is sell my games that are pure role-players and trade for the ones I can play, then maybe in a year or two when I've excelled as a gamer, I can try them again. I mean, I beat those robots that [7 months ago] killed me just as fast as I ended up killing them last week. Metal bastards...

On the street where you live...

2010-08-04T10:30:00.000-07:00

Sherlock
221B Baker Street

BBC's new show from Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss premiered 2 weeks ago to favorable reviews. (Except for this guy. Someone should really help him with getting that stick out of his ass.) If you enjoy Moffat's and Gatiss' Doctor Who episodes, you are likely to enjoy this as well. I know I did. A lot. Sherlock is stylish, clever and witty, much like Who, but it definitely has its own little quirks and overall feel to separate itself from the other. Not to mention it is about Sherlock Holmes and not the Doctor. Benedict Cumberbatch is a pitch perfect Sherlock (with proper eye color, to boot!) and Martin Freeman's Watson is just wonderful. I know what you're asking, though... "But do they play off each other well?" They most certainly do, my friend! And naturally, bromance permeates the scripts.

Unfortunately for fans, there are only 3 episodes in this season and the second aired this past weekend. Word has it the show will be returning for another round, but not until late 2011 from the looks of it. Alas, these episodes do run 90 minutes so it's not unlike a British half-hour comedy that normally gets 12 episodes, or similarly, a British drama that gets 6 hour-long episodes a season.

Regardless, consider this a definite recommendation. And here's to hoping the dvd set won't be too expensive! (Yeah, right.)

p.s. I would apologize for my absence but I don't think anyone really missed me. Not looking for pity, mind you. I just recognize the fact that people don't really know about this blog. Yet! I'm a glass half-full gal. And I'm also not bothering with an apology because my absence was due to family matters. I do intend on keeping up with this blog as I have previously stated here. :)

Ladies and gentlemen...

2010-07-15T21:25:00.001-07:00

I introduce you to my new favorite summer show, Covert Affairs.

Doctor Why?

2010-07-04T11:01:00.001-07:00

I am completely smitten with the latest series of Doctor Who. Not only did I look forward to a new episode every weekend, but I'm finding myself re-watching the episodes. Not only that, I want to re-watch all of the episodes. But... can anyone tell me why?

Is it Matt Smith's stellar performance as the new Doctor? Maybe it's because of the intelligent and sassy Amy Pond, played by Karen Gillan. Or is it because of Steven Moffat taking over the series? Then again, maybe it's Rory. Wonderful, lovely Rory.

Why is it I am so taken by it?

Years ago, starting with the reboot of the series, I watched Christopher Exccleston's run as the 9th Doctor. I enjoyed it but I didn't find myself a fan at the end. But I caught up in time (more or less) to watch the 2nd season with Tennant as the 10th Doctor; I actually only caught the Christmas episode and the first of the next season. I think I actually found myself less fond of it. So, I decided I would revisit the series at a later time. Hoping that in a year or two, my tastes would change a bit and it would be more to my liking.

Several months ago, during New year's weekend, I caught a network running a marathon of the series. If I wasn't sleeping I was watching the show. Still wasn't thoroughly enjoying it, but watching it all the time definitely helped in a kind of "acquired taste" way.

So what made me tune in for this new season? You tell me. I figured I was caught up enough and didn't really care to try to catch what I missed during the marathon, and I figured it wasn't necessary anyway. Matt Smith and Karen Gillan looked like a great pair and I had found that the episodes I saw of Steven Moffat's were ones I was most impressed with. I will certainly be using Netflix's Instant Watch to see the ones of his that I missed. And no doubt I'll be revisiting this series as a whole at least once. It's a long wait until the Christmas special.

So what is it? Is it Moffat's writing? The actors? Maybe it's the plot that carried throughout each episode. And if the season finale was any indication, that story isn't over. Anyway, whatever it is, I hope they keep it up because I love being a fan of this show.

ECHO! (Echo) (echo)

2010-07-02T21:35:00.000-07:00

..... Hi. *waves to the one person that watches this blog*

I've been MIA. I know, I know. But I intend to do something about that.

I really thought I'd have things to talk about, at least every week. But apparently not. So I've decided that I'll choose something I'm attached to and whether or not it is new, I will post about it.

Hm, that came out a bit confusing-like. Words right order with sentence me make.

The first post should be up this weekend. And hopefully another won't come too long after. But until then, I leave you with this.

Attend the tale of...

2010-06-07T13:11:00.000-07:00

This won't be a very articulate post. I'm mostly here to get out some of my feelings on the hatred I see for Tim Burton's adaptation of Stephen Sondheim's Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. I won't get into specifics of comparing the two because that's actually what I'm trying to avoid with the point I'm making. If you'd like to discuss a certain aspect just for the heck of it, then leave a comment and I'd be more than happy to oblige. I love talking about a good musical. :) But for now, I just want to get into why I feel some fans of the original stage show are too wrapped up in the original to enjoy a well-made film and one of the best movie adaptations of a stage musical. We all know that is not an easy feat!

The main complaint I often see is about the lack of joy in the scene where Depp and Carter perform "A Little Priest", which brings Act I to a close. I personally would have despised watching the movie's characters laughing and dancing all kooky-like. And I don't think that proves the point that it was therefore not carried out properly in the film. There are plenty of comedians/people who present humor in a flat/dry manner. Maybe it's not to a lot of fans' liking to be presented in a way that's not identical to the stage show, but critics and new viewers alike who weren't familiar with the original didn't seem to have an issue with it. It's not a bad way to present it. You may not personally like it, what with everyone having personal tastes and whatnot, but it doesn't make it any less appropriate.

Actually, I'd like to make a brief comment about that. The first time I watched the stage show, I was actually quite surprised to see Sweeney enjoying himself in such a "big" way, laughing hysterically and dancing about with Mrs. Lovett. I always felt that came out of nowhere. Sure, he's ecstatic to finally get his revenge and finds Lovett's suggestion darkly humorous. But I never made an issue of it with musical fans, because I just assumed it needed to be big for the stage. Fans of musicals learn to let go of that restricted access to one's emotions. If it needs to be big for the last row to see the emotion via arms outstretched, then that is what they're going to get, and the first row might feel as though it was overkill.

Burton's version isn't suppose to be a definitive movie version of the stage musical. It's a film adaptation of a stage musical. Key word: ADAPT. This is what artists do; They are inspired by something and then they put their spin on it. Anyone who doesn't is lazy and uninspired, really not much of an artist at all. Can we please look at the A Little Night Music movie adaptation? Someone tried to put the musical as is on film. Actually, what was worse was they made it appear MORE staged. Let us now recall when some people, critics and audience members alike, picked on Joss Whedon's Buffy because they claimed the show relied on his quirky dialogue. He then made "Hush" to challenge himself. The episode (only 2% spoken dialogue) turned out brilliantly, earned him an Emmy nomination, but was his style of humor still there? Absolutely. Even without words, it still rang true to Joss' humor. So you only have yourself to blame if you were familiar with both Burton's films and the stage musical. Directors are hired to get their specific style stamped on a film [or a television show]. The most sought after directors all have a definitive style. Take note of all the ones who seem to put out movies every year, they all cover a specified genre [or two], do they not? Burton is the most theatrical and he does dark films well, and I truly believe that no other director would have made a better film. Though, I would love to see Joss Whedon attempt Sweeney Todd as he has expressed an interest in doing so. When asked what musicals he'd want to adapt onto film, he even said he loved Burton's adaptation, but that he would personally do things a little differently, assumingly shifting the focus on another aspect of the show. We know Joss can do the fun/quirky and incorporate melodrama easily, but he'd probably let go of other aspects. Namely the horror - and that is, after-all, WHY Sondheim set out to do the show - to scare people. Ever think about that Sondheim geeks? (No offense meant, I am a proud Sondheim geek.) But before all that, Joss needs to learn how to be a movie director. He's not too good at that, yet. I'm a huge Joss Whedon fan and I definitely recognize he is no movie director. Serenity worked well enough because he simply went for a more spiffy/mature look from the way he directed his tv show.

Lastly, I know plenty of people who loved the film and then watched they original version because they assumed as much it'd be a different experience simply because they were aware that it was an adaptation. After doing so, they didn't compare the two and try to sort out which was superior. They loved that they were different in tone and appreciated them both for what they were.

I'm not trying to say people who despise Burton's version are wrong. That'd be ridiculous of me to claim. But I don't care for the lack of respect for a well-made film. It makes me scratch my head a bit to see so much hate considering the film was critically acclaimed. Some of the critics weren't familiar with the musical and others were well aware of it and even fans. Actually, more were familiar with it as critics are usually very cultured in most aspects. Do I think some Sondheim fans are just a bit too snobby about it? Absolutely. lol Sorry. But you know it's true. If you can't recognize a well-made film and would rather focus on the lack of laughing in a scene or the omission of your favorite song, well... there you are. Burton made a film because that is what he does. And yes, it was partially to feed an obsession of his. HIS. Not yours.

Are you there, God? It's me, a Lost fan.

2010-05-11T20:14:00.000-07:00

Something became very clear to me tonight. This something is regarding the expectations of Lost fans.

Right this moment, I have no doubt people are thinking, "Okay, that's how Smokey was made. Fine. But WHAT made Smokey? Why is it made up of what it's made up of?"

They want the answer and will no doubt be disappointed if they don't get it and many more like it. We apparently have learned all that we will about the numbers and most don't seems satisfied with it. But why not? I mean, what explanation could be given as to why they all show up? My theory is that we have learned why they show up, simply because they need to. All these separate realities have our Losties coming together eventually, and like the people themselves, the numbers show up. What other reason should there be?

Would I like every detail? Not really.

Not... NOT REALLY???

Well, if we got all the answers that we wanted, then what will we be left with after its over? Besides the show clearly relating to life, [something none of us fully comprehend] the creators/writers want the show to leave a lasting impression. They want it to remain with us after its last pop to black. (Or white? Maybe pink?) Would any of you really revoke your Fan Membership Card if you don't get every answer? Have you not been coming back week after week, knowing not much more than you ever did? Yeah... you sure did, you masochist!

Besides, we have gotten a lot of answers. For example: OMGWTFPOLARBEAR!? And the first season finale cliffhanger - what's in the hatch? We eventually discovered who was responsible for these things being on the island. Furthermore, we found out more regarding the hatch tonight. People discovered the energy in 23 A.D. How is this not making Lost fans pull a Joey Russo?

You know, I had my fair share of days I wanted to pull out my hair, and that's when I began researching and discussing the show with others. You really start to realize just how complex everything is and you also see a lot that you missed. You see things you hadn't given a second thought. You start to appreciate it all. There is so much they've told us!

As for Smokey's origin, WHICH WE SAW! Pretty exciting, no? Do we need to know anymore than what we were shown? My opinion is that we don't and probably won't. I bet some of you feel differently. In life, do we know what's behind it all? I mean, THAT is what Lost fans want the answer to, ultimately. Heck, it's the answer all humans want the answer to. (No doubt it's why the writers chose "42" as a number in the set.) Something made us, made this entire universe possible - made it all work. No one knows for certain what it is. Here's where faith comes in for many. Hence it being a big player in Lost as well. But just because the writers created this fictional world within our world, it doesn't mean they have to know what's going on behind the curtain. I mean, how could they really explain Smokey or the island? If they were to get all science-y, we'd just roll our eyes. You know we would.

We were given quite a bit of insight tonight. No, they weren't straight answers like The Whispers and MIB impersonating Jack's dad. But why would some of you want that anyway? All you did was complain about them. Then you get not so clear answers and you complain some more. If the Doctor (Who?) ever comes for you, I'd turn down his request for you as his companion. He wouldn't care much for your time-traveling inquiries. You'll both be better off.

This is all in good fun, of course. I just personally feel fans should lighten up. This show involves a moving island that can heal people. What answers will be satisfying? The craftiness of this series has made some of its viewers far too critical. The show doesn't take itself too seriously and neither should you. Don't like the answers you're getting? Find a way back to season one and whine about it to Jack. ;)

Wait! My friends need to suck on those frogs!

2010-04-18T15:53:00.000-07:00

I tend to pick up a new show every couple months, if not sooner. Avatar: The Last Airbender is my latest find, and no question about it - a new favorite. I looked into it because a friend of mine recently had done just that and when nearing the end of the series, she announced it was now her second favorite show, booting Firefly to #3. (If you're curious, her #1 is Doctor Who.)

To be honest, it did take me some time to get on board with the show. The use of goofy sound effects when someone makes a face or is hit on the head made it difficult for me to enjoy. This may not be the case for others, but it hindered my ability to take it seriously. Nevertheless, I saw how much potential the show had and how well it dealt with every aspect of its story. The characters had depth from the very beginning - even Sokka, the character you'd assume to remain the annoying sibling who had it in for the unlikely hero and got himself into trouble. In the first episode, we may not take to his stubborn nature and slight ignorance, but at the same time we see that he clearly cares for the well-being of his sister (Katara) and their tribe.

That and many other aspects/qualities made me want to check out the next episode. Every character, no matter their purpose, had a story and developed as every character in a story should.

A new Collec tor's set of Book 1/Season 1 is being released on June 22nd. No doubt to coincide with M. Night Shyamalan's live-action adaptation, The Last Airbender, arriving in theatres the following week.

As if it wasn't obvious - I highly recommend Avatar: The Last Airbender. It has wonderful characters, each with their own purpose and hardships. The plot is inspired, wonderfully executed, and realistic consequences of war are carried out. A great score accompanies lovely, and occasionally frightening, imagery. And lastly, it is FUN. Just as Hank Green vlogged recently: fun is important! Aang would certainly agree.

Please, Hello.

2010-04-16T17:36:00.000-07:00

Fresh meat here.

Not as fresh as you'd like, though.

I often blog/discuss my fandoms and all things entertainment, but this is my first foray into unprotected and unlimited blogging. I have a LiveJournal where I briefly mention, well, anything I'd like. But lately I've felt the need to have a place on the internet where I can discuss, ponder or vent. And better yet, with a... wider audience? Maybe not.

But please excuse my lack of knowledge in these areas, especially the writing portion of the blog. I never took classes in entertainment or writing. My knowledge is from watching/reading/listening to too much of it. And I daresay that I know what I'm talking about. Occasionally. Hey, at least I'm honest, right?

Well, the picture used above (it's linked to the artist) pretty much sums up my general interests. Anything geeky, inventive, fun and last but certainly not least... the Broadway.

Again, I've just found myself holding in all these opinions, or trying to get them out in 140 characters or less on Twitter right after an episode of television. And naturally, Twitter is a place where one is easily misunderstood.

So here I am.

I apologize for the cheesy blog title. I really couldn't be bothered to try to think of anything more inventive. I was singing "A Little Priest" in my head, took note of "what a charming notion". But 1) I have a friend with the username charmingnotion. And 2) I thought I might sound as though I have an ego to claim my notions are charming. Then I started thinking about how I'd have to make the name a bit catchy [and brief] as an address, so naturally the possibility of having it rhyme came to mind. Motion was an obvious choice. And while one definition of the word certainly doesn't fit, another does. Kind of. So, I had it! Then I embraced my lameness and added the bit after the colon. I might end up taking that out. Especially if I am mocked because of it. Really, let me know. I'm the kind of person who'd rather be told I have a piece of food in my teeth, rather than being the person who is surrounded by idiots who assume it's better to not say anything because it might embarrass me. Getting a piece of food stuck in your teeth isn't embarrassing. You know what is? WALKING AROUND ALL DAMN DAY WITH FOOD STUCK IN YOUR TEETH.

Well, I briefly mentioned a couple big fandoms of mine and then vented a tad just there. If I do say so myself, this first post was a smashing success!

- Gina