October 04, 2006
Mmmmm...Kate...
Posted by: Gary at
04:10 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
October 02, 2006
Fox started showing the season in repeats back in June but oddly decided to abandon this schedule in favor of a Friday night movie-of-the-week format, showing such cinematic classics as "Bringing Down The House" with Steve Martin and Queen Latifah. Sigh.
Anyway, for those who missed any episodes (or like me, most of season five) this is your chance to catch up.
A&E looks to be broadcasting three episodes every Monday at 8am, 9am & 10am and later at 2pm, 3pm & 4pm. Series episodes 97, 98 & 99 (or season five episodes 1, 2 & 3) begin Monday, October 16th.
If this eight week schedule holds, they should be finished by December 4th. Season five will be released on DVD on December 5th. What timing, eh?
Posted by: Gary at
11:15 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.
September 14, 2006
Posted by: Gary at
12:15 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
This part picks up just after the break-up of the Millenial terror plot that was to have taken place on December 31,1999. The first major event is the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000. The Clinton Administration is winding down in its last few months in office and the President is focused on Middle East peace talks rather than retaliation - even though the opportunity is there.
Again, Richard Clarke continues to be portrayed as a frustrated advocate for going after Bin Laden and his network but no one wants to listen to him. We, the audience, share in his frustrations. Clarke continues to serve in the Bush Administration, which is by no means given a pass by this film. Clarke's focus is redirected away from counter-terrorism in a "restructuring" of the NSA. It took almost eight months in office before National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is prepared to present a plan for dealing with Bin Laden. Of course, by then it was too little, too late.
Clinton apologists have no reason to complain that their guy was treated shabbily to the benefit of his successor. They will anyway.
This stage of the story emphasizes the "wall" that barred information sharing between the FBI and CIA, as illustrated by a CIA operative's meeting with Agent John O'Neill. The CIA has pictures of suspects of the Cole bombing that may be in the U.S. However, he won't share the identities of these men nor will he let O'Neill's staff keep the pictures.
Political correctness ruled the day. And if there is one perfect example of idiocy that the 9/11 commission uncovered in its findings, it is this ridiculous impediment to communication that most contributed to our inability to prevent the attacks. This policy, immortalized by the infamous "Gorelick Memo", has since been discarded. Thank God for that.
The film ends with a re-enactment of the events of that morning as many of the players, upon hearing the news, know immediately that it must have been the work of Bin Laden.
Actually, the fact that Democrats raised such a fuss over "The Path To 9/11" probably resulted in the mini-series registering such high ratings. As I stated in my previous post on part one, the importance of this presentation was its focus on the mindset this country had on September 10th and how we can never allow ourselves to return to that mindset.
This is THE issue of our time: the protection of America from further attacks and the destruction of those forces who would launch and support those attacks, wherever they may be. This is a war and it's being fought all over the world, on many different fronts. Even the enemy acknowledges this. I encourage Democrats to pull their heads out of their sphincters and get with the program. There's no use in whining about a film that they think makes them look bad. They're doing a good enough job of that all on their own.
Posted by: Gary at
12:00 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 524 words, total size 3 kb.
September 13, 2006
I watched part one last night. Sunday was reserved for watching the Giants blow their first game to the Colts and Monday was my wedding anniversary, so I'm just now getting to it.
First point: The film is well made. The pacing is not too slow or too fast. The editing and cinematography keep you riveted. The use of hand-held cameras gives it an air of authenticity.
Second point: The portrayal of Richard Clarke is very positive (so far). He's actually one of the few higher up White House types that take this threat seriously. Why is Clarke so upset about this film? Doesn't make sense. Maybe he objects to being played by Milton, the red stapler guy from Office Space?
Third point: No, Sandy Burglar and Maddy Albright are not presented in a favorable light but neither is George Tenet or anyone else at a level of significant responsibility. Their words and actions (or lack thereof) are not so much indicative of individual character flaws as they are of a particular mindset that our government had at the time.
The film is more of an examination of what happens when you treat counter-terrorism as a "Law and Order" episode. We did this from Nixon to Bush 43, until 9/11/01. At that point, the current President and his cabinet realized that this is really a war - one like we've never fought before - that requires treating it like one.
It also provides a better understanding of the vastness of the terror network and how hard so many people have worked to track it down. The people in the CIA, FBI and other agencies who get their hands dirty understood the threat. It's the politicians and the bureaucrats who didn't. The agents didn't fail us, their bosses did. I'm amazed at what they were able to accomplish even in that restrictive environment.
If we give these folks the tools that they need and support what they do, we will defeat the terrorists almost every time. As Harvey Keitel's John O'Neill says "Nobody bats 1.000." But we need to recognize what we're dealing with and accept what we need to do to fight it.
If our government holds true to a "post-9/11" perspective we have a chance. To go back to a "pre-9/11" mentality would be suicide. And the problem with Democrats is that they desperately cling to a "pre-9/11" mentality. They prefer treating terrorists as criminals with Constitutional rights. They'd rather have court victories than military victories. They think negotiation is a viable tool in dealing with these animals. We can never go back to that old mindset.
And this reason above all others - the reminder that this approach is what doomed us to failure - is why Democrats should be most worried about this film, not the affect it will have on individual legacies and reputations.
Only by accepting responsibility and demonstrating that lessons have been learned can Democrats ever hope to convince the American people that they can be trusted with their safety. By demanding that "The Path To 9/11" be pulled in an attempt to cover-up their shortcomings, they have done more damage to their credibility than any movie ever could.
Posted by: Gary at
11:10 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 552 words, total size 3 kb.
September 12, 2006
Posted by: Gary at
04:12 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.
September 08, 2006
If they succeed, Liberals everywhere will chalk it up as a political victory. What will be totally lost on them however is the political damage they are inflicting on themselves by allowing voters to see just how petty, thuggish and hypocritical they really are.
I don't know about you but I feel a "chill wind" on the back of my neck when I look at these guys.
UPDATE: 12:20PM:
Sanctuary blog has a graphic that says it all.
Posted by: Gary at
09:06 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.
September 07, 2006
Part One is here. Click the link that says "The Resistance: Part One" in the archives. After it runs, it will automatically advance to Part Two, which premiered today.
Very reminiscent of Nazi-occupied Europe during WWII. Cool stuff!
Posted by: Gary at
02:15 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.
September 01, 2006
BSG Season 3 premiers October 6th.
The hotly anticipated third season of Battlestar Galactica will premiere on Friday, October 6, SCI FI Channel has announced.
According to previous reports, the new season will kick off with a 2-hour episode, made up of two formerly stand-alone episodes: "Occupation" and "Precipice."
The story picks up several months after the conclusion of Season Two, revealing that the Cylons have occupied the rough Colonial settlement on New Caprica. While some live with and even cooperate with the Cylons, others have started an insurgency against them.
Meanwhile, having fled the planet when the Cylons arrived, the Battlestars Galactica and Pegasus plan to return and rescue the last remnants of their civilization.
As Wordsmith so aptly pointed out, no BSG Friday posting would be complete without an obligatory Lee Adama picture.
ENJOY!
Posted by: Skye at
06:34 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.
August 25, 2006
Galactica Gets Dark(er) in Season Three
The first two seasons of Battlestar Galactica weren’t exactly lighthearted affairs, but according to executive producer Ron Moore and star Edward James Olmos, the upcoming third year will be its darkest yet. In separate interviews, the two recently spoke to Now Playing about where the show is going and what’s in store for both the human and Cylon factions (Hint: It’s not going to be pretty for either side).“The writing, the story, the character development is devastating,” Olmos says. “I cannot tell you. I worked last week and I’ve never had a week like that in my life, because everything that’s happening to the human species is into the final steps of its annihilation. So every single moment becomes the end of the existence of the human species, and it’s deadly when you are working at that level constantly. The attention is overwhelming. Both Mary [McDonnell] and I are sitting there going, ‘My God. This is too much.’”
Olmos revealed that the humans will use a pandemic to try and annihilate “a race” (he didn’t say which one, but it’s not difficult to guess) by infecting them with a deadly virus. He also talked about returning to the director’s chair for the 12th episode, which will be the first to air after the mid-season hiatus. The tone of the episode will be quite different from his previous effort, last season’s “Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down.”
“This one will be more connected to the main body,” he says. “The other one was a comedy. We decided to try one in the first season just to lighten things up. And it worked well. I thought it worked very, very well. It was very different, and it introduced some very strong characters. And in turn, those characters now are going to devastate you. What happens to them is brutal. It’s very sad.”
For executive producer Ron Moore, the turn to the dark side is something that was always part of the show’s natural progression. “I think we deal with some dark material in the third season,” Moore agrees. “I don’t know that it’s any darker than anything we’ve dealt with previously, but the show continues to sort of take risks and be provocative and do challenging stuff. I’m happy about that. But the show is not nihilistic. The show is not a bleak show about really depressing things. I think it’s really just about how people react and how people are and how people behave in situations and that’s what you’re tuning in to see.”
Moore adds that he’s not worried about the series getting too serious. There’s always a light at the end of the tunnel. “The show’s always had a dark premise at its heart, [but] the show’s also always been about hope and the human condition and the fact that these people struggle on in spite of everything that happens to them.”
Posted by: Skye at
09:42 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 492 words, total size 3 kb.
August 18, 2006
For this week's BSG installment, I thought I'd share a favorite BSG music video featuring the song "Someone To Watch Over Me" by the incomparable Ella Fitzgerald.
**SIGH** Can anyone deny that Lee and Kara's respective relationships with Dee and Anders simply pale in comparison to the chemistry of Lee and Kara?
Posted by: Skye at
10:13 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.
August 11, 2006
A few things come to mind when viewing this picture:
The Anders/Dualla faction is NOT present..YES!!!
Lee (Apollo) seems to have lost his beer gut and gained a tan...when you tan in space does anyone know?
Why is Kara (Starbuck) pictured sitting on the Cylon & Friends side?? She should be sitting in Lee's lap...
Is the former Madame President not wearing anything under her suit jacket?
I discovered an additional picture from the upcoming Season 3.0 and found it contained a shocking spoiler:
I have a nagging suspicion that Reuters might have had a hand in this...What do you think?
Is It October Yet?
The usual political undercurrents lacing the plotlines of BSG look as though they will be turned up a notch in Season 3.0 based on the recent interview given by Ron French, a BSG Line Producer:
KTW: I understand the show is pretty political. What's the most risque episode you've been involved with?RF: "Well, it's on cable so there's quite a bit of risque stuff (laughs). The subject matter, actually, is very political and it's amazing how much, especially when the Americans attacked Iraq, how much our story line began to follow that, even to the point of suicide bombers. [Ron Moore] did an interesting thing. He reversed the roles. The heros were the insurgents fighting against the Cylon attackers, which were essentially the American side of the Iraq war. And it's interesting because, if anything else, it opened up a lot of eyes as far as I was concerned, of everyone has a point in what they're doing, whether they're the insurgents or whether they're the attackers in the first place. I thought that was really good."
Posted by: Skye at
09:47 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.
May 24, 2006
From TV Guide online:
What happens when the countdown for the hatch computer ends? Why did Flight 815 crash? And has salvation finally arrived? The producers are promising answers in tonight's two-hour season finale, and you can hold them to it.What happens when the countdown for the hatch computer ends? Why did Flight 815 crash? And has salvation finally arrived? The producers are promising answers in tonight's two-hour season finale, and you can hold them to it. Don't expect anyone's salvation (unless Ana Lucia spent only three weeks in purgatory, and that's a long shot), but do expect hatch answers in flashback sequences featuring its previous occupant, Desmond (Henry Ian Cusick). As for Walt's rescue mission (and "trap"), expect fireworks. Certainly the sailboat that popped up offshore last week won't carry anybody to life happily ever after. ..expect hatch answers in flashback sequences featuring its previous occupant, Desmond (Henry Ian Cusick). As for Walt's rescue mission (and "trap"), expect fireworks. Certainly the sailboat that popped up offshore last week won't carry anybody to life happily ever after.And BTW, the show will soon be scouting for two new females to replenish the two they just executed.
Posted by: Gary at
03:10 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.
May 18, 2006
What's made it worse is that the number of episodes per season for a given show has dropped from 26 to - at most - 22 (the show "24" is the obvious exception). So in the last five to ten years, networks have been stretching 22 new episodes over 35 weeks or more - from September through May - while airing the bulk of new episodes in the sweeps months. more...
Posted by: Gary at
01:30 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 614 words, total size 4 kb.
May 17, 2006
What happened to Michael when he went to look for "the others"?
What is that facility called "the Pearl" that was marked by the big question mark?
What would happen if Locke didn't input the numbers into the computer at the hatch?
Do the show's creators have ANY idea where they are going with this?
Hopefully we'll get answers to at least the first three on tonight's episode titled "Three Minutes"!
Posted by: Gary at
03:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.
May 10, 2006
Well, last week's show put an end to that. And J.J. Abram's promise to make the last few episodes "killer" is coming to fruition.
Posted by: Gary at
11:05 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.
May 03, 2006
The ratings were so bad they're not even going to show the final three episodes during May sweeps. Even in an April full of "ER" repeats, it went off the radar. In it's Thursday 10pm spot, ABC will air its newsmagazine "Primetime". The remaining new episodes will be played sometime during the summer, when no one is watching TV anyway.
Contrary to the Hollywood hand-wringing, I firmly believe America is ready for a female President. What they won't accept, however, is a Liberal bleeding-heart touchy-feely female President. The Left Coast will be mourning this one. No more President Allen. No more President Bartlet. Just two more years of Chimpy McBushitler. Even in the world of make-believe, they can't win. Heh.
More cowbell!!!
h/t: the Llama Butchers
Posted by: Gary at
09:45 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.
April 28, 2006
"Caprica would take place more than half a century before the events that play out in Battlestar Galactica. The people of the Twelve Colonies are at peace and living in a society not unlike our own, but where high-technology has changed the lives of virtually everyone for the better.Umm. My one word reaction: BORING!But a startling breakthrough in robotics is about to occur, one that will bring to life the age-old dream of marrying artificial intelligence with a mechanical body to create the first living robot: a Cylon. Following the lives of two families, the Graystones and the Adamas (the family of William Adama, who will one day become the commander of the Battlestar Galactica), Caprica will weave together corporate intrigue, techno-action and sexual politics into television's first science fiction family saga, the channel announced."
Look, I love "Battlestar Galactica" but this idea doesn't impress me at all. A prequel about "corporate intrigue, techno-action and sexual politics"? Sounds like a bad John Grisham novel with robots. There is only one event of the show's past that I could see creating a new series around and that's the first Cylon war. Short of that, why would anyone be interested? The popularity of the current show is based on the struggle for human survival. That's what keeps the viewers interested.
It's possible that this "idea" is only a trial balloon designed to gauge whether or not there would be any interest from the fans.
I'm hoping it goes away.
Posted by: Gary at
10:21 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.
April 17, 2006
Most of us over the age of 30...okay, 35...remember watching the show as a kid and over the years we've had nothing but good memories from it. When the network killed it after only one year, we were crushed. But we moved on.
Today, Ronald D. Moore has brought "Galactica" back to life as an updated "reimagined" series. While still retaining much of the plot and most of the characters, Moore has taken the concept to a new level and, in my opinion, it's one of the best shows on television today (behind only "24" and "Lost", in my book). The new series has been both a critical and ratings success and will be heading into its third season this fall. It has broken new ground, tackled controversial issues and attracted a wider audience than the first show ever did.
Now, Richard Hatch spent twenty years trying to revive the old "Galactica" - the "Galactica" that he was part of. He even went so far as to pitch a concept for a continuation of the series titled "Battlestar Galactica: The Second Coming", complete with a four and half minute trailer. It was all his baby and he was hoping to write, direct, produce and star in the series (I expect he also planned to be director of photography, production designer, best boy, etc.). But the idea fell on deaf ears. In a Hollywood that thrives on remakes, even this concept couldn't sell.
Then here comes Ron Moore with his fresh look at the series and it takes off, buiding a loyal audience. Poor Richard Hatch, right? Oh No. Moore goes and hires Hatch to play a recurring role on his show out of respect for star of the original series. He plays Tom Zarek, a former political prisoner that has since managed to insinuate himself into a position of influence with the newly elected President. It's barely a supporting role but it's a significant one that could have a lot of potential down the road. So you'd think after all of this Hatch would be grateful to Moore for allowing him to be a part of this venture, right?
Maybe to his face. But get a load of this quote from an interview that Richard Hatch recently did with Dreamwatch Magazine (as quoted on TrekWeb.com):
Hatch talked about how he continues to feel that a continuation of the original series would have been just as successful as the Ronald D. Moore's re-imagining.Nice, huh? Oh, and I love that "we would have loved to have brought Ron Moore onboard too" crap. If it wasn't for Ron Moore, this guy would still be appearing at sci-fi conventions. Doesn't he understand that he's been seen on TV by more people in the last two years as Tom Zarek than he has during the entire time since the original show went off the air?"I don't think a continuation would have been any less successful than a re-imagining," he stated firmly. "A continuation would have evolved the original show: it would have updated the Cylons, brought new characters in and gone into equally provocative areas. We could have had Eddie Olmos as the Commander, Mary as President, Jamie [Bamber] as Apollo's son, and Katee [Sackhoff] as Starbuck's Daughter. And we would have loved to have brought Ron Moore onboard too."
"A continuation would have had the best of both worlds – it would have had the values and positives of the old show but would have updated them for today. It also wouldn’t have had the problems the new show had in the beginning, when fans of the original felt upset and disappointed."
What balls! Here is a guy attached to the underbelly of a highly-successful project because the creative force behind it thought he'd be nice and throw him a bone. Talk about biting the hand!
Jeez. If I were Ronald D. Moore, I would make the character of Tom Zarek go the way of the red-shirted Star Trek guys.
Posted by: Gary at
02:30 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 699 words, total size 4 kb.
April 14, 2006
The fact that Comedy Central portrays itself as so cutting edge and then pusses out because they won't show a cartoon of Mohammed is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Congrats to Matt Stone and Trey Parker for coming with a brilliant way to show how badly the First Amendment has been beaten down by political correctness.
This quote from Robbie at The Malcontent sums it up best:
"To think, a silly little cartoon on basic cable about a redneck mountain town does more to defend the constitution than such self-vaunted press institutions like the New York Times and CNN. What an extraordinary world we find ourselves in."Here, here.
Posted by: Gary at
07:34 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.
123 queries taking 0.0646 seconds, 291 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
