After a little research, which mainly consists of hearing interviews, I have decided that Calvin Klein Collection wins my favorite of the awards season. They are making their dresses out of a material (or multiple materials) that flows so beautifully...similar to silk or satin, but better...like how I would imagine water would flow if it were a fabric. It probably wouldn't look great on me, but on these actresses, it clings in all the right places.
These pictures don't do them justice because the magic is how it moves....
Gwyneth Paltrow at the Oscars(my favorite)
Claire Danes at the Golden Globes
Emma Stone at the Golden Globes
Jennifer Lawrence at the Oscars (slightly Baywatch-y, but still gorgeous on her)
Emma Stone at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows premiere
The 83rd Annual Academy Awards. As previously mentioned, I'm a film geek. I get excited. I plan the meal, the drinks, the snacks [Menu: fruit salad and caprese for appetizers, pasta carbonara with homemade noodles for the main course, and homemade chocolate chip ice cream for dessert, with champagne and presecco]. I fill out the ballot and quite intensely follow along, ranking my choices, and working out my score [I correctly predicted 15 out of 24]. I wanted the Oscars to be good. Even though I was dubious about the hosts, and feared there would be no surprise upsets, I held out hope that I would be entertained, and even proven wrong. Sadly, I was right.
I'm not really going to talk much about who won. The top 4 went to who we thought they would -- Natalie (who won the Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG, and the Indie Spirit award), Melissa Leo (who also won Golden Globe and SAG), Christian Bale (GG and SAG), and Colin Firth (Golden Globe, BAFTA, and SAG). Tom Hooper as best director was a slight "surprise," I thought it would be Aronofsky, but not really because King's Speech also took home the Best Picture, so makes sense, right?
As far as speeches go, Leo was appropriately stunned, and inappropriately cursed (but I thought it was cute) and despite the bad taste she left in some people's mouths for her "self-promoting-ads" in the trades, she DESERVED it 100% and that's all that matters at the Oscars. Now some say Bale forgot his wife's name, but I don't think he did. I think he paused because he was about to cry, and it surprised him, so he stopped to keep from blubbering. What do you think? [happens around 1:50]
Firth's mention of spontaneous dance moves was that British kind of adorable we love him for, Portman was fine...she had a lot of practice with her previous speeches to not repeat a giggling Golden Globes speech [P.S. do you think the Best Actress Oscar curse of a disintegrating relationship within the year will apply to her?] My favorite speech came from a non-celeb: David Seidler (King's Speech writer) was sweet and endearing with his "late bloomer" comment, and dedication it to the stutterers of the world. I didn't care for any of the songs nominated this year, so Randy Newman falls into a...nominated 20 times and hasn't won since the first one...I liked his speech too, "you couldn't find a 5th song to nominate? To hell with it, it might have beaten me." I've already said my peace about who I wanted to win (cough, cough, Kids Are All Right/True Grit, cough, cough so I won't go into it again.)
The presenters won my heart more than the winners. Kirk Douglas. Man, I wasn't sure. When he started, I was having trouble understanding him, but then...he won me over. His "ya know...." and dragging it out, while the supporting actress nominees are about to jump out of their skins. His hitting on Anne Hathaway, the bit with his cane, and the "Australians vs. British." Classic, old (and I mean very old) Hollywood.
Sadly that happened early on, and there wasn't that much more of it. I liked Timberlake and Kunis' bit about being "Banksy" and his ad libbed, "ya know..." Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr.'s quips, acerbic, sarcastic...I wanted more of that too.
Sandra Bullock. Sandy. She was so....so....I dunno, perfect? I loved her dress, pulling off red on a red carpet isn't something many ladies can do. Her introduction of the Best Actor nominees, I'm not sure if she contributed to writing it, or if someone wrote it for her, but it was just the right amount of playfulness. Also, bringing Billy Crystal out. I'm not sure if this was the best move. I mean I love him. I want him to be the host. That's the problem, you're reminding us that he isn't hosting. Sidenote: McConaughey and Johansson's "Sssooouuunnnd" intro, repeating the word "Sound" in unison, was ad-libbed. Thought that was kinda funny. By the way, did anyone see Nicholson. He is always front row center...despite not presenting or being part of the nominees, he is ALWAYS there. Did you see him?
Now I guess I should talk about the hosts. I've been avoiding it. Everyone is saying "they sucked." I don't think "they" sucked. Like I've said before, you need someone older, more importantly you NEED a comedian. A comedian, a good one, knows how to go off the cuff, they ad lib, they soar through the show, and roll with the punches (was that enough "sayings"). If you are an actor, who's not a comedian (SNL host doesn't count), its much harder to go out there and guide a three and half hour show. Its near impossible to predict how it will go, and to prepare for those jokes. That said, I thought Anne (Annie as her friends refer to her) was trying SO HARD. She was adorable, impeccably dressed, I LOVED her clothes. The opening video with the "brown duck" and the two eye patches, I laughed, a lot...
but again, that was the intro, that was planned....the rest, well the rest was just sad. It seemed to me that James wasn't trying very hard, and Anne was trying TOO hard. He gave up pretty early.
His Marilyn Monroe dress was funny, but he didn't do anything, he was a man who walked out in a dress....that's funny. Anne has a beautiful voice, and I don't know if Jackman really backed out of a musical number or if that was another bit, but I wanted one. I wanted her and Jackman or her and Franco to do a musical number...like this Grease promo:
I thought it was cute. Cute isn't Oscar material. Cute is forgivable, but its not a repeater. I felt bad for her, and I wondered what Franco was thinking. Was he just uncomfortable? Some are saying he was full of himself, he took it for granted, and saw himself as too good to try any harder. I for one, hope that's not true.
As far as the structure -- there must be a new director in town. I might be the only one who notices this -- but they changed the order of the awards. They have always started with supporting actress, but last night they started with...I don't even remember...one of the "lesser known" awards. They still ended with the top 4, but it felt off. They didn't give out the lifetime achievement/Irving Thalberg award last night, instead it was given out a few weeks ago...Goddard, Wallach and Coppola. I wanted to see them! I wanted to hear what people had to say about them, and then I wanted to hear what they had to say in response. Wallach is 95 years old and still acting! He has been in 161 movies. He started in 1951. Its incredible. He is amazing, and I think he has EARNED some time on the actual Oscars. Coppola and Goddard too. These are legends. These are men that created the industry, changed it, and mentored the biggest names today...don't they get some screen time? Not just walking out and waving. I call BS! And as much as I liked Sandy and Jeff's introductions to the best Actor/ess...remember a couple years ago when they had mentor types come out, either costars or friends, and each one highlighted a nominee...I think it was 2 years ago. I liked that. I felt it honored the nominee, and even if you didn't win, you had a moment to shine....bring that back, please. Lastly...the musical number at the end? What was that? For one, I believe there are kids in LA. Why fly out kids from Brooklyn? I think they were from Brooklyn. And secondly, if you are going to do it...why in the last minutes? Not good. You give out the last award and quickly say "goodnight."
Finally...the clothes.
The Good:
Sandra Bullock (Vera Wang)
Hailee Steinfeld (Marchesa)
Anne Hathaway
Celine Dion
Camila Alves (McConaughey's wife)
Gwyneth Paltrow (she kinda looks like an Oscar)
The Bad:
Reese Witherspoon (my main problem with this...is the hair.)
Nicole Kidman (top 1/2 is OK, but bottom...and the shoes! yikes)
My favorite excerpts from Mark Harris' article in GQ "The Day the Movies Died (visit the link for the full article.)
Such an unrelenting focus on the sell rather than the goods may be why so many of the dispiritingly awful movies that studios throw at us look as if they were planned from the poster backward rather than from the good idea forward. Marketers revere the idea of brands, because a brand means that somebody, somewhere, once bought the thing they're now trying to sell. The Magic 8 Ball (tragically, yes, there is going to be a Magic 8 Ball movie) is a brand because it was a toy. Pirates of the Caribbean is a brand because it was a ride. Harry Potter is a brand because it was a series of books. Jonah Hex is a brand because it was a comic book. (Here lies one fallacy of putting marketers in charge of everything: Sometimes they forget to ask if it's a good brand.) Sequels are brands. Remakes are brands. For a good long stretch, movie stars were considered brands; this was the era in which magazines like Premiere attempted to quantify the waxing or waning clout of actors and actresses from year to year because, to the industry, having the right star seemed to be the ultimate hedge against failure.
But after three or four hundred cases in which that didn't prove out, Hollywood's obsession with star power has started to erode. In the last several years, a new rule of operation has taken over: The movie itself has to be the brand. And because a brand is, by definition, familiar, a brand is also, by definition, not original. The fear of nonbranded movies can occasionally approach the ridiculous, as it did in 2006 when Martin Scorsese's The Departed was widely viewed within the industry as a "surprise" hit, primarily because of its R rating and unfamiliar source material. It may not have been a brand, but, says its producer Graham King, "Risky? With the guy I think is the greatest living director and Nicholson, Matt Damon, Wahlberg, and Leo? If you're at a studio and you can't market that movie, then you shouldn't be in business."
The rise of marketers has also brought on an obsession with demographics. As anyone in Hollywood will tell you, the American filmgoing populace is divided two ways: by gender and by age. Gender is self-explanatory (usually); the over-under dividing line for age is 25. Naturally, every studio chief dreams of finding a movie like Avatar that reaches all four "quadrants" of the audience: male and female, young and not. But if it can be made for the right price, a two- or even one-quadrant film can be a viable business proposition.
In Hollywood, though, not all quadrants are created equal. If you, for instance, have a vagina, you're pretty much out of luck, because women, in studio thinking, are considered a niche audience that, except when Sandra Bullock reads a script or Nicholas Sparks writes a novel, generally isn't worth taking the time to figure out. And if you were born before 1985... well, it is my sad duty to inform you that in the eyes of Hollywood, you are one of what the kids on the Internet call "the olds." I know—you thought you were one of the kids on the Internet. Not to the studios, which have realized that the closer you get to (or the farther you get from) your thirtieth birthday, the more likely you are to develop things like taste and discernment, which render you such an exhausting proposition in terms of selling a movie that, well, you might as well have a vagina.
That leaves one quadrant—men under 25—at whom the majority of studio movies are aimed, the thinking being that they'll eat just about anything that's put in front of them as long as it's spiked with the proper set of stimulants. That's why, when you look at the genres that currently dominate Hollywood—action, raunchy comedy, game/toy/ride/comic-book adaptations, horror, and, to add an extra jolt of Red Bull to all of the preceding categories, 3-D—they're all aimed at the same ADD-addled, short-term-memory-lacking, easily excitable testosterone junkie. In a world dominated by marketing, it was inevitable that the single quadrant that would come to matter most is the quadrant that's most willing to buy product even if it's mediocre.
"It's a chicken-versus-egg thing," says writer-producer Vince Gilligan, the creator of the why-aren't-there-movies-this-good cable hit Breaking Bad. "The studios say, 'Well, no one else is coming to movies reliably these days except for young males, so we'll make our movies for them.' And yet if you make movies simply for young males, nobody else is going to want to go. So Hollywood has become like Logan's Run: You turn 30, and they kill you."
The good news is that the four-quadrant theory of marketing may now be eroding. The bad news is that it's giving way to something worse—a new classification that encompasses all ages and both genders: the "I won't grow up" demographic. As recently as 1993, three kid-oriented genres—animated movies, movies based on comic books, and movies based on children's books—represented a relatively small percentage of the overall film marketplace; that year they grossed about $400 million combined (thanks mostly to Mrs. Doubtfire) and owned just a single spot in the year's top ten. In 2010, those same three genres took in more than $3 billion and by December represented eight of the year's top nine grossers.
So cable has become the custodian of the "good" niche; entities like HBO, Showtime, and AMC have found a business model with which they can satisfy a deep public appetite for long-form drama. Their original series don't need to attract huge audiences; and as a result, any number of ambitious writers, directors, and producers who might long ago have pitched their best stuff to studios now turn to the small screen, because one thing nobody in cable television will ever say to them is "We don't tell stories anymore."
"The sad thing," says HBO programming chief Michael Lombardo, "is that a world has closed to a group of serious storytellers—and there are some stories that should be told in a two-hour format. Our success is a sort of silver lining in a story that's economically driven by what studios are doing to try to survive in a complicated international market. But the losers ultimately are people who are looking to appreciate serious work in film."
Which brings us to the embarrassing part. Blaming the studios for everything lets another culprit off too easily: us. We can complain until we're hoarse that Hollywood abandoned us by ceasing to make the kinds of movies we want to see, but it's just as true that we abandoned Hollywood. Studios make movies for people who go to the movies, and the fact is, we don't go anymore—and by we, I mean the complaining class, of which, if you've read this far, you are absolutely a member. We stay home, and we do it for countless reasons: A trip to the multiplex means paying for parking, a babysitter, and overpriced unhealthy food in order to be trapped in a room with people who refuse to pay for a babysitter, as well as psychos, talkers, line repeaters, texters, cell-phone users, and bedbugs. We can see the movie later, and "later" is pretty soon—on a customized home-theater system or, forget that, just a nice big wide-screen TV, via Netflix, or Amazon streaming, or on-demand, or iPad. The urgency of seeing movies the way they're presumably intended to be seen has given way to the primacy of privacy and the security of knowing that there's really almost no risk of missing a movie you want to see and never having another opportunity to see it. Put simply, we'd rather stay home, and movies are made for people who'd rather go out.
Hollywood constantly has something on the horizon; if they didn't, it would be a rather sad industry. They always have a new movie they are developing, or a TV show that they are "reimagining" (which is just another term for "remaking") -- here are the ones I've heard about lately that I'm....well not necessarily excited for, but potentially excited about. First and foremost...Jon Favreau's new project Magic Kingdom.
From Favreau's Twitter
This is the reason he isn't doing Iron Man 3 (which I think is a smart move on his part --I'm sure he will appreciate my approval). As a self-proclaimed Disney freak, I am excited that Disney is in on this, they have opened their doors to him...showing him the innermost sanctum, revealing the archives, etc... He claims this won't be Night at the Museum-esque, and that he is bringing back originals like Steamboat Willie, not just a march of the latest Disney princesses. The story, as far as I can tell, will be about a family that is trapped in the park after it has closed, and the magic and mystery don't necessarily go away...but shift to a darkness that isn't there during the daylight. (Sidenote: as a teen...I totally thought up this idea. I wanted it to be a kids movie or book...then decided what I had in mind was too scary for that market and forgot about it. Just saying.) It's not due out til 2013 and currently has no cast, so we have a ways to wait...but I'm stoked.
Next...something closer on the horizon:
Something Borrowed is the first in a series of books by Emily Giffin. Are they great pieces of literature? Nope. Are the insanely addictive? Yup. Maybe its because I'm attempting to do what she has done. Write a book that is engaging, perhaps a guilty pleasure, but not some genre defining work of art. I don't love Kate Hudson, but I believe she has a big part of what made her mom successful inside her, and does well in this type of role. I also have a great love of Gennifer Goodwin...plus John Krasinski as the lovable, non-threatening man....its gonna be a good, non-thought provoking, chick flick.
Every once in awhile, though I hate to admit it, there is a movie that you want to see simply for the cast. You can know next to nothing about it, but you hear who is in it, and you think "yeah, I'm in." This is one of those films. Cast: Emma Stone, Ryan Gosling, Kevin Bacon, Julianne Moore, Steve Carrell, Marisa Tomei. Releasing July 2011. Directed by: Glenn Ficarra and John Requa (who brought us Bad Santa and I Love You, Phillip Morris). The tagline simply says: "A father's life unravels while he deals with a marital crisis and tries to manage his relationship with his children."
The Dictator is one that I'm not technically "excited" for...but that I find an interesting prospect. Larry Charles (of Seinfeld fame) is directing this film written and starring Sasha Baron Cohen; based on a romance novel (purportedly written by Saddam Hussein about himself, entitled "Zabibah and the The King." I dunno...I mean what could be more interesting? Cohen will play Hussein and uber producer Scott Rudin is attached (perhaps he should play Hussein?)...beyond that...I know nothing.
(Charles and Cohen)
Ten Year: Maybe its because my ten year reunion is quickly approaching? But something is intriguing about this film, which is described simply as "A group of friends reunite ten years after their high-school graduation." I think the cast has potential and is surprisingly diverse: Channing Tatum (who impressed me w/his comedic skills in the Dilemma), Justin Long, Kate Mara, Rosario Dawson, Ron Livingston, Oscar-nominated Anthony Mackie... Tatum has been quoted referring to "Diner" in the same sentence as "Ten Year" and that might be going a little far, but he could shock us all.
And because everyone else is talking about it...I will admit to having a tinge of anticipation for the new Wonder Woman series. Not because its Wonder Woman (who I have very little interest in), but because its David E. Kelley (the man knows how to write a TV show), Adrianne Palicki (I've already stated my Friday Night Lights obsession...plus she was in LoneStar which only aired 2 episodes but it would've been good, obviously), and that's all it takes for me:-) Deadline Report.
Speaking of comic book heroes...has everyone heard about the new Superman? The beautiful Henry Cavill (of the Tudors) has been cast, and they are looking to tap Kevin Costner as well (I'm guessing for a villain...which he can be great in, have you seen 3000 Miles to Graceland? Duh.) I like that its Zack Snyder running the show (he did Watchmen), but overall I still have a bad taste in my mouth after Bryan Singer's attempt a few years back, and wonder if its possible to reboot already. Christopher Nolan is producing and if ANYONE can make a superhero dark and raw it is him...BUT Superman is almost naive, he is no Batman, can you make him relevant again? I'm willing to put all preconceived notions down and try again...are you?
That's about it...but I'll leave you with some pilots that were recently cast with "movie stars" since I believe TV is where its at:-)
Jason Issacs (aka Lucius Malfoy) in REM for NBC: Deadline Ashely Judd in Missing for ABC: Deadline Tim Allen RETURNS to his rightful place: a sitcom for ABC Deadline Ethan Hawke in Exit Strategy for Fox: the Wrap Zooey Deschanel in Chicks & Dicks for Fox: the Wrap
An object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Never has this made more sense to me. I was horrible at Physics, even with tutoring; I barely scraped by in high school and didn't go anywhere near it in college. It seems pretty straightforward, but in reality it’s bizarrely complicated. That said, recently, I have had a Physics epiphany and now it seems so clear...in relation to real life, not theories.
Have you ever noticed that when you are working out and eating right you feel as if you could do it forever? You wonder, "Why was this so hard?" and can't understand why you weren't doing it all along...it feels so good, it makes so much sense, it’s not hard. Then a cupcake walks in the door and its a slippery slope that ends with you sitting on the couch at 2pm in the afternoon on a Wednesday, watching the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, and wondering where it all went wrong?
No? That's just me? I don't think so. But why is it so hard to stick with? Why is it merely a fleeting thought that lives inside you for an indeterminable amount of time and then leaves you not knowing where it all went south? What's worse is once you are on the couch ("at rest") its four thousand times harder to get off it again. Its so much easier to stay there, and plan the workout that you won't be doing until next week, and think how chicken with brown rice and broccoli would make more sense than the macaroni and cheese out of the box with a side of hot dogs (that never tastes as good as you remembered it did).... yet you end up sitting there, eating Reese’s Peanut Butter "eggs" Easter edition with a side of Cherry Coke and gummy bears...no? Just me?
This quandary has recently grown in my life from being active and eating right to getting a job and moving out of my parents house. Yes, the Quarter Life Crisis is still in effect, it didn't magically disappear in a week's time, but my perspective on it has grown. How much easier it is to stay in the bubble...the bubble that is full of rent-free thoughts, dinners cooked in a grown up kitchen, and laundry done without inserting coins. I'm at rest. I'm the object that is more likely to stay at rest unless "acted upon by an unbalanced force." Where can I find an unbalanced force? Does it have to come from within?
It could grow...I can only imagine that this (for some) could be the beginnings of a depression. If you're depressed you'll stay that way unless you "snap yourself out of it" or have a good friend/family member that drags you out kicking and screaming.... or some effective drugs? BUT if you are motivated...I think you'll stay motivated barring any horrible mishaps...and assuming you see results at SOME point.
For example, for me, with writing...some days it’s horrible. Some days I can't get out of the house to a coffee shop for the life of me, and there is never any hope if I stay home and see Dexter's face and the temptation of the DVR. Other days I can get to a Starbucks, but then sit there and stare at the screen, before finally signing on to ichat because I need a distraction and leave 4 hours later with nothing accomplished but finding out from Katherine and Emily some celebrity gossip and self-deprecation. BUT there are magical days that turn into weeks that turn into months (if I'm lucky) of inspiration and accomplishment. When I wrote Waltzing Cayden's 1st draft..I did it in 8 weeks. I was at a Cafe from 7am til 1pm, writing the whole time -- then 105,000 words and 3 drafts later, I'm sending it to lit agents. Is it done? No. Could it be better? Absolutely! But it is an accomplishment (I have to repeat that for myself: it. is. an. accomplishment.) Why is it easier to do when you did it the day before? Routine makes it easier? Keeping it up means you're farther than you were yesterday? Discipline? Motivation? What?! Or maybe it's just fear? I mean if you aren't doing it...you have hope. You can think, "if I got up and worked out...I would lose weight...if I lose weight I will feel better...if I feel better I will have more self-confidence...if I have more self-confidence I will attract a relationship/job/opportunity.... and if I do that.... what? I’ll be happy? I won't have any more excuses? It seems so simple...why do "we" get in "our" own way?
The human condition? hmmm....the world may never know.
Something to act as an "unbalanced force" of inspiration and motivation...some of my favorite movie scenes:
Ok, so this is sad...but its also laughter through tears...which as Truvy says, "is my favorite emotion."
From 28 Days....another lesson in living life.
Not great quality, but it does make me laugh every.time.
Maybe not my favorite scene, but one of my favorite movies, and kinda how I feel sometimes...
Because I couldn't find an embeded original of Donald O'Connor doing this # in Singin' in the Rain...this is Joseph Gordon Levitt doing a version on SNL:
Again, not "the" favorite Princess Bride scene, but I couldn't find the final scene to embed...so this is next best:-)
Mumford and Sons album "Sigh No More" manages to make me not feel alone and motivate me to be a bit more. Go figure
Marina and the Diamonds song "Are You Satisfied?" (recommended by the incomparable Emily Gipson) is a bit severe in some of the lyrics, but helps me to strive and not be satisfied with an "easy ride."
In the old days, if you weren't at home when your favorite show was on...you were plain out of luck. Then when I was a kid, if you had some industrious parents with the right gadgets, you could "tape" on an actual "VHS" with all the commercials, your favorite program (one program at a time). I think during these beginning days of recording...you could only schedule one channel at a time -- meaning on the golden days of NBC's coveted Thursday nights (with Friends, Seinfeld, etc...) you could set a recording for the entire evening, but you couldn't do two shows on NBC, and one on CBS....in those cases, again, you would just have to miss your 2nd favorites. For TV geeks like me, I would probably rush home so as to not miss it, because I never fully trusted the VCR.
Those days are gone.
Now most of us have a DVR (and still refer to it as "taping" a show...even tho no tape is involved), today's DVRs even allow for something like 4 or 6 programs to be "recorded" at the same time on multiple channels. But did they stop there? Nope. Even with cheap DVR options, I still know some viewers that haven't made the splurge, so what should they do? Not go out, so as to catch their show? Not now...now we have the "players" online.
Of course there is Neflix play instantly (but what they have available is random and sometimes hard to pinpoint), and Hulu (but alot of the current shows send you to the network's site anyhow) -- most networks have "players" available on their sites. It ranges from the most recent episode only, or the last 3 episodes, or the entire current (or even past) seasons. Here is a list of the ones that I think have gotten a good system in place (and those that still need some work).
Good 'uns: ABC and ABC Family: I have been watching shows on ABC's website for years now (at least 2007) and have been consistently impressed. You have the choice to click along the progress line and watch all your commercials at one time (be careful tho, if you leave the page and come back you have to watch them all over again) so that you can then watch your show commercial free. They ABC parent site seems to have the entire current season of your favorite show, while ABC Family has between 1-3 of the most recent episodes. I probably watch most ABC shows, but also I have the least problems/glitches with their players....so they get my #1 slot.
HBO: I've blogged about HBOGO before, I should mention first that you have to have HBO (or a parent or giving friend that has a login), but once you do get access to the site....wow. They have almost every episode of your favorite show ever, multiple seasons, easy playing features, no commercials. Its a.maze.ing. I want an ipad app, stat.
Mediocre: NBC: The peacock has no "full episodes" tab, instead pick "video," then chose the show you missed (or want to rewatch)...its pretty straight forward. The player is similar to ABCs and is pretty dependable...but the reason it falls on the "mediocre" list is that you can't skip through the commercials by watching them all at once. Instead, you would keep watching them over and over if you go back to the section before them. Its frustrating, but not horrible.
FOX: Well...it could be better. They don't have past seasons, or full current seasons, but they do keep up the latest 5 episodes of each show. American Idol isn't up, but Glee and Lie to Me are. The player itself, is like NBC....you have to keep watching the commercials even if you've already seen them (and they do air the SAME damn promos/commercials....which every network is pretty much guilty of).
Bad Seeds: CW: The thing that frustrates me about the CW players is that they have the shows up there, with a "full episodes" tab at the top of the site. Then you pick the one you want to see, it appears that it is going to play, and then it skips...almost like a real DVD, or like you have a shoddy internet connection. Nope, that's not what is happening, it has to "load." You have to wait, and indeterminable amount of time, for the show to "load" not "download" just...I dunno...like a youtube video almost, but slower, and more painful. It needs some help.
CBS: Oh CBS. Why? You're so behind. I hate you. First off, I don't watch many CBS programs, so if its going to be one of the networks, this is the one it should be...BUT with all the other sites moving forward and updating their players...why can't you get it together? Basically they have very few "full episodes" available...you have to go to the "videos" tab, then either click on "full episodes" or your shows title, then "full episodes" to see that there probably aren't any of the show you want (maybe a few old Big Bang Theory" episodes.) Boo.
UPDATE 2/22/11:
Amazon is now streaming FREE movies AND TV shows for Amazon Prime members. Yet another place to "catch up"
The phrase of the year -- well the phrase of my year at least -- "Quarter Life Crisis." What is it about being 27? Or maybe it happened to you at 26? Or perhaps it will happen at 29? Whenever it happens to you personally, my generation, seems to hit a point in their post 25 year life where they wonder... "what am I doing with my life?" I can't speak on everyone's behalf, but in my own experience...
Before this year, I thought I had it figured out -- looking back at my life (to this point) I saw a very driven and determined person. I always knew what I wanted -- to graduate high school (in Texas), go to college in California (or at least somewhere out of state), study abroad (turned out to be Australia) and work in film/tv (eventually settling on producing). I knew I wanted to get married and have kids at some point, but it also was never a priority. I had the mindset that if I was meant to find "him" I would, and beyond that it wasn't really within my control...my career on the other hand? That I could accomplish on my own...that I could MAKE happen through sheer determination, will, and hard work.
For the most part, my peers had this same outlook. Everyone I went to high school with spread to the ends of this country... LA, San Fran, NYC, D.C, Chicago, Denver, even London and Sydney. Those that did stay in Texas, left after graduation to some big city. For the most part we dated, even had long term relationships, but at 27 only one of us has gotten married...and there don't seem to be too many others to follow suit. All of this to say -- we were similar in our independence...I guess it could have been in the water? Clearly we were raised to believe in ourselves, and that marriage/kids were always an option (maybe even expected at some point), but living LIFE on your own and experiencing what it had to offer trumped "family."
So imagine my surprise when I woke up one day in 2010 and found the tables had turned. To me, it felt as if one day I knew what I was doing and had all the time in the world, and the next I was completely lost and had no clue what to do next. What was stranger was all of my closest friends seemed to arrive at the same point almost simultaneously. Where one friend once had the dream of running her own studio...now was saying things like "if it came to a choice, I would rather be married with a family." Where another's dream was to write and produce film/tv...now was saying "what good would an Oscar be if I had no one to share it with?" I guess this was all normal; the realization that we had a finite amount of time...but it baffles me how quickly our priorities shifted. Not just slightly, but completely from "I CAN HAVE IT ALL" to "I don't want it all." I had heard that saying...that a woman can’t do it all. You couldn't have the career and the family. I had interpreted that to mean that society wouldn't let me have it all, that the world (and our culture) looked down at women and tried to get in their way...the glass ceiling and all that. Now I realize how wrong that was -- it’s not a matter of what "they" say you can or can't do...it’s a matter of just not physically having enough time to do it all. We can't be in 2 places at once; if you don't do it in the time allotted...biology will step up. The biological clock knocks at your door and says "this is your chance" and if you don't take it...well like Truvy says in Steel Magnolias, "Time marches on...and then you realize it's marching across your face."
Another realization we’ve had recently is the choice paralysis that my generation suffers from -- we were brought up being told “you can do ANYTHING you want” while being given every opportunity. As opposed to our parents generation that were urged to get married, a job (any job) and support their families, they turned around and raised their children to shoot for the stars (as they should!). But the outcome of that mindset, is a lot of “adults” acting like “kids.” We feel we can do it all, 10 different jobs, travel the world, get married, have kids, be responsible yet irresponsible at the same time. I believe this is why so many of us (myself included) come back to live with our parents at some point…because it was OK…because our parents would accept us and support us at any cost. Well because of ALL of our choices and options…we seem to not be able to make a decision at all. Then we reach our quarter life crisis and realize we haven't made a single choice, and now can’t wrap our heads around “the rest of our lives.”
But something I find strangely beautiful is that this same group of friends that had a deep yearning to go far and explore...live away from their family and their roots, are now migrating back home. These are the type of people that if you suggested going to college in Houston would've said, "absolutely not. No way in hell." Now I'm hearing from those same girls, "Austin would be nice. I think I'm ready to settle down in Texas..." like the circle of life with its ebb and flow, we have tried life abroad and afar and loved it and learned from it...and are now considering the power of home and obviously the great state of Texas.
So now that this realization has occurred...this major shift in what our goals are and what we want...what happens now? Personally, I've found myself wondering what I'm willing to do (job wise). Where in the past I would take any job that sounded interesting and paid the bills, because I had faith that it would lead to something else (even if that was just adding to my experience and skills) today as I start another job search...I find myself being much more particular. I don't want to do more of the same; I don't want just any old job. I want a dream job. I want to work somewhere that inspires me and fulfills me creatively, and where I'm proud to say "I work there!"
Does this exist? Does this "dream job" where you are fulfilled personally and financially? If it doesn't, at what age do we give up childish, silly dreams and resign to being an adult…does that age ever come? I would think it would only necessarily come about if you were married with kids and had that level of responsibility. If you aren't, if you are more like me, and only have yourself to answer to, how long can you go? What has happened to me is that I've reached a point, a plateau of sorts, where I am questioning it all. Where I used to say my passion for film/tv was so strong I would never give up, I would compete and fight til I made myself known, and it was all worth it because of this passion...now I find myself wondering if I can just accept that I love movies but maybe its just the type of passion that I should use as an extra-curricular interest...that I should be a teacher? Or run an animal rescue? Do I have the drive to keep trying in spite of not knowing if it will ever happen?
Recently I went to LA in hopes of getting a job. In less than a week I was offered one and found myself in a bit of a panic attack. I didn't want it, but didn't feel right about turning it down, I wanted to be more than an "assistant" but this job was just more of the same. I was completely unprepared and unaware of how anxiety ridden the prospect of working somewhere I didn't want to would be. So I rationalized turning it down, and continued the search to be "more than assistant." After another week, and an inspirational visit to Pixar, I realized it wasn't about "not being an assistant" but it was about finding that group of people or company that you are willing to get coffee at. The place that was so good that you would start at the bottom because that's how much you believe in their work.
Basically I still am completely freaking out and lost in the abyss of quarterlife-hood...but at least I can take solace in knowing that I'm not alone.
For those of you still figuring it out (or reminescing about when you still HAD to figure it out)...try and find the very underrated and short lived TV show from the creators of My So Called Life and Once and Again....Quarterlife
In case you can't track it down (because I couldn't) -- here are a few more about "trying to figure it out":
The Devil Wears Prada
Friday Night Lights
(mainly because I'll put it on any list I can, and they're figuring out life at all different stages)
FOX: Well...it could be better. They don't have past seasons, or full current seasons, but they do keep up the latest 5 episodes of each show. American Idol isn't up, but Glee and Lie to Me are. The player itself, is like NBC....you have to keep watching the commercials even if you've already seen them (and they do air the SAME damn promos/commercials....which every network is pretty much guilty of).
CW: The thing that frustrates me about the CW players is that they have the shows up there, with a "full episodes" tab at the top of the site. Then you pick the one you want to see, it appears that it is going to play, and then it skips...almost like a real DVD, or like you have a shoddy internet connection. Nope, that's not what is happening, it has to "load." You have to wait, and indeterminable amount of time, for the show to "load" not "download" just...I dunno...like a youtube video almost, but slower, and more painful. It needs some help.
CBS: Oh CBS. Why? You're so behind. I hate you. First off, I don't watch many CBS programs, so if its going to be one of the networks, this is the one it should be...BUT with all the other sites moving forward and updating their players...why can't you get it together? Basically they have very few "full episodes" available...you have to go to the "videos" tab, then either click on "full episodes" or your shows title, then "full episodes" to see that there probably aren't any of the show you want (maybe a few old Big Bang Theory" episodes.) Boo.
