Diving into the World of Online Starcraft

Real-time strategy might not have the popularity it once had, but man has it ever come a long way. I've been playing the genre for ages, especially within the Blizzard Entertainment realm, all the way back to the days of Warcraft II. I had Warcraft I, but the dreadfully slow pace of the game (why they would choose to place gold mines so far away in the campaign, I'll never know) prevented me from getting into it. Now, RTS games are action packed, fueling a new world of competition, prizes, and champions.

In spite of being hopelessly addicted the Blizzard RTS franchises over the years, I've never really checked out the eSports scene. There's still a stigma about it, albeit not a fair one; anyone can easily admit to binge-watching a television show all weekend, but daring to throw on a video game stream seems to still have the qualities of a societal sin. However, the attitude on that seems to be turning, if slowly, to something more generally accepted. More than ever, I felt it was time to give it a go; I watched a tournament on replay (a long delay - it was played in late November), methodically moving through the group stage games up until the final, watching interviews, pre-game trash-talk, and of course the surprisingly entertaining games themselves.

The Tournament:
I didn't really know what I was watching at first. Having little prior experience (only a few games at Blizzcon a couple years back), I wasn't really too sure what tournament to tune into. I picked more or less at random the DreamHack ROCCAT Legacy of the Void Championship. It seemed to fit what I was looking for - top class players from around the world competing for a prize pool of $50,000.

The tournament's setup. The Canadian didn't make it to this round. It's like the World Cup all over again.

The way in which the players were chosen was through regional qualifiers, allowing for a more diverse group of players rather than a predominantly South Korean set of competitors as I suspect it would be otherwise. There were even a few Canadians, which I immediately decided I would have to root for by default.

After a series of qualifiers (in which I watched a select few - considering the sheer number of games played, and the fact that not all were broadcasted on the site I visited, I could only watch so many) twelve players would be placed into a winner's and a loser's bracket, the latter having a longer and more difficult road to reach the final. But before I move onto the games, there is something I'll need to discuss as I will be doing it throughout the rest of this blog post.

Relation to Sports:
Inevitably I'll return to comparisons between sports, sporting events and the way in which they're presented in contrast to the Starcraft II competitive scene. Admittedly, there are plenty; the players compete at a top level of skill in tournaments and leagues, promoted by a dedicated fanbase that roots for them at every turn. There are announcers for the game (called casters in the Starcraft world) full of colour commentary and descriptions on the players, what is currently occurring in the match and pretty well everything else you would expect from a sportscast. Afterwards the players go for their post-match interview in which they discuss their opposition and key aspects of the game. At the core, it's fairly similar to the sporting world. For that reason competitive video games have developed the moniker eSports.

Personally, however, I've never been fond of it. Since the definition of a sport requires physical exertion the name just sounds misleading. Perhaps they stick with it because it rolls off the tongue rather nicely in opposition to the alternatives; "competitive gaming" sounds clunky and unappealing whereas eSports sounds fresh and clean. For those that truly do consider professional gaming a sport, I've got to ask - do you then consider the participants athletes?

The Presentation:
Similar to tuning into a sports match the broadcast doesn't begin with the immediate starting of a game. There's the usual pre-broadcast video of former champions holding up trophies interspersed with cinematic footage from the opening scene of the latest Starcraft expansion, all synched with pounding, "epic" music. What follows is a panel of experts and commentators discussing the game ahead. I'll have to admit, the production quality of it was excellent - but there's also the caveat that considering this is a Starcraft II tournament I would imagine there are quite a few people putting it together who are pretty good with computers, so, to be fair, it should be good. Nevertheless, the entirety of it is impressive; even more than just the video, the stage adorned with lights and graphics, the player booths and even the professional appearance of the panelists plays into the feeling that this isn't some amateaur, strung together tournament. This is legit. People really care about this.

The faces of the presentation, beyond the players that is, could really make or break that feeling. Fortunately, they were all about as good as you could hope for. The four panelists whose names come up on the screen with their in-game alias listed most prominently (and typically refer to each other as these alias' as well) were genuinely great. Shaun "Apollo" Clark, Jens "Snute" Aasgaard, Benjamin "DeMuslim" Baker and Nathan "Nathanias" Fabrikant spoke with a near encyclopedic knowledge of the playerbase, their former matches, current form and the Starcraft scene as a whole comfortably without the pauses and fumblings one would expect from a more amateurish presentation. However, only being just initiated into the whole of the online Starcraft world I personally couldn't find much interest in the panelists' banter but I don't believe that's the fault of those behind the desk - it just comes down to not knowing the players and thus not having an interest in them the way that I'm sure hardcore fans would. But hey, to be fair, I don't watch a lot of the pregame soccer stuff either when it's on in spite of being a fan.

The postgame interviews fell much the same way for me. At first I was intrigued by them, but my personal lack of knowledge on the players left me to typically skim them over. Again, I don't feel that's any fault on the interviewer. That was led by Sue "Smix" Lee, the only female face I saw except for the rare fan hidden amongst the male-dominated audience. Interview questions would cover a range of topics. While usually centred around critical plays or feelings before or after the match (think typical post-game interviews in hockey, soccer, football...) there was the occasional question that would be a little more out there. For example, she spoke with one player who called out a reporter that had badmouthed him in an article. (Naturally, I was curious as to what was said and also who exactly reports on the video game world, but that's a question for another time.) The interviews were a little more interesting than I would have expected, and that's mostly due to the fact that the players are allowed to speak off the cuff as opposed to professional athletes that get so much media coverage that they have to be very careful in what they say. The only issue that truly tripped up the interview section was the language gap that arises in a tournament with players from around the world. Many had spotty english at best, and Lee would occasionally translate questions for the Korean players, causing it to slow to a rather boring pace.

The Announcers: 
The world of online Starcraft is a strange one, where a British man describes the white guys as foreigners and pre-game translated taunting sessions are gleefully eaten up by an adoring crowd no matter how uncomfortably lame those insults may be. Those ushering you in are the announcers (or casters), who present the players and comment on the game as it progresses. These guys are critically important - in my opinion, way more so than in the sporting world - as the game carries with it such pace that it certainly helps a great deal to have someone there giving you a play by play. Most of the popular sports are uncomplicated, allowing the common viewer that may not know his stuff to enjoy it to some degree as well. That's not the case here. With almost every unit having a unique ability, it's harder to understand at first glance than the simplicity of athletics, where typically puck/ball/larger ball + net = points. To enjoy it you need that base level of knowledge as otherwise it'll mostly be lost on you. Even then, with the focus on timings and build orders for units and strategies even practiced players would need some help now and then to follow it closely. I know I sure did.

Fortunately for Starcraft, the guys they have taking the lead are incredible. For this tournament it was predominantly voiced by Snute and Apollo, two of the panelists. Their knowledge is nothing short of encyclopedic; they know individual playstyles, backstories of the players, previous games and tournaments, and beyond that a tremendous level of understanding of the actions of the game itself. Some of it was so specific I could hardly believe it. When they say "Nerchio loves that ten gas style", to which the other responds without missing a beat "yeah, so does Scarlet" I've got to give them credit - they know their stuff. It seems they know the basics behind almost every players' style; one game had an announcer claim "one thing Bunny has been able to do is baneling snipe" (a play that involves specifically targeting a dangerous kind of unit and eliminating it before it can do a great deal of damage), presumably knowing that individual move is a specialty. Another said "this is FireCake we're talking about" when speaking of a specific formation of defense of a player, apparently one in which he's particularly talented at executing. With as many players as there are my hat goes off to them for knowing as much as they do.

The games consist of typically two casters beginning the game describing the players, their playstyles, and perhaps a few predictions on how the game will progress (as well as describing the impact of their initial moves in the typically quiet opening minutes). As it progresses, they spew out information at lightning speed describing the players' moves, right down to what seems like insignificant information that at this level of competition has a great deal of impact in the game. If a building is built twenty seconds later than they would imagine? It could mean an entirely different strategy than what they would expect. If the opposing player recognizes this, he'll likely have to accommodate it. To a layman watching the game (which apparently is myself in spite of at one point being in the top few percentage points of players in Masters League) you wouldn't think it was an issue; in fact, you probably wouldn't even notice. It's up to the casters to tell you exactly what is happening and why, and this they do almost flawlessly. They never seem to miss a beat.

When one of the casters says "sometimes Nerchio likes to build buildings but doesn't utilize them that much" I didn't question it. He's probably noticed that in previous games. I believed it wholeheartedly.

The Players:
I'm glad I watched this particular tournament because the mix of players from an assortment of countries creates an eclectic group of men. Some look the part with the big thick-rimmed glasses, but really the only thing that makes them a cohesive whole is no two players seem to follow the same tournament dress code. FireCake wore a dress shirt, looking more like an accountant than a professional gamer. ShoWTimE comes out wearing trackpants and a t-shirt, as if he were about to go for a run rather than sit at a computer chair. Another, Elazer, wore a baggy t-shirt that's sort of a cross between a jersey and something out of motocross. The most common thing between all of them is apparently they keep it chilly there; many wore hoodies over their heads, another a toque (although notably not the Canadian guy), and many wore jackets - while they're playing. This I found to be the most confusing. I'm a thin guy, at least moderately in shape, and while I may come back from a soccer game relatively sweat free I'm absolutely soaked by the end of a Starcraft match. Maybe I'm the anomaly. Perhaps they didn't provide a coat check at the tournament grounds.

The two finalists locked in battle. The closeup confirms that
yes, they are watching their screens and yes, both
predictably wear glasses.

As for the players themselves, I didn't learn too much about them. I mentioned a Canadian guy, and pretty much by default I had to cheer for him. Going by the screen name HuK (real names being so irrelevant I either didn't see it listed or didn't bother writing it down) he apparently used to be in juvie in the States before moving to Canada. After a bit of searching, I found that he said in a past interview: "Had I not moved to Canada my family and I both agree that I'd most likely be in the military, jail or dead." Naturally, I quickly found him to be my favourite.

He was the only one I remembered with any interest, however. There's a difficulty in learning the player base when it's tough to associate a player name with a face. If you skip to the games themselves you don't often see the players for more than a passing glance. Watch a game of hockey or soccer and you begin to pick up players quite quickly; you see them, how they move, how they play, their numbers, and the names on the back of their jerseys. But in Starcraft, where there nevertheless still is undoubtedly a strong fanbase for individual players, there's definitely more of a learning curve. One man's zerglings look the same as the next, in spite of how he may use them. The vast majority of the time there's no visual differentiation, and if there is, it's slight. I believe it was because of that I couldn't really connect or root for any particular player beyond cheering for HuK due to my Canadian blood. By the time it got to the final, it felt to me just like any other game. Developing an understanding for each players' style must take a fair while and in spite of clocking many hours watching this tournament I couldn't say I developed much of an interest in the individual.

The Games:
You can certainly see why these guys are professionals. Saying they're simply good at a video game would be a colossal understatement; they're incredibly quick (occasionally they show their keyboard and thus a flurry of fingers streaking across the keys), respond to everything almost instantly, and clearly show a level of practice and dedication that's only matched by the best of any craft. To win, they must make decisions that split seconds, seeing movements of units in the corner of their screen and responding instantly and have an intense level of focus as no two games are exactly alike - or close to similar, for that matter.

Part of the appeal of watching Starcraft must be that the variation from game to game is incredible. I'm surprised at that; it's a testament to the quality of Blizzard Entertainment in that they made a game where there isn't just a set strategy that's the best in which all players flock to. There are a few opening gambits that are similar but once they move to the mid-game you'll rarely see the same thing. If a player tries an identical strategy game to game he'll become predictable, almost guaranteeing a loss. They have to change it up to keep competitive, and the variation in each game makes for great gameplay. With Starcraft, you never know what you're going to get.

Along with all the new things that are happening in each and every game, there's also something seemingly always happening. The players move so quickly that there are always multiple assaults, small contingents of units attacking elsewhere, or units hitting expansion bases. If not, it's typically because there's a large scale battle going on in which the players fight it out with a tremendously impressive level of control over their army. All the while, they're building their bases back home, creating new forces, managing an economy and somehow not sweating in spite of wearing a parka indoors.

The tournament's victor. Considering I once won a
single game in a local Starcraft tournament and was
absolutely elated, he must be feeling on top of the world.

There's certainly a learning curve due to the fact that Starcraft is nothing new and with every expansion comes a crew of new units each with unique abilities. It's not an easy one to learn; to even understand the casters explaining the game to you you need a fairly strong base level of knowledge. A casual viewer checking out the game for the first time would be hopelessly lost, drowning in a sea of abbreviations, confusing unit abilities and other complicated aspects that make the game great but in the same breath anything but simple. But if you do understand it, it's hard to deny that its pace and variation create a very exciting game.

Just in case you didn't read it...

I'm surprised to say I feel I get the whole appeal. The games are undoubtedly exciting, ever changing and proceed at a stunningly quick pace. There's a level of variation in them that prevents the games from becoming routine. The general production quality is high, lending it an air of professionalism that permeates all aspects of it, from the interviews, videos and so forth.

The only drawback is a lack of immediate accessibility. With the game as complicated as it is (and by nature more complicated than ever through the addition of units from expansions) it's not for the first-time viewer. As well, it's tricky to get to know the individuals and pick favourites when the majority of the time you're seeing units that look no different than what you're used to.

Nevertheless, I had a much better time with this than I would have expected. I can't say I'd continue, but hey, if I was flipping the dials on the television someday and happened across a Starcraft match... I probably wouldn't turn it off.

Fallout 4 and the Art of the Sequel

I feel I should preface this by saying I thoroughly enjoyed Fallout 4 in spite of the tone I may take for the rest of the blog. Plenty of aspects of it need tweaking - a weak main story-line, a beginning that has you lock in your playstyle before you really know what you're doing, and a perpetually cluttered inventory - but it's intensely addictive and no matter what point you are in the game you always have something to do, and not only that, you always want to do it. The combat is much more comfortable than ever before, and while the graphics aren't phenomenal (save for the extra effort they put into the hindquarters of the female Vault dweller) the atmosphere is excellent and more than makes up for it.

But that's not really what I want to talk about.

I want to talk about the world of sequels, through video games, movies and television. There's a lot of talk about sequels becoming more and more prominent as of late, and, well, it's a cold hard truth. Take a look at the top grossing films of 2015 - Star Wars, Jurassic World, Minions, Furious 7, Hunger Games, Spectre, Mission: Impossible, Hotel Transylvania 2 and Pitch Perfect 2 are all spawns of previous films, and even those that aren't are not original stories. Ant-Man and Avengers: Age of Ultron have not only come from the past but are essentially the same hero movie on repeat; The Martian and Cinderella have come from a book and a folk tale, respectively. Home is apparently based loosely off a book as well, which is news to me as, somehow, I have yet to have heard of it. The only original - yes, the only purely original movie of the top fifteen is Inside Out. As you move down the list the percentage of original films starts creeping ever higher as the box office totals drop. Due to the successes of sequels I guess you can't blame the companies for  creating them. It's undoubtedly safe as they are already quite certain of the fan base that will come to support the movie/game/show in spite of ratings, bad press, etc. Anyways, this you probably know - it's become old news because we as viewers will flock to these recreations even if they're terrible - I'm looking at you, Hangover sequels.

Video games fare no better. Multiple Call of Duty's will always be at the top along with the latest installments of NBA, FIFA and Madden games. Naturally, Star Wars creeps in there as well. Television on the other hand you would think would be somewhat exempt. It's hard to reboot a show when typically they'll run until they're out of steam, lasting until the viewership wanes and the viewers move on to new programs. But even then, it's polluted by numerous Marvel and DC comics and CSI: [City Name] shows that don't really bring anything new to the table but will nevertheless do quite well in terms of viewership.

Turning away from the tried and tested is an incredible risk. Blizzard Entertainment, my favourite game company of Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo fame, openly states they don't try to innovate all that much. They take what's already there and established, tweak and fix it relentlessly, and release it as a more polished and perfected version of what's already out on the market. They've also been running with the same set of games for ages (although just recently adding a new franchise to the mix). With that in mind, I should love sequels. It takes what I know and love and enhances it, a system that is not dissimilar to the idea of breast implants.

Also similar to breast implants, something just isn't quite right about it. Without taking any risks, it's hard to produce something really outstanding. I have problems believing that when I see a new Superman movie it'll be in some way new to me, considering the character itself was created in the '30s. Video games suffer the same fate of pigeon-holing themselves, but in a notably different manner. What people want out of the game is essentially the same thing but amped up a little bit; a touch better in terms of graphics, a little smoother gameplay, a few of the bugs worked out and so forth. This is, to a tee, what Fallout 4 is. Now, don't get me wrong, I understand why. If they went an entirely new route - even on a few features - they may anger their die-hard fans, and no single force of people carries more hate and vitriol in their veins than video game fanboys. Worst case, if they stick with the same and screw up there'll be hardly a fan that won't return for Fallout 5, praying it's a return to form and a reboot of the previous games in the franchise. However, if they change it up entirely it might not attract that many back if the game doesn't land particularly well. Call of Duty could have three terrible games in a row, and the majority will still come crawling back - just as long as it stays true to the same formula.

I suppose that's not all bad. You know what you're getting into, and hey, as I said, I did enjoy Fallout. But the problem is any potential for a great breakthrough in the game, that changes it up for the better, is squashed right out of the gate. I'll give them credit - they tried. The game brings in an entirely new feature to the franchise in the creation of settlements in the wasteland, a home to call your own thrown together from scraps of blown out buildings and old mailboxes that you can design to your liking. At the core it's a decent idea, even if in practice it wasn't all that great. Naturally, it's what's caused the rage to rise to the surface from the ever-present force of basement dwelling nerds (of which I am not so proudly a part). Cries of "This isn't Fallout! I want to explore, not play The Sims" became more and more popular.

I believe the reason why it might not have panned out so well is the fact that they tried so strongly to hedge their bets. In holding true to the style of the game (which means changing essentially nothing) they couldn't make settlements too intrusive - which means they are pretty close to useless. Their decision to make settlements mostly optional (you can absolutely pass the game with hardly paying attention to them whatsoever) meant that their focus must have been dragged away to the main core of the game, leaving a sloppily put together unfinished product. They're not all that interesting, provide little benefit, and the player could really use a little more guidance in how they function. Of course they're not going to be all that impressive. Why would they place a heavy emphasis on an optional segment of the game that not every player would participate in?

All this stems from the same problem - people fear change to the point that creators are forced to shy away from anything truly ambitious. New is dangerous, and what's the point of going out there for something new if the tried-and-true will undoubtedly provide you a larger paycheque? I would have really liked if there was a greater focus on settlements which would add a new element to a game that feels exceptionally similar to it's predecessor, even if it is a more polished, complete game. Perhaps if it was a more critical, central part of the game it would have received a little more love, making it less, well, sucky.

So all told, while I enjoyed Fallout 4, there's a part of me that's craving something brand new. Settlements could have provided that bonus to shake up the series, but alas, the will of the fanboy was imposed and only a lightweight attempt was put forth - and due to the lack of effort put in, it ultimately was left wanting. In a perfect world, Fallout would have had the freedom to push themselves in that new direction with the fans of the series willing to at least give it a shot before immediately shooting it down.

Perhaps I'm part of the problem in dutifully buying every sequel to the series' I enjoy and having what I would deem a successful year determined by the enjoyment I received from watching Creed (it was phenomenal, by the way). So, maybe there's no solution. Bring on double-digits of Fast and the... Still Fast. The world needs Call of Duty to come full-circle and go back to the past (I kind of mean that, actually). All I'm hoping for is that innovations to the tried and true be given a fair shake. Give settlements a shot, y'all.

Bachelor Ben: Preview

Do I feel shame for watching The Bachelor? Yes. Yes I do. But it's shame that comes with at least some degree of reason behind it. Sure, it may be rigidly formulaic and pigeonhole people into the same archetypes year after year (the drunk, the rabble-rouser, the virgin, the one with the kid, the black girl, etc.) but nevertheless the high-school girl-esque drama never ceases to entertain for at least twenty minutes of the two hour show. The dates may be worthy of fast forwarding (will this season have a reluctant girl find comfort in the bachelor's arms as they bungee jump off the bridge/gorge/tower?) but the rest of the season is so chock-full of tears and other such dramatic elements that I for one just can't look away.

So what's in store for the contestants? Will a member of a previous season make their appearance and cause trouble (pretty well every season has this, so I sure hope so)? Will it be discovered that one of the bachelorettes has a secret boyfriend at home (probably the third time now)? Will there be a drunkard that goes home in quite the state far too early (almost certainly yes, and I have my predictions!)? Well, I for one can't wait to find out.

Amanda: 
Amanda at first seems like a potentially decent pick: her occupation sounds fancy and important (esthetician) and she's pretty good looking. But, upon looking up what an esthetician is (a beautician) I'm wary they may be up-selling the profession of make-up sales clerk at Macy's. Mind you, I could be wrong - but having two kids is the deathblow.

Amber: 
Amber returns - for the second time! After getting shipped out on the third episode of Chris' season, she's giving it another shot after a failed stint on Bachelor in Paradise. Amber seems like a very pleasant person, but a little boring, a touch too old at thirty, and not quite sleazy enough for the show. Sweet, kind people (but a little bland) don't make it far here.



Becca: 
Another returning character is Becca, after having made it quite far in Chris' season but ultimately getting the axe after he discovered she just isn't very interesting.

Breanne: 
Breanne is 30, from Seattle, and will be returning there after a few short weeks with little airtime on the show. Her profile isn't crazy enough to make me think she'll warrant much interest from the producers, and she isn't good looking or young enough to make it through to the latter half of the show.




Caila:
Being half Filipino and half German/Irish/Swiss makes Caila half an average contestant for The Bachelor. It's important to remember that while the number of Asian contestants on the show are notoriously few and far between, we have had an Asian winner not too long ago. Perhaps Caila will surprise us - even if her reasoning for wanting to have three kids is "because that's the perfect amount to fit in a 5-seater car for travelling".


Emily: 
This year's crazy angle to spice things up is throwing twins into the mix! Being a twin is so critical to their importance that not only is it what they are but it's listed as their occupation in the Bachelor bio. I can't wait for whatever comical escapades having twins on the show will bring, but there sure will be a lot of "double the fun" puns to be made. Or "double trouble". Or perhaps a hilarious drinking binge of "double shots". Either way, I can't wait.

Haley: 
This year's crazy angle to spice things up is throwing twins into the mix! Being a twin is so critical to their importance that not only is it what they are but it's listed as their occupation in the Bachelor bio. I can't wait for whatever comical escapades having twins on the show will bring, but there sure will be a lot of "double the fun" puns to be made. Or "double trouble". Or perhaps a hilarious drinking binge of "double shots". Either way, I can't wait.

Izabel: 
At this point I'm beginning to realize that having their favourite movie as either The Notebook or Bridesmaids must be listed as a requirement for this program. Anyways, Izabel takes perhaps the saddest single comment in the whole list: "Honestly, I don't love to read, but I did enjoy reading the first 150 pages of 50 Shades of Grey. Then I just saw the movie." Just eliminate her now.

Jackie: 
Jackie is young, good looking, and a gerontologist (the study of aging) which may or may not mean sharing a booth with Amanda at Macy's depending on how the show frames their job. Either way, she seems like the "fun" archetype for the show, and with a sane profile, she's an early pick to go decently far in the competition.

Jami: 
Lets see, Jami... 23, bartender, 5'5... and what's this?! From St. Albert, Alberta, Canada!? She won't win, but I'll certainly be rooting for her.

Jennifer: 
Having two vaguely sex related answers in their bio alone means that Jennifer may be this year's skinny-dipping girl that grabs the bachelor's attention and the disgust of the rest of the house. Sure, that's a stretch to say this early, but such is the nature of predictions. Take a look at this season's villain. That may be bold, but just you wait.

Jessica: 
In spite of listening to Lil Wayne and Luke Bryan to assure she gets the worst of both worlds, her profile is inoffensive. I'm going to tentatively say I would keep my eye out for this one.

Joelle: 
Joelle seems... well, perhaps a little ditsy.
When asked if she prefers hot or cold weather: "Hot over cold. Being too cold can hurt. Lol." OK, so she said "lol" in her bio. She's not the only one.
What three people she would have dinner with: "My grandfather who has passed, Ellen DeGeneres, and Jesus." And as for what food they'd have: "PIZZA! And wine." OK, so it's an odd mix, and she'd like to have wine and pizza with Jesus, which seems a little strange. But whatever.
Her special talent: "I can make a 3-leaf clover with my tongue. Just throwing that out there." OK, Joelle, put it back in.
And if she could be someone else for a day... "Taylor swift because she's awesome and I've already thought singing country music professionally would be so much fun. Plus, she has cool friends."

I'm beginning to think The Bachelor has lowered their age requirements.

Jubilee: 
Hats off to Jubilee. She's a war vet, having seen four and a half years of active duty. But, will the American standard of patriotic respect for their soldiers overwhelm The Bachelor's consistent standard of eliminating black women by the third round of the competition time after time? It's yet to be seen.

Lace: 
Lace tells this story: "When I had a guy I liked over for drinks and I forgot I pooped before he came over and he used my bathroom and saw it. We couldn't even talk we were laughing so hard!"

Lace doesn't flush. Lace won't last. Say farewell to Lace.

Laura: 
Hmm. Laura seems well spoken and at least on the first impression pretty decent. But, she's kind of strange looking, and not specifically because of the whole ginger angle. Regardless, I bet she'll go fairly far, but won't make a push to the top four.

Lauren LB: 
Lauren will be a first round elimination, and it's not her fault. The fact of the matter is she's just not attractive enough. She'll make it to round two or three under the conditions that enough people train-wreck out on the first day and she moves through by default. Or, on the second or third week if she gives a well-timed personal story that gives her a stay of execution. The world of The Bachelor is harsh.

Lauren B: 
I'm going to casually root for Lauren B. because she's one of a precious few contestants that refrained from using emoticons, terrible grammar, and internet abbreviations in her write-up. Kudos, Lauren.

Lauren H: 
Counter to Lauren B., Lauren H. littered her bio with OMG, FML, and :(. Her profession? Kindergarten teacher. *sigh*

Lauren R: 
I'll give Lauren bonus points for being self-aware enough to comment on how her favourite movie being The Notebook is a cliche. She's also the second person that would like to have pizza with Jesus, but this time spare the wine. Apparently, the average bachelor contestant views their lord and saviour as someone they can just chill and have a beer with while hanging with Justin Timberlake and Ellen. How is that conversation supposed to go, anyways? "So, Ellen, how's the show? And Jesus, I've heard so much about you!"

Leah: 
Leah seems to have little regard for leading a life full of mistakes. Having two doves on the back of her calves that she is hoping to have lasered off, she mentions "twerking on the wall in [her] dress during [her] Bachelor interview". I have a feeling her next regret will be having that seventh vodka shot that sends her home early.

Maegan: 
Self described as "country through and through", holding the occupation of cowgirl and into whatever Red Dirt Country is, I'm beginning to think Maegan may be a farm girl type. She says she enjoys BBQing and drinking some beers but I'm almost certain she means drinkin'.

Mandi: 
I want to say Mandi will be the villain of the show. She's an "I do what I want, whenever I want" type and proud of it. But, she may sway towards the drunk archetype (assuring an early elimination before attaining villain status) due to her "tendency to drink too much". Either way, she's pigeonholed into one of the two. Personally I hope it's the latter. She seems like she would be too annoying for a full season villain.

Olivia: 
Never have I seen someone look more suited to their profession. Olivia, a news anchor, even stands like one. She seems to be lacking on the crazy side, so I'll say she'll go decently far.

Olivia: 
If you're unemployed, and The Bachelor doesn't even make up a fake title for you like "former student" or "free spirit" that means she really must have nothing going on. I sincerely doubt she's going to make it beyond the second week - and that's only if she slips past the first round eliminations.




Samantha: 
Ah, we found the smart girl. She's an attorney. She was in the top 20% of her class. She correctly said whom. I hope she butts heads with the OMG FML TTYL ROFL kindergarten teacher.

Shushanna: 
I could hardly read her profile. I couldn't stop thinking of the clip of Krusty the Clown off The Simpsons trying to pronounce the Russian singing sensation that has a similar name to this girl. I suppose if you're not a fan of the show you won't get what I mean. Anyways, one of her quotes is "at some point I stopped believing in love again" and I'm predicting one heck of a teary-eyed departure - but fairly late in the competition.

Tiara: 
Named after princess headgear, her occupation is "chicken enthusiast". It goes to show that, yes, you can be lower on the totem pole in the working world than listing yourself as "unemployed". But don't worry, she's not that different from the rest; she still loves The Notebook like everyone else.

Simpsons by the Season: Bottom Ten

"Shut up, brain. I got friends now. I don't need you anymore."

I grew up with The Simpsons. Quotes from the show were daily (sheesh, hourly) occurrences, I always looked forward to seeing a new episode, and as I grew older I developed an even greater appreciation for the classics, once I understood the more subtle jokes in them. Having been created right around when I was born and still running today, it's been a constant in my life, albeit a less important one in the last eight or so years. That's why I can't just give up on this show, and that's why I care enough about it to force myself through watching so many seasons when I stopped really liking them quite some time ago. Seeing so many terrible episodes disgraces something that has been so enjoyable in my upbringing, and as I've argued with video games, you can get attached to the characters in television just the same way you can a good book. Watching these atrocious episodes probably stings more than it should, but I can certainly understand why it stings at all - and why I can't just turn off the T.V.. Episodes like this tarnish a legacy that I've watched grow to great heights and fall so, so rapidly.

10: The Bob Next Door
Sideshow Bob has had many top tier episodes, and we've all come to accept that at the core of them he's trying to murder a ten year old. It's dark, but it's oddly acceptably dark. He has never actually killed anyone, and more importantly, he has never surgically removed his own face and that of someone else and switched them. Since I was ten, I have always thought: "Man, I hope he never robs a face. That would be needlessly gruesome and far too ridiculous for a show that's at least somewhat grounded in reality." You could imagine my disappointment when it happened.

9: Pray Anything
In season four, Homer stays home from church and it's a major point of contention between him and Marge. In season fourteen, he sues the church for a million dollars (which it can't pay) and thus takes it over, using a crucifix as an air guitar, drinking booze from a chalice, playing strip poker on the front lawn, and throwing a beer keg through the stained glass windows. It's a nice contrast for the degradation of the characters over the years.

8: Simpsons Safari
What an absolute mess. The Simpsons go to Africa, and after being chased by a hippo, they stumble upon a Jane Goodall type, but discover that she's actually using the chimps she's harbouring to mine diamonds. In the end they take the diamonds in exchange for their silence. It's atrocious on all fronts; it's never funny, it's far too ridiculous, and once again the family is a bunch of jerks.

7: Kill the Alligator and Run
The Simpsons become fugitives after killing an alligator, and... well, that alone should be enough to warrant a bottom ten placement. It just gets worse from there, with the whole episode being disjointed and poorly strung together. The entire family having to pack up and live a life as hillbillies running from the law is one of the stupidest plotlines of the series. But hey... a Kid Rock guest appearance. Who doesn't love Kid Rock? ...Right?

6: The Frying Game
If you can't remember the plot for this episode it's probably because there were seven of them slammed into one twenty-two minute segment. 1. Homer buys Marge a koi pond 2. They find a screamapillar, and must protect it as it's nearly extinct 3. Homer and Marge have to join Meals on Wheels 4. Homer and Marge become housecleaners for an old lady 5. They witness a break-and-enter and a murder that follows 6. Homer, a suspect for the murder, extorts the town with fear tactics 7. Homer and Marge are convicted of murder - but wait - it's all a joke! It's a game show! Haha!

The whole episode feels like it was written in one sitting by seven different people, none of which were communicating with each other. There's no cohesive plot, no laughs, and no semblance of reality in this godforsaken heap. Call Ray Patterson - clean this up.

5: Moe Goes From Rags to Riches
There are certain ideas for episodes that were doomed from their very inception. Moe being best friends with his bar rag which, as it turns out, is a sentient being that has been "living" through centuries before finding itself in Moe's care is not, under any circumstances, going to work.

4: Lisa the Drama Queen
Lisa finds a friend who brings her into a different reality, full of elves, trolls and other fantastical creatures. Why they would add a character that's somehow more pretentious than past-ten-seasons Lisa is beyond me. This episode is above all else simply boring. It'll leave you with yawns - angry yawns.

3: Saddlesore Galactica
Homer and Bart getting a tough-as-nails racehorse is a stupid enough plot as it is, but then discovering a secret society of jockeys (that are also elves) pushes me just too far. Homer falling into their jockey world is the second worst single moment of the series (the worst is in number one on the bottom ten list) in an episode that's irredeemable anyways.

2: The Man who Came to Dinner
There are a number of episodes in this list that I can't tell for sure if they're actually part of the Simpsons universe. Sideshow Bob stealing someone's face I assume is happening in reality, regardless of how impossible. Moe's bar rag? That one is a toss-up. The land of the jockeys? Probably real, I assume? But this episode - the most recent on the list - has Kang and Kodos abduct the Simpson family and bring them back to their homeworld. It's by far the stupidest episode they've done, and have stolen the aliens from their Halloween exclusive episodes where they so, so obviously belong. The entire episode is an atrocity, right down to the ending with Maggie flying the family back to Earth in a spaceship.

1: Homer vs. Dignity
What in the world were they thinking when they decided they would take one of their beloved characters and degrade him as much as possible for the purposes of an episode? The entire plot is Homer being a prank-monkey for Mr. Burns, lowering himself in a variety of ways for money. Homer getting sexually assaulted by a panda is the second worst thing to happen in this, and the worst (and the worst of the whole series!) is Homer sitting on the men's room floor in a diaper saying "baby made a boom-boom" for the amusement of Mr. Burns. There is nothing worse than that. There is no episode that even comes close.

Dishonourable Mentions:
"The Fool Monty"
"Please Homer, Don't Hammer 'Em"
"Mom and Pop Art"
"Mona Leaves-a"
"Gone, Maggie, Gone"

Simpsons by the Season: Top Ten

"Um, can you repeat the part of the stuff... where you said all about the... things? Uh... the things?"

To preface this blog post I will point out the top ten all come from seasons three to eight, the sacred halls of The Simpsons in which the show could do no wrong. It won't be long now that those times will be two decades past with the show still plugging along, having lost it's relevance, quotability and more often than not, it's humour. But this isn't a time for complaint, but rather a time for craning your neck up in non-shame, reliving the best of the best. It's no easy feat - finding ten classic episodes could be as easy as randomly selecting a patch from season four, but selecting only the top of these strips so many greats that deserve more credit. Sideshow Bob alone could account for half the list with Krusty taking the remainder and it wouldn't be too unreasonable. Nevertheless, here's my attempt, and since it's the internet what better way to do it than to list them in a top ten format where it's likely this first paragraph gets skipped and all the more likely that only the titles of the episodes are read.

If you've made it this far, kudos.

10: Homer's Enemy

Here's the difference between the cynical episodes of old and new. Homer remains a good person. Frank Grimes has a brutal life and ends up finding his end after a fit of rage towards the carefree, coast-through-life style of Homer Simpson, but ultimately Homer doesn't do anything to hurt Frank; at least not deliberately. He tries to befriend him, he's scared of going to work because of him, he's intimidated by him, and while he may be inconsiderate it's out of boorishness and never cruelty. It's a stark contrast to nowadays Homer in which he's grifting, thieving or otherwise. That's the reason why a darker episode in the series worked in the golden years and why they don't work today.

9: Homer Bad Man
For pure comedy this is quietly one of the best episodes of the series. You won't see it on many top ten lists but it's certainly deserving of high praise when high praise is all that came towards the series. It's consistently funny, the story is entertaining, and the Rock Bottom segment is one of the single funniest stretches in the shows long run.

8: The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show
Well, all of these episodes are hilarious so I might as well stop pointing that out every time. The introduction of Poochie comes in the eighth season of the show, around the time that if a show has lasted that long it's at the point where it's dragging its body across the finish line after having lost most if it's viewers. The whole episode is not only smart enough to poke fun at this but they do so knowing how good the show still is. Sadly, it's season nine that starts the decline. Perhaps they got cocky. Nevertheless, it's The Simpsons in a beautiful state.

7: Sideshow Bob Roberts
The Simpsons can occasionally take on political episodes so well they're the highlight of the season. We've seen it in "Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington", a contender for the top ten, and now we see it mixing with one of the greatest of the Simpsons characters. The reason this episode takes the cake are quotations like this one that riddle the episode: "Your guilty conscience may move you to vote Democratic, but deep down you long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals and rule you like a king." It shows The Simpsons is more than just a regular cartoon comedy - it's much smarter than the norm.


6: Marge vs. The Monorail
It's sixth place on the list and third in it's season. The fourth season of the show is so stunningly good that the hilarious appearance of Phil Hartman can't even bring it to the top.

5: Homer at the Bat 

This episode didn't even make it to the top of season three, which attests to just how strong a season it was. The entire episode - the story, the humour, the animation (Mr. Burns' hand signals and Homer swinging at the baseball in slow motion spring to mind) - all culminate into a classic. Ask any good Simpsons fan to recite the "Talkin' Softball" song that plays at the end, and they'll probably repeat it verbatim. Ken Griffey's grotesquely swollen jaw... Steve Sax and his run in with the law.... We're talkin' Hoooooomer... Ozzie and the Straw!

4: You Only Move Twice

Considering how well received this episode is amongst Simpsons fanatics, I'm surprised Hank Scorpio has only one appearance in the series. In a way I'm glad he hasn't - his story only needs to be a one episode arc, and we can all rest peacefully knowing that the Globex Corporation is likely sort of running the Simpsons' world by now. It's refreshing considering every movie that did more than break even in the last ten years is finding a sequel, no matter how unnecessary. I'm looking at you, The Hangover. I'm also looking at you, The Hangover II. 

3: Radio Bart

Prior to seeing this episode on my extensive re-watch, I wouldn't have put it anywhere near the top ten. I felt it was just another classic amidst a number of other classics, but it's a solid step above. Just think of how many great moments: the birthday celebration at Wal-E-Weasel, the "Sending our Love Down the Well" song, the great visual gag of Willie revealing he's super jacked, and of course the core story of Bart being a practical joker but ultimately getting his comeuppance. It has all the makings of a top tier episode and it deserves it's spot. It's a near flawless episode. 

2: Homer the Heretic
Back in the day when the Simpsons went to church and Homer went to work, staying home from either was kind of a big deal. "I'm whizzing with the door open... and I love it!" is to this day a frequently quoted line in my house. It never gets old. Better yet, the whole episode is filled with quick wit that shows the characters can lead an episode and not just what's happening around them.

1: Krusty Gets Kancelled
It takes a lot to make it to the number one spot in the series, but the countless mega guest stars, the great plot, Krusty being at his finest and more great lines than most shows have in their whole seasons, "Krusty Gets Kancelled" takes the cake. Krusty deserves it anyways. He's the most consistent of all the Simpsons characters.

Honourable Mentions:
"The Homer They Fall"
"Mr. Plow"
"The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson"
"Cape Fear"
"Homer the Great"
"The Last Temptation of Krust"

Simpsons by the Season: 26

"You know what we should really thank for our success? Lower standards."

It's the last season before catching up with the present day, which means this project I've started about ten months ago is finally coming to a close. Twenty six seasons later, I've seen it through it's inception, the golden years, the shockingly fast descent, a brief half-resurgence (at least in comparison) and another sharp decline. I haven't been enjoying the episodes for a while now, and, as you can see by the increased length between posts, it's becoming more of a chore than anything. Rather than feeling the satisfaction of completing a task, it's closer to being put out of my misery.

I had thought the series had hit somewhat of an end of history, descending into mostly tame episodes that are rather run of the mill and inoffensive; finally all dust and embers of it's once roaring fire. It's the way the show had been turning for the past while, and I foolishly thought the trend would continue. Oh boy. If only. While the mistakes are plenty, the theme of the errors this time around are simple; it all comes down to laziness.

More than ever, things feel loosely strung together as the episodes fail to reach a cohesive story. Guest stars come and go for seemingly no reason: Pharrell Williams just happens to be in Springfield without explanation; Elon Musk descends from a futuristic spaceship mostly just because. The effort in the writing in at least having a reason for the guest spots is shot, but that's not the only mistake here. Frequently the show feels like a pieced together variety hour with plots that come and go with only a tenuous link to the main story. The appearance of Elon Musk's spaceship (I can't believe that sentence has to do with a Simpsons episode) ends a segment of the show where the family captures an eagle - a segment that has nothing to do with the rest of the show but nevertheless takes up a good part of the beginning of the program. A similar idea occurs in an episode called "Sky Police" that has Clancy find a jet-pack to better monitor the town before crashing it into the church - where the plot goes to a gambling scheme. But what about the whole sky police angle of which the episode is named? Well, when Clancy said "this is the end of sky police" - only three minutes and fifteen seconds into the episode I might add. I guess that was the end of that plotline entirely. Even the endings of episodes have moments that appear tacked on just to fill space when they couldn't make up the entire twenty-one minutes. One ends with "The Simpsons Post-show Jug Band", which is entirely as it sounds; another is just a drug fueled trip from Otto. Neither is funny. Both are pointless. It plays like it's written by a child that's on a sugar-high.


The rest of the season is filled with what I've come to expect from the past few sets. Absurd storylines (Kang and Kodos are real, apparently), changes of character (just one off lines like "that's where I used to grow my weed, but that's a story for another day" tend to upset me - and by the way, Marge said that), and repeated stories (Homer and a rag-tag band he puts together become wildly popular, and Apu finds centre stage - but this time he doesn't change his last name to de Beaumarchais). They might as well just keep making seasons now, as long as it's making them money. What have they got to lose? It's no longer a cultural phenomenon; no one talks about The Simpsons anymore, and spouting quotes from the series stops beyond season eight. It's no longer well received or respected, as that died out long ago. So many of the writers have long since left, and they very nearly lost Harry Shearer. They said they wouldn't do a movie, but of course that didn't last. That would have required some integrity left in the show. Groening removed his name from the episode when they did a crossover with The Critic from the sixth season (pointing out The Critic has "nothing to do with the Simpsons' world" and "it violate[d] the Simpsons' universe"), and now they've done one with Futurama and allowed their characters to appear on a Family Guy crossover episode, the twisting of the knife in my side. I suppose it doesn't even matter when they stop now. To quote the show from a better time...

Stop, stop, it's already dead!

Best Quotes:
"Remember: we're parked in the ethnic princess section."
-Marge at a Disneyland-esque place

"We will always remember your countless appearances on the Krusty the Clown Show... and your one appearance on To Catch a Predator."
-Krusty getting roasted

"You don't have to announce it. Just do it quietly and blame the dog."
-Homer

Best Episode:
It's always safe to go with Krusty. "Clown in the Dumps", in which Krusty's dad dies, has a few pretty big laughs and a story that isn't total nonsense. Nowadays that counts as the default victory.

Worst Episode:
"The Man Who Came to Dinner" has the family visit the home planet of Kang and Kodos, the Halloween episode favourites. The quote "are we truly in space? And if so, why?" rings far too true. Maggie flying them home in a spaceship was taking the knife that was twisted in the Family Guy crossover and giving it serrated teeth. Bottom ten material, right here. A fitting way to end it.

Simpsons by the Season: 25

"That's the great thing about art - everyone can have their own opinion about why it sucks."

This season is in many ways a carbon copy of the previous. For the most part it's simply bland, the episodes drifting into one another without ever really catching. There are only a handful of truly offensive episodes (I'll detail those towards the end, as two split the coveted worst episode of the season award) but just as scarce are the good ones. The minds behind The Simpsons must have decided that to prolong the longevity of the series they will churn out episodes that aren't going to enrage the viewer (who is far more loyal than they deserve) but will instead placate them with mediocrity. Viewers won't be up in arms, so they'll probably grudgingly return to the television to pay homage to a fallen great. After all, you can't say you've watched the entire series while skipping season 25. 

The identical feelings at the end of season 24 and 25 I believe may have signified the end of change in the series, settling into a permanent lull. It won't change now. It doesn't go from fantastic quality, to low quality, to ridiculous, to tame and then back to something previously; it'll stay at tame as tame is safe. Low effort, low quality (but not bottoming out quality) will bring in enough viewers to keep the propped up, rotting corpse of the series alive for another day. It's the end of the line. 26 won't be better or worse, and neither will 27. The show has flatlined a hair above being legally declared deceased. Of course, it's still better than the death spiral of 15-18 (give or take) in which the show bottomed out, but being on life support after it's heart attack is such a sorry state.

Don't get me wrong, the show still has its periodic ups and downs (occasional heartbeats and seizures, if we're continuing on the hospital metaphor) but they're few and far between. There are two pretty decent episodes in "Specs and the City" (the Simpsons' version of Google Glass comes to Springfield) and "Steal This Episode" (their take on internet privacy), and about four terrible ones. "Days of Future Future" is an absolutely nonsensical mess with Homer being cloned, and then it's in the future and there's zombies, and... all I know is it wasn't a Halloween episode. "The Man Who Grew Too Much" has Sideshow Bob splice genes of animals to make himself super-human. "You Don't Have to Live Like a Referee" has Homer officiating the World Cup. Homer and Bart get back at Skinner through a prank, telling him his mother has been murdered and he was the main suspect, but they'll help him get rid of her corpse by chopping it into pieces in "Yellow Subterfuge".


Sigh.

Fortunately, those four messes make up only a fraction of the season, so it's mostly watchable. Anger has subsided and it's been replaced by boredom. Just as long as it's still on the air, right?

Best Episode:

"Steal This Episode" takes the cake, as it delivered a fairly even handed approach to internet privacy. Sure, it's low hanging fruit, but they tackled it well.

Worst Episode:

I've already described them, but Homer being a World Cup referee is so bafflingly stupid it's too difficult to ignore. However, "Days of Future Future" is such a pieced together trainwreck it might, somehow, be worse.

Best Quotes:

"Eduardo Barcelona, or in english, Eddy Miami." 
-Homer's Brazilian pen-pal

"Nelson, you frighten me so, 
the psychoest bully I know,
you're a sociopath,
in need of a bath, 
I'm sure you'll end up on death row"
-Bart's valentine for Nelson

"I'll never experience the ultimate reward for a life well lived: the gentle slumber of death."
-Homer living in a dream world

Steve Jobs: Movie Review

Yesterday I went to see the Steve Jobs biopic with high hopes; it's been getting fairly solid reviews, it's about an incredibly interesting person, and the movie is Ashton Kutcher free, all totaling in a surefire recipe for success. Or so I would have thought. I couldn't help feel a little disappointed by the movie, and I believe a large part of that stems from having read his biography and remembering a number of the more interesting details of Jobs' life that were either glossed over or entirely ignored.

For the most part it felt like I had just watched the second installment of a three part series. The choice to present the movie in the fashion of three separate acts certainly allows it to delve more deeply in the details of those specific parts, and through that focus on Jobs' character. However, it skips some of the most memorable (and I would say most interesting) times of his life, and only selecting a sparse number of specific scenes hardly does justice to someone whose influence stretched decades. Starting his business in a garage with Wozniak is mentioned but only in brief. The creation of the iPod is only alluded to with a conversation with his daughter saying "I'll put 1,000 songs in your pocket." His untimely death which came upon him through neglecting his health in his famous Jobs' style of believing he can cure his own cancer with his dietary choices isn't shown nor mentioned as the film ends upon the release of the iMac. Through this it becomes an entertaining movie about a man, as it will certainly grab your attention through a number of excellent scenes with fast-paced, heated conversations but I cannot say it does more than scratch the surface on who Steve Jobs actually was.

He's painted as a self-centered jerk, and, let's not forget, it's easy to argue that he was. But he was much more than that - his wild eccentricities hardly make it through, save for one scene with him washing his feet in a toilet. Times when he would go to meetings without shoes or without having used any deodorant because he believed his all carrot and apple diet would cure him of any foul things in his body (all that is true) simply didn't make it to the screen. He was so overly emotional that he on more than one occasion would be crying at work and frequently so astoundingly cruel that he would make others shed those tears as well, but that was hardly touched. I mean, he loved acid and was about as close to being a hippie as a massively successful businessman can be, but you really just see him as a man in a suit who just happens to be obsessive and rude. Why then remove those scenes when they could have both added such depth to his character while making great cinematic moments? It seemed the purpose of the movie was to humanize him, but much of the greatness (or the opposite depending on how you see it) came through the ways in which he wasn't. His craziness - and there are few other words for it - are what made him. Yes, they show him to be a perfectionist but much in the same ways as many ordinary people are, and for better or worse, Steve Jobs was anything but the norm.

Perhaps more could have been shown if they had removed at least some of the conversations with his frumpy and annoying mother of his first child (Chrisann Brennan) and the child herself (Lisa Brennan) who as the movie progresses turns from adorable to, well, frumpy and annoying as well. Steve Jobs lags behind when he speaks with Chrisann at length about not accepting Lisa, and I assure you, those conversations happen far too frequently. Nearly half the movie is spent on Chrisann and his daughter, and each time they returned I would long for the talk about the company or computers. The legacy of Steve Jobs has little do with his relationships outside of work, but are instead a mere footnote that reflects his character and attitude. I would rather have seen his battles with Disney and fighting for Pixar than fighting over his daughter, or see more of his presentations rather than arguments with her mother.

If you go in completely cold to this movie without any prior knowledge, by the end you wouldn't even be sure exactly what Steve Jobs did. There's a conversation between Steve Wozniak and Jobs about what the latter actually does and Wozniak accuses him of contributing pretty much nothing. Jobs replies with a metaphor comparing himself to the conductor of an orchestra, which, in all fairness, is true - but the movie does little more than show him as a mostly useless cog in a machine that functions just as well without him. Perhaps he wasn't an incredible programmer, but his talents in leadership were second to none, even if he was at times agonizing to deal with personally. Watch the movie and you'll see him make a few costly decisions and little more, save for finding success while seemingly not adding much to the table. Jobs leads the presentations but they hardly touch on how effective he was in doing so. He was passionate about his ideas and demanded perfection, but frequently they only showcased those examples that led to failure.

This movie can hardly call itself Steve Jobs, as A Few Select Anecdotes About Steve Jobs would be more accurate. It's an entertaining enough movie; the acting is strong and the conversations are engaging. However, so much of it feels like a missed opportunity as time and time again Jobs is misrepresented and dulled from how he truly acted - again - for better or worse.

Simpsons by the Season: 24

"There's like eight amazing shows, none of them on Fox."

At the end of the last blog post I made a plea for sanity in The Simpsons, claiming that when the show holds onto reality it's infinitely more entertaining than when it gets completely lost. This season, in a refreshing fashion, actually holds to that - the over-the-top absurd moments are few and far between, and while they still exist (Reverend Lovejoy literally boring frogs to death in "Pulpit Friction") the season is much more tolerable than others due to the fact that most episodes have a straightforward plot that doesn't go insane two-thirds of the episode through. 

Sadly, that isn't to say it was a success of a season, but more of a stay from absolute travesty. Many of the same issues in previous seasons creep up, but they're just not quite as pervasive as they have been. Homer's a jerk in "A Test Before Trying" where he puts up a parking meter to scam people out of pocket change, but at least it's a side-story and not the main. Episodes are rehashed or merged, like in "Whiskey Business" - Moe gains confidence through wearing a specific suit (not Marge's Chanel one though!) and it turns out he can make a phenomenal drink (but gained his popularity in a different way than through his Flaming Moe). Continuity errors still come through, with Bart pretending to be a great piano player in "The Fabulous Faker Boy" (they reference him never having any musical talent, forgetting he surpassed Lisa's success in jazz through drumming a few seasons ago) and "The Saga of Carl" in which Carl's adopted Icelandic heritage is revealed, which just raises countless questions considering Lenny, Homer and himself have been friends since childhood. But, I'll be realistic here, and realize that in the grand scheme of things these are relatively small errors or oversights, and the weakness of the season doesn't lie there.

The problem with this stretch is a lot harder to pinpoint. It's hard to say "this just has to be funnier" and leave it at that, but that's really the core of the problem. The humour just isn't there anymore, lacking the cleverness and wit of previous seasons and replacing it with jokes that feel more like they're just going through the motions. They can hardly fill a full episode slot anymore, as if it's becoming too hard for them to do so. The couch gags are getting longer and longer, and twice this season they had two minute segments at the end of episodes that are complete non sequiturs. One had Mr. Burns explaining the "fiscal cliff" premise and the other was a clip about... I don't know, advertising characters doing something. It was a total mess. It's not that those clips are the worst parts of the season, but it's indicative of a greater problem; they're so low on ideas that they literally can't fill the entire show up before having to switch thoughts to something else. It's like the show itself is battling with attention deficit.

While this isn't the worst season by a longshot, there's little to report that's positive except for the moderate absences of negatives. While few moments or episodes really stuck, there wasn't anything that made me as violently angry (I may take the series a little too seriously at times). So, take it as you will. Is The Simpsons best served lukewarm now? Perhaps that's the truth.

Best Quotes:
"A kid's never lonely when he has balogna! Except me." 
-Milhouse

"Emergency meeting in the faculty lounge. BYOB." 
-Chalmers to Edna

"Nah, it's a 44 long. I wear a 38 hunched." 
-Moe, shopping for a suit

"My gay dad is gay for gays."
-Homer about Abe

Best Episode:
"The Day the Earth Stood Cool" is probably the best episode of the season. It pokes some easy fun at hipsters but it does a pretty decent job of doing so.

Worst Episode:
"A Tree Grows in Springfield" has a message of "hope" written into a tree in the backyard of the Simpsons' house. It's essentially the episode with the angel all over again, and not much better. This is also one of the episodes with the two minute segment at the end that has nothing to do with the episode itself.