Now Woody Allen, a man infamously disgraced for his incestuous affair with his then under-aged step-daughter leads a new appeal to let bygones be bygones.  Unfortunately for Polanski, even as his Hollywood-based PFC supporters stand in line to disgrace themselves on his behalf, yet another under-aged victim has come forward.  Actress Charlotte Lewis claims she was assaulted by Polanski at the age of 16, while filming his 1986 film “Pirates.”

According to CNN, other PFC members include John Landis, Peter Fonda, Martin Scorsese, Debra Winger, just to name a few.  I think everyone who believes that children deserve protection from sexual predators should boycott any future projects from these cretins.

If my position on this issue remains unclear at this point, do be so kind as to forgive my ambivalence.

Comments

Singer Erykah Badu

By now you have no doubt seen the stories about singer Erykah Badu stripping down for a naked stroll in the city of Dallas.  Dealey Plaza, which is mainly known as the place where President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, is in the news once again but for an entirely different reason this time.  There is no doubt that Ms. Badu broke the law by stripping in a public place while filming her new music video.  The facts of the case are not in dispute.  She has been charged with disorderly conduct—a charge that typically carries a $500 fine.  As generally happens with celebrities, you will probably see people who think the penalty is too lenient for someone who can probably expense the fine to her record label.  You are also likely to have the typical celebrity sycophants, who always find superficial reasons for absolution and will demand that charges be waived.

The points that I think are more interesting are the philosophical considerations.  Specifically, is nudity—which is unarguably natural—a threat to society?  Is Ms. Badu endangering the children who are clearly visible in the background of the video clip below?  Are we even sure that nudity is something that children need protection from?  Are we simply uptight and therefore, overreacting?  Before I continue, be warned that I tend to discuss sex and sensuality in objective terms like any other topic without all the guilt, recrimination, and discomfort that many people feel.  Such discussion makes some people feel very uncomfortable or embarrassed.  If you are such a person, the following discussion may  not be for you.

First, let me say that as an American who lives in Europe, my perspective is bound to be quite different from someone who has never seen nudity in public.  My first experience with public nudity was during a business trip to Stuttgart, Germany nearly 20 years ago.  I stayed in a 5 star hotel that had  a beautiful sauna and pool on the Mezzanine.  I was with 3 American colleagues and it was our first trip there.  We were amazed that most of the Germans were swimming in the nude.  About 10 feet away from the pool was an open shower and people were coming out of the pool and the sauna and showering out in the open.  After we swam for a while, we all sat by the pool and talked.  Our disbelief was evident as people showered out in the open as if it was nothing.  The experience was especially memorable because later on, a very tall and very beautiful blond woman went to the shower and lathered up like she was filming a soap commercial.  I mean, she was very thorough giving all due care to every nook and cranny.  As we looked on in disbelief, one of our group, call him Mike, chose that moment to go and hit on her.  This would turn out to be a disaster we’d remind him of for the next several years.  As he approached the shower area, his arousal became evident to everyone in the vicinity.  The woman, who could easily have been that year’s Miss Germany, laughed out loud.  So did everyone else.  One gentleman sitting a few yards from us said under his breath, “Heh, Americans.”

My second experience was a trip to Amsterdam with some friends.  We decided to make a detour to a lovely beach town called Zandvoort.  The first thing any American notices there is that 90% of the women are topless.  Not just while sunbathing mind you, I mean everywhere.  I went with a friend to buy ice cream.  The shops are lined along the boardwalk, with a separation of about 3 feet and a drop of about 2 feet down from the walkway.  In order to get ice cream you stood in line on the boardwalk and when it was your turn, you walked down 3 or 4 steps then over to the counter where  you would place your order.  After my friend and I got our ice creams, I turned around to leave.  A young woman stood directly behind me on the second step, so that her breasts were quite literally in my face.  I can’t imagine what my facial expression looked like but the young lady and her friend both laughed.    She said with a Dutch accent, “From the shock on your face you must be American.”  “Is it that obvious,” I asked.  “Look around you, no one else finds it interesting,” she replied.  She was right.  No one else was looking at her, which amazed me since she was absolutely striking.  I stepped aside and said, “Oh, sorry.”  She giggled and said, “It’s okay, I thought it was cute.”  We stayed there for the weekend.  I began to see what she meant because as the newness wore off, it became less and less interesting.  Over time I came to see that the reason Americans are so hung up about nudity, is the novelty of it and its taboo nature in the United States.  I can vouch to any young guys who want to come to Europe to see young naked women on the beach, that if you want to remove the excitement you currently feel about it, that is exactly what you should do.  It doesn’t affect everyone that way but the majority of Americans I have spoken with over the years agree that if you stay longer than a few weeks, you are likely to become substantially desensitized to nudity.

So what does that mean?  If you are religious, remember that in the story of Adam and Eve, it was only after they ate the forbidden fruit that they saw a problem with nudity.  In other words, there was nothing inherently wrong with their nudity until they THOUGHT there was.  Theologians generally agree that the sin comes from the way nudity makes one feel and how it affects a person’s behavior, not from the state of nudity itself.   Nevertheless, society has collectively decided that public nudity is something to be avoided altogether.  Is there a way to qualify this belief in scientific terms?  There is clearly no biological reason to avoid nudity aside from the obvious environmental concerns.  In other words, clothing is practical when retention of body heat is a concern.  There are also various other utilitarian considerations.  The answer to our question of whether or not nudity poses a threat to society is clearly no, when considering effects of nudity in purely physical terms.

How about psychological terms?  There are many traditional cultures like several in the Pacific islands, Africa, and South America where adults wear little or no clothing.  No ill effect has ever been scientifically documented of exposing children to social nudity although there were occasions where possible consequences were inferred by Freud and Spock with regard to self-esteem (An interesting discussion can be found here or just Google it).  Contrast Freudian ideas with old civilizations like Germany and the Netherlands were people are cultured and live in highly structured societies, yet no negative effects can be found from their openness toward nudity of the human body.

Is Ms. Badu endangering children?  As noted above, a typical beach in Holland will have dozens of very attractive, almost completely naked women within viewing range of the average frolicking family on a given sunny day.  There are 8, 12, 16-year-old males playing hacky sack next to groups of high school to college-aged girls throwing Frisbees or some similar activity while topless.  I swear to you, you would think the girls were completely transparent because the boys have absolutely no reaction to them.  To be sure, there are always boy-meets-girl stories.  The human race must go on after all.  The point is, the boys don’t react to exposed breasts at all.  I can understand this because on several occasions, I have been in situations like those described above where the nudity held no interest for me at all, after so many years.  That is not to say that I am not aroused by an attractive woman but typically, it is the setting that differentiates a sensual experience from a non-sensual one.  In a setting with intimate implications like going on a date, nudity has the effect it always does when two people are attracted to each other.  In answer to the question, my experience suggests that the nudity Ms. Badu exposed the children to, posed no danger to them at all.

The last question I asked is, are Americans simply uptight?  Do we tend to overreact to nudity?  Well my answer is yes and no to both questions.  One of the most common threads that arise when discussing this topic with non-Americans is the hypocritical aspect of the American sexual dichotomy.  It is difficult to reconcile being the country that exports the most pornography, sexually explicit movies scenes, and sexually suggestive television, not to mention the most successful erotic publications in the world with the public cries of outrage and anger that are expressed when a woman walks naked in public for a few minutes.  In addition, does anyone doubt that we could easily see the D.A. bringing the case, the mayor, the governor, or even the citing police officers finding themselves embroiled in a prostitution or infidelity scandal any day now?  It seems that every time someone tells us they are fighting for public decency, their names are found on a madam’s list immediately preceding their being Spitzered by the press.  The question of whether or not we are overreacting depends on whether or not you can prove definitively that harm will be done if we do nothing.  Again, I think the answer is no.

On the other hand, a society has the right to protect its values.  I don’t think you need to prove that harm will occur to say, “I don’t like that.”  Opposition to public nudity is valid in a society that values modesty, provided that an individuals constitutional rights are not encumbered.  Also, people have a right to decide when they think something jeopardizes the belief system they want their children to be brought up under and once a threat is perceived, to react accordingly.  Just like an individual has the right to fight to preserve their rights, conservative-minded people have a right to champion the preservation of their way of life.  The problem I usually have with this is the way they go about it.  First, they typically try to suppress dissenting voices, which I believe underscores the weakness of any position.  When you believe strongly that law, right, and common sense are on your side, you are likely to tell the opposition with confidence, to take their best shot.  Second, they usually cite bogus comparisons, statistics, and other things taken out of context in a feeble attempt to prove their point.  Again, this underscores the weakness of an argument when a person or group is forced to do this.   Essentially I think in this case it is reasonable to answer yes, that it may damage ones ability to live within ones belief system, provided that it is consistent with public laws and the overriding will of the people.  In such a case, it may be a simple matter of explaining to someone, “Your nudity is fine, just not in my community.”  The obvious caveat is that a person need not accept that if they think they can successfully challenge the law.

To people who enjoy thoughtful discussions of a wide range of topics, a topic like this can be refreshing but can also get heated.  As a parent, I am happy that this probably won’t affect me.  My children are both Dutch-German and African-American.  All indications are that nudity will have no affect at all on them.  They watch Dutch TV and go to Dutch schools so any American puritanism they might have inherited from their dad has become entirely irrelevant.  I recognize that my outlook would have been entirely different if I was the same fundamentalist Christian I was when I came over here but a little bit of knowledge makes the world a much easier place to live in.  The main thing I learned is not that you must give up your beliefs to get along with people who don’t believe as you do, what you must give up is the desire to control how people who don’t share your beliefs live their lives.  I don’t believe for one second that Erykah Badu did what she did for spiritual or philosophical reasons nor was it done on principle.  Perhaps she observed how Apple gets the most free publicity of any entity on Earth and decided she could use some as well.  By reacting predictably, the public has given her the free press she had hoped for, if not a hundred times more.  A pragmatic look at the situation would have revealed that the best way to “protect” children in the future would have been to usher her aside, confiscate the video, and release her without comment.  The overreaction of all concerned virtually guarantees that other children will get “mooned” in the future as well.  After all, there is no such thing as bad press is there?

Comments

Why is Caprica rare?  Because rather than start from the typical sci-fi comfort zone by spending large sums of cash on special effects in its premiere episode in order to provide epic space battles with big explosions and really cool ships, robots, lasers, and gadgets, they chose instead to focus on plot and character development.  That comprises both what is great about Caprica and what is wrong with Caprica.  How can that be?  Take the fragment, “chose instead to focus on plot” and insert the word ‘solely’ between the words ‘focus’ and ‘on.’  Nine episodes into the season, I am still waiting for the real story line to get started.  Don’t get me wrong, what they have created so far would fit-in perfectly between 90210 and Melrose Place but it makes for some lousy sci-fi.

That is what is sad for me.  On its own merits, this show is actually presenting a very compelling drama.  If the goal of the producers is to create another drama series where traditional viewers should simply overlook all of the alien references and be happy with the social aspects of a riveting political drama AND sci-fi viewers should overlook the lack of substantive sci-fi elements and be content simply knowing in the back of your mind that sci-fi is implied in the character’s universe even if we don’t get to see it, then to the producers I say, mission accomplished.  This leaves me with two questions:  First, who is the actual target audience of this show?  Second, will sci-fi viewers continue to be loyal to a show that takes their viewership for granted?  It is understandable that the producers want to draw in a more demographically diverse crowd but have they calculated how far they can push their core audience before losing them?  I am about as geeky as they come and live for sci-fi…but I am losing interest in Caprica—FAST!

So, will we get anything more than drama?  Or more likely, will writers stick to their guns and tell us fans that if we are too unsophisticated to appreciate the art of their creation that they refuse to sink to our level?  They should remember the fate of the Star Trek franchise in the late 90′s.  As they watched their ratings plummet ever farther, one focus group after another revealed that in addition to a compelling story, the action is what fans talk about at work or school the following week.  Trek writers consistently said they were not interested in writing stories like that because they wanted to remain true to their artistic principles  and to Gene Roddenberry’s vision.  That’s fine, but don’t take that stance and still claim that you don’t understand why your ratings are tanking.  Their ratings sank so low that they were compelled to take a break for years in order to reset.  It was Internet-based fan sites that eventually revived the franchise.  To sci-fi writers I say, remember that your fan-base includes more 12-year old computer nerds than Rhodes Scholars and Nobel Prize Winners.  Failure to remember this will likely result in the demise of whatever franchise you represent.

Aside from this obvious criticism, the show has excelled in terms of production quality.  The cinematography is outstanding.  The positional nature of the audio track adds quite a lot for audiophiles who watch the show in surround.  You can hear the sound for scene elements occurring off-screen in the proper relational position to viewer perspective.  The special effects including environmental CGI are so well integrated into the world depicted on-screen, that it often does not occur to the viewer that what they are seeing is not real.  Almost everything in the series so far is believable.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is too believable.  A sci-fi show should push the envelope at least a little.  The show could do with a bit more wow factor.

As for the story elements, the corporate entities we have become familiar with seem very familiar.  You could substitute the story’s Graystone Industries with the corporate name of any of a dozen Wall Street-traded companies of today.  Again, while this is good, it may be a little bit too good.  The Mos Eisly cafe in Star Wars is not remembered because it was just like any other cafe.  It was remembered because the feel of the cafe was misleadingly familiar until the alien influence became obvious and light sabers and laser-bolts started flying.  Is it the familiarity that we remember or is it the light saber-wielding Obi-Wan Kenobi and the disemboweling of poor Greedo?  Caprica will NOT be memorable because it is just like any other drama.  If it is to be remembered at all, what will it be remembered for?  I wonder if the writers have asked themselves that question.

Another story element is the dead girl trapped inside the Matrix.  This was interesting for about 2 episodes.  NEXT!

The next element is the dead girl trapped inside the robot.  This is actually the most interesting thing so far, probably because it is really the only visual tie-in with Battlestar Galactica.  The robot is of course a Cylon and the promise of seeing the origin of the Cylons is why we are here isn’t it?  That is the payoff of the series.  It was quite compelling for a few episodes but my interest in this subplot is waning because it seems that the writers are milking it for all it is worth.  It feels like what writers do when they stretch a novel into a trilogy.  They need to move the story along.

A very interesting aspect of the story is the religious cult, “Soldiers of the One.”  There are tons of compelling ways to integrate religious themes into a story, especially if trying to insert elements that relate to our world.  Once again, they are spoon-feeding the audience tiny bits, which do not seem to move the story forward appreciably from week to week.

Given the  extremely slow development of the storyline one can only assume that either the writers intend to tell the entire story in one season or they are assuming that they will be around long enough to tell an excessively long and convoluted version of the story.  The current pace of the story would seem to indicate that they believe they have all the time in the world.  As a person who has watched the workings of Hollywood for decades, methinks they presume too much.  As with every sci-fi series that starts with even a small modicum of promise (as discussed here), I wish it well.  Nine episodes in however, I cannot say that I am all that optimistic about the show’s future.  Bummer.

Comments

Update:

Think I was kidding about the workings of Hollywood?  Check out the ratings for Caprica.  When they start breaking down the ratings into categories like they do here to give a positive spin you know you are in trouble.  A show with strong ratings has good numbers of viewers from week to week.  When they look for silver linings by telling you there was a bump this week or that week in the 18-49 demo (demographic), there could be any number of reasons for the bump that do not translate into an upward trend.  It’s a trend that would be meaningful.  If you look at the total number of viewers in the right column there is not an upward pattern.  Pulling a specific demo out of these haphazard numbers is an act of desperation.

The only possible salvation for this show, assuming the production staff will fund and complete part 2 of the season, would be some bold moves geared 100% toward fan-base satisfaction.  First, let’s have some damn action!  Second, a couple of new characters portrayed by actors with some major street cred in sci-fi like Brent Spiner or Levar Burton.  Maybe the god versions of Baltar and the six could drop in to redirect things accordingly. We’d love some Tricia Helfer dudes!  Third, did I mention we could use some action?  Any changes would have to begin with the next episode rather than wasting time like they did the last nine weeks.  In any case if the series continues as is, consider it DOA.  Of that I am certain.

The "Skinjobs"

The community of sci fi fans has eagerly awaited the return of prime time sci fi with Caprica, the prequel series of Battlestar Galactica. Battlestar ended March, 2009 to popular acclaim. The thing that was unique about Battlestar was that it appealed to a wider spectrum of viewers. Sci fi generally appeals to young males with strong but slightly less support among males well into their 50′s. Battlestar succeeded in attracting a female and non-geek audience better than any other series of its genre. As mentioned here, even my girlfriend watched it with me, which I dare say is unheard of.

Caprica seeks to continue this cross-spectrum appeal by building on what Battlestar had accomplished. Namely, it deals with everyday social issues that anyone can relate to like terrorism, prejudice, religion, envy, jealousy, infidelity, politics, and vice. Unlike other series like those of the Star Trek franchise, it eschews the clean, sterile, utopian ideal for a more gritty, down-to-earth setting. In other words, the people on the show are just like us. This spares us the nauseam that Star Trek TNG viewers were subjected to time and again when lead character Jean Luc Picard was unable to pass up any opportunity to orate over mans glorious inner virtues. Gone are the speeches on how we are imperfect, “but we can learn.” Gone are the lectures about how we no longer work for money or material wealth, “but simply to better ourselves.” Yea right. I wonder what a recession looks like in the Star Trek universe. Do we all agree to better ourselves a bit less?

Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek forbade any depictions of sexuality of any kind (if you discount Kirk nailing every female he came across). In fact, cast members were banned from the show for off-screen, personal conduct. For example, one cast member’s character was notoriously killed off because she posed nude for Playboy magazine. This will certainly not happen within the Battlestar franchise because sexuality is in no short supply.

The opening sequence of Caprica begins with a raunchy night club scene. The main character in the scene walks through several rooms where some hard partying is taking place. In one of those rooms, an orgy is in full…uh…swing. There is lots of bare skin and hot chicks making out. I think the director is using a common technique whereby he establishes in the first scene the limits (or lack thereof) to which he is willing to go not only to set the mood and pace of the show but also to capture the interest of the audience. This technique also serves the purpose of immediately alienating people to which the show is not targeted; mainly young children or conservative, old-fashioned viewers who are looking for entertainment along a more wholesome vein. A scene like this in the beginning of a show is an invitation to move on if it’s not your thing.

Caprica Train Blast

The show’s storyline demonstrates the reliance that the people of Caprica have on technology. Once again, they avoid alienating the non-sci fi crowd by not relying on gadgetry as a part of the story telling or to wow us. Most of what we see in the city are things we might have today. The people are dressed like us, in typical business suits or casual wear. They drive cars and ride on the subway or inner-city train. When they kill, they use regular guns that look strikingly like the average 9mm. I’m sure we even have Battlestar versions of the gun control movement and pro-gun lobby. Viewers polled during the last Battlestar series said that they related better to the story because there was little or no technology that they found unrealistic like “ray guns” or transporter beams. In fact, many people found it ironic to find a doctor on a spaceship who found it difficult to quit smoking. There was also occasionally problems with the equipment malfunctioning or an engineer that found a way to “MacGyver” a ship by patching it together with some duct tape and bubble wrap. All of this reinforced the ultimate conclusion of Battlestar: They are us. It also contributed to the critical acclaim the series received since by limiting the wow factor of gadgets, it forced writers to focus on story telling and forced actors and directors to think about how to engage the audience through the performance. The result was nothing short of amazing to fans.

Two of the moral dilemmas faced by the characters form the basis of the plot. The first, is a terrorist act where members of a movement that seeks to elevate “the one true god” to prominence, blows up a train. The second, is the ethical dilemma of blurring the line between life and artificial intelligence. It is hard to not see the parallels between these elements of the story and what is going on in our world today. The “one true god” storyline will answer the questions viewers had in Battlestar about why the Cylons, who are machines are so hell bent on elevating “the one true god” among their own population, if you can call it that. The granting of sentience and “feelings” to artificially intelligent beings shows us not only how the Cylons were created and why but also gives us some idea as to whether or not they really are sentient or simply robots that are programmed to act that way convincingly.

From what I have seen thus far, I think this show has the potential to be as good as Battlestar Galactica, even without Tricia Helfer (a serious handicap). It also may be the cement in the recasting of the sci fi genre into something more mainstream. We now have an example of a sci fi show that can provide artistic excellence and captivate an audience without the help of rayguns or ship’s captains that nail everything that moves. I confess, I still miss my weekly dose of Trek. Hopefully with this paradigm shift, we can have our space cake and eat it too.

Comments[digg=http://digg.com/television/Battlestar_Caprica_Wuzhatnin]

I think the thing Ms. Samuels forgets is that the saying she has taken such liberty with actually reads, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” She misses that the wording of this time-tested theorem lacks any racial context thereby making her entire argument redundant. You can simply look at the results of any divorce proceeding to see examples of women of all races who use lawyers and the courts to exact vengeance on ex-partners. It can be argued that physical attacks are not the only form of violence scorned females subject men to. Just look at the financial raping endured by the likes of Paul McCartney, Donald Trump, a who’s who list of NBA stars, and anyone else who took the risk of marrying without a prenup.

Speaking of which, what is the verdict on Tiger’s dissolution status? He and Elin purportedly DID have a prenup. Depending on the details, I think young Mrs. Woods may be just getting started. That five-iron is probably the least of his worries at this point. It has been reported that Tiger has offered her $5 million already and is trying to renegotiate the contract. I hope financial rape was one of the kinky fantasies Tiger entertained. This is one fantasy he is likely to experience…vividly.

Comments

Okay, okay, made up everything after “flight risk”. I just couldn’t resist. The good news is, the first two sentences are true. It appears that the previous attempts to free Polanski were temporary insanity on the part of demented Hollywood types that were used to getting their way. Well not this time it seems. It is by no means a done deal but hopefully justice will finally be done on behalf of Samantha Geimer. The $500,000 settlement she received does not begin to atone for drugging and sodomizing a young child. Not that I’m saying he should never walk the streets again, it just shouldn’t happen until there are no more children left to protect.

Even Chris Rock has chimed in by comparing the idea of forgiving a guy because he made good movies 30 years ago to Johnny Cochran asking the jury to free O.J. because of that great game he played against New England that time. You can view the footage at nbc.com.

Sorry, the video was removed due to an autoplay bug. Use the link above.

See previous articles: Pedophile Fan Cub & Kink

Leave a comment[tweetmeme alias="http://bit.ly/cIj25h"]

[tweetmeme source="Wuzhatnin_com" alias="http://bit.ly/9IUsiw"]Ok, the title above is the only comparison I will make between Battlestar Galactica and Stargate Universe in this article, I promise. The web is buzzing with comments claiming that one is a rip off of the other but I’m not going there. I think SG-Uni is a work that stands on its own so let’s start from there.

After the Treks ended there was not much Sci Fi to be seen on TV. Stargate SG-1 kept us from having withdrawals but we missed the illusion of mainstream acceptance that came with having several shows on at once. Then Battlestar changed all that. It gave us Sci Fi while dealing with some of mans primal inner forces. It combined action and cool gadgetry with the sort of cerebral nuances that could allow a sociology professor watch and not feel obligated to call someone afterward and say, “I don’t even own a television,” to save face. The cool thing about Battlestar having a more diverse basis of appeal is that it did not receive the denouncement by my girlfriend that automatically accompanies any show having Sci Fi as a category. In fact, she actually watched it with me. That has never happened before.

When I heard the premise of Uni I was a bit worried. It sounded like a mix between the ill-fated Babylon5 spin off Crusade and Star Trek Voyager. These shows both had ships out in deep space looking to find something that will allow them to go home. In fact, this cliché can be traced back to the 1960′s and the original Lost In Space. It is the first in a long list of clichés the show is riddled with. They have also hijacked Voyager’s idea of mixing the castaways (Federation and Maquis) into groups that will fit naturally on opposing sides. We have military, politicians, scientists, and POC’s (plain old civilians).

After the first few minutes, we go into flashback mode in order to get the back story on why they were running in the first place. I think doing it this way allowed them to stretch out the action of the opening battle over 30 minutes rather than playing it straight through from start to finish. I guess that is supposed to make the show seem more exciting. I hope this doesn’t mean that such tactics will be needed frequently to mask an absence of action. Also after 5 seasons of Lost, I cannot take any more flashback shows. A show employing this format instantly loses 25% of its points with me for unoriginal thinking. This was the main reason that I immediately tuned out Defying Gravity. We’ve had copies of “Lost In Space.” Defying Gravity gives us “Lost” in space. (get it?) I can even imagine the studio writer pitching the show to execs: “Picture a reboot of Lost, only the island is…wait for it…SPACE!” Exec: “I like it. I like it.” Yuck! Now THAT, is a crappy show.

The main objective of Uni thus far is to begin repairs on an Ancient ship named Destiny, that our SG folks have found themselves on. There is a race against time (what’s a sci fi show without one of those?) because the ship is venting atmosphere (what could be more original that that?). Ultimately they must get enough control over the ship to allow it to return our heroes home by means of a stargate. Changing course won’t do the trick because it is traveling at light speed and has traversed several galaxies on its journey. Therefore, a return trip by ship would take several million years and none of the cast members could survive that long without checking their Facebook page.

I speculate that they will try to stretch the limits as to what to expect on a Sci Fi show. I say that because of a hot and heavy sex scene which prompted me to send my 6 year old out of the room. I guess this is not for the kids. Of course this is not breaking new ground because Battlestar had lots of that. Oh darn, there went my no comparison promise. I think that was a lost cause from the start.

Leave a comment [digg=http://digg.com/television/Battle_Stargate_Universe_Wuzhatnin]

British parliament member Denis MacShane said Polanski “should be held accountable” and called on the Council of Europe to support Polanski’s extradition. This demonstrates at the very least, that many politicians are prepared to resist the persuasiveness of Actors and Directors who are trying to look out for there own. For instance, while the Polish Foreign Ministry was attempting to get a meeting with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to ask for Polanski’s release, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk began to distance himself from the case by asking his ministers to show “greater restraint” in defending him.

Lest we believe that all entertainment industry personalities are unable to show objectivity, French film-maker Luc Besson, director of the 1994 film Leon, told French radio station RTL , “I have a lot of affection for him, he is a man that I like very much … but nobody should be above the law.” And also, “I don’t know the details of this case, but I think that when you don’t show up for trial, you are taking a risk.”

This is just a start, but hopefully it is like the trickles from upstream, that combine to build a river, that becomes a torrent. If this trend continues and nay sayers are are limited to the likes of Woody Allen (who if you remember also had an affair with his 17 year old step daughter) perhaps cooler heads WILL prevail.

Leave a comment[tweetmeme alias="http://bit.ly/ckuS98"]

Proud moment. Who knew?

Many African Americans feel a touch of regret these 14 years later, over having supported O.J. during his murder trials.  When asked why they did, the average response includes:

1. Prior to the murders he was a cultural icon and hero.
2. Questionable police work by the investigators.
3. The law says you are innocent until proven guilty.

These 3 factors allowed his fans some modicum of hope that he had not committed the crime.  After he began to exhibit the behavior patterns of a guilty man following the trial and after making no effort to find the “REAL KILLERS,” his former supporters slowly came to grips with the reality that supporting him had been a mistake.  This was followed by regret because no one actually wants the guilty to go unpunished.  The point:  Clinging to hope when a person’s guilt is in doubt is understandable.  But Hollywood…what’s your excuse???

HE DID IT.

HE ADMITS IT.

So what’s your excuse for supporting him?  How about a new law? Child rape is illegal unless you make a hit movie.  Then it’s all good.  Should we just line up the rest of our kids so he can pork them too?  Sheesh!

Comments (add celeb names to list of the PFC)