This just in: Fat guys don’t always have attractive wives

BBC News published an article about how watching romantic comedies can spoil your love life. Apparently, the survey conducted by Heriot Watt University in Scotland showed that the films gave people unrealistic expectations (including, in the sack) and fans of such films often fail to communicate with their partners.
The whole article had some pretty interesting details about fate and destiny and stuff like that. It’s worth a read.
It’s funny we needed a study to show us that romantic comedies provide unrealistic images of romance. I would venture to guess that these movies also provide unrealistic images of comedy as well. After all, how many rapping grannies have you encountered at weddings?
Aside from romantic comedies, I can think about a few things that give unrealistic expectations about love, partnerships and bedroom stuff.

  • Sitcoms – As alluded to in the headline, how realistic is it for an overweight common man to land a hot wife? Examples include “King of Queens,” “The Simpsons” and “According to Jim.” I guess the first example would be “The Honeymooners.”
  • Adult films – Hypothetically speaking, this genre really doesn’t delve into romantic love, but there are unrealistic expectations about practically everything else.
  • Musicals – I would like to spontaneously break into song while on a date, but I’m worried the commuters on the subway would give me dirty looks instead of joining in.

Can you think of other genres of films or media that offer unrealistic expectations about romance?

Do-it-yourself TV antenna

I recently purchased a DTV converter box for my secondary TV (using the $40 coupon from the guv’ment). Unlike my larger, living-room TV which uses cable, I have a smaller TV that still uses an antenna.
I plugged everything in — antenna to the converter box to the TV. To my dismay, I only reliably got two DTV stations (and two subchannels for total of four channels). The results were worse than my earlier test (which you can watch the video of here).
Odds are, I’ll probably need to get an outdoor antenna to pull in a decent number of digital TV channels. There is one thing that I would like to try — make my own antenna (PDF link). The instructions are from “Make,” a new public TV program. The directions look cool and pretty straightforward — well, I guess if some old metal clothes hangers, some wood and a freakin’ transformer are straightforward.
Still, it sounds like it’s worth a try. The antenna is designed to pull in the UHF channels that most local stations are going to.


Here’s more about “Make” from the public-broadcasting publication, Current.
On the jump is my earlier video story about the DTV switch and what local viewers might encounter:

Continue reading “Do-it-yourself TV antenna”

One good thing about the NFL Network …

… I won’t be able to easily see tonight’s game between the Oakland Raiders and the San Diego Chargers.
For years, the National Football League has been pushing to get its limited-appeal NFL Network on to cable systems’ basic tier. Their goal — to get into as many homes as possible and increase the amount of per-customer subscription fees that the cable companies have to pay. Many cable companies object — pointing out that subscribers who want to fork out the dough for the NFL Network can easily subscribe to a higher level of access to watch the channel.
Anyway, whenever there’s a big game on the NFL Network, the league uses the game and upset fans to put pressure on the cable systems. This happened last year when the New England Patriots put their perfect season on the line during a game scheduled to be aired on NFL Network (the network’s coverage was ultimately shared with two broadcast networks).
It’s really silly — the only time I would want to see the network is when there’s a game on. That’s about eight or 10 times a year. For the remaining 355 days, I have no desire to watch or pay for the NFL Network.
That’s when the games are worth watching. Tonight’s rivalry matchup between the two struggling franchises doesn’t really inspire me (even if it is being broadcast in 3D in certain locations).

Sierra Nevada featured in “Viewfinder” public TV program

It’s always nice to see coverage of one of Chico’s breweries, so I was pleased to turn on KVIE’s “Viewfinder” program and see Sierra Nevada featured in the episode, “On Tap.”
As someone with just a passing familiarity of the NorCal beer scene, I liked the half-hour episode. It featured stops at Anchor Brewing in San Francisco, Napa Smith Brewery and Sierra Nevada. Napa Smith is a new brewer, but it has some roots in the long-defunct New Albion Brewery (the first micro-brewery).
Host Gary Gelfand interviews Ken Grossman on the brewery’s second floor. Grossman talked briefly about the brewery’s early years and its current initiatives on energy and resource conservation.
There are no commercials, so the episode ran for about 26 minutes. I’m sure some people could talk for hours about the intricacies of brewing, but I thought it was a concise look at highlights of Northern California’s impact on modern brewing. It also matches with my brief reading on the subject — home brewers got a huge boost when it was legalized in the late-1970s, but quality control was vital for companies to survive and expand.
For a program from a Sacramento-based broadcaster, I thought it did a nice job of covering the north state. Sacramento gets its mentions — for the old Buffalo beer and a panel recommending their favorite Sac brews. UC Davis also gets a segment for its brewing program.
The episode is available through Wednesday via Comcast On Demand in the Local section. I’m also embedding the episode here (YouTube via KVIE). Bottoms up … in moderation, of course.

Way to show ‘The Incredibles’ twice in two days, NBC

Some critics have commented that NBC is almost becoming a broadcast version of a cable network. I used to disagree — I generally like many of the shows on NBC although some of its practices are annoying (including displaying promos of upcoming shows while I’m trying to enjoy the show that’s already airing). However, something happened Thursday and Friday that seems to confirm NBC’s cable-readiness.
After showing the Pixar film, “The Incredibles,” once on Thursday, NBC decided to follow up by airing the same movie again 24 hours later. It’s perfectly understandable to air the movie on the holiday — after all, most networks air blockbuster films during holidays. However, airing the movie again a day later seems like a cheap tactic.
I guess it makes sense if NBC is wringing out as much value from buying the rights to air the movie, but it’s troubling on some levels. Does NBC not have any programming at all to show on Friday nights? Does it have any programming that might garner better ratings that a day-old repeat of a movie?
Coming up in 24 hours — a repeat of this exact same blog post.

McGraw and musical guests shine on ‘Saturday Night Live’

The election’s over, so now it’s time to say that “Saturday Night Live” passe again. While the show can be astonishingly inconsistent at times, Saturday’s episode featuring country singer Tim McGraw was actually not that bad.
I felt McGraw gave a solid performance. The characters he played didn’t deviate too wildly, but he seemed comfortable on screen. When I saw the TBS logo, I was hoping for a Bill Engvall parody but it didn’t come to pass.
I think my favorite sketches were the “redneck” playing poker with James Bond, the disc jockey peddling shockingly friendly prank calls, and the always fun Kristen Wiig playing a woman who was imagining the commercial for her fake clear retainer product).
Recurring characters kinda sank some sketches including a Thanksgiving sketch with the guy who was the sex offender during Halloween and the Pizzeria Uno guy. They weren’t awful, but I felt they could do better.
The new additions to the cast showed up a little more, including one as Arianna Huffington during Weekend Update.


It was the weird night that featured three singers as guests. McGraw squeezed in a bit of his new country song during his monologue while Ludacris and T-Pain were the alternating musical guests and featured artists.
First, I want T-Pain’s exaggerated puffy top hat featuring a gray and silver take on the Stars and Stripes. It’s like Apollo Creed’s hat in “Rocky IV” but much more stylish.
Second, I know SNL has come into some deserved criticism for its increasingly lily white (and male) cast. Although I have never cast a TV show, how hard it is really to find funny, appealing people of all races and creeds?
I was reminded of this issue because I thought Ludacris and T-Pain delivered excellent performances in the one sketch they took part in. It’s true they were playing themselves against a wannabe Vanilla Ice, but their delivery was handled with a deft touch (they were reading lines, but it seemed natural enough).
That said, I don’t think they should add more black people to the cast just because Barack Obama is going to the White House. They should do it for the same reasons to add anyone to the cast — to be funny (and funny in a sketch) and to make a contribution to the show. I think shaking up the cast to lose some veterans while adding younger comedians from different backgrounds could revitalize the show while retaining a core.
I hope the two young women they recently added will be strong additions. I hope SNL puts another funny black comedian on screen (I do like Keenan Thompson). I also look forward to the day when they add a new Latino cast member and a new Asian cast member. Seriously, I can count the number of Asian SNL cast members on my thumb.
Along those same lines, SNL has generated commentary and criticism because Fred Armisen has been playing Obama. This Washington Post article sums things up. Some critics were outraged and compared it to the frowned-upon act of blackface. I wouldn’t go so far as to require that Obama be played by a black man, but I think it would be nice.
However, the cast of SNL and comedians in general have been adept at playing characters from different walks of life (albeit with varying degrees of success and acceptance). I don’t think the character of “Obama” is any different. Armisen is of a diverse heritage and plays characters of all types. His Obama is palatable if not especially funny, but it might be a struggle to make light of the new president.
If SNL does add new cast members, I hope there is a renewed competition for the Obama job. Just as Phil Hartman and Darrell Hammond put their special takes on Bill Clinton, perhaps a new cast member (or even Armisen) can create a fresh take on our new president.

I can’t sink my teeth into ‘Twilight’

Maybe it’s just me or maybe it’s because I’m not a teenage girl, but the new movie “Twilight” has little allure for me. Based on all the stories, the reports of record-breaking pre-ticket sales and the fact that they’re “advertising” the film on National Public Radio, I can tell this movie is going to be huge. I’m just not convinced that it’s going to be any good.
One aspect of the silliness is the tagline that I heard about a dozen times on NPR — “Twilight” is a tale of “forbidden love between a vampire and a mortal.” First, is there _any_ love between a vampire and mortal that _isn’t_ “forbidden”?
Why do they need the word “forbidden” at all? It’s a relationship between a human and a mythic creature, there really isn’t a need to sex it up even more. That said, I’m sure it’s a type of relationship that Proposition 8 supporters would be against, even if it is a pairing of a male vampire and a female human.
Perhaps part of my “meh” factor is that the trailer doesn’t appeal to me. It’s true that I usually fast-forward through it and most commercials, but “Twilight” doesn’t give me any reason to stop and rewind it.
I’m not totally against vampires in pop culture, I’m a huge fan of “Buffy, the Vampire Slayer” and “Angel.” Unfortunately, it’s going to take a little more for me to fall in to the thrall of “Twilight.”

A ‘Colbert Christmas’ will be the most awesome time of year

The Hollywood Reporter has a story about the pending “A Colbert Christmas: The Greatest Gift of All!” TV special airing Nov. 23 on Comedy Central.
Call me a sucker, but I’m an ol’ softie for the classic Christmas special. Sure, 99.9 percent of them are pure schlock but they’re part of the tapestry of the season — like fruitcake.
I’m a little weary of Colbert’s take on the special — the premise is that he’s supposedly snowed in and passes the time with his musical friends. Sometimes his over-the-top character starts to overstay his welcome. I just hope that he takes a light and funny touch to the holiday special.
Bottom line — I hope it’s more like “A Charlie Brown Christmas” and less like “A Kathie Lee Christmas.”

Questions about Election 2008

I shouldn’t be dipping my toes too much into the political realm, but this upcoming election has generated some light-hearted questions in my mind:
– I see posters up for something called “Bangkok Dangerous.” Is it promoting a new Nicolas Cage film or Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s abstinence-only sex-education program?
– When did “celebrity” become a four-letter word?
– Did Barack Obama make a two-point conversion when he spoke at Invesco Field in Denver last week? Or did he just stick with a safety? Why weren’t there more bad football references made about his speech?
– Much has been made of Palin’s foreign policy experience via proximity (apparently because Alaska is close to Russia, outer space and Santa at the North Pole). Is there a deliberate effort to avoid mentioning the great white menace of Canada?
Please feel free to submit your light-hearted questions as well.

9-0-2-oh-no

The return of “Beverly Hills 90210” airs tonight on the CW (which airs locally as a subchannel of KHSL-TV 12). There has been a lot of hubbub made over the fact that the CW didn’t release a preview copy for media review.
I think this move will backfire on the part of the network. Although I’m not a TV critic, I can easily imagine that critics have a lot of TV to watch before the fall season starts. By not releasing the “90210” preview, I think the CW execs are doing critics a favor.
The network basically handed writers a gift-wrapped story by not releasing the preview. Basically all writers have to do is cover the fact that they won’t be able to see the show before tonight and they’re spared from actually having to watch the show. Well, at least until tonight.
Personally, I don’t know if I’ll watch the show. I’ve skipped a lot of shows that have a similar premise and maybe the show isn’t for me.