Maybe I am just too "cool" to enjoy things for what they are. I'm the type of person who hates when songs that I like become popular. Once that occurs and the song is constantly on the radio or on television, the song is immediately deleted from Itunes and stricken from my memory. Once facebook and myspace took off, it was time for me to delete both. Now that everyone has blackberry messenger, I refuse to use it.
I have the same attitude toward television shows. For instance, I absolutely detest Family Guy. The first 4 seasons are hysterical. However, once FG started going into reruns on 8 different channels and Seth McFarland decided to use the show as a mindless platform for political commentary, gross out humor and hackneyed pop culture references,I decided to boycott the show.It was almost as if once the show reached legendary status, McFarland decided to make the show as predictable, stupid and unfunny as possible. Aqua Teen Hunger Force is or was rather, one of the funniest shows I had ever seen. The first four seasons were absolute perfection. Every single episode was funny and was worthy of watching in reruns over and over again.
Season 5 was not as good as the first four, but it was still pretty good and two thirds of the episodes were on par with the first 4 seasons.
Season 6 was ok-- So-so and for the first time the show went from hysterical without any gimmicks to lots of shock value bullshit and cartoonish violence to compensate for mediocre writing.
Season 7 is absolutely unwatchable. Not even remotely funny at all.
My question is WHY!?!?!
Is there some unwritten rule among the creators of TV shows that once the show is great, it's time to totally destroy it?
I would honestly prefer the show be taken off the air and forced into re-reuns than be dumbed down to the painfully unfunny bs it's putting out now.
Popularity seems to be the death knell for a lot of my favorite shows-- especially the ones on Adult Swim. The Venture Brothers, Sealab, Harvey Birdman and now ATHF have all gone in the toilet following the same formula once they became staples of the Adult Swim lineup.
The drop off between a relatively weak season 6 and a so far almost unwatchable season 7 is extremely pronounced. Season 6 was far from spectacular, but at least some episodes were pretty good and most episodes were decent. This season has been nothing short of painful. I was willing to give it a chance, but I think I am pulling the plug on my fandom with the show.
When I first starting watching ATHF, all my friends thought I had lost my mind. Now, all of my friends check it out when it's on and constantly quote funny lines from our favorite episodes. The show has been on for about eight years now. After almost 100 episodes and a full length movie (which was pretty damn good), I have to say I am impressed with the longevity of the series. I would venture to bet that when the show began the creators didn't think that they could churn out 100 episodes and a movie about a meatball, french fries, a milkshake and their fat neighbor in South Jersey. Maybe they just have run out of ideas.
So far this season, the show has had absolutely no entertainment value outside of an occasionally funny joke, idiotic guest appearances and mindless violence.
The biggest problem with season 7 in my opinion is Shake. I feel like they are over-writing and under thinking his lines on the show. If you compare Shake from the first few seasons to now, he isn't even the same character anymore. The creators have attempted to make him too human and have turned him from a hysterical sociopath into a complete douchebag that is simply not funny. His selfish antics, delusions of grandeur and constant abuse of Meatwad are what made him (next to Carl) the best character on the show. Now he's whiny, emotional, corny and last but not least hella unfunny. Dana Synders talent is being completely wasted in my opinion.
Are the equally unfunny tools from that god awful Tim and Eric show writing for ATHF now?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Quick thought on Obamacare-- (much more to follow)
Convenient Morality
Over the last few days I have casually tuned in to watch the cable news talking heads. Most of them had a member of Congress or the Senate on their program to discuss Obamacare.
One thing I found fascinating was that there were actually some liberal politicians who went on TV and stated unequivocally that healthcare is a "moral" issue, and that being fiscally irresponsible in order to be morally responsible was warranted. These same politicians also made it pretty clear that they didn't care if voting for Obamacare meant they would be voted out of office.
What I find surreal about these statements is that liberals have fought tooth and nail for years to keep "morality" out of every single facet of American life. Hardcore pornography is art, laws regulating birth control and private conduct such as homosexuality are all unconstitutional and so on. Beyond the aforementioned, we should also bare in mind the rabid and often superfluous legal challenges issued by leftists over the separation of church and state. Morality: No! Science: Yes! --
I actually agree with this line of thinking to a large degree. The rule of law in this country has time and time again put forth the mantra that in America you cannot legislate morality.
However, the battle over healthcare seems to have thrown what has become an increasingly predictable philosophy on its head. All of a sudden, the continued proliferation of the biggest Ponzi scheme on the planet—(I.E. US Government Programs and Entitlements) is now an issue of moral concern and legislation should be implemented on a largely opposed public regardless of the cost. I wonder how these politicians that claim healthcare is a moral issue would react to a parallel argument being waged that espoused a similar view with respect to the United States fighting overseas or increasing taxes to inflate the military’s budget in the name of morality. Beyond the apparent contradiction at work here, My question is this—If states go bankrupt, individuals are subject to monetary penalties for not purchasing health insurance and an already anemic economy falls into further disrepair as a result of Obamacare, will the issue still be one of morality? With the state that this country is in today, aren't moral and fiscal responsibility one in the same?
Over the last few days I have casually tuned in to watch the cable news talking heads. Most of them had a member of Congress or the Senate on their program to discuss Obamacare.
One thing I found fascinating was that there were actually some liberal politicians who went on TV and stated unequivocally that healthcare is a "moral" issue, and that being fiscally irresponsible in order to be morally responsible was warranted. These same politicians also made it pretty clear that they didn't care if voting for Obamacare meant they would be voted out of office.
What I find surreal about these statements is that liberals have fought tooth and nail for years to keep "morality" out of every single facet of American life. Hardcore pornography is art, laws regulating birth control and private conduct such as homosexuality are all unconstitutional and so on. Beyond the aforementioned, we should also bare in mind the rabid and often superfluous legal challenges issued by leftists over the separation of church and state. Morality: No! Science: Yes! --
I actually agree with this line of thinking to a large degree. The rule of law in this country has time and time again put forth the mantra that in America you cannot legislate morality.
However, the battle over healthcare seems to have thrown what has become an increasingly predictable philosophy on its head. All of a sudden, the continued proliferation of the biggest Ponzi scheme on the planet—(I.E. US Government Programs and Entitlements) is now an issue of moral concern and legislation should be implemented on a largely opposed public regardless of the cost. I wonder how these politicians that claim healthcare is a moral issue would react to a parallel argument being waged that espoused a similar view with respect to the United States fighting overseas or increasing taxes to inflate the military’s budget in the name of morality. Beyond the apparent contradiction at work here, My question is this—If states go bankrupt, individuals are subject to monetary penalties for not purchasing health insurance and an already anemic economy falls into further disrepair as a result of Obamacare, will the issue still be one of morality? With the state that this country is in today, aren't moral and fiscal responsibility one in the same?
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Comical Outrage of the left over the exposure of Al Qaeda attorneys
As I have mentioned on more than one occasion, I think Eric Holder is a smug, slimy ( my sincere apologies to slime for bringing about such an unflattering comparison to Eric Holder), holier than thou con man who represents everything I despise about Washington D.C.
Of course there are numerous reasons why I feel so negatively about Holder-- the least of which was his most recent attempt to railroad my hometown into having a criminal trial for KSM and the other 911 masterminds.
The main reason that I found Holder's defiant attitude particularly disturbing, was that the law firm where Holder was employed prior to his selection as AG was one of the most active law firms in representing Guantanamo detainees. While this development is not exactly earth shattering, it represents another cog in the Obama administrations ideological wheel that once again reveals a partisan agenda that is at odds with the best interests of the American people. KSM was going to plead guilty before military tribunal and was going to be executed. Holder put the kibosh on that plan (as he succinctly stated before Congress) because KSM doesn't get to choose the justice he encounters for his crimes!!!! ( Only Eric Holder gets to choose). And gee golly-- After the public backlash and Obama stating repeatedly that he was going to reconsider the idea, Holder still was insistent that a criminal trial in NYC would occur. Do you think that his behavior has anything to do with his desire to placate his radical leftist pals from his good old 500$ an hour white shoe law firm?
However-- that was nothing. It has now come to light that Holder has appointed many former Al Qaeda lawyers to the justice department, including several in the National Security Division. Now-- I know what you may be thinking. Isn't that a good thing-- Don't we want people on our side that have knowledge of the other side? The best defense attorneys are former prosecutors and vice versa..... Yeah-- under normal circumstances I wouldn't object. However, as the following article outlines, that is simply not the case here. It appears that Holder has put radical ideologues in key positions at the Dept. Of Justice. Whats worse, Holder has bent over backward to withhold as much information as possible about these appointees.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/08/AR2010030801742.html
PS- The phony outrage the left has shown over the exposure of these lawyers makes me want to laugh until I vomit. Does anyone remember the ACLU's active smear campaign to publicly expose CIA interrogators last year-- because (interestingly enough) the Guantanamo detainees had the "right" to confront their accusers? Or-- how about the even more absurd Witch hunt perpetrated by the left to arrest, try and imprison all of the Bush administration cabinet members and lawyers for the enhanced interrogation tactics used by the CIA after 911?
Give me a fucking break.
Of course there are numerous reasons why I feel so negatively about Holder-- the least of which was his most recent attempt to railroad my hometown into having a criminal trial for KSM and the other 911 masterminds.
The main reason that I found Holder's defiant attitude particularly disturbing, was that the law firm where Holder was employed prior to his selection as AG was one of the most active law firms in representing Guantanamo detainees. While this development is not exactly earth shattering, it represents another cog in the Obama administrations ideological wheel that once again reveals a partisan agenda that is at odds with the best interests of the American people. KSM was going to plead guilty before military tribunal and was going to be executed. Holder put the kibosh on that plan (as he succinctly stated before Congress) because KSM doesn't get to choose the justice he encounters for his crimes!!!! ( Only Eric Holder gets to choose). And gee golly-- After the public backlash and Obama stating repeatedly that he was going to reconsider the idea, Holder still was insistent that a criminal trial in NYC would occur. Do you think that his behavior has anything to do with his desire to placate his radical leftist pals from his good old 500$ an hour white shoe law firm?
However-- that was nothing. It has now come to light that Holder has appointed many former Al Qaeda lawyers to the justice department, including several in the National Security Division. Now-- I know what you may be thinking. Isn't that a good thing-- Don't we want people on our side that have knowledge of the other side? The best defense attorneys are former prosecutors and vice versa..... Yeah-- under normal circumstances I wouldn't object. However, as the following article outlines, that is simply not the case here. It appears that Holder has put radical ideologues in key positions at the Dept. Of Justice. Whats worse, Holder has bent over backward to withhold as much information as possible about these appointees.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/08/AR2010030801742.html
PS- The phony outrage the left has shown over the exposure of these lawyers makes me want to laugh until I vomit. Does anyone remember the ACLU's active smear campaign to publicly expose CIA interrogators last year-- because (interestingly enough) the Guantanamo detainees had the "right" to confront their accusers? Or-- how about the even more absurd Witch hunt perpetrated by the left to arrest, try and imprison all of the Bush administration cabinet members and lawyers for the enhanced interrogation tactics used by the CIA after 911?
Give me a fucking break.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
