bentangle

In the beginning of this season of Heroes - the show that I used to love, started to hate, came to enjoy again and am now ambivalent about – the writers did what they needed to do by immediately injecting new characters and twists to the saga that was turning a little to telenovella-esque. The characters we had known and loved were able to evolve forward(-ish) and react to these new elements. Unfortunately at times even this new line feels stretched, stale, or overly tangled. And even with all that, there always seem to be some loose ends that threatent to unravel the tenuous hold the show seems to have on my patience. But tonight this chapter finals comes to an end. The big question is will the end tie a nice bow on the season or be the noose by which the series draws its own demise.

[me watching the Heroes season finale]

Okay. I will start with the positive. Most of the mainstays ended up either where I hoped/expected or in a place I can accept. Some got there with more hoopla than generally necessary, but they got there none the less. The writers were also good to avoid huge cliffhangers for next season (well, perhaps one). In general, with exception to some of the Sylar in Parkman’s head moments from earlier in the season, I’ve enjoyed his character arc this season and it’s correlation with Peter’s; the finale did well in completing that arc. All in all, this close was very reminiscent of the season one capper.

As for negatives, there actually are fewer than I expected. Samuel was a sociopath to the bitter end, but i’d anticipate no less. It is odd how full of himself he can be and how much if a manipulator he is, and yet he does so through coersion and omission and almost never seems to blatantly lie.  But really the negatives in my mind are more with the season than with the finale.  Where the season occasionally suffered from convoluted story arcs that didn’t always circle back as expected, the season closer did not suffer as such.

So to sum up:

Heroes Chapter 4:  C-
Heroes Chapter 4 Finale:  B+
Heroes Chatper 5 Outlook:  B?

The final chapter has been closed.  Joss Whedon’s latest attempt at television success came to a bittersweet close last Friday.  Clearly I’ve had my druthers with the handling of this show (see here, here, here, and here), but I will try to keep this post about the show’s ending and avoid the downward spiral of network reproach.

Joss Whedon, in a word, is a genius.  Though it wasn’t aired on television, he had capped last season with a shocking look at what the future could hold for the technology of the Dollhouse – what seemed morally questionable became innocent and tame by comparison to the potential abuses.  Then in the second season Joss showed us bit by bit how such a future could come to be – weaving the various “flashbacks” from the fast forward into the regular season and filling in the gaps of how the technology could progress as such.

While I am sad to see the show end, I think that having a defined end point allowed for one of the best series wrap-ups I can ever remember seeing on television.  Whedon and co. delivered one-two punches week after week with the twists and turns in the plot for the past few months.  Characters who seemed infallible would fall, characters who seemed incorrigible would be redeemed, and characters who seemed as transparent as glass would turn out to have unimaginable secrets.

In the final hour, we were returned to the 10-years forward view of things, where despite (or perhaps as a result of) our heroes’ efforts, chaos reigns.  But where the previous flash forward showed an isolated snapshot of the future mixed with glimpses of the road to it, this episode was a mission to set all things right in the world.  As is common with a Joss Whedon wrap-up (e.g., Wash, Anya, Wesley), there were casualties.  And as would be realistic, there were bumps in the road to redemption.  But all things said and done, I couldn’t imagine it ending any other way.

It is ashame that the show did not garner the success or the due that it deserved – if you asked people about the show, they would either love it or not know what you are talking about (unfortunately the latter would be the majority).  But I enjoyed it while it lasted, I can feel confident in the ending laid out, and look forward to Joss’ next project (hopefully in no way tied to FOX).

I make no apologies about the fact that I’m not an Apple guy.  I don’t really have anything against them, but I’m not a fan of paying more money for a product that (at least from my perspective) does less for me.  Both my work and my hobbies and habits require a PC.  So Apple can do what Apple does, and it is no skin off my nose.  Generally I think of their products as well conceptualized, elegantly designed, and great options for those who prefer to use them … until yesterday.

Yesterday Apple unveiled their latest product to as much hype and fanfare as has become customary to such launches.  Their latest offering – the iPad.  The iPad is a 9.5″ x 7.5″ tablet unit that looks essentially like a huge iPhone.  And, as it turns out, basically IS a huge iPhone.  As the specifications were revealed, it became clear that this was NOT a fully-functional tablet-style laptop but rather a version of the iPod Touch that is big enough to read books and newspapers.  The only other feature that seems to have been scaled from the smaller version is the storage capacity (and the price points).

The truth of the matter is that it seems this product was NOT designed as a productivity tool, but simply as a leisure tool.  You can use it to play games, to watch videos, to browser the web (without Flash), and to read your ebooks and enewspapers.  But it doesn’t have the processing power or storage capacity to handle professional applications.  And from what I can tell, it doesn’t necessarily do any of the things previous devices do any better.  For instance, sure it is a better form factor for ebook reading than the iPod, but not better than other ebook readers.  All of the other models out there use eink displays which make them easier on the eyes are readable in full sunlight.  The iPad can browse the web and play games just like the iPod Touch and iPhone, but it IS JUST like those devices – no better (just bigger).  The iPad also seems to be missing any communication capabilities (aside from messaging) – no phone, no camera.  If I were to pay the price points listed for such devices – especially if I get the 3G service, I’d want to at least use it as a phone (preferrably a video phone).  But no dice.

So the bottom line it seems is that Apple put out an unstellar new product at an undesirable price with an unusual name targeted at an unclear niche.  If it were more of a MacBook with an iPhone-esque interface option that could fully support the full set of software products that a typical Mac can run, I may find this more interesting.  But as it is, I do not and I’m not sure who will.

I could go on about how the very thoughtful be seemingly innocuous gift of RockBand 2 from my sister has gone through the ebb flow of severe addiction and determined withdrawal within our household, but that would take away from this nugget that just happens to be as a result of the song selection my children have been exposed to by this game.  The nugget really needs no explanation, so I will be uncharacteristically brief and take you straight to it.  So here it is:

Grasshopper’s (my 3-year-old son) rendition of the opening to Bon Jovi’s “You Give Love a Bad Name”:

Chocolate heart
And your too lame
You give love a Band-aid

Yes, kids do say some of the funniest things.  But few compare to the arguments they can get into over song lyrics.

Sometimes, we just are who we are.  Popeye was never apologetic on this point.  We can struggle against it, but our strengths and our flaws together define us as individuals.  Tonight I learned even more than I should embrace this fact and just be me.

This evening we were at a dinner party with my in-laws and, as is not uncommon at such events, various topics of conversation swirled around the table.  The subjects ranged from what defines moonshine to the finer points on making a successful risotto.  Among the non sequitur  topics my sister-in-law brought up a story involving a song – Dream Weaver – which naturally rolled into a conversation about who sung it.  Unfortunately no one at the table actually knew, but several hazarded off-based guesses.  My natural inclination was to whip out my iPhone and Google it, but I resisted being ‘that guy’.  As the conversation wound down and slowly morphed on, I had noted that it would simple enough to find the information online.  My wife responds with “Don’t you have your iPhone right in your pocket?”  So in the end I conceded and was ‘that guy – I AM ‘that guy’.  There is little point in trying to evade it.

Unfortunately my sister-in-law seems to live in one of those clear areas so frequently seen in Verizon’s advertisements as of late on AT&T’s 3G coverage.  So the information remained tenuous (it was Gary Wright, by the way – I’m also that guy who will keep things like that in his head to look into at a more opportune time).  But my reputation as a trivia nut precedes me.  I guess I should expect as much – I’ve never hid it well (who do you think ended up spewing information on what defined moonshine when it came up).