And now, what you've all been waiting for...
The final chapter of Aren't You All Aglow In Your Thousand Yard Stare!
Starting now...
Yeoman Janice Rand finds that there is indeed love after Captain Kirk. It all happens here on this website.
And now, what you've all been waiting for...
The final chapter of Aren't You All Aglow In Your Thousand Yard Stare!
Starting now...
Hey, Dear Reader!
It's ProvidenceMine here with some great news!
I am finally finished with the latest story for this blog!
I literally just finished writing the story just a few minutes ago, so now comes the typing!
Argh!
The end of this story will be posted as soon as possible along with a very important message about the future of this blog, so as they said during the Golden Age of Television...
Stay Tuned :D
Hello, Everyone!
ProvidenceMine is here.
This blog post will be a short one, but it's about something that I have to get off my chest (yes, again ).
I was at the bank, and had decided that afterwards I would pick up a few things from the drug store next door.
Well, I was able to pick up my vitamins and toothpaste so I headed to the cash register. I was on line waiting a few minutes as a woman was helping her elderly mother pick up her items, and when they were finished I was called down to the register ( one thing I like about this whole Covid-19 thing is that there are no crowds or long lines ) where the cashier rang up my items, and while I was waiting I took a look at the magazine section and noticed on the rack a commemorative issue of Entertainment Weekly dedicated to the late actor Chadwick Boseman, star of the enjoyable but overrated blockbuster The Black Panther.
I was rather hit sideways when I saw the issue.
As you know, Mr. Chadwick Boseman died from a four year battle of colon cancer quite recently, and the outpouring of condolences has been huge, and while the news was tragic, I simply can't understand this commemorative issue by Entertainment Weekly.
Why, you may ask?
I will tell you simply by relaying my own personal experience. Honestly, I had never heard of Mr. Boseman until the movie Black Panther was out in theaters. Before that time, he wasn't even in my radar. Was Chadwick Boseman really that big of a name to even warrant such an issue?
Let's be clear. Chadwick Boseman was not Burt Reynolds nor was he Paul Newman. Reynolds and Newman were Hollywood legends, and a commemorative issue on them would make sense. If James Earl Jones or Denzel Washington had died, it would make sense to give them a commemorative issue as well.
I realize that Boseman had played James Brown and Thurgood Marshall in two films, but I didn't know this until after The Black Panther had been out for some time. I don't think this actor had been in the industry long enough to have any real impact. He starred in one blockbuster movie following films that came and went.
You are probably wondering why I am going off on Entertainment Weekly's commemorative issue in this fashion. I'm doing so because there is something creepily exploitative about it. This actor was a man who was literally on the cusp of what looked like stardom, but never really got there. I know that he had done other films afterwards, including some action thriller where he played a cop-does anyone know the name of that film, even? I seem to remember that it came and went with a snap of a finger.
Listen, I know who Dwayne Johnson is. I know who Chris Pratt is. I knew both actors for many years because they have established themselves in a number of hits throughout the years. Those two are household names.
Chadwick Boseman was not a household name. That doesn't mean that he would not have been sometime in the future, but he really wasn't when he died. He was an up and comer. Never in my life have I seen a commemorative issue dedicated to an up and comer.
It's clear to me, that Entertainment Weekly decided to make a commemorative issue on Chadwick Boseman in order to cash in on his very recent and untimely death and all of the outpouring of sympathy that his family has been getting. I would also go as far as to say that the whole resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement had played a large hand in influencing the planning and publishing of this particular issue.
Now, you might ask, wouldn't a commemorative issue on established Hollywood legends be exploitative as well?
Perhaps, but it would make more sense because there is a hell of a lot more to commemorate.
Boseman has had one blockbuster hit movie while the rest of them have not been such. I only know of the James Brown film and the Thurgood Marshall film, and I don't even know the titles of those particular films. The only thing I remember is when I saw one picture of Mr. Boseman as Thurgood Marshall and thought how he looked absolutely positively nothing like the legendary Supreme Court Judge and of how he was a bizarre choice for the role. As for the James Brown movie, I had thought that the actor who played Lafayette in True Blood was James Brown, only to find out-when he had passed-that he wasn't James Brown, but was in a supporting role.
Exactly what kind of fillers were inserted in this commemorative issue of this unfortunate actor?
You just wanted the money, Entertainment Weekly, that's all. You just wanted to make money off of this man's corpse, so you decided to squeeze out what you could in order to put it in your junky gossipy trash heap of a magazine and sell it.
Disgusting.
Really and truly.
Seriously, between tag teaming a bad review on a streaming series that your critics had hardly viewed and a commemorative issue of a man who barely had a career to talk about as of yet, what in the hell will be next?
I shudder at the thought.
ProvidenceMine is back, Dear Readers!
As you might have guessed, I'm not finished with the last chapter of my story yet, but stay tuned!
I have just finished watching a Netflix original series called The Witcher, and I really enjoyed it.
No, it is not a masterpiece, and as far as fantasy goes it is not The Thief of Bagdad. It is, however, a binge worthy show that is fun, escapist fair. It is not Game of Thrones, and thank goodness, as that show for me was nothing more than something to watch in reruns whenever I happened to be suffering from insomnia on any given night.
I want to make it clear that I am not going to write a review of The Witcher, as that is not what I normally do. What I will do is comment on a certain critic who reviewed this show quite unfavorably in a magazine that I rarely, if ever, read-and that's Entertainment Weekly, and the critic is Darren Fanich. I will point out that I don't know if I spelled his last name correctly, and I really don't care if I did or not-mainly because I don't really have much respect for critics of film or television.
Now, this Darren Fanich didn't like the series, along with a female colleague of his whose name escapes me, from lack of even a faint interest in her identity. I don't really have a problem with anyone who didn't like the series, as everyone has a right to their opinion. However, I have a big problem with anyone who claims to review a whole movie or series when they have not done so. It turns out, according to one of the story forerunners of The Witcher ( I don't know your name, forgive me ) this Darren Fanich, who gleefully tore this show apart along with his nameless, faceless, co-writer, had only watched Episodes One, Two, and Five.
There are eight full episodes of The Witcher...
...count them-EIGHT!!!
He didn't even watch them in order, for Christ Sake!
Considering that this Fanich person has a job that many people would kill for, sitting on his butt all day critiquing the creativity of others while not appreciating the hard work that goes into their projects, I can't understand why it was so difficult to simply sit down and watch one season of a streaming series. Face it, this man is getting paid to do something that many people don't even consider to be a real job-because watching movies and tv for a living is basically hanging out for pay compared to what health care workers, delivery workers, school teachers, and other workers with real jobs have to do.
Why then, would Entertainment Weekly even count this as a real review? Maybe the female critic should have reviewed this show by herself, if she is a more honorable person and saw the whole show.
Let me recount something here. Way back in the day I was sitting in a movie theater watching a small arthouse film starring Ed Harris and Blair Brown, and who did I spot but the film critic Jeffrey Lyons. Watching him was actually more entertaining than the film itself, as he squirmed in his seat, got up, and walked out of the mezzanine. Next, he stood right outside the mezzanine hall where he even greeted some viewers who were leaving the film with a smile that said "Boring, am I right?" A few minutes later, he was gone. He didn't even bother to stay for the whole movie. I can remember looking for his review of this film in the places where he worked as a critic, and guess what? There were no reviews of this film by him anywhere-not WPIX News, not at the radio station where he worked and not At the Movies with Neal Gabler. Why were there no reviews of this film by Jeffrey Lyons, you may ask? Because Mr. Lyons, being an honorable man, didn't write a bogus review where there was no review to be had.
Another example of an honorable film critic is David Denby, formerly of New York Magazine. I can remember the list of movies in his index where you could see films he reviewed, films he hadn't reviewed yet and films that he never got around to reviewing, probably because he had no intention of reviewing them as they were probably not films to his taste.
I've seen many reviews of The Witcher, most of them being positive. What I did notice was that if only a few episodes were viewed it was clearly noted, so you knew that you were not getting a full review of a series. In one of the poorer reviews, a critic on his blog talked about what the series needed in order to improve as it entered its Second Season. Why was he able to give an intelligent assessment? Because he watched the whole season. While I didn't agree with his conclusions, I was at least able to appreciate his clearly thought out points.
I am not saying that you have to like The Witcher, or anything that you sit down to watch, but as a paid critic who is supposed to be a 'trusted' voice in what to recommend to viewers, Mr. Fanich's review falls way too short. Even with the hand holding that he got from his female colleague, it is not the same as if he had watched the whole series himself. I would go as far as to say that Mr. Fanich's review, or his part of it, should have been edited out of the final review. His contributions were at best thin and at worst unnecessary.
I think Darren Fanich would do well to make more of an effort to do what he's being paid for. His livelihood is already in grave danger, as sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are taking reviews and watering them down to nothing more than scorecards, and with the huge numbers of citizen critics on blogs, YouTube and social media, the professionalism and exclusivity of film and tv critiquing is most assuredly disappearing from any kind of relevance.
Bye for now,
ProvidenceMine :D