Several of the networks have extensive Sci-Fi lineup scheduled for Friday.  Of course, this discussion completely excludes ABC, who is running with “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”, “Shark Tank” and “20/20″.   Not much to see there.

CBS is not much better, with “CSI/NY” and “Blue Bloods”.  Their new entry, “A Gifted Man” has hint of Sci-Fi (it’s about a surgeon whose deceased ex-wife begins teaching him the meaning of life), but I’m not counting it – it sounds more like a morality drama (i.e wild child learns to become a good man).

So, this discussion is really centered on FOX, NBC and the CW.   The 8:00 PM timeslot is not too bad, with “Chuck” and “Nikita” battling it out.    I have a dual-tuner TiVo – it’s not the end of the world!  Two spy related shows might split the ratings, but hopefully there will be enough support out there to keep both shows alive.

But, the 9:00 PM timeslot is truly a deathmatch.  Three Sci-Fi shows – “Supernatural”, “Fringe” and the brand new “Grimm” all air simultaneously!

I’m not sure what NBC is thinking here.   “Grimm” sounds interesting (it’s about a detective who realizes that he is a “…descendant of an elite group of hunters known as ‘Grimms’ who are charged with stopping the proliferation of supernatural creatures in the world”), but going head-to-head (to-head) with “Supernatural” and “Fringe” is suicide.

Here’s my reasoning:

• Both “Supernatural” and “Fringe” have devoted fanbases, built up over several seasons.
• Both fanbases have survived cancellation scares, so they know that if they don’t watch their favorite show, it will be gone.
• There are a limited number of Sci-Fi fans in the world.
• The networks seem to assume that all Sci-Fi fans are home watching TV on Fridays.   (Of course, that is ridiculous – every Sci-Fi fan timeshifts their TV watching via DVR or some other technology.)  The networks are still discounting timeshifted viewers more than they should.

Basically, I doubt there are enough Sci-Fi fans watching on Friday to support three shows. Obvious, I know…but if one of these shows do not attract ‘normal’ viewers (aka “Lost”), there just are not enough viewers to push the rating numbers high enough to support all three shows. The *best* case is one show completely tanks, leaving the other two relatively healthy (and renewable).

The worst case is unthinkable – it would be the Friday Sci-Fi Apocalypse.  Three shows, all of good quality, equally split the available viewership.   And I think we all know what would happen in that case…

Triple cancellation.

It all rides on “Grimm”.  Let’s hope that it is either a huge success, or an abject total failure.  Mediocrity bodes poorly for all three shows.

I’ve been a fan of Horse Racing since I was a little kid.  My dad used to bring me along to ‘historic’ Waterford Park to eat soft-serve ice cream and bet the ponies.  I would even run to the windows and place the bets myself!  So, when the Kentucky Derby rolls around each year, I am always excited.  This year marks the 137th running of the classic race.

You read that right – 137th!

So, even though the event will be on major television outlets, and it will probably draw 150,000 live fans, you might say “Meh…horse racing is over.  Nobody pays attention to that stuff anymore”. 

I’d (of course) disagree.  Horse racing may never again hold the minds of the majority of the people in the country, but the sport has had an impact on our country and even our language!  For example, phrase like “Hands Down”, ”Ringer”, “Starting from Scratch”, “Beating a Dead Horse”, “Darkhorse”, “Champing at the Bit” and even the term “Upset” all have connections to racing.

But that’s not the main reason that I watch the Derby.  It’s the Mint Julep, the celebrity sightings (and there are a ton of them if you go to the Derby live), and the women in hats.  It’s ”My Old Kentucky Home” and the “Call to the Post”.  And, it’s picking a horse and rooting him to win.

So, this year, like every other, I’ve done my research.  I’ve read the blogs over at Trackmaster, checked out the message boards at Thorograph, and downloaded the Past Performances from the DRF.  And, for better or worse, I’ve got my race analysis ready (and I am going to write it just like a professional handicapper would).

Fred’s Analysis of the 137th Kentucky Derby

It’s going to be a interesting race.  Most of these horse seem slower than in recent years.  And, especially with the late scratch of the reigning two year old champion UNCLE MO, the race looks even more wide open.  So, we have to look to see how the race will unfold to pick a winner.

I see several horses trying to get in position early, and perhaps using their energy too fast in those early stages of the race.   I think TWICE THE APPEAL will get in great position at the rail, getting around ARCHARCHARCH and BRILLIANT SPEED, with the real frontrunners STAY THIRSTY, DECISIVE MOMENT, COMMA TO THE TOP and PANTS ON FIRE gunning out from their inside posts and SHACKLEFORD from the outside.

After the speed settles in, I envision my stalkers sitting mid-pack.  I am high on ANIMAL KINGDOM and SOLDAT to be in good position, along with MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE and the European entrant, MASTER OF HOUNDS.  The closers will be far back at this point, especially DIALED IN and NEHRU.

So, when they turn for home, I see PANTS ON FIRE coming out the battle of the speed horses.  ANIMAL KINGDOM and SOLDAT should be right in striking distance, moving up to challenge well before the deep closers.  I’d add TWICE THE APPEAL here, if I thought he could get the distance, but I see him wasting his perfect trip, fading and pretty much screwing up the chances of ARCHARCHARCH. 

At the wire, I have ANIMAL KINGDOM outkicking SOLDAT and PANTS ON FIRE, while DIALED IN makes a belated run to get in the money (and ARCHARCHARCH jumping over the fading horses to challenge for a payday).  And, that’s how I see it – ANIMAL KINGDOM over PANTS ON FIRE, SOLDAT, DIALED IN and ARCHARCHARCH.

If the race finishes that way (and I could actually legally bet it in my home state of Georgia), I’d be very, very rich.  ANIMAL KINGDOM is 30-1 on the opening line.   One can dream…

For more information about the Derby, check out http://www.kentuckyderby.info/.

HBO is seemingly sparing no effort to make this show a success.  There has been a plethora of online advertisements, a fifteen minute infomerical, TV spots – basically, any advertising medium that you could think of has been utilized.  HBO is premiering the show across most of its channels, for several days straight.   So, it should be easy to catch “Game of Thrones”.  The question is – will it be worth it?

For various reasons, I think the answer is a resounding YES!

First of all, it’s on HBO.  They don’t have the poor reputation for killing shows too quickly (I’m looking at you, FOX) and typically allow enough creative licence to let the show creators realize their vision.   Secondly, the source material is really good.  George R.R. Martin’s “A Song of Ice and Fire” series is award-winning, and this 10 episode season is based off of the first book.

Public opinion also seems to be favorable.  The LA Times review is very positive, stating the show “…quickly becomes a great and thundering series of political and psychological intrigue bristling with vivid characters, cross-hatched with tantalizing plotlines and seasoned with a splash of fantasy.”

I’ve already set my TiVo.  “Game of Thrones” premieres on HBO on April 17th,

I was eagerly awaiting the first set of reviews.  I expected that there would be a range of opinions on the movie – some people like Snyder’s style, and some just do not.  However, I didn’t quite expect that the reviews would be such polar opposites.

The bad reviews are very, very bad.  I think Massawyrm at AICN has the most damning comments:

Zack Snyder’s SUCKER PUNCH is a movie so terrible that it retroactively makes his entire body of work worse. It is a soulless automaton of a movie, lumbering loudly from scene to scene, knowing where it has been told to go, but never giving a shit about where it’s ending up.

Another AICN reviewer, Ambush Bug, also intensely disliked the film:

SUCKER PUNCH is a loud, gaudy, fetishistic, bombastic piece of cinema. It’s also hollow, remedial, and bereft of substance.

However, I found some extremely positive reviews, such as this one from Bill Gibron at FilmCritic:

This is the kind of movie that will have college cults springing up within days of its release…More than just the mere sum of some arguably amazing parts, Sucker Punch is a geek gal’s BFF. Guys will love it as well, considering the sly combination of strip tease aesthetic and brazen babe butt-kicking at play. In the end, it may be a case of style over substance, but what a brilliant bit of technique it truly is.

Jeremy Kirk at FirstShowing.Net agrees with Gibron, reacting even more strongly:

Visually captivating and thought-provoking, Sucker Punch is an explosive success, one that begs the question: “What the hell is Zack Snyder going to show us next?!”

And, finally, Nordling over at AICN (yup – the same site that has the two scathing reviews) provides the most cogent comment (for me):

…the more I turn SUCKER PUNCH around in my head, the more I think that Zack Snyder’s film is one of those rare “kitchen sink” films that works, on multiple levels – as sheer entertainment, as a deeper comment on film, and as Snyder’s grand statement on the power of myth and storytelling.  In short, I think it’s one hell of a movie.

So, what conclusion can we draw from these reviews?

I think most of the criticism of the “Sucker Punch” falls either into the style over substance category (i.e. the visuals are great, but the characters are one-dimensional) or into the ‘this is a completely indulgent manga dream’.  The latter criticism seems to center on the choice of using contemporary music and Baby Doll’s dance scenes as the transitions to enter her dream worlds.

The praise for the movie centers on the visuals, and on the ability to take the movie as a whole, rather than trying to figure out the individual motivation for a characters action within a fever dream.  These reviews indicate the whole story ‘works’, even if individual storylines might not make sense, or are one-dimensional.

Normally, I’d be the guy saying ‘Hey – that character would not do that!’.  But, in the case of a Snyder movie, I know going in that a large part of the appeal will be in the atmosphere.   I can’t think of another director that can take a mental image and convert that image to film better than Zack Snyder.

I’m still planning on seeing “Sucker Punch” as soon as possible.  I loved “300″ and liked “Watchmen” – Snyder hasn’t failed me like he has for several of the reviewers.  The other movie that often came up in comparisons to this film was “Scott Pilgrim Against the World” – and I totally ‘got’ that movie. 

“Sucker Punch” isn’t for everyone.  If you hated “300″ and “Scott Pilgrim”, you should probably pass.  But, if you liked those movies, and enjoy a visual assault on your senses, I think you’ve got to go see this.

However, *who* is not the most important question.  It’s all in the *how*.  So, here is my thought on how the writers should handle the replacement of Charlie Sheen.

Charlie: [Falls in the animal reserve] Aieee!!!

Jake: Oh No! He’s getting mauled by the lions!

Alan: Is that a tiger helping him?  It’s…it’s chasing off the lions!

Jake:  It must think Charlie is part of his family

Alan: (Looks at Jake dubiously) Let’s get some help.
 

Scene 2 (at the hospital)
Charlie is in the hospital bed, face completely bandaged.  Alan is talking to the doctor.

Alan: Doctor, is he going to be alright?

Doctor: He’s a very lucky man – a weaker man would have died…well, from the fall and the mauling and all.  It’s just amazing.  The heroic tiger who saved him was also mauled and died.  Fortunately, the blood from the tiger seeped into Charlie’s wounds, keeping them moist.  Without the Tiger Blood, he might have been scarred for life.

Alan: He’s *literally* got Tiger Blood in his veins?

Doctor: Yep.  (pause – both look at Charlie, then to the camera) And, it’s pretty amazing – I think he actually looks *better* after the surgery.  It’s like he’s got Adonis DNA – he really looks fabulous.

Charlie: (in the background): (moans) I’m a F-18, bro.

Alan: What was that?

Doctor: Ahh, it’s probably just a side effect of the meds. 

Doctor walks over to Charlie

Doctor:  Charlie – do you want to see your new face?

Charlie: (Nods slowly)

Doctor hands Charlie a mirror.  Ominous music rised in the background as the Doctor slowly unwraps the bandages.  The camera pans around to look over Charlie’s shoulder to see the reflection in the mirror.

As, we see the face of new actor playing Charlie, Charlie smiles and says:

Charlie: Win-ning!

End Scene!

Officially, there are two separate episodes that will be aired on Monday night – “And Then There Were More” and “Inostranka”.   According to AICN, the plot is beginning to move (which was a criticism that I had of the show).  They state that “…these installments to feel more like a season finale than a mid-season premiere”.

But, even with the good reports, I am still not a huge fan of the show.  I am tempted to fast-forward whenever I see Sean and Leila (Jason Ritter and Sarah Roemer) on screen – something about their characters do not appeal to me.  Maybe it’s the whining, or the “let’s always choose the most illogical action” vide I get from them.  Even though I know they are important to the plot, I don’t enjoy their scenes.

In addition, I’m not too fond of President Martinez (Blair Underwood) either.  He’s all glower and growl – but not too much else.

So, why am I am still watching?  I think the show works via a couple of storylines.  Certainly, any scene with Sophia (Laura Innes) has kept my attention - the mystery around the aliens has worked for me.   Sophia herself is intriguing, due to the power she holds – she made the traitor shoot herself in the leg, for goodness sake! 

I also look forward to the continued development of Blake Sterling (Željko Ivanek) as the Director of National Intelligence.  I think they’ve done a great job highlighting him, his skills, and his motivations.  I wish they would do a better job with the other “main” characters.

Palicki has all of the credentials that I’d would have looked for if I were casting the part.  She’s relatively tall (5′ 11″) and obviously beautiful.  She also has a strong resume, appearing in “Friday Night Lights”, “Supernatural”, “Women in Trouble”,  and Legion”.  Although there were a lot of other possibilities for the role (say, Bridget Regan, for instance), the choice of Palicki should be just fine.

I am much more concerned about the plot.  David E. Kelley has been tabbed to write the show, as the much bally-hooed attempt to get Joss Whedon to helm the show never worked out.  This *should* be a good thing, since Kelley has “Ally McBeal”, ”Boston Public” and “Boston Legal” to his credit.  He understands how to make a successful show – and a successful one with a female lead.

According to the non-spoilery spoilers, Palicki will play three roles – the titular “Wonder Woman”, ”Diana Themyscyra” (who is a CEO-type and is the public figure that everyone already knows is Wonder Woman), and “Diana Prince”, who is her “Clark Kent”-ish secret alter ego and, presumably, the focus of the show. 

Armed with this information, I was ready to set the TiVo.  But, I then discovered some confusing reports on the content.  The Mercury News reports that the show will be serious.

The script is a serious, non-campy take on the DC Comics character that pays homage to TV’s original WW Lynda Carter, but it should satiate those fans of Kelley’s memorable soapbox moments in his legal dramas: At one point, Diana gives a speech on Capitol Hill.

I could support a ‘serious, non-campy’ take on “Wonder Woman”.  However, a separate report from Bleeding Cool paints a very different picture of the show:

There’s a CSI-ish group of science-nerd 20-somethings living in her basement that dance to Kanye West and will doubtlessly help Diana solve any number of crimes in further episodes.

And 

Identifies with ET the Extra Terrestrial when his movie comes on TV.

Sings along to the radio in multiple scenes – but nothing with a hairbrush in front of the mirror just yet.

Doesn’t like being “marketed, commercialized, merchandised”, though she is – there’s a joke about Wonder Woman tie-in dolls having their costumes redesigned that seems to reference the recent makeover for the comics.

Puts on her PJs for an ice-cream filled sleepover with best friend Myndi.

I’m not going to say that “Wonder Woman” is going to be bad.  In fact, I think it might be funny, groovy and hip.  I simply do not think it’s going to be a “serious non-campy take” though – not by a longshot.  Several of these plot points (especially eating ice cream with a girlfriend) scream “Wonder Co-ed”, not “Wonder Woman”. 

Still, a younger take on “Wonder Woman” could still be executed well.  The show is expected to find a slot on the Fall 2011 NBC schedule and I’ll be watching.  I just wonder if the final product will be more ‘serious’ or more ‘camp’.

Yes, I’m actually saying that commercials are like micro-movies, and the Super Bowl is their annual film festival.

Of course, not all ads are movie-like.  Some are just there to pique interest in a product and associate some emotion with it, or to impart some information about a product in an interesting way.  But some of the most memorable certainly seem to qualify as micro-movies.  Heck, they have more plot than a lot of the Independence Day blockbusters.

Let’s take a look at three of the best from previous years, and see if you can guess the ad from the story synopsis.

But first, a short refresher on plot.

Most movies (not all, at least not in my opinion, but most) have three acts.  It can be broken down into the rising action, climax, resolution – though lots of people call the acts by different names, and may break them at different places.  But the upshot is that a question, problem, or situation is described, then  the main character sets out to address whatever is laid out in the first act, then we see the results.

Story ads take a bit of a shortcut.  First of all, some of the ads have the viewer as the main character.  They tell you that you, the viewer, have a problem.  Alternatively, they may show you a sympathetic, or unsympathetic, character that you can relate to, and show their problem.

Then they tell you how to address that problem or situation.

And, like many movies, they leave the resolution implied, or only partially resolved (for example, Inception didn’t fully resolve the plot, or at least didn’t resolve it explicitly).

Story 1:
A young kid meets his hero, and struggles to break through his hero’s impatient and gruff facade.  How can he connect? The ad:

Usually rated as one of the top Super Bowl commercials of all time, watching it now it seems a little cheesy.  But it’s a great example of the three act structure at work in a micro-format.

The problem:  Mean Joe Greene is injured, and heading to the locker room.  He’s plainly irritated, disgusted, and tired.  A young kid just wants to interact with his hero, who doesn’t have time for him.  The whole setup takes less than 10 seconds of the 1 minute commercial.

The climactic action:  The fan tries to get the player’s attention several different ways, and finally decides that what his hero needs is something to make him feel better.  He offers his drink, a Coke.

Resolution:  It works!  And, the fan is rewarded with a jersey.  The resolution takes 17 seconds.

Story 2:
A couple on a road trip meets a stranger.  Is he trustworthy? The ad:

The situation:  A couple driving on a dark, lonely road, apparently lost (the passenger is looking at a map).  They see a hitchhiker.  Should they pick him up?  He has Bud Light, and an axe.  4 seconds out of 30.

The climactic action:  They stop, the driver asks about the axe, and is satisfied by the nonsensical and clearly improvised answer, because the hitchhiker has a Bud Light.  But the resolution gets delayed – they see another hitchhiker, who has Bud Light, and a chainsaw.

Resolution:  back to the beginning, the problem is whether to pick him up.  But the punchline is: even the guy with the axe is afraid to pick up the hitchhiker with the chainsaw. 5 seconds.

Story 3:
Three men rush to return an animal to its natural habitat.  Will they make it, and how did the animal get there? The ad:

This one is interesting because it’s almost told as a frame story – the situation and the climactic action coincide, and we find out how the situation came about at the end.

The situation and climactic action:  Three men drive furiously to a pier with a killer whale in their truck.  They are determined to rescue it, but how did it get there?  Will they succeed?  11 seconds.

The resolution: They pause at the beginning of the pier, then gun toward the end.  At the last moment, the driver slams on the brakes and slides into a U-turn, throwing the whale over the edge into the water.  Part 1 of the question is answered.  The whale will live!  Part 2 of the question, “How did they end up with a whale in their truck?” is answered in the final line.

“Now that,” the driver says, “was a bachelor’s party.”

There you go.  Am I reaching on this?  Can you look at some ads as micro-movies?  What do you think?

But, if you are one of the few who do not get all hyped-up about the game, I’ve got a few good reasons to watch.

The Ads

If the game is bad, there are always the ads to look forward to.  I think the phenomenon has slowed down a bit over the past few years, but there are still a ton of creative spots that will be shown.  On Monday morning, USA Today always has a recap of the best and worst – which I, of course, never agree with.

I’m a sucker for the E-Trade baby, though.

The Trivia

There is always killer trivia around the Super Bowl.  For example, did you know that this will be the the first Super Bowl in 43 years to not have any Cheerleaders?  It’s true – neither the Green Bay Packers nor the Pittsburgh Steelers (nor the Cleveland Browns, Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions and New York Giants, for that matter) employ cheerleaders.  

Back in the days when AOL was still relevant, the Motley Fool (yes – the financial site!) used to run a Super Bowl quiz on their message boards.  The quiz had questions like:

• How long will the National Anthem take to sing?
• When will the first points be scored (exact time!)?
• Who will make the first tackle?
• What will be the first commercial to air after kickoff?

It was great fun! I’m disappointed to report that I don’t believe they have created a quiz in several years.  If they have, my google-fu has failed me – here’s the last set of questions that I can find.

The Food

Ahh – one of the primary reasons to get together with a group to watch the game.  I am a fan of dips, and here are a few good ones!

Buffalo Dip

The classic, almost-addictive, dip.  It’s basically shredded chicken, cream cheese, hot sauce and chedder cheese, with some ranch or blue cheese dressing added for an additional kick.

White Castle Dip

I’m not going to lie – I haven’t tried this one yet.  But, pureeing ‘sliders’ sounds like something interesting to do before the game.  I bet it’s good, assuming you don’t watch the preparation.  It can’t be pretty.

Skyline Dip

My staple dip.  If you are not familar with Cincinnati Style Chili, well, forget what you know about chili, cuz this ain’t the same.  One of the more famous restaurants that make the chili is Skyline (which is mostly found in SE Ohio/N. Kentucky).  The dip is super-simple – spread cream cheese in a baking dish, cover it with chili, cover the chili with cheese.  Best dip ever!

The Gambling

By gambling, I’m not talking the multi-million dollar kind that is illegal in most states.  I am talking about the ‘friendly-wager- between-friends’ type of gambling.  The most prevalent wagering game at Super Bowl parties has to be Super Bowl Squares.  

To play, you set up a 10×10 grid of squares, with each square representing a possible game score.  Then, you watch the game and check the score at the end of each quarter of the game.  So, if the first quarter ends Packers 10 / Steelers 7, the person who owns the square representing (0,7) wins.  Of course, it usually costs money (typically $5 or so) to own a square – that’s where the gambling comes in.

It sounds silly.  But, it’s a total blast when somebody scores near the end of a quarter, changing winner of the pot at the last second.  Good times!

The Game

Seriously.  Green Bay and Pittsburgh are both really good.  This should be a tight game, with lots of big hits and athletic plays.

For the record, I picked the Green Bay Packers to win the Super Bowl at the start of the playoffs – and I can’t switch now.  I think the injuries to the Steelers offensive line will allow the Packers defense to dominate.  My prediction:

Green Bay Packers 27, Pittsburgh Steelers 21

I hope that I draw (7,1) in my squares game!

Admittedly, “Supernatural” started out a bit rocky this season.  Whether it was the change in leadership (with Sera Gamble taking over from Eric Kripke), or just the fact that Sam was soulless (and was actually written as a being without a soul) the first few episodes felt like they were lacking a little of the “Supernatural” magic.

Now, Sam was *supposed* to be emotionless…but emotionless translated into ‘flat’, which is never good for a show.  I think they wrote themselves into a box, and it took a few episodes to to get back into the characters.  Fortunately, the creative team has fixed that problem, and the last few episodes have been back to the accustomed level of greatness.  Heck, my kids and I still say “Fight the Fairies!” (which is best line of the season!).

Friday’s return episode will start to deal with the aftermath of the re-insertion of Sam’s soul back into his body (here’s a recap of the last episode).   Death put up a wall between Sam’s consciousness and the horror of his time locked in the cage with Michael and Lucifer, but we (and Sam) are very concerned that the wall won’t hold.  And, this episode has dragons (and virgins)!

“Supernatural” airs Friday night at 9:00 PM EST.  Tape “Fringe” if you must – but watch “Supernatural” first.  It’s simply better.