Dear DTV,

While I appreciate the government making some bizarre attempt to improve the quality of my at-home entertainment, I smell a conspiracy here.

 

I have two TVs in my house: one in my living room with a DVR box attached to it, and another in my bedroom that I use predominantly to watch DVDs and the news as I'm getting ready in the morning.  With DTV rolling in just a short month away, I'll be unable to watch even my local news without some more hardware invading my house.

 

You see, the options seem to be immensely limiting in regards to adjusting to this new technological requirement.  I can either go and buy a converter box, or contact my local cable provider and buy another box from them.  Obviously, the government has conspired with Time Warner to make certain that I pay them an extra $10 for a second DVR box.  I mean, that really is the only option, after all.  Why would anyone go and buy a converter box when you could just extend the cable package you're already got?  Even with the coupons, I'm not remotely interested in putting a big reminder of how old and decrepit my TV is right next to it atop my dresser.

 

So, I hope the Washington bigwigs who decided to meddle in my TV watching life are going to get a cut from the cable companies.  And it better be a sweet cut, too, for all the dough I'm sure they've had to fork out on annoying commercials endlessly reminding me that I'll need another box just to enjoy the news.

 

The real tragedy about the whole conspiracy though is the net result it will have on my free time.  With two DVR boxes in my house, I'll be even more likely to entrench myself in my DVR glut.  Not only can I setup the main box in the living room for my first-rate, must-watch shows like Lost or Heroes, but now I can setup the backup box to record third and fourth shows in an hour, meaning more room for stuff I would otherwise have been able to convince myself to avoid like the ever alluring Dancing with the Stars (guilty pleasure sometimes, just plain annoying always).  So, if I disappear sometime in Febraury never to be seen from again, and wither away into a horrible husk of my former self until I perish in front of a Shear Genius marathon, I want the vigilante justice taken out on the US government.

 

Always an eye on the future,

 

Patrick James

 

Dear Obama/Biden Puppy Watchers,

It's very nice that an enormous amount of people are taking a deep interest in the fact that President-Elect Obama and VP-Elect Biden are in the market for a puppy. However....

Let me preface by saying I am all for rescuing puppies/dogs/cats/anything with a heartbeat. Take for instance my Boxer, Buster, that was rescued from a house where he was tormented by Rottweilers. Or my other wonderful Boston Terrier/Pug, Miko, who was almost sent to a rescue facility by a relative until I intervened. There's also my Hurricane Katrina survivor cat, Scapino, with a heart condition and third ear nubbin. And let's not forget the kitten, Sparrow, we recently acquired by way of a crate out of some ladies suburban.

But come on! Aren't you taking a bit far? Saying that these people would be "heartless" to do anything but go to a shelter and rescue a puppy? I mean, that's like saying... You're a worthless human being if you just decide to have a baby instead of adopting one. It's just ludicrous. I'm not saying they should be able to go to the closest puppy mill and pick them out a winner. But if they wanted a German Shepherd from the Rin-Tin-Tin line or a Siberian Husky descended from a Snow Dog why can't they do that? Seriously. I didn't hear anyone giving Paris Hilton grief when she bought a Chihuahua from Pets of Bel Air in LA. Even Barney Bush was a designer dog of sorts coming from a lineage. Buddy, Lucky, Rex, and so on and so on which of these came from your beloved shelters?

Why does it matter NOW? Why is it SO important? Can't you just let two little girls get the puppy they want without having to hope that you won't be mad at them for loving something you don't approve of?

Get over yourselves.

Love,
Irma

Dear Golden Globes,

I'll try to keep this as short and sweet as possible.

Every year, you announce your picks for the best in TV and movies. Aside from being nothing more than a glorified cocktail party for all the Hollywood types who had projects in the last year, or projects coming up in summer 2009, your sole purpose is to forecast and influence the results of my beloved Oscars. While I'm sure I'd take issues with many of your picks this year, as in years past, I haven't been to the movies much this year (economy and all). Thus, I'm left to critique the more affordable of your picks: TV.

I'm a devoted TV watcher, and my DVR glut is well documented (see previous blog). So, it is with much sadness that I notice two glaring omissions from the nominees for television honors.

The first of these was, I thought, a given: Jim Parsons for his hilariously committed work as Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory. With CBS receiving only one nod (in the very worthy Neil Patrick Harris), this snub is especially noticeable and shameful. You can be certain this Supporting Actor will receive his due when the Emmys roll around. His work is insanely funny, and instantly quotable. Oh, and much better than that of Jeremy Piven and the hoard of other so-so talents occupying this overstuffed category.

The second oversight is one I will take particularly hard, as she will not be eligible for this award again: Kristin Chenoweth for the brilliantly plucky Olive on the (lamentably) canceled Pushing Daisies. Aside from this show being a real standout among the comedy genre, with its fresh stories and outstanding casting, Olive is the most fascinating character among them. Only Chenoweth could have brought such an energy and passion to the former horse jockey-turned-lovelorn PI in training. Also, as the only character not privy to Ned's secret, she's allowed to take a comic tone at almost every turn without focusing on the gooey drama between the lead characters. Her vocal talents alone should vaunt her to the top of this otherwise unimpressive heap (Melissa George = blech!). You've now missed your only chance at honoring this soon-to-be missed highlight of TV in the post-strike swath of reality and other crap.

You can atone for your sins with a respectful nod to Jim Parsons next year, as his show is sure to be returning, but I wouldn't be too upset if Kristin Chenoweth arranged for a certain former acquaintance to drop a house on you.

Disenchantedly,

Patrick James

Dear DVR,

I've been reading a lot about this this called "DVR guilt," a backlash problem people are having with a build-up of television programming on their box that they just can't get to.

 

A quick inventory shows me I've got the entire season thus far of The Mentalist, and the entire last season of The Pick-Up Artist (embarrassing, I know, but it's so funny).  Also, there's three Without a Traces, a Dirty Sexy Money, three or four LA Inks and Dr. 90210s, three Houses, and a Work Out marathon thanks to Bravo.  I'm sure there is a bunch of other things there as well, but these are the biggest offenders.  We only just cleared down Dirty Sexy Money from the whole season to just that one episode a week or so ago, and watched two Pushing Daisies to catch up before the series (unfortunate) finale.

 

Why can't I just let go?  Even when the series isn't that good (Dirty Sexy Money) or as good as it used to be (House)?  Because i'm invested, that's why!

 

I like watching TV from all spectrums of entertainment.  Everything from the highly honored and respected to the downright ridiculous (ie Pick-Up Artist).  I invest in the characters and I refuse to let go for the most part.  Sometimes I'm willing to cut the cord if a show didn't blow me away off the bat, or got bad reviews before I ever even started watching (Fringe).  But once I'm hooked, I tend to stay there through all of the nightmarishly bad storylines right to the bitter end.

 

Not everything, though, can achieve my full attention the way that a new Amazing Race or Heroes can.  Some things just have to take a back-burner.  And sometimes those things will stay on the back-burner for quite a while.  But as long as the heat is still on, and as long as I'm still interested, that sucker is going to keep getting recorded.

 

Besides, this whole point will be moot when DTV rolls around in february and forces me to get a second DVR box in my bedroom so I can watch the news in the morning.  (And maybe record a Lost or Charm School marathon while it's just sitting there.

 

Cavalierly,

 

Patrick James

 

Dear X-Men Editors, Writers and Fans,

Where are all the leading ladies?

Now, you may be saying to yourself, what do you mean, Patrick? Every one of the main X-Books features Emma Frost, and each of the ancillary books has its own female at or near the forefront, from Psylocke in Exiles to Monet in X-Factor to X-23 in X-Force.

It's not these ancillary books I'm really talking about though. What I am referring to is the core X-Books, which I guess at this point is really Uncanny & Astonishing.

In these books, you have exactly one female X-Man who fans have known as one of the core X-Ladies: Storm, in Astonishing.

No Phoenix.

No Rogue.

No Shadowcat.

Even Storm shouldn't really count, as she's tied to happenings in other books with her ridiculous (and forced) marriage to Black Panther.

It's not like long-time secondhand members are there to take the spotlight either, like the aforementioned Psylocke, the oft-backgrounded Polaris, the Phoenix fill-in Rachel Summers or the disco Dazzler.

The men of the X-Men are getting some great attention by the current crop of writers, especially characters like Colossus and Cyclops who need to be handled by a deft hand lest they become caricatures. But the girls that we all grew up with, depending on which era you were born into comics during, are being entirely ignored. No, ignored is not the correct word. They've all been superseded by Emma Frost, as though her presence is a catch-all for fans of all of these other characters who will not get to play in the major league for whatever reason.

I understand that Dazzler is supposed to be coming aboard sometime soon, and that is an improvement. However, let's take a look at some of the missing primetime players and check in on them, shall we?

Jean - dead, resurrected only to die again

Rogue - dumped by boyfriend, betrayed by ex, infected with horrendous virus, comatose, possessed of the thoughts and powers of psychotic adoptive mother

Shadowcat - trapped in giant metal bullet, hurdling endlessly in space

Maybe Gail Simone should revive that Women in Refrigerators business...

So, all of this being said, we fans need more of our favorite ladies back in the X-Books flagship titles. This does not mean I'd like to see Husk rejoin, or some New Mutant like Magma step up and join. I mean, I'd be okay with either of those things as long as they were not replacing the women we've already grown to love.

In conclusion, bring back the babes, or I'll let Phoenix here cleanse you from the timeline!

Simmering,

Patrick James

Dear LifeStyles Condoms,

I read a little story today that you've decided to approach reigning teen queen Miley Cyrus to be your lateast spokesperson. Now, assuming this isn't just a silly publicity stunt to get your name out there over the more prominent Spartan competition, let's discuss why someone thought this was a good idea.

Miley Cyrus is a 15 year old girl who has vowed to save herself for marriage. Now, while I can respect your position that she should never speak too soon, I still think there's a small perception problem with a minor promoting safe sex.

I agree that teens can't just be taught abstinence and given a lollipop. Clearly, that doesn't work out so well, given the increase in teen pregnancies of late. Still, we shouldn't have her inadvertently promoting sex among the coming-of-age. I know that promoting safe sex is not the same as promoting sex in general, but the masses don't see it that way. What they would see if sweet little Hannah Montana encouraging her hordes of 13 year-old followers to go out and buy some rubbers.

A more wise choice of wholesome Disney-spokesperson who appeals to the youngest in society awar of what sex really is might be High School Musical's Vanessa Hudgens. Thanks to some little pictures, her innocence is pretty much over in the eyes of the parents who still let their kids watch her movies. However, she's also 18, and old enough that she can promote safe sex without someone coming along and accusing your company of encouraging statutary rape.

Now, I'm sure she'd like to distance herself from the whole naked-pictures thing, but she's sorta SOL on that, so this would be a good way for her to transition beyond her roots and tell Zac she's really ready to take that next non-digital step.

Just looking out for you,

Patrick James

Dear American Gladiators,

I've been one of the hugest fans of your comeback to network television, telling all of my friends how great you are and enjoying every single commercial featuring your new, edgier gladiators doing cross-promo work for My Dad is Better than Your Dad or Hellboy 2.  I don't even really mind the fact that many of the new gladiators seem to take entire stretches of the competition off of work, even though they only work a few weeks a year as gladiators.  Seriously, where was Siren for the entire first half of the prelims?

 

But the issue I really can't stand behind you on is this: catch-ups.

 

That is, the "exciting" part of the show where the slightly humorous announcer tells us we're going to "catch up" on the events you chose not to show us.  This is where I get to see some of my favorite events relegated week after week, like the return of Skytrack.  I used to love this event when gladiators like Turbo and the original Siren would hunt down contestants.  Now, since it's debut as a "new" event, I think it's only aired in its entirety once.

 

Now, I can appreciate that your program is alloted for a one-hour timeslot and you film more than can be edited entertainingly into that time, I do.  But to only see 2/3 of what makes up each contestants scores is just silly.  I want to know how in God's name someone like little old lady Yoko could pull within a few points of her 20-year old competition.  Instead, all of the events where she scored were catch-ups, where I was given the option of watching online in its entirety.  But why would I ever go online and watch again what I just set my DVR to record and took approximatly 47 minutes to watch already?

 

So, either decrease the number of events leading up to the eliminator (a terrible option, since the events are what makes watching fun), or insist on a longer timeslot.  Perhaps 90 minutes like Dancing with the Stars would suit your contest better.

 

Either way, this atrocity must be rectified before this fan falls out of love.  Also, I must see Atlasphere immediately, and not in some commercials were I have to watch Wolf attempt to act.  Correct these, and I will avoid breaking off our happy affair.

 

Flustered,

 

Patrick James