kimmy

I saw just a little bit of the Hercules and Xena shows, and they just didn't do anything for me. They struck me as being comedy shows. I remember August's "review" of Inception where he complained that Leonardo was "too earnest" and should have played the part with a wink to let the viewer know that he knew he was talking to CGI creatures. In Hercules and Xena, they don't just wink at the viewer, they point at the man behind the curtain, they make fun of the styrofoam rocks the props department found for them, they treat the whole exercise as a bit of a farce. And that's fine, I suppose, but just wasn't interesting for me. I saw some of that. I started to get the impression that they had "jumped the shark" when the main villains became a bunch of hot hookers running around in bright red fetish gear. Then later, in addition to the hookers in bright red fetish gear, they had a second group of villains who were hot hookers running around in bright red lingerie. I wonder why it never occurred to either of these factions that "you know, skinny chicks in sexy outfits aren't the most effective fighting force. We could hire some men in armor..." I gather that the trigger for Robert's Rebellion was not the crimes of the Mad King, but rather Prince Rhaegar running off with Robert's beloved Lyanna. (was she abducted? did they elope together? that isn't exactly clear at this point.) He bankrupted the kingdom to pay for reckless spending and has all but sold the kingdom to Tywin to pay for it. When crisis breaks out, he goes hunting. All he does anymore is get drunk and parade prostitutes through the castle. And reminisce about past glory. I said he was modeled after Homer Simpson, but maybe he's closer to Al Bundy. Sitting around depressed about his miserable wife and useless children, the only bright spots in his day are lusting after women he's not married to and reminiscing about scoring 4 touchdowns in the highschool championship game battles he won as a young man. Sure, it's a tough job, but he did a lousy job of it. I only saw the first of those films and some time ago, but I recall that it was (while not "good") at least entertaining. The first Clash of the Titans movie and the recent remake were also both "not good", but the former had a campy charm and at least tried to inhabit the world of the Greek myths. The latter had some giant scorpion-monsters running around, and I honestly can't remember much else about it. It could have just as easily been the next entry in The Mummy series of films. I don't know anything about "the Conan universe", but if it's a unique place, they ought to show me the viewer what makes it special. That might give it a chance of being a franchise that people will want to stick with instead of a generic Strong Guy With Sword movie. -k

She's probably a very nice person with a lot of idealism. I'm sure she'll be fine and will make her own way in life. As for what she did... well, as Carolyn Bennett said, she could have done it out on the lawn. People have the right to free speech, but your employer doesn't have to permit your free speech when it's contrary to the duties your supposed to be performing. Pretty brassy, but not heroic in my view. The idea that she wants to start an "arab spring" ... huh. We had an election, and she didn't get the outcome she wanted... so it's time for a popular uprising? I wonder if she'd be equally supportive up a popular uprising led by crazy right-wing Jesus-freak types. Are popular uprisings always good, or only when they're led by people you agree with? The middle east needed their "arab spring" because those nations didn't have any better way of making the government reflect the peoples' wishes. We do; we just did it last month. -k

A brilliant proposal! Although I object to the use of the term "the homeless"-- I prefer to think of them as "urban campers". I don't see why these rugged adventurers should not be able to use their hunting and foraging skills to act as wise custodians of our urban wilderness. I look forward to the day when our cities will be filled with the merry sight of happy back-alley hunters gathering to share song and stories while roasting their fresh-caught raccoons or stray pets over a crackling fire of burning tires, litter, and yard-waste. I worry a little bit that pets might vanish... -k

I have little doubt that within a few years there will be much debate in Winnipeg over a new arena. The Oilers' building is always full too (16,800), but they say they need more seats and more skyboxes and so on. (By the way, what was the rationale for a 15,000 seat arena? It seems ridiculous to me that somebody leading the charge on a civic arena project would deliberately choose a size that was 20% smaller than a typical major-league sports arena, unless they had already decided they didn't want major-league sports to be in that arena. Does anybody know the history of that? Was it perhaps decided by the Manitoba Moose owners? One group with a vested interest in making sure the NHL never came back to Winnipeg would be the owners of the AHL franchise...) Nonetheless, they can probably do very well even without a new arena. Having 15,000 paying customers is better than quite a few NHL teams. A lot of teams pump up their attendance figures by selling ultra-cheap packages of tickets, or giving away huge numbers of tickets through promotions. 15,000 real paying fans will be enough to keep the NHL in Winnipeg. I'm very excited, actually. I can hardly wait to watch the first home game on Hockey Night In Canada. I think it will be one of those events that gives you chills. I hope they use the name Jets. The old uniforms are beautiful and there are a lot of fans who've never given them up... the idea of seeing them back on the ice again is awesome. Winnipeg is also getting a team with some very promising players. Andrew Ladd, Evander Kane, Tobias Enstrom, and Dustin Byfuglien are pretty good. They're closer to making the playoffs than our sad-sack Oilers at least. -k

More than that, he's also kind-hearted. His foremost concern is sparing Cersei's children from Robert's wrath. (made particularly clear in the book, where he's haunted by the memory of the slaughtered princes and princesses when the Targaryens were overthrown.) He tipped his hand to her too early, as a kindness to her, and it might have ended differently otherwise. Of course, had he known dumbass Robert would get his fat ass gored to death by a wild boar, he'd have done things a lot differently. You did, and I was a little giddy when I saw the Lannister flags flying over the tents because you told me meeting papa was going to be a big deal. I didn't watch Xena or Hercules. Although I see a few episodes of Kevin Sorbo's other show, "Gene Roddenberry's Hercules In Space". Would that make Lancel Lannister the "Mini-Kingslayer"? "Kingslayer Jr"? "Kingslayer Lite"? "Li'l Kingslayer"? Seems a bit irrelevant. Maybe he died because he was drugged, or maybe he died because he was fat and dumb and stumbling drunk. Maybe being so drunk he forgot he's a fraction of the man he used to be was all it took to kill him. Still, it was mention that Ned foiled one assassination plan just by talking him out of fighting in melee at the tournament, so clearly the knives were already out for Robert and having Lancel drug him wouldn't be surprising. However, Lancel seems like quite a dimwit; I don't think I'd trust that kid with a plan like that. He'll also be starring as Conan the Barbarian in theatres later this summer. Speaking of things arriving this summer, I read there's a new book in the "Song of Ice and Fire" series to be released in July. Still, having someone as cagey as Littlefinger explain his deepest secrets and darkest plans to a couple of prostitutes he doesn't know seems pretty unlikely. Especially when one of them quite literally just got off the turnip-truck, and super-especially when she just arrived from quite literally Ned Stark's back yard. I liked how fast his attitude changed from "Attacking Stark was foolish" to "Why isn't he dead?" when he found out Tyrion had been kidnapped. And "Are you going to say something clever? Go on! Say something clever." It's hard to know what's going on in that kid's head anymore. She was so completely unmoved by her brother's death, I'm not sure she'd mind much if Drogo really did do all the horrible stuff he promised to. -k

Because body hair confers an impression of masculinity. Because body hair confers an impression of masculinity. -k

Oh, absolutely. The most gripping episode yet, even without a single scene with Peter Dinklage. The "AAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!" was mostly inspired by Lord Stark's blockheadedness. He's like Charlie Brown, and Cersei is like Lucy, yoinking the football away at the last moment. Ned truly has an uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. He has the Midas Touch; everything he touches turns to mufflers. Oh well, at least he still has his happiness health family job principles head. (I don't think he'll escape with both of those. I suspect he'll have to choose one or the other.) I thought the gratuitous lesbian sex at the start of the episode was somewhat excessive, although I imagine others might disagree and Littlefinger's monologue makes the shock ending somewhat less shocking although also makes it more believable. This is one of those situations where a book beats TV. In the book, the Catelyn-Littlefinger backstory is revealed through her recollections as she watches a sunrise. On TV, we get a Big Expository Monologue that was a little over-the-top and felt kind of bolted on. Lord Tywin was off the charts! Lecturing his son while gutting a stag (no shortage of symbolism on the show) was just too cool. One area (in my opinion) where the TV series is better than the books is that in the books Jaime and Cersei (so far as I've read, at least) aren't well developed or even particularly interesting. They're 2-D villains with little dialogue and aren't point-of-view characters so we really don't find out much about them at all. On the TV show, the actors do such a wonderful job of bringing them to life that they seem much more real. As well, they've been given additional dialogue and scenes that don't appear in the book to flesh them out more. Jaime getting lectured and told to "man up" by his fearsome father was just a really excellent scene. Another highlight, for me, was the scene where Ser Jorah foils the assassination attempt. I haven't got there in the book yet, so I don't know if it's answered there, but as I watched I was really dying to know what was actually written on the letter he received. Did Varys write to him and say "You've been pardoned, come on home" or did it say "You'll receive your pardon if you kill Danaerys" or did it say "the wine merchant is attempting to poison Danaerys, you might want to do something about that"? Jorah told Dany that all he wants is to go home again. And he's been hedging his bets... serving her and Viserys, while at the same time trying to win favor with the King by spying for Varys. But it looks as though he was forced to choose, and it looks like he's put his money on Team Targaryen. I'm interested to find out why. Did he weigh the chances of a successful assassination and getting a pardon from the king versus the chances of Dany and her horde taking the throne by force and decide that the kid was the smarter bet? Did he realize that he likes her too much to see her killed? Does he (as Viserys suggested) think she's a hot piece of ass? Or did he foil the assassination because Varys asked him to? And why would Varys arrange for an attempt on Dany's life and also arrange for Jorah to foil it? Probably the same reason somebody arranged for such an inept attempt on Bran's life... they knew what kind of reaction it would create. I really enjoyed Drago's speech. A beefcake actor shouting gibberish in a make-believe language should by all rights be pretty silly, but that scene worked for me. Poor King Robert. I gather this character was inspired in some part by Homer Simpson. A fat drunk oaf killed in the end by his own incompetence. It would appear that his death leaves 4 factions to fight for the throne (the Lannisters, the Renly/Tyrrell alliance, Stannis, and Dany and her horde) plus the Vale/Riverrun/Winterfell side of things who don't want the throne but are going to fight the Lannisters whether they like it or not. One tends to expect things to end badly for pretty much everybody except the Lannisters who'll be champions right until Dany and her horde land on their shores and stomp the crap out of them and rule the kingdom for a couple of weeks until the killer snow-zombies from episode 1 overrun the Wall and wipe out the entire kingdom. The final 6 episodes of season 3 will consist mostly of just blizzards and snow-zombies wandering around eating frozen corpses. And ... so, there's only 3 episodes left in this season. "Hear me roar!" might be the official slogan, but it's clear what their *real* motto is. If there were a House Kimmy, its emblem would be the fearsome , and its slogan would be "Doesn't give a ****." -k

AAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHHHH!!!!! -k

Funny, you'd think a major discovery like that would have been an ongoing topic of conversation, not forgotten. It would be interesting to hear if this is the real deal, or ifa bunch of Chinese scam artists just took a bunch of aged timber from a Black Sea archeological site and put it in a cave on a mountain. -k

I was at a party once where this Korean guy kept offering me Chivas. "Chivas! Most greatest!" Except he had such a thick accent that I didn't understand him and I kept telling him "No, I don't want any Sea-bass." I felt quite the fool later when I figured it out. -k

Or maybe the Behemoth and Leviathan are just more examples of the writers of the Bible swiping bits and pieces of older religions and mythologies to spruce up their stories. The Sumerians and Greeks and Chinese had dragons and giant sea monsters many centuries before the Bible existed. -k

I do have to marvel that a guy would call hockey fans yokels in one breath and proclaim himself a NASCAR fan with the next. -k

You are all sinners. Repent now, before it is too late. -k

After I wrote this, it occurred to me that I couldn't remember if Rhaegar had been mentioned on the show yet. In the book I've read up to about roughly the start of episode 5 of the tv show, and Rhaegar's been mentioned several times in the book. I'd been wondering if this was one of those times where being familiar with the source material filled in a gap that had been left in the adaptation. She declares that her son will be called Rhaego, and somebody who's familiar with the book says "ok, she's pretty serious about her family legacy" and somebody who isn't says "kind of a dumb name for a baby..." Kind of like discussing "The Watchmen" movie with somebody who hadn't read the book. A number of times I found myself saying things like "well... the movie really only touched on that theme, but it's much more developed in the book." And I had to concluded that the movie wasn't as good as I thought it was and that my enjoyment of it was in some part enhanced by being familiar with the source material. (btw, I reviewed episode 4 and Jorah Mormont did tell Dany that as far has he's concerned Rhaegar was the last dragon, and Viserys is less than the shadow of a snake. As well as one of my favorite bits of dialog, where Dany tells Jorah that she'd been told the people are sewing dragon banners and praying for Viserys to return, and Jorah replies that "The common people pray for rain, healthy children, and a summer that never ends. They don't care what games the high lords play.") So far, I think they've done a pretty good, and faithful, job of adapting the book to the screen. Some scenes have been condensed, and in a couple of places they've taken events that happen at different times in the book and combined them in a single scene on TV, but these are reasonable corners to cut. And there's a lot of expository in the narrative, about the history and geography and culture, that just can't be put into the TV show. A viewer misses some of the richness of the setting that the author creates. Some of it can be shown visually, and some of the key points can be fit into the dialog, but a lot of it just can't. A few other things that I've gotten from the book that I didn't think were very well expressed on the show: -what a powerful influence Tyrion Lannister's "inner bigness" has on Jon's outlook. -protecting the fat kid showed Jon becoming a leader, and his empathy, but in the book the key point of that whole plotline was that Jon and the other recruits developed a true sense of brotherhood. -on the show, Ned was pretty mad about being made to kill Sansa's pet wolf. In the book, Ned was really really really mad about it. And later on when he learns that Bran's pet wolf had foiled the assassin, Ned thinks back on killing Sansa's wolf with a sense that he made a profound mistake. The wolves in general have been very scarce the past few episodes, whereas in the book they're omnipresent whenever we're with Jon or Bran. -the opposing family slogans: "Winter Is Coming" and "A Lannister Always Pays His Debts". The latter was prominently featured in the last episode, but the former has been scarce. I love both slogans, because they both imply a lot more than they say at face value. When Tyrion tosses the guard his coin-purse and shouts "A Lannister always pays his debts!" I think it's more a warning to the Tully sisters than an announcement that he's made good on his promise to the guard. It implies a long memory for friends and foes alike. There might even be a Bushian "you're with us or you're against us" undertone. "Winter is coming" isn't just the Stark slogan, it's Ned's whole world view. In the book he thinks it and says it frequently. It's a weather forecast, it's a prediction of trouble, it's a call for preparation or caution or vigilance, it's an admonishment for his children to be brave or be more mature, and it's a declaration that shit just got real. -k

I think the popularity of Bill Vander Zalm's campaign provides all the response required for these two questions. -k

You guys took Remiel's question to be about the scientific inaccuracy of the scene... I assumed he was asking if we cringed because something grisly was about to happen. I knew right away what was going to happen, and I did cringe. Early in the show it seemed like Viserys was going to be a major antagonist, and maybe him cashing out this early in the series was something you wouldn't have expected based on what you'd have assumed from the first episode or two. But a couple of episodes ago, when he got smacked down by her guard, and later when she stood up to him herself, the writing was on the wall. She (and we the viewer) were shown how little power he actually has. She saw him for the loser he is... figured it out for herself that he was never going to take back the throne no matter how much of an army she gave him. It happened pretty organically... the viewer's expectations for Viserys decline as Dany's esteem of him declines. I gather from the name she's picked for her baby that she has every intention of carrying on Viserys' big dream, however. -k

This is the article I'd read. -k

Yesterday I woke up to a blinding light, a strange feeling of weightlessness, and sensation of disorientation and numbness. I briefly thought I'd been raptured, but it turned out to be just a really bad hangover. -k

There's been some newspaper columns, including one from no less than the New York Times, making the observation that outside of BC, most Canadians don't seem to be that excited about the idea that the Canucks could bring the Stanley Cup back to Canada. There's been lots of theories. Some are about the team (there are no Canadian stars on the Canucks, it's a United Nations effort where the best players are an American and a bunch of Europeans...) Some are about the city (other Canadians are jealous, or don't really see Vancouver as being a real Canadian city at all). Some are about hockey rivalries (Canadian hockey fans don't want to see a Canadian team raise the Stanley Cup unless it's their own team.) And some of the theories are about the general Canadian-ness of the sport of hockey as a whole. The Stanley Cup comes back to Canada *every* year, brought by a Canadian star on whichever team won it. Last year, Manitoba was cheering on the Blackhawks because their captain is 22-year old Winnipeg kid Jonathan Toews. This year, why would French Canadians be cheering for the Canucks when the biggest French Canadian stars are playing for the Tampa Bay Lightning? Who can really guess why the rest of the country isn't cheering on the Canucks? There's probably as many reasons as there are hockey fans. My question for those of you in the rest of the country is this: if you guys aren't watching the Canucks anyway... why do the games have to start at 6pm? I mean, it's a real ff--ing nuisance. If you guys just don't give a crap about the Canucks, can we start the games at a reasonable hour? Seriously: we had the federal election leaders debate was over before us British Columbians were even home from work. They couldn't schedule that thing, which was just about the the exercise of our cherished democratic rights, to an hour that was convenient for all Canadians. But for hockey, which is a game where people smack rubber discs with sticks, we have to reschedule Canucks games so that they'll be over before bedtime for central Canadians who hate the Canucks anyway. -k

Any particular reason for the bump? I was reading an article last week sometime where it was stated that in China the combination of the one-child policy and the preference for male children has created a demographic where within our lifetimes 20% of Chinese men will simply never marry, due to shortage of prospective mates. The article speculated that it's going to lead to a lot of disgruntled men and that there'll be social consequences. I'll see if I can dig that up. -k

Of course not. I'm glad you guys who've read the books have kept from spoiling the surprises. I've just met Renly in the book. The Renly on the TV show seems like a small and wimpy little man, not the powerful-looking man described in the book. When Sansa first meets him, he's described thusly: "His companion was a man near twenty whose armor was steel plate of a deep forest-green. He was the handsomest man Sansa had ever set eyes upon; tall and powerfully made, with jet-black hair that fell to his shoulders and framed a clean-shaven face, and laughing green eyes to match his armor. Cradled under one arm was an antlered helm, its magnificent rack shimmering in gold". and a couple of chapters when Ned meets him: "Renly had been a boy of eight when Robert won the throne, but he had grown into a man so like his brother that Ned found it disconcerting. Whenever he saw him, it was as if the years had slipped away and Robert stood before him, fresh from his victory on the Trident." (Robert, at that age, had been described as a mountain among princes, a six and a half foot tall giant towered over other men, "muscled like a maiden's fantasy", who wielded a war-hammer that other men could barely lift.) However, shortly after that, Renly and Littlefinger set about arguing about fashion, so maybe the speculation has some justification. As for Ser Loras... I suppose the Disco Armor should have been a clue. But yeah, that scene was really... really... gay. I half expected the cast of Glee to appear and serenade them with some tunes from Cabaret. -k

My bottle of Maker's Mark was $40, and Buffalo Trace sells for $45 here (and well worth the extra $5 IMO). Prices here are pretty ridiculous though... I've found scotches that sell for $60-$70 here can be purchased for $40 in Edmonton. I'll have to price things out on my next trip back home. -k

Because the prairie provinces had not been granted those rights upon entry into confederation. The Government of Canada has no more right to lands held by "Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Alberta" than it has to lands held by "Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Australia." This appears to be based upon your own "legal scholarship", meaning sheer speculation. If you were to back up your point by citing instances of federal government unilaterally seizing provincial crown lands for purposes of land claims settlements, that would be more convincing. The title is held by the queen in trust of the province, and the rights are granted by the constitution. It's a portion of the Constitution Act of 1930. Parliament can't do jack shit about it. (If it were otherwise, Trudeau would have done it 35 years ago.) A provincial police force? So what? That it doesn't is a matter of choice. The provinces are not on the same footing as the federal government, but have unavoidable legal rights and powers that the federal government has no choice but respect. Unless you want to rip up our international trade agreements, you can pay the going rate. That be kind of like blowing off your head to spite your face, it seems to me. -k

I'm getting a little antsy too. If I don't get raptured soon, I'm going to have to rush down to ICBC and tell them I need to renew after all. -k

If MPs in Canada earned $13,000 annually, you couldn't get anybody *except* for 19 year old college kids to run for office. -k