Not so "Super" Bowl 50

I have to wonder...

I'm sitting there passively watching yet another Super Bowl unfold while I busy myself with more important things like watching paint dry or folding socks.  It's a Sunday so this is the most exciting entertainment option available (which isn't saying much) and at least in this country it's something of a big deal to see the last football game of the season. 

I could care less about who's winning, I'm here in the hope that perhaps I'll find some entertainment value in the halftime show or a few clever commercials that always seem to crop up this time of year.

So let's take a look at the halftime show...

Unless you're a big fan of Beyonce's thighs in hot pants, a U2 cover band and an also ran pop star the halftime show was in a word, half-assed.

The performances forgettable, the manufactured message of unity obvious and the choreography on par with a bunch of pre-pubescent majorettes marching in a Thanksgiving Day parade.

In short...WTF?

Nothing memorable here.  I don't even like Katy Perry's music but she knocked it out of the park last year.  I can appreciate talent and effort even if I'm not a fan of the artist.  Maturity allows for that.  It also allows me to come up with brutally honest analogies.   This year's halftime show looked like a hip-hop cheerleader review at a high school football game.

I won't even talk about the game.  Who cares?  The Broncos were celebrating victory with 10 minutes left on the clock for god's sake.

Take the NFC championship, put the Panthers in Cardinals uniforms and you pretty much have the same game.  It was over in the first quarter.  OK, to be fair,  at least the Panthers  pretended to play a football game.

Don't even get me started on the commercials.  Boring, lackluster and devoid of creativity.  Toyota tried to convince America that bank robbery was best accomplished in a Prius.  Anthony Hopkins was hocking free Tax software, 

Christopher Walken was trying to convince you that a dowdy Korean Sedan was a testosterone therapy replacement and Alec Baldwin was... I don't know what he was doing.  He must have needed the cash. 

No tear jerking Budweiser puppies, just Helen Mirren making you feel bad about yourself.  And what the hell? Pokemon and PuppyMonkeyBaby?

I get the feeling this whole game and everything surrounding it was nothing more than a Peyton Manning retirement party.  It was almost like they hired a bunch of people off of Craigslist to pull it off.

This is what you get when the Half-time show is based on Internet memes.

At least there was Colbert when it was over...

Supergirl: An updated hero from an obsolete stereotype

I don't think much of Supergirl...

I'm not just talking about the upcoming television show starring Melissa Benoist as the big guy's cousin from Krypton.

I'm talking about the whole premise.  It's almost insulting if you dig deep enough.

Supergirl, the character, was born in the late 50's functioning as everything from the female counterpart to Superman to a love interest for Superboy. 

Let's cut to the chase, there's nothing that interesting about the character.  She's an also ran with superpowers and a skirt.

Does that sound chauvinistic as hell?  I suppose it might except that what all those politically correct defenders miss is that the character is nothing more than a misogynistic retelling of the Superman tale.

It's the same tortured existence we've seen before with the stereotypical protagonist discovering and then agonizing over what to do with their "super" abilities.  From there comes acceptance of his/her fate leading to a career of crime fighting and world saving with a few moral dilemmas nobody could identify with thrown in for good measure.

Typical comic book stuff.  Not a lot of depth there and really none should be expected.  It's a fantastical character after all born from  super-powered heroes with origin stories that involve radioactive spiders, nuclear accidents and alien planets.  Even Batman, a hero with no super powers, is unbelievable as he teeters on ledges of Gotham city like some brooding gargoyle ready to pounce on evil doers. 

Supergirl comes from an age of sexist female stereotypes with perfect hair, heaving bosoms and fits of emotionalism.  She's a product of an time where Hellboy or Spawn would be considered obscene if not  outright pornographic.

Does that even fit the image of a modern, self directed woman?  From the sneak peeks we've had of the series it seems Supergirl is at least as concerned with picking out the right outfit for a hot date as she is saving the world.

Far from a pillar of modern womanhood, Supergirl is little more than her counterpart's story line presented in a more titillating context.

 There are far less insulting examples of female super-heroines on TV and in comics with far more depth.  

I'll take a pass on this one...

South Park Sellout?

I'm of the opinion that South Park is a guilty pleasure for most people.  It's almost a badge of honor to be lampooned by the show that takes no prisoners in its satire and truth be told its targets rarely complain.

That is so long as you don't draw a cartoon of Mohammed.

The Internet, racism, video games, hybrid cars, politics and celebrities are all fair game.  If it's in the news chances are it'll show up in an episode of South Park.

Interestingly enough, it seems those kids from South Park with now familiar names like Cartman, Kyle and Butters never seem to progress past the fourth grade but still manage to remain relevant after almost 20 years.  It's a strange time warp that fans just seem to accept as the series that began in the Clinton Administration continues well into the latter half of the tenure of the first black President. 

The world's changed quite a bit since 1997 and the series has kept tabs on it.  Creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have somehow managed to chronicle nearly 2 decades of popular culture while keeping the show fresh.

Over the years, the best barbs have been reserved for those who took themselves a little too seriously.  Tea party conservatives, tree-huggers, religious fanatics and the excesses of political correctness have all been frequent targets.

It's that last one, political correctness, that was the focus of the premiere episode of Season 19 last week. 

In it we find that the rest of the world has had it with South Park's politically incorrect behavior and have sent in a new principal of the school in the form of one Principal PC to correct the transgressions. 

Of course Principal PC is a ridiculous caricature best described as a mash-up between an overgrown frat boy and every politically correct tweet that's ever been feverishly beaten into a Smartphone.

For the most part the episode was a hilarious take on what is often an overheated politically correct culture that dismisses independent thought.

Except something happened at the end of the episode.

At the risk of spoilers I'll try to be somewhat vague in case you haven't seen it yet. 

The episode ended... Wrong....

Instead of staying with the theme of the ridiculous and driving the point home, everyone just kind of gave in.

I don't know if the show is starting to wear on Parker and Stone but this particular episode has me worried.

In the past, I've found myself, thrilled, bent over with laughter as well as grossed out and even offended but never was I lacking for closure when watching an episode of South Park.

I was on board with this one up until the last 3 minutes.  If ever there was a good excuse for an alternate ending this episode is it.

I'm just hoping all is put right with the world of South Park in episode 2 this season or I may be done with the likes of Cartman and Kyle.

My rating, 9/10 for the first 20 minutes, 0/10 for the ending.

TWIT: The last straw

I Hate TWIT...

Over the past 3 years I've had my criticisms of Leo Laporte and his TWIT podcasting network but in every case I hoped to offer constructive criticism without passing final judgment. 

I've said more than once, "I don't hate TWIT" because I really didn't want to take sides even if my observations appeared otherwise.

Sadly, that ended today.  My catalyst for judgement came after watching the latest Triangulation episode with Leo Laporte and his guest, Personal Capital ( and Paypal) founder Bill Harris.

Bill Harris is in a word (or more accurately a phrase) the typical Silicon Valley "Suit."  Which is just like your normal everyday "suit" but with the added facet of living in the delusional reality that is any business based in the Silicon Valley.

His resume includes not only his current gig, Personal Capital, but also Intuit, Paypal and even a stint with Earthlink among others.

Personal Capital is an online wealth management service that advertises on TWIT.  As such there's been plenty of ad copy over the last year praising its merits to varying degrees.  Of course it's not of much use to anyone who has a net worth less than 7 figures but who cares, right? 

But really, I could care less about Bill Harris, it's TWIT that's the problem.

The Cliff Notes version is this. 

This week's episode of Triangulation would make for a great "Meet the CEO" employee indoctrination video for Harris' Personal Capital.  In it Laporte fawned, gushed and feigned interest in a man who had as much in common with TWIT viewers as Justin Bieber's hair stylist.

It was for lack of a better word, disgusting. 

The whole interview revolved around tales of Harris and his millionaire buddies like Elon Musk flying around the country "effecting change" from their Lear Jets with regular calls to "Madison Avenue" to create the buzz on their latest antics.

So who is Bill Harris to the average guy watching TWIT?  Absolutely nobody.  Like I said, he's just another suit who happened to use his Harvard education at the right place at the right time.  Just another perpetrator of the Silicon Valley serial startup.  

In short he's not like you and you'll never have anything in common with him.  It's doubtful he ever had to live on ramen noodles or worry about paying off his student loans.   

However, If you're still interested, here's a link to his bio on Bloomberg for those of you with posters of Warren Buffett above your bed.

The dime-store summary of Bill Harris' career includes such winners as: Earthlink an early national  ISP,  Paypal, the de facto Internet payment service and TurboTax, the most recognizable name in tax preparation software.  

What do all these companies have in common? great marketing for so-so products...

Earthlink was among the earliest national dial-up ISP's and was also one of the first communication services to lock customers into multi-year commitments without any guarantee of service. If you think data caps are bad try being forced to pay for a service you can't even use...  

Then there's Paypal which was a good idea at the beginning but has earned the nickname "PayPay."  A label earned by the service (and its parent company Ebay) for high percentage fees and a tendency to tie up bank accounts on a whim.  

Then there's Intuit's TurboTax, which regularly makes headlines for screwing users out of tax refunds due to flaky formula calculations.  Lest we forget security holes that have left many a taxpayer on the hook with the IRS through no fault of their own.

That's the thing.  These companies were all good ideas at the start but have had troubled histories since.  However, I'm not suggesting that Bill Harris was directly involved with anything scandalous concerning them.  To the contrary, he's a "big picture guy" who gets out just before the lawsuits start coming in.  

Which means he's about creating wealth not social change.  If he happens to do the world a good turn in the process it's likely by accident.  He is a businessman, marketer and salesman.  Nothing more.

In the classic TWIT context his experience has no more in common with viewers than the average Wall Street CEO.  Meaning it's irrelevant information to the TWIT viewership

Ok, so my hatred for Bill Harris' resume aside, the point is this...

It's one thing to pander to advertisers, it's another to be their lap dog.  We've seen this behavior before but for me the final straw came before the start of the episode.

In the pre-show, Harris happened to notice that someone in the chatroom said something about "vomiting" which brought swift response from Laporte directing his studio flunkies to shut down the "chat" on set.  

That was followed up with threats of banning chat users and a statement from Laporte to Harris that effectively disparaged the value of the chatroom on TWIT. 

So in effect, Triangulation became Bi-angulation.

On more than one occasion Laporte has called the chatroom the third side of the "triangle" since the departure of co-host Tom Merritt.  

That makes its removal a violation of a sacred TWIT tenet and creates a void  that even Laporte's sizable ego can't fill.

Look, I get it, you don't want to piss off an advertiser especially if they may be a potential buyer for your failing enterprise.

However, passing off a corporate propaganda video as content is inexcusable.  Regardless of how interesting the life of Bill Harris may have been, the information is of little value when the interviewer has a vested interest. 

Meaning there's a bias in place that invalidates objectivity.  In the case of this episode of Triangulation, Laporte turned TWIT into a Bill Harris infomercial.  Perhaps Leo's really that enamored with the guy but it's far more likely he's protecting advertising revenue. 

Coincidentally, pulling the ads from TWIT was a joke Harris made repeatedly before, during and after the so-called "interview."

That's not friendly, that's Freudian suggestion my friends.

Because of this final and blatant violation of principle there can be no redemption for TWIT.  A line has been crossed and I'm off the fence now.

As the Shark Tank's Mr. Wonderful (Kevin O'Leary) often says,

"You're dead to me...  "

The episode has been provided below, judge for yourself.  Maybe you'll be inspired to go out and buy a new suit.

Corden's Late Late Show - Night 3 or Oh GOD let it end!

Night 3...

Show opened with yet another Conan ripoff.  A pretaped comedy bit Corden calls Carpool Karaoke.  Mariah Carey must have nothing better to do because she was stuck in the passenger seat for it.  We were subjected to 5 minutes of James Corden doing a sing-along with Mariah Carey who was really only there to get a mention of her upcoming album on the show.

What did we learn? James Corden can't sing and he's got no game...

Now on to that ugly couch again....

Tonight's guests were Will Ferrell and Kevin Hart.  Corden stayed true to his formula having both Hart and Ferrell on at the same time.  We learned that Will Ferrell recently received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame which segued into a short comedy bit from Ferrell. 

Kevin Hart was there and that's about all we can say about that.  Will Ferrell on the other hand is virtually guaranteed to boost anybody's ratings.  True to form, he launched into numerous improv bits which was welcome relief to Corden's gushing. 

Intervening conversation included a deep discussion of the ass print Will Ferrel made in his latest movie, "Get Hard" which he co-stars with Kevin Hart followed by a clip from the film.

So far Corden's guests this week are by and large doing the current talk show circuit meaning their appearance is nothing special.  Ferrell and Hart, for example, are currently promoting their new film while Patricia Arquette was promoting her new series, CSI: Cyber.

The Jimmy Fallon rip-off bit tonight was a game called "Mind Link" with Corden playing emcee and Hart and Ferrell reading off note cards.  One set was questions and one answers and if the question and answer matched up it was considered a "Mind Link."

Yawn...

By the way, at one point before the game Corden said that if there was a "Mind Link" the patrons at the bar would get $100. 

Did I mention there's a bar on the set?  Yeah, it's just product placement for Bud Light so nothing to get excited about.  Now if somebody passed out at the bar or vomited during Corden's monologue that might be interesting...

Anyway, Corden promised that if a "Mind Link" happened that each patron would be guaranteed $100 which he calculated to be .27 cents a day for a year.  Apparently Corden doesn't have a calculator because .27 times 365 days only comes out to $98.55.  I'd be pissed if I didn't get my $1.45...

Back to the talk show textbook and again the show was brought to a close with yet another musical nobody.  This time it was an R&B group fronted by Leon Bridges only recently discovered at the drunkfest known as South by Southwest (SXSW.)  They weren't too bad, I'm sure they'll get booked for a lot of weddings now.

There were a few minutes left at the end of the show which Corden used to thank his guests and prove that he can add dancing to the skills he does not possess.

As I checked the schedule on CBS.com it showed that Thursday and Friday's shows were pre-empted.  This is the middle of March Madness which is the likely cause.  That or a golf game.  This is CBS you know. 

In any case I find it a blessing.  I know I've been pretty negative on Corden but I honestly hoped I would have changed my opinion but if anything my initial assessment back in November has been confirmed.  This guy has no talent and CBS is just throwing money at his show to make up for it. 

Online reviews have been overwhelmingly positive which I find suspect.  Either the reviewers are completely without taste, blind or paid off.   I wouldn't put it past CBS to pay for positive promotion of Corden's show as it's virtually impossible to find anything critical of it.  From British newspapers to Variety and CNN, nary a discouraging word can be found. 

I know you've seen those commercials for cleaning up your online image.  I bet CBS has one of those in their contact list...

Nobody is that perfect, especially James Corden.  There's no creativity here and his show reflects it.  It's a cavalcade of poorly executed rip-offs of other talk shows seasoned with a bit of British "chat show."   I don't know whether it's Corden or CBS that's responsible but I'd be surprised if the show has half as long a run as its predecessor.

So I'm going to end the series here.  Honestly, there's just nothing more to be said and I really don't like spending too much time on negative topics.  

I'm done with James Corden and thank the lord for that...

This guy makes Seth Meyers look entertaining.

Grade F -----

What is wrong with these people!

In a world where talent is manufactured rather than cultured I suppose it should be no surprise that nobody bothers to look past the superficial anymore.

Case in point, GoDaddy's now pulled Super Bowl commercial.  In it we see what can only be called a ripoff of the Budweiser tearjerker commercials of the past few years featuring an adorable pup.  This time, however, GoDaddy went below the belt with the cold twist of a lost puppy returning home only to be sold online by a puppy mill.

What the hell was the ad agency thinking?  Was there any scenario where this was funny to anyone, anywhere but a drunken stupor in some dive bar?

And what of the GoDaddy management team?  They approved it.  Did they actually think it would bring in more business?

I suppose if you have no social conscience such things are trivial.  After all, it's just a commercial.  But is it?  Is there a segment of the population that something like this appeals to?  Apparently the ad agency thought so or it would never have gotten out of the bar.

GoDaddy isn't exactly a premier provider so biasing toward the slimy is nothing new.   Titillating Super Bowl commercials with female models in various states of undress are the norm.  

But really, what does T & A have to do with selling Internet domains anyway? 

 So maybe this latest ad was just GoDaddy coming clean.  Maybe they've decided to drop all pretense and just admit that it's all about the money.  Maybe this is a reflection of modern sensibilities.

Maybe they should have just let the ad run...

A troglodyte gets a Smartphone

I don't understand you people.  You stand there all day long scratching on your little 4 inch screens and think you're getting something done.  I just don't see the attraction.

Everything  evolves and I suppose I have to as well.  I work in technology and the way I used to do things just isn't possible anymore.  I've resisted the onslaught of the mobile revolution and for the most part I've found my convictions justified.  In short, mobile devices are about as intuitive as disarming a bomb.  One false move and everything blows up.

Here's an example of one such "intuitive" user interface.  On my phone if you dial a call and it connects the screen turns off.  This prevents the inadvertent "Butt dial" that could be caused if your face made contact with the screen during your conversation  That's fine except for those times when you really need that keypad  to be there.  Say, when you're deep into your voicemail setup or stuck in your bank's 34 levels of menu options where you just  must "press the # key." 

You have to press the power button and then fight the phone as it keeps trying to shut off the screen.  Does great things for my productivity.  Don't even get me started on the weird alien symbols that are  about as intuitive as a European road sign.

There's so much pain involved but I must persevere.  I knew this was coming and even borrowed a friend's deactivated Droid Bionic to get used to the way the interface works.  Unfortunately, the time spent didn't do much to prepare me for what was to follow. 

As i slowly navigated through my "pop" culture shock, questions swarmed my tiny Paleolithic brain...

 Where the hell are my apps?     What's the difference between an App and a Widget?   Is my phone really using Wi-Fi or am I going to get a $500 bill for data overages?  Why do I have to sign up for Gmail just to get an app to tell me if I'm going to get that $500 bill?        I agreed to what?           Why did my phone shut itself off?           Why do they call it a "Play" store if I'm not having any fun?

YAAAAAAAAAAAA!  ME WANT SMASH BEEPY PLASTIC THING!

There was one point where I became so frustrated that I had to put the phone back in its little white box.  Otherwise it was going to end up in pieces on the floor after a sudden violent impact with a nearby wall.

I have a low tolerance for BS...

Now this isn't the first time I've been "Forced" to deal with a Smartphone.  I've had to work with every generation of Iphone and a few Android phones but never had to live with one or more to the point, pay for the consequences. 

None of them have ever proved to be as intuitive as the commercials make them out to be.  Is Apple easier to figure out than Android? Sure but that's not saying much.   That's like deciding whether to be burned at the stake or drowned. 

Maybe I'll get used to it but I've already figured out how to turn off the 4G radio for Internet functionality and removed a blinding array of apps whose only purpose appears to be to provide me that $500 data charge.  And no, I didn't customize my ringtone...

As for you mobile media mavens...

If you believe that you can have a full, rich visual experience with that tiny spec of screen real estate on your Smartphone you are undeniably insane. Sorry to break it to you but someone had to tell you before you started having conversations with the voices in your head.

Even with the supposedly "generous" 4.3 inch screen on my phone, reading web pages is painful, Watching videos is quite simply a disappointment.  Navigation is a joy (not) with my ample digits (fingers) and often an exercise in frustration.  Yes I know about gestures and pinches and all they do is make everything worse. 

Voice control  is just a band-aid.  Well, aside from the amusement  found in how badly it mangles the English language. Try saying your email address to Google Voice and see what you get, hilarious.

Well, at least I didn't pay much for this technological abomination.  I have a refurbished HTC EVO 4G from Ting that cost me just over $100 and all I want to do with it is make calls and occasionally use it as a hotspot when I'm on a client site with no Internet access.  That's it. 

I could care less about videos, apps, email or anything else.  I don't even browse the Internet on the phone because it's pointless for reasons I've already mentioned.  Even installing  apps, the core activity of any self-respecting phone geek,  is a chore.  Forget that tiny screen,  I just go to the Google Play store and set up the whole process from there.   At least that option is intuitive.  Too bad I had to go to a website on my PC to enjoy it.

On-screen keyboards?  Predictive or not they still, in a word..."suck."  Sorry folks,  I'm a touch typist so this whole culture of hunt and peck makes me wretch.    Let's not forget that I have fingers the size of hot dogs.

I was trained to control text without having to look at my fingers especially considering their unattractive aesthetics.

In short, I'll grudgingly use this thing the way I need to use it but it might as well be a Wi-Fi dongle with a keypad.   I'm amazed how gullible and accepting consumers are.  Confusing user interfaces, Horrible control surfaces and design about as intuitive as Rorschach test.

The marketing departments have won the war.  They've convinced consumers that counterintuitive is the new ergonomics.   

In short they're selling BS and like I said, I have a low tolerance for it.  That tech pundits call these devices "computers" is laughable.  A Smartphone isn't a computer, it's a device.  Using a Smartphone like a computer is like having to drive a car using two steering wheels and four brake pedals. 

Oh well, I have to go make sure my updates are using Wi-FI instead of 4G now....