A sneak peek at Peter Jackson's next movie

The post title provides a link to the Newsweek story.

I wonder if it will be any good?

What are you concerned with, regarding Jackson's treatment of Kong?

Do you have anything resembling an opinion for any movie about giant gorillas/apes? (Come ON, everyone hated Congo and Mighty Joe Young didn't they?

Give a comment or two.

Almost Paradise . . .

. . . except for the monsters, the unhinged French lady, and some seriously stir-crazy castaways. But all this tropical turmoil makes LOST the most addictive thriller on TV.

Rolling surf, fragrant air, azure sky. Tweeting birds. It's another made-to-order day in paradise, postcard-perfect for surfing, hiking, communing with nature . . . or, you know, digging up a rotting corpse that could help keep you alive on this sand-flea infested nightmare beach.
Here on the Hawaii set of ABC's hit drama Lost--that twisty mystery series about plane crash survivors fending for themselves on a South Pacific island inhabited by polar bears, a sadistic Frenchwoman, and unseen monsters--the cameras roll as Kate (Evangeline Lilly) and Jack (Matthew Fox) stare at a mound of dirt marked with a wooden cross.
"Why didn't you just put him with the others when you burned the fuselage?" asks Kate.
"Because I needed to bury him," explains Dr. Jack solemnly.
The two pull out some makeshift shovels and begin exhuming the dead guy, a U.S. marshall who was bringing fugitive Kate to justice before disaster struck. See, this marshal carried a wallet. And that wallet contained a key. And that key opens an impenetrable briefcase. And the contents of that case are important enough for them to endure this hellish process, which involves gagging, maggots, and a startling betrayal that the island gods want to keep hush-hush for now.
But perhaps we can unearth some other secrets from this season's most enigmatic series. After the scene is finished shooting, Lilly is cryptic in one second flat, "The case belongs to the marshal," she says cautiously. "That's as far as I'll go." She's starting to sweat. Is she cracking . . . or just wilitng in the tropical heat? "If the marshal's carrying a case and he's on a plane, there's only so many things he can be carrying in it," she continues. "It's not underwear. And it's not a dinosaur."
Intriguing, though not very helpful. Next, we track down Fox and interrogate him.
"Uhhh . . . well . . . um . . . uhhh," he stammers. We stare. He stares. It's awkward. "There are some weapons," he confides. "A couple of other items . . . and something Kate wants really, really bad."
Which is?
Fox grins firmly. He's done digging. But we'll be doing it all season long.

Heebie-jeebie hypotheses and heady head-scratchers are the keys to Lost, and America doesn't seem to mind the game. The nebulous, foreboding drama--evoking The Twilight Zone, Cast Away, and Lord of the Flies--has fast become one of the year's most talked-about shows. In its Wednesday-at-8-p.m. slot, it has attracted 17.6 million viewers (impressive for an early-evening drama), making it the No. 2 new series of the season. And along with Desperate Housewives and Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, Lost is rescuing ABC from ratings purgatory--and giving viewers the meatiest conspiracy-theory fodder since The X-Files. In short, not bad for a new show without CSI or Law & Order in its title.
As trippy and unpredictable as Lost is, its journey into the pop-culture stratosphere has been equally surprising. Oceanic Flight 815 originated in summer 2003 at an ABC retreat in Anaheim, Calif., where then entertainment Lloyd Braun threw out a wild idea for his struggling network: How about a Cast Away-meets-Survivor drama? "The reaction in the room was what you'd expect if someone walked into a black-tie event wearing a T-shirt and gym shorts," recalls Braun. "You could hear the pages rustling on all the tables." But the exec forged ahead undeterred--he even had a great name for it: Lost.
The first script, penned by Jeffrey Lieber (Tuck Everlasting), didn't fly with Braun, so he rang up J.J Abrams, the rising Hollywood hyphenate who cocreated Felicity and ABC cult favorite Alias. But Abrams was busy developing a bounty-hunter drama for Braun called The Catch. Moreover, he questioned the viability of the premise as an ongoing series. Yet the notion stuck to him like sand between his toes: "I said, 'Well, let me think about it.' And I had one idea that got me excited--what if the island wasn't just an island?'"
Abrams agreed to meet with Crossing Jordan writer-producer Damon Lindelof, and the two came up with conceits that would liberate Lost from its inherent limitations: extensive flashbacks that ventured all over the globe, and an ongoing mystery that may or may not involve a man-hunting monster. Four days later, the duo submitted a 25-page outline. Braun loved it. As in rush-this-thing-into-production-now! loved it.
By this time, though pilot season was well under way, so Abrams and Lindelof began furiously writing and casting. Originally the noble doc Jack was to be quickly killed off (potential guest star: Michael Keaton), but the producers decided that the stunt was too gimmicky, and stayed Jack's execution. Instead, Party of Five's Fox was tapped for this leading role. "I knew that it was utterly original," says the actor. "[There] was nothing like it on television, and I felt that all the ingredients were there for something realy, really big."
Meanwhile a pan-demographic parade of actors auditioned from the completed portions of the script. Or not. "If an actor woud come in that we loved, but there was no part in the how for them, we said, 'F--- it. Let's write a character for that guy!'" says Lindelof, citing Jorge Garcia, who plays the plus-size jokester Hurley. Soon, a massive cast began to take shape, including druggie musician Chalrie (The Lord of the Rings' Dominic Monaghan); scruffy malcontent Sawyer (Sabertooth's Josh Holloway); former Iraqi officer Sayid (Naveen Andrews of The English Patient); creepy wise man Locke (Abram's staple player Terry O'Quinn, who appeared in Alias); very pregnant Aussie Claire (Emilie de Ravin); desperate housewife Sun (Yunjin Kim), whose domineering husband, Jin (24's Danile Dae Kim), doesn't know she speaks English; and dad Michael (Oz's Harold Perrineau), who's seeking to bond with his young son, Walt (Malcolm David Kelley). After a protracted search for leading lady Kate, the producers happened upon a tape of Canadian import Lilly, whose face was so fresh, she hadn't uttered a speaking line in Hollywood yet. "She was beautiful, but there was a goofy quality about her," recalls Abrams, "so it didn’t feel like she wasn't a human being."
Visa issues nearly scotched this find; Lilly was cleared for work less than 24 hours before shooting her first scene. Not that she was sold right away: "When I first read [the audition scenes], I was like, 'What? Gilligan's Island with 15 people? And what is the thing in the bushes?' When I read the full script, I started to go, 'Wait a minute--these guys can write.' I'm not a sci-fi person. I'm not a big action-adventure person. I don't even own a TV. But I remember thinking, 'Wow.'"
Armed with a first-class $11 million-plus budget for the two-hour pilot, the producers had no intention of flying under the radar. To pull off the fiery opening-scene crash, they bought a Lockheed L-1011 jumbo jet, chopped it into pieces, drove it to Oakland, then sent it via ship to Hawaii (total cost: $1 million-plus). "While we were shooting the pilot we'd look at each other and be like, 'Best show ever!'" chuckles Lindelof. "We'd be launching polar bears into the sky, and there was a plane and we've got people running from the explosion. It was just like, 'We're having way too much fun doing it for anyone to ever want to watch it in a million years.' There was a sense of fatalism."
Lost could have gone down in flames after Braun left the company during an ABC executive shake-up in April. Typically the old regime's pet projects go MIA, but incoming ABC prime-time entertainment president Stephen McPherson (who previously headed up Touchstone Television, the studio that produced Lost) had no intention of making the show disappear. After a company-wide screening of the pilot, "there were people who were standing up and cheering, and other people were saying, 'I don't know, it's risky,'" he remembers. "But there were some undeniably great things about it. As tough as decision as it is to take a chance on something, [J.J. and Damon] made it about as easy as they could."
Tell that to ABC's marketing department, which had to figure out how to sell a complex, multi-character, moody, violent, 8 p.m. drama on an ailing network. In keeping with the risk-taking theme, ABC used nontraditional promotional tactics: They planted 1,000 bottles on the beaches of several states over Labor Day, papered cities with missing posters featuring the last-seen specs of Dr. Jack and Co., and created mysterious radio spots (a crackling voice interrupting the broadcast: "Help me . . . I'm lost.").
Lost premiered September 22 with a gutsy two-parter that began at the site of a horrific plane wreck (whoa, that dude just got sucked into the engine!), featured a pilot being brutally killed by an off-camera creature, and ended with our veritable U.N. of survivors discovering a 16-year-old looped distress call indicating that they might not be alone. Despite having all the makings of a noble TV failure (glowing reviews, unusual premise), Lost drew 18.7 million viewers, making it the most-watched drama debut at 8 p.m. in five years (since NBC's Providence), and proving that a killer high-concept series can be king. "Still, to this moment . . . I can't . . . it feels impossible," stutters Abrams, whose previous shows have teetered on the cusp of cancellation. "I see the top 10 list and I see Lost is there and it looks like something that a friend would mock up just to hurt me."
Cast members aren't sure what to make of the bubbub either--especially because they've been marooned far away on Hawaii's North Shore since shooting began in July. (They've finished 13 of 23 episodes and will wrap in March.) "The agents call up from L.A. and say, 'Here's how you did last night,'" says O'Quinn (Locke). "I'll have to have the empirical evidence before I believe anything." And on that rare visit back to the mainland? "I did take a trip to L.A. recently with Matthew, and we were in the airport and we had a few really bizarre looks from people hoping that we weren't going to get on their flight," says Monaghan (Charlie). "It's definitely weird walking around airports now, because we are associated with bringing down a 747."
They're also connected to a series that raises more questions than a philosopher on speed. Are they all dead? What's up with the black and white stones? Will Gilligan ever hook up with Mary Ann? (Oh wait--wrong island.) The query most often posed to the Lost bunch, though is even more perplexing: What in the name of Mr. Rourke is that people-chomping creature tromping through the trees? "It looks like a camera on a stick," quips O'Quinn, whose character is the only one who had seen The Thing. Even when it comes to their own backstories, the cast receives just the essential info. "Which, by the way, could be a two-syllable word," says Ian Somerhalder, a.k.a. Boone, brother to spoiled babe Shannon (Maggie Grace). "I've been waiting for over 100 days to find out what the hell I'm about. It's like J.J. and Damon are playing a chess game, we're the pieces, and they're just like, 'That was a great move! Check.'" Then again certain cast members don't take nothing for an answer. Notes Grace: "There's always an on-set writer and we can't resisit. So we'll go out for drinks, wait till the wine kicks in, and go, 'Oh, hey, so about that monster . . .' But they don't usually bite."
Considering those tantalizing TV mysteries that untimately disappoint (damn you, Twin Peaks!), fans need to know: Are they getting strung along here on a creative high-wire act? While Lindelof promises that Lost isn't "a big smoke-and-mirrors trick," Abrams acknowledges that they're still discovering the show for themselves. "It's like using a Ouija board. You're telling this story, but you're like, 'Are you pushing it?' But we have a big picture idea of eventually where this should go," continues the cocreator, who excuses himself twice during the interview to jot down story ideas that have popped into his head. "I will say that if we can do a version of an ending that we've discussed, it would be mind-blowingly cool." Perrineau (Michael) sums up the challenge thusly: "Our writers have a really big mountain, and if they climb the mountain, then they're the champs. And if they don't, then yeaaaah, we've all crashed--but wasn't it an interesting ride?"
Here's what's lurking in the more immediate path for our fearful explorers (put on your anti-spoiler glasses before you read this paragraph): Locke makes a huge discovery. Someone will build a raft to try to escape. We'll meet other folks on the island who weren't on the plane, and learn two secrets about Hurley. The Bermuda Triangle continues to overlap with the Jack-Kate-Sawyer Triangle. ("I have a feeling that in the near term, it'll be Sawyer and Kate, and in the long term, it'll be Jack and Kate," says Fox. "[But] there's not a whole lot of room for romance in the situation that these people are dealing with.") Let's also heed this advice from Lindelof: "The flashbacks serve as a great conduit to learn more about these characters, but that's not all they're there for. The idea that these people--way before they got on this airplane--have interacted with each other either directly or through third parties is one of the cool pieces of tapestry of the show." Of course, our Lost boys and girls have a few ideas of their own about what should happen on Danger Island. "I'm just hoping it's going to go in this direction where we discover some magic nut in the jungle that's some sort of hallucinogenic," says Andrews (Sayid). "I was hoping it would grow into an area where we have communes and free love." Halloway, clearly channeling his character, Sawyer, takes it one hedonistic step further: "I would like to throw a big party with all my alcohol and set up a little bar and have the girls dancing on the bar on bamboo stripper poles. It would remove us from all that ehhh for a minute. Dom already has the guitar. You could have people jamming, girls in their little torn up stuff, and it'd be like, Yeah! Perfect episode." The one episode that they won't dare to think about, though, involves the R-word: rescue. "No, dude," scoffs Perrineau. "I want to have a job."

Choosy Moms Choose Charlie

I swiped the Television Without Pity title for the recap of last week's episode of Lost.

You can read it for yourself--if you want--by clicking on the post title, which will direct you to the entire recap.

There were strong opinions about this episdode, so it will be interesting to see how Dan Kwa choses to evaluate an episode that deals with torture.

Enjoy.

Postmodern novels and the use of footnotes

In the last few years I have been lucky enough to begin reading for pleasure again, more so than I ever did while in grad school. That is certainly one of the reasons that I could not stick with grad school forever was that I could not see myself continually reading stuff that I wasn't supremely interested in--at least not interested enough.

So, with the help and advice of friends I have read many interesting books in the last few years and been exposed to some very interesting authors. The people that I am discussing today are David Foster Wallace, Mark Danielewski, and David Markson.

Wallace's most famous work is infinite Jest, a book that is best and most accurately described as "sprawling." It certainly is large--over 1000 pages. Some of the book' particulars I won't even try to explain in part because I can't and in part because that's not what I am here to do. It IS an interesting, if challenging read. If you can commit yourself to the time it takes, you will be able to think about corporate branding, tennis, prep schools, drugs, and many, many other things.

Danielewski's book House of Leaves was my most recently finished book. Another book that is complicated and "sprawling" in its own right--if more contained and tightly focuses than Infinite Jest. This book is a horror story set within a discussion of metaphysics, personal demons, and not a little bit of science--echo reflection, photography, etc. It is very challenging to read--as I will describe momentarily.

Currently I am reading Markson's Reader's Block. This book is harder to describe in part because I am just getting started and because it is intentionally written to defeat description.

And THAT is what this post is really about--the structure of these books.

I call these novels postmodern, and I hope that I am right. Each is written self-consciously, with the goal of breaking down the divide between the author and his finished product and the reader. If that isn't postmodern, then please educate me.

DFW uses a great deal of footnotes in Infinite Jest, but they are there in more of a traditional sense. They provide asides to the reader--even if some of these asides are pages long. The book could exists on its own without them. Diminished, certainly, but the story could be there.

Danielewski goes a step further. His book uses footnotes to tell two parallel stories that follow each other and feed off of each other. The two stories are like Siamese twins that would not be able to survive without each other. On top of that, Danielewski uses footnotes and the structure of the book itself to mimic the convolutions of the story being told. It is extremely difficult to follow at times and very much breaks the barrier between author's text and reader passivity. I enjoyed it.

Markson goes even further than Danielewski, in that it appears like his whole story is made up of asides--the entire story seems like footnotes. Small bursts of information. Seen at book level, these seemingly random statements don't have cohesion, but I am guessing that as the story progresses, a clarity of sorts will emerge. If I could pull back out of the book, I am sure that a pattern would be visible when the totality is viewed.

Each of these books has their challenges, but I think you would enjoy (at least some of) what they offer.

Frontline--The Persuaders

(Click on the post title to go to the PBS website, which is chock-a-block with relevant information.)

I was unable to watch all of this show last night, but what I did see makes me recommend it to anyone who enjoys/is concerned about the role of marketing in American society.

I want to say this show has been on previously, but maybe not. I will say that it is being rebroadcast on the 11th and the 14th at 1 am. Stay awake or set your VCRs appropriately.

Since I missed giving you fair warning on THAT Frontline, maybe you will consider watching next Tuesday's episode (Nov. 16 @ 10 pm) which asks the question "Is WalMart Good for America?" It features our very own Circleville, OH.

The Incredibly Edible Incredibles

Yes, I actually managed to convince my husband that he, Stevie, and I should go see The Incredibles last night. Before I get to the movie, you should know that getting Kev to go out and do anything, let alone do something after work is a major coup. That may qualify for some shoe-tyin' even! (Sorry--couldn't resist.)

Anyway, the movie was really, really fun. The visuals were so cool that I want to see it again--at the theatre. The DVD won't do it justice. It was a mixture of a good Bond movie, Spy Kids, and the other great Pixar animated movies. Yes, this review is retarded, but I'm in a hurry and I didn't take notes.

There were some pretty intense moments for the wee ones--I wouldn't take Stevie back to see it, but I would let him watch it on DVD. It was pretty loud and overwhelming in the theatre--I don't think he would be as on-edge at home. As the fighting towards the end got more intense, Stevie shouted out, "The Power Rangers would be able to get that robot!!" Luckily, it was a Monday night and there weren't too many people in the theatre. Despite the tense moments, Stevie liked the movie and was glad we went. He really liked Frozone.

Anyway, go see it, with or without the kids. It's quality entertainment. Also, here's my Savin' Money tip-o-the-day: The biggest rip-off at the movies is the food. Go ahead and get the popcorn. It's difficult to replicate moviehouse popcorn and, when you go to the movies as infrequently as we do, it's still a "special" treat. But to avoid dropping $20 on soda, fill up three large styrofoam cups (from work) with ice (from work) immediately before leaving work for the movie. Stash them and three pops from home in your oversize bag. Grab some $1 double cheeseburgers from the McDonald's across the street from the theatre/er. Buy the popcorn--consider it a "fry" replacement. Crack open the sodas during the loud parts and wah la! A full meal for a family of three for about 8 dollars. Pretty...Incredible.

Tom Cruise . . . maniac?

You might have heard about my Tom Cruise theories.


You might even scoff at them. But have you read the Tom Cruise profile in Rolling Stone #956? Jack T. was nice enough to give me the issue over the weekend and it paints the picture of a, shall we say, focused Mr. Cruise.

Sure, he's driven. All of the characters that he has played in any film have been driven toward something, away from something. They are focused, passionate. But this article shows the drive of someone how has the unnatural drive of someone who is . . . hmmm . . . a bit off?

So here I am blatantly ripping off text from the article and then providing my commentary.

1) "[I]n his movies, he is taking steps to shed his old persona of headstrong-young-hotshot-with-a-good heart-underneath-it-all in favor of progressively more evil characters--from Lestat in Interview with a Vampire to Frank "T.J." Mackey in Magnolia to Vincent in . . . Collateral. . . . Vincent is not a nice guy. He is a cold-blooded killer and an unredeemable sociopath who leaves a trail of bodies in his wake." Now the article did not underline that part, but I thought it was relevant. Call me crazy, or maybe, call him crazy.

2) "He reaches his right hand out to shake mine as a gesture of approval. When his hand grips mine, his elbow comes flying out of nowhere and slams into my chest, knocking me off balance. He has a habit of making great bonding alpha-male gestures of body contact. When you've said something that earns his agreement or respect, you get a firm handshake. Respect mixed with encouragement earns you a spine-collapsing clap on both shoulders. And if he feels a little healthy surprise, you get the flying elbow to the chest." That's just weird . . . and bruising.

3) "Cruise considers the idea [about an action hero being able to live after the Apocalypse]. In fact, there's nothing that you can say that he won't seriously consider. He pays attention, almost to a fault. 'I can live out in the woods, ' he begins, 'I would eat bugs. I can use a sword and a pistol and stuff.'" Real sword/pistol or just the fake, prop kind? And again, weird.

4) "In movie after movie, he has played the straight man in order to enable great performances by his co-stars, whether it be Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, Cuba Gooding, Jr. in Jerry Maguire, Paul Newman in The Color of Money or Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men." Nothing negative to say about Cruise, but I must take issue with the journalist here. I get that he is trying to point out that most of these guys got Oscars for their performance in Tom Cruise movies, but still . . . with the glaring exception of Cuba, these are legendary actors! Should we quietly celebrate Cruise's intelligence by implying he graciously stepped aside to allow these guys to shine?

5) "[W]e discuss his criteria for the perfect mate. Suddenly, Cruise snaps his fingers loudly. An epiphany has been reached. 'I'd like to be with a woman who goes [he switches into a woman's voice], 'I've reviewed your schedule, and I'm going to set up this motorcycle trip for you, because you've been working really hard. And I'm going to go with you. We're going to go riding together. And I've already been working on it for a couple of days so it can be special.' . . . 'That woman,' he concludes, 'I would worship.'" Two things here: First, setting unrealistic expectations for others only leads to disappointment, which can lead to rage and unhealthy, or may I say--antisocial, lashing out. Second, talking in unnatural voices is another sign of being crazy.

6) "Do you ever lose your cool? Yeah, I lose my cool. But I'm not a hothead. I'm not someone who screams at people. It takes a lot. It depends on the situation, know what I mean? You look at something and you think 'How much is it going to take to get it done?' Because nothing keeps me from doing something--ha ha HA HA hee hee, you gotta know, [journalist name], heh heh, you gotta know, ha ha--it's gonna get done Man that is just NUTS! Sure, Cruise is know for boisterous laughter during interviews, but this whole sequence in unnerving! And then there is this seemingly tossed away comment a few seconds later in the article. When things start to get chaotic, I get calmer. If I get upset or freak out, it's not going to help a situation." Strange calmness in the face of calamity is another sign of the serial killer mind, or so I have heard. Or maybe that is just a rumor that I am pursuing.

7) People talk about it whatever it may be--I do. I just do. . . . [Cruise] is strong-willed, centered and resolute. Any thinking that must be done, any turmoil that must be handled is solved first and foremost in a dialogue between Tom Cruise and himself. Other than sounding like a certain out-of-touch with reality president, talking to oneself is another sign of an unhinged mind.

8) [Cruise] must go. When he lean in to bat me on the shoulder, I'm prepared to not be knocked off balance. And I'm prepared for the vigorous double-hand clasp goodbye. But what I'm not ready for is his action-packed goodbye. Just as he reaches the door, he turns around, leaps into a crouch, puts his hands in a karate position and widens his eyes. It is his way of saying, 'Catch you around.' Man, that is just creepy! Still want to defend him?]

More BK zaniness

I have made several references lately about Burger King's advertising campaigns.

The company is clearly attempting to be edgy and draw a younger crowd of hamburger lovers.

Well, here I tell you that there may be no end to this rabbit hole that BK is going down into.

On television they have re-embraced the Burger King, as I commented on a while back and referenced in this link to Slate. But that is on TV. The beauty of the internet is the rules are different and so may be the outcome.

You have probably seen, via me or your own surfing the website on the Subservient Chicken. (I had forgotten that this site is kind of creepy and maybe a bit skeevy to watch at work. Just watch your back okay?) Kind of twisted, but the idea is, you can "have it your way." Funny right? Well, the chicken nuttiness continues recently on a new theme.

BK is promoting two new chicken sandwiches by touting it as a pay-per-view fight between two dudes in chicken suits. The commercials are on TV, but to see the fight you go to the website. Even if you don't go to the site because of bandwidth issues or whatever, take my word for it--its weird and sort of oddly inspired at the same time.

But that's not all. Tonight I saw something else BK and internet related: Ugoff.com. I only caught the tail end of this commercial, but the impression that I got was of a Euro-trash sort of character. Be careful also, this website probably has sound, so plug the headphones in if you are at work. I won't spoil the contents of the website for you as I see my role here as an enabler, not an explainer.

Ultimately, what's my point?

I'm saying is that it is strange and eye-catching. Does it sell fast food? Don't know? Is it interesting advertising? Yes . . . for me. Judge for yourself.

Dominic Monighan

Some thoughts and random impressions on tonight's episode of Lost.

Dominic Monighan might just be the best actor on the cast. I know, I know . . . I'm biased as a LOTR fan, but he did a good job tonight with some material that could and did careen off into craziness.

What I mean is, and I don't know if this is true of J.J. Abrams generally, there were some bits tonight that just was too ridiculous. The whole parallel between crawling through darkness and the moth struggling out of its cocoon? The symbolism with rebirth--again with the tunnel crawling. The moth leading the way? I half expected Gandalf to grab the moth and start whispering in its ear.

Does Mr. Abrams always smack you about the head with his heavy-handed symbolism? Have I been blinded by Ms. Garner's latex dresses and not noticed? If so, my honorary TWoP badge of snark should be immediately revoked.

Also, could Sawyer be any more of a dick? Judging by next week's preview, not just yet. Is the worst yet to come? And does he taint everyone who (like I) loves Watership Down? Wait!! Maybe he's supposed to be General Woundwort?! Hmmm . . . must consider.

And one other thing before I forget--what should we think about Michael looking (longingly?) at Sun when Walt asked if they could live in the caves? Doesn't he remember that just last week he was yelling about how "where I come from, black people and Koreans don't get along!!"

But I don't mean to be overly critical. In general, it is still a compelling show and I like it lots, really!