Revisiting Childhood . . . Or At Least the Cartoons :)

On one of the few days I get off in a week I was mindlessly watching television flipping through channels not really knowing what I wanted to watch. As I channel surfed I realized that many of the shows on were kinda.....let us say dumb for a lack of a better word. For the purpose of this post I am keeping it to the cartoons to avoid an overly long analysis and getting people put off by my comments.

Let's begin with 'Adventure Time'. I really don't know a lot about the show only that it's about a boy (at least, I think it's a boy) and a . . . let's say a dog, going on adventures. I have seen a handful of episodes and each one makes less sense than the last; if there was a plot line in each of the episode I missed them entirely. The thing that really got me was the animation. After watching about ten minutes of the show I wanted to get the eye and brain bleach because it was so painful to watch. Just because it is a show aimed at children does not mean that the animation goes to the wayside. Children enjoy quality as much as adults!!

Another show with similar animation disaster is 'The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack'. As I understand, this show's animation was suppose to be akin to vintage adventure novels. I can see that a little in the design of the background, but the design of the characters and their expression invoked a gag reflex in me. (I'm laughing right now because you think I'm exaggerating -- I'm not) When I was able to watch the show without gagging, the stories were . . . shall we say blah? There was nothing really clever about the adventures the boy, pirate and whale (yes, I said whale) embark upon, just twenty or so minutes of uninspiring cartoon slapstick. The biggest crime of this cartoon is its insult to slapstick -- slapstick done right is unforgettable in the best sense (i.e. Abbot and Costello).

I'm not saying all the cartoons of today are awful. 'Phineas and Ferb' is a crowning achievement of Disney's in recent years where as most of their programing has been lacking. The animation is fun to the point that I am not distracted by the fact that one of the titular character's head is shaped like a triangle. Every child has the same problem Phineas and Ferb have -- to have as much fun as possible during summer vacation before school starts. The slapstick and running gags in this show has an actual point that plays out well in the episode and the series as a whole. Another thing that I found impressive about the show is it has jokes for the parents; it's not the 'if you know what I mean' humour, but the references to things that kids might not necessarily know or watch; two examples come to mind are CSI: Miami and the Shroud of Turin. The jokes for parents are still funny for the kids, and that's a big plus for me!

While I'm still on Disney let's talk about 'Kim Possible'; this is another one that is well done. This show, unlike 'Phineas and Ferb' is aim towards an older audience around 11 to 14ish years old about a teen girl, Kim Possible, saving the world between homework and cheer practice with her clumsy but lovable best friend, Ron Stoppable. It's a fun show with good plot that makes sense and keeps the viewer interested. It set during their high school years and include all the problems that happen during that time. Though the show also dealt with high school problems while saving the world it doesn't bog itself down with the tedious 'I like him - why doesn't he like me! Boohoo!' drama. It's a good mix of action, comedy, and a dash of romance to keep anyone entertained.

A show I find perplexing is 'Chowder'; I know there's something about a bakery and the people (or what have you) who run it. Other than that I find it difficult to understand the plot of the episode (if there isn't suppose to be one, please do let me know). The animation, I find, to be one where the animators were trying to be whimsical but ultimately it is a display of disturbing characters. The interaction between characters appears to happen for the sole purpose of slapstick that it becomes unsettling and unwatchable.

I do like weird cartoon, but they have to be done really well. I really enjoyed 'Courage the Cowardly Dog', I really did. Set in the middle of nowhere (literally) about a dog, Courage, who always has to protect his owners from the extremely strange, and unusual things that happen to them. Every episode leave the viewer with a feeling and wondering of 'what just happened?' What I really enjoyed about the show was that no matter what happened to the characters in the show they were always alright by the beginning of the next episode ready for the next weird thing. I wouldn't recommend this show for younger viewers just because the show is so weird and may leave a disturbing feeling with the kiddes. Each episode is self contained which works great for the set up of the show.

I want to leave this post on an up note so I will lastly talk about the DCAU cartoons. DCAU stands for DC Animated Universe which are 'Batman: The Animated Series', 'Superman: The Animated Series', 'Batman Beyond', "Static Shock', 'The Zeta Prodject' and 'Justice League/Unlimited' to name a few. These cartoons had everything from complicated plots that bleed into really engaging story arch to really touching moments between characters, things that gave viewers nightmares to things that gave hope. They were all connected with each other via references; it was possible to watch them separately without needing to watch anything else, but it added to the enjoyment when you did. What really amazes me is how long this continuance lasted; it started in 1992 with 'Batman' (same year as the Tim Burton Batman) and ended in 2006 with 'Justice League Unlimited' -- that's about 14 years. 14 years!!! That's a long time for any show, cartoon or live action, on television. To me that's just a testament of what good story telling can accomplish, and these shows had good story telling overall.

So this is my two cents (or fifty with inflation) on several cartoons.

Shakespeare's Who's on First

One must view it to believe it!

Enjoy.....

A Morbid Connection to Heaven:
An Investigation of Relics & The Modern Need for Them

Everyone has a vague understanding of relics; even the most 'un-Churched' person has heard of relics. The question that needs to be asked is a simple one – what are relics? When the modern mind thinks of relics, they think of something old and disgusting, which is partially true, but the thoughts of saints or Heaven do not enter the mind. Relics are something more then just the dead body parts of a holy person. They are a connection to something beyond what we see in the visible world, to the invisible.

People have always wanted to improve their person and wished to be close to those who are better than they. In the early days of the Church, people always scrambled to get close to the Apostles, their successors and other holy people in hopes that a simple touch would improve their fortunes. Even when the holy person has passed on to the the next life, people still wish to touch and be connected. With this mindset, it is not hard to see why the cult of saints and of relics developed. As the Holy Mother Church grew and spread, so did the cult of relics, and the cult was integrated within the liturgy. Soon great devotions brought thousands of pilgrims to the graves of the saints and the churches that held relics. Because of people's faith and their need for graces, miracles began to occur through, not by, the relics of saints. Unfortunately, people turned the desire to be near someone holy for profit and the abuses began, which also brought about great doubt concerning the veneration.

But there will always be doubters about relics and their authenticity, which began strongly with the Protestant Revolt or Reformation. The skeptic will always be able to say, 'This might not have been so-and-so’s,' or 'You might be mistaken,' and there is a possibility that it might be true. There might have been a mistake, or fakes might have been substituted for the real relics. We evaluate relics the same way we evaluate the bona fides of anything else, like visiting where a famous pop star use to live in his youth or something similar. Skeptics have gone to great lengths to disprove some of the more fantastical miracles that occur with relics, such as the liquefaction of Saint Januarius' blood and, especially, the Shroud of Turin. But some relics are beyond doubt, others are so highly probable that it would be rash to doubt. Others are merely probable, and some, yes, are improbable. But since it is not the physical object itself Catholics venerate, it is best not to toss out even most of the skeptical relics, lest you toss out something that really is a relic of the holy dead.

Relics are an aid to the Church Militant in helping Her to remember the goal of Heaven and to have a closer connection to God through His saints. Also, in a round about way, relics can lead to a better understanding and participation in a good wholesome relationship with our fellow man. Relics become a reminder of two things – first that we must die and secondly, and most importantly, that there will be a resurrection of the body.

To Be Continued............
(Copyright: Belongs to the Wanderer)
(If interested in research please contact me.)

The 'Glee' I Heard Made Me Cry

It's been awhile since my last post and my only reason is that I've been extremely busy with ....stuff. A poor excuse indeed, but alas, my only one.

At the persistence of some girls I'm working with in a play, I watched a clip of 'Glee'. I guess it was the end of the episode performance there was no other way for it to fit into the show. The clip was entitled "Singing in the Rain/Umbrella"; it should be noted that I loved the movie 'Singing in the Rain', I grew up watching it, singing the songs and even trying to dance along (the last bit was at the expense of my head and furniture). So I see the title and I think that they are trying to reintroduce old classical showtunes to the modern audience. With that thought I click play . . . two and a half minutes of my life later and I was ready to do two things. The first being to plot the death of the 'Glee' writers and music arragners; second listening to the original 'Singing in the Rain' with Gene Kelly over and over and over again until my mind was purged of the sacrilege I has just heard.

I sent a link of the 'Singing in the Rain/Umberlla' clip to my friend Jackie, who has a much better ear for music than me and can sing fantastically, to get her opinion. Jackie is my go to girl for music, she has been singing Gilbert and Sullivan operas since she was a wee lass and loves theatre as much as myself. I knew I would get a good and through examination of the piece. I wait for her to listen and gather an opinion.

But as I waited for Jackie to get back with me I started listening to other 'Glee' recordings and I noticed something rather interesting about the voices. Let me first say that the singing is decent - no one, from what I've heard, is 'nails on the chalkboard' bad, but that just it . . . they're not bad. There's nothing about the singing that makes me say 'Wow, they're really good!' or 'I want to listen to more of their songs!', it was more along the lines of elevator music -- something to listen to so there no awkward silence between you and the other five strangers going up with you.

I then hear a ping noting Jackie response. Her reaction, I quote, "The cast of Glee should DIE!" I am sure this was a rather mild reaction (it's always so hard to gauge emotions over chat). She makes mention of how the voice sound as though they have been corrected by a computer thus robbing them of any personality in the voice. I agree with her whole heartedly.

The arrangement of the piece also left something lacking. The title suggest that the song 'Singing in the Rain' would be the predominate one of the two merged together, so you could imagine my surprise when I clicked play another song started. It took me a while to remember that 'Umbrella' was a pop song that was over played on the radio a few years back. I was disappointed to find that there was only ONE verse of 'Singing in the Rain' in whole rendition which was over dominated by 'Umbrella'. I was never really a big fan of the song, nor a big opponent -- it was just REALLY over play for me. Out of the two songs I believe that 'Singing in the Rain' deserved more air time, because it is a song that has defined music; its listed as number three on American Film Institute's 100 Years . . . 100 Songs list. Number 3, people!!

On a final note I would like to say that I do not think that the cast of 'Glee' is talentless, I just find them . . . untrained. Give them all good voice instructors and then imagine what they could do. Whatever that would be, it would at least be better then it is now.

Until the next post -- God Bless!