Strange Visitors

Visitors are lovely.  At least some visitors.  Others, you wonder what they're up to, how long they will stay and if they'll eat up all the food.

There's some odd traffic to this blog from the Netherlands.  As much as I would love to believe my musings on popular culture have circled the globe and captivated a foreign audience,  it's doubtful. My updates have been infrequent and mostly for my own amusement.

A far more likely explanation is this person is part of a group of con artists who remain vindictive even after 7 years of disassociation.  Why do I suspect this?  Because there's been a recent bout of Terms of Use violation reports and yet another attempt to contact responsible adults close to these people to resolve this.  They have long since learned to be "hit counter" shy, sending friends to view what they don't dare.  Sadly, they have not learned not to lie.

In any event, they have two associates in the Netherlands.  If I'm correct, I'm not really sure what the point is.  This blog has nothing to do with their "interests".  However, part of the con was appropriating material and ideas from people they were deceiving.   A bit like a small child mimicking adults for laughs.   At first it seems flattering.  But then one realizes how creepy it is; they mimic to hide their own writing styles and try to appropriate ideas they are too dull to come up with on their own.   

Therefore I must wonder if my visitor's goal is to exploit my intellectual property.

To whom it concerns:  This is a bad idea.  You are not invisible:

 Location:  N---------, G----------, Netherlands

This is not a proxy.  This is an individual who seems to have come by searching for the blog, not content(popular content searches involve "The Hobbit". Review of Desolation of Smaug coming soon) .

If I am wrong about the intentions of this visitor, I apologize.

If I'm right, be aware I will protect my intellectual property to the fullest extent of the law.  That includes all material on my blogs.  As unreasonable as the DMCA laws can be, they can be quite handy.

You have been warned. 

Military Female Fitness: They're doing it wrong...again

I saw this blurb in passing on Yahoo:

Marines delay female fitness plan after half fail

WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do three pullups, the minimum standard that was supposed to take effect with the new year, prompting the Marine Corps to delay the requirement, part of the process of equalizing physical standards to integrate women into combat…

Associated Press

I'll let someone else read it all because this shite irritates me to no end.  As in 'makes my blood boil'.

Here's why:

1.  Any fit adult, or adolescent for that matter, considering military service(as in trained to kill people to defend country, fellow, soldiers and self), should at minimum have the body strength to pull their own weight up.  Imagine alligators snapping at your heels.

2.  Military weight requirements, at least when I was in (the 80's), actively made it harder for a woman the same strength as a man her size to be excepted.  If you looked at the charts, the maximum weight for my height as a female was something like 145lbs.   You can be very fit at that weight with my height IF you have a small frame.(I have a medium frame).   If you don't, that number is more like a minimum, than a max.  .The male requirements for my height max out at 170lbs, which is close to the weight I am now.  I am not fat.     Think about it.

IMO this drastic difference was a based on the flawed assumption that women were always heavier because they were fatter.    Whereas the assumption for men, much more logical, was that to have the strength to do the job, they needed to be a certain weight.  To check that was muscle, not fat, their were the strength tests.     Why that logic wasn't applied to women, I don't know.   Make the weight the same(muscle mass), use the strength test to check that it's muscle not fat.  But that leads to the second problem...

3. The military's strength tests for women, at least when I was in, seemed to be designed to get women in the military, not to make sure they could do the job.  Compare the men's PT test max of run 3 miles in 20mins(? working from memory here),  80 situps in two minutes, and 20 pullups to the women's 1.5 miles in 15 minutes,hang for 30 secs, and 50 situps in a minute.

Run 1.5 miles in 15 minutes is a MAX?  Are you serious?  1.5 MILES?  When I'm lean(about 150-155 lbs) I can blow that in my sleep.  And I'm much older than these young women who in theory should out preform me.    This is insulting.

But when you're in the service, you have so much shite to keep up with, you take your breaks when you can.  I trained to male standards, and they knew it...allowing me to coast during my tokenism influenced female PT tests.   I always maxed out the "hang"(lol) and situps. Ironically, then I wasn't as good a runner and never maxed out.  I put that down to being 120 lbs and energy starved. Even I was under the impression I needed to eat less, or at least lots of rabbit food, to be fit, believing exercising like a maniac would be enough.  It only get's you so far without ample macro nutrients(protein, etc).  I've learned since.  

So the MILITARY created a situation guaranteeing that female recruits would be weaker than male recruits.  For this conversation it's irrelevant what anyone thinks women can do, or the average fitness of females in this society(which sucks).  The only thing that's relevant is ensuring women recruited are strong enough.  This is perfectly possible.

So why'd did the military commit to this foolishness?  Off the top of my head;

1.  Quotas.  The push for gender parity made people rush for a stop gap.  And as a stop gap it would be fine.  But this stop gap thinking lingered...or malingered...decades after it was needed.   The military isn't alone in this; police departments also share this foolishness.  I deeply respect fire departments for NOT doing this.  Unfortunately not enough women are attracted to being firefighters so there hasn't been enough social pressure to change the reasons why woman lag in the strength department.  Thanks to institutions like the military and police forces wimping out this leads to another major factor...

2. Limited by fitness of recruits available.  If the tests for female recruits had been the same as for male recruits, true many women wouldn't qualify.  But that would have put pressure on other institutions, like High School physical fitness programs, to find out why.  Remember how high school PE made you a strong and fit person?  Neither do I.  I had to go out of my way to find the gym in my junior and senior years.  It wasn't complete crap, but it reflected that society was confused about how one got consistently fit.   And I'll never forget the FEMALE PE instructor who taught boys PE who believed girls couldn't run a mile.  Seriously.  No, really.  Even though I wasn't doing any real running then, I didn't buy it. It sounded very unlikely.  Weren't there women running marathons on telly?  Were they mutants or something?   So being given a pool of girls trained by people who didn't believe in them didn't help.   

This is exacerbated now by a situation where cash strapped schools systems have cut their PE programs.  This means the recruiters should expect their recruit pools of both genders to suffer.  But boys considering military service will go out of their , way are encouraged culturally to go out of their way, to find a gym and supported by friends and family.  Girls have zero, read zero, cultural support while at the same time being told eating more will make you fat, exactly NOT the thing you need to do as an adolescent trying to build muscle.

3.  Inertia.   Self explanatory. But making a pool of potential victims was never a good idea.   You would think they learned from the pathetic military rape scandal(something else that makes my blood boil).  It's not rocket surgery   :

 "Let's make a sub group of female soldiers inside our macho culture that on average is weaker than the male soldiers, encourage aggression and sexual violence (Abu Ghraib) and be completely surprised when the men start targeting their fellow female soldiers.  Surprised, I say!  How did that happen?"

Then one shining day someone got over the idea of women in combat.  Lovely.  I should give them points for trying.   *gives point*  But carrying the baggage of failures past, their first attempt wasn't as successful as they needed.  

Their solution?  Throw out the strength requirement.

OR  

Find out why some of these women didn't develop the strength and learn how all of them can.

Body strength is the deference between being a physical force or a victim.  It should go without saying to operate with confidence in a "macho" culture you NEED to hold your own, whether you're going into combat or not.  If you can't protect yourself, you can't protect your mates or country.  Frankly the military should prioritize increasing female strength requirements to have parity with male requirements if only for the safety of female soldiers.

It does make a difference.  When I was in I was never targeted for any sexual serious harassment except once one evening when it was hard to see who I was, and the guy's own mates told him to stand down.  They knew me. 

But in a backhanded was this is good news.  Half the women could qualify. At one time most people assumed no women could do three pull ups.   That means they all can if they want to AND are shown how.  

My suggestions to military fitness "engineers":

1.  Raise the weight requirements for female recruits to match males of the same height.  
2. AT THE SAME TIME, make physical tests the same for both genders.
3. Make a media announcement a couple years before easing these changes in, to inform and put pressure on educational institutions. This will give them the motive to push for funding of PE programs.
4. Respect the limits of boot camp training.  Boot camp will not "build" anyone up.  At least not physically.  There isn't enough time and there isn't enough heavy muscle stimulation followed by rest. It appears to work as a strength program for people with muscle that has gone soft and flabby, or people who haven't finished growing.       Boot camp is to train fighting conditioning.  For that you need a recruit that already has the raw physical ability.  I can say from personal experience boot camp did not increase my strength at all.  

It really isn't rocket surgery.

[Notes on text:  even though I was in the Navy, in my program we trained with Marines.  Details of my recollection about requirements may be wrong.  The author is about 160lbs, and, when conditioned, can do 6-8 pullups at a time on a good day.  In the past, up to 14ish, but I weighed less]

Doctor "Plotty Wotty"

Matt Smith in final performance as The Doctor

Alas, this speaks to me:

The Captain Kirk Problem: How Doctor Who Betrayed Matt Smith

By  Ted B. Kissell Dec 30 2013

With last week’s Christmas episode of Doctor Who, the bow tie has fallen to the floor of the TARDIS and we’ve said our final good night to the Raggedy Man. What is a fitting epitaph for Matt Smith, now that his run as the show's title character has ended?
I keep coming back to a sentiment that’s been cropping up for a while now: He deserved better.
The writing and plotting shortcomings of Doctor Who have been so glaring for the past couple of years that the 50-year-old BBC sci-fi show’s growing popularity in the United States (even as its ratings have sagged a bit in the U.K.) has to be attributable to something other than the stories. Most notably: the energy, charisma, and likability of the show’s leading man. After his somewhat stretched-out three-season-plus run, Smith tends to come in second in “Favorite Doctor” polls, behind his immediate predecessor, David Tennant. 

 I hesitate to say Tennent is overrated.  I do like Tennant, but I'll always be an Eccleston girl.  He sold the reintroduced Doctor as a troubled soul having lost all in the increasingly "plotty wotty" Time War, reconnected to his favorite planet.   Tennant's success and appeal are because of the foundation Eccleston laid.  And Tennant kept the energy of the rebooted series going with raw energy.

Because it wasn't due to the plotting and writing.  The Doctor destroys the career of Harriet Jones, not because she's wrong, but because he can?    Rose yo-yos back and forth: she's lost forever, wait no she's not...wait, yes she is.  For real this time.  Probably.  Donna, one of the most rocking companions ever, doesn't get this out.  In fact she gets robbed of everything.  If they wanted to write out her character sympathetically, why didn't they have her reconnect with that guy from the Library?  Instead she was used as a plot device...shades of future plots to come.

It took me a while warm to Smith as the Doctor.  Honestly I baulked at his youthful casting(yes, I've been among the fans mocking the casting direction, sardonically speculating Justin Beiber's casting as the12th Doctor).  It didn't help that Karen Gillan was cast as his new very youthful companion, giving the preview of 5 series an Afterschool Special feel.  Needless to say they all won me over in the end...Amy and Rory are awesome.  But again, it was down to the actors acting their hearts out, not solid writing.    

Someone ran out of ideas and the companions as plot devices took hold.  It started with Donna's disposal, then Amy, and Oswin.  Even River Song, my personal favorite character of the reboot, got this treatment, starting off solidly as a mysterious force of her own from the Doctor's future, then being reduced to a plot device to kill the Doctor.(Though I did enjoy her antics in "Let's Kill Hitler").   Kissell examines Moffat view of the Doctor and finds it disturbing:

All incarnations of the Doctor have been at least a little bit arrogant, but they’ve also tempered that arrogance with varying degrees of humility, selflessness, and a sense of wonder. But if Moffat were running things, the Doctor would swagger, dammit.
Once Moffat took the reins, swagger he did—looking pretty sexy doing so, thanks to Smith’s performance. The first season rings with the sound of the Doctor telling people how awesome he is, and how scared they should be, because he’s awesome.
To the Atraxi in his first appearance: “Hello, I’m the Doctor. Basically, run.”
To the Weeping Angels: “There’s one thing you never put in a trap. If you’re smart, if you value your continued existence, if you’ve got any plans about seeing tomorrow, there’s one thing you never, ever put in a trap. … Me.”
And then, of course, his signature barrage of bluster, the “Hello, Stonehenge” speech from “The Pandorica Opens.” Since we, the audience, know that he’s ultimately going to prevail, these repeated instances of the 11th Doctor bragging on himself to a sky full of alien menace (which happens again in his farewell Christmas special) come off as bullying.

 I think Moffat's bravura heavy  interpretation of the character goes hand in hand with his treatment of companions as plot devices.  It's as if he's taking the idea that the companions humanize the Doctor's experience and running with it to the extreme:  the Doctor needs horrible, complicated things to happen to his companions to keep him in touch with his "humanity"(Galifeyinity? ).  Does Moffat see the Doctor as a "big damn hero" who needs a "damsel" in distress?    Because the series seems to be sliding in that direction.    

In spite of 60's television drama devices(screaming dramatically as the episode ended in a cliff hanger) Doctor Who has always had spirited companions who were people in their own right. Remember Barbara Wright running Daleks off the road in a big damn truck?    Or Jamie, one of the best studies in culture shock.   Then there was Tegan who could not be shut up.  This isn't counting the more well known companions like Leela and Sara Jane(who also could not be shut up).  They weren't "plotty wotty" devices.  

Why to I keep using that phrase?  Blame Ted, who apparently invented it(and I so wish I had beat him to it):

The entirety of Season Six is when Moffat’s fascination for plot twists and open-ended mysteries (in our house, we describe this unfortunate tendency as “plotty-wotty”) took over the show, and the whole product suffered.

Perhaps Moffat thought by building companions into the plot he was making them more interesting.  Sadly all it does is reduce them to objects to be manipulated by the Doctor's well meaning whims.
What's disappointing is this plotting comes from the man who gave us my favorite Nu Who eps, The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances.    After the bland resolution of Season Six (which started strong and full of promise), I can only conclude that Moffat, as talented as he is writing single stories, does not have equal ability with story arcs.

Or perhaps he just doesn't understand the Doctor.  While there are as many interpretations of the character as there are fans, I agree with Kissell  the tone of Moffat's Doctor is out of step with the characters' history as humanitarian (sentientarian?): irascible, stubborn, egotistical and, yes, on occasion arrogant, but all for the cause of justice.

And, for all the limits of Moffat's plotting,  Matt Smith's performance nonetheless was able to communicate the Doctor's humanitarianism.  As dubious as I was about his casting, he won me over in the end.

Farewell.

Goodbye, Ebert....

"He's dead, Jim."

It's so sad.  I was reading about him the other day, and how cancer had basically destroyed his face:


http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/roger-ebert-dies-70-following-battle-cancer-194457663.html

Famed movie critic Roger Ebert died Thursday in Chicago after battling cancer. He was 70.

An opinionated writer, but also a movie fan, Ebert reviewed films for the Chicago Sun-Times for 46 years. He was perhaps best known, however, for his 31 years reviewing films on television.

Ebert experienced health problems over the past ten years, suffering illnesses including thyroid cancer and cancer of the salivary gland. In 2006 he lost part of his lower jaw, but -- as his obituary in the Sun-Times points out -- it didn't drive him out of the spotlight.

I remember fondly looking forward to his reviews, and he was almost never off.  If he panned something I knew it was dreck.    And he had the courage to pan hard...the worst from Ebert?  No stars. I loved him for that.

Ironically, for years I never knew what he looked like, having never followed his TV program:

Fresh off the heels of his Pulitzer, Ebert launched his television show -- along with Gene Siskel (who died in 1999) -- the same year he was honored with the esteemed writing award. It started as a local Chicago show, but its popularity eventually pushed it into the national spotlight, making the duo's famed "thumbs up, thumbs down" a household gesture.

 I just knew Ebert = Good Movie Reviews.   The first time I put the two together was reading about his new prosthesis:

Renowned movie critic Roger Ebert returned to the small screen to talk about the big screen over the weekend in the new show "Roger Ebert Presents At the Movies" looking much different than he did the last time he gave one of his famous "thumbs up/thumbs down" ratings several years ago.
Ebert, who lost the lower part of his jaw and his voice box after complications from thyroid and salivary gland cancer, appeared in a segment at the end of the show with his new prosthetic chin and an artificial voice in place of what he lost.

 "Ebert, Ebert," I said to myself,  "That's not the same Ebert who reviews movies, is it?"

Well, of course it was.  Then I felt devastated for him, and glad I hadn't heard about the surgery until after the prosthetic was made.  

But he didn't let cancer stop him from doing what he loved.

Good bye, Mr. Ebert.  You will be missed.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters Review...sorta

If you can review a film after watching 15 minutes, 20 max.

What was wrong?  Gods know.....  It's not like it didn't have potential.  There's quirky bits and quasi anachronisms:  repeating crossbows, rifle bored revolvers centuries before the Napoleonic wars, a geeky fan boy making a comic of our heroes on parchment...  Played right, in the right hands, this would have been a fun, action packed, adventure/horror romp.  Instead it was a plodding...something.  Revenge film?   Medieval sorta super hero Avengers?

It opens with a variation of the story we're familiar with, the kids being dumped in the woods  by the apparently heartless dad.(It will not surprise me if this is a twist all la he did it to protect them or some such, if I'd had the fortitude to watch to the end), After surviving their encounter and dispatching the witch, we fast forward, with the help of nifty woodcut inspired animation, to the present where Hans and Gret are all grown up ass kicking witch killers.

Let's be clear to pagan folk, in exactly the way the move wasn't:  the witches aren't actually human.  Even though they all appear to be female, and for reasons never quite explained, want to kidnap/kill human children.  They aren't aliens.  They are evil faerie folk, which would have some legendary basis.   It doesn't appear the writers know what they are, or haven't told the audience in the first 15 minutes, not even when G and H are explaining things to the mayor(deputy mayor?) who hired them.  This is usually where the info dump comes.  So there's just this  random threat of nasty looking women(demons?), with magical powers who can't think of anything to do with them except kidnap/kill/eat kids.  Uh huh.     

And they're all hideous.  The one woman G and H rescue from being mistaken for a witch and about to be executed by mob, is, of course, pretty.  Hmmm.  Not picking that one up....

I wasn't looking for the depth of the Lord of the Rings here.  A light engaging action film would have been fine.  But even shallow films need to emotionally connect with the audience.  Except for the misguided amateurs who got slaughtered, I wasn't connecting with anyone.   H?  Nothing wrong with him, just a bit wooden.  G? Nothing wrong with her; again just a bit wooden, though not as much as H.  That could have been fine if that was their public faces and we got a more intimate view of them in private:  how their anger at being abandoned affected them, their personal goals, etc.  Neither appear to have children, a bit odd given the time period, human nature and the lack of contraceptives. 
In fact that's probably the most glaring omission in a film whose plot is about these heroes who save kids from witches: where are the children?  Any children?  The tearful reunions of the rescued? In the crowd scenes?  

I watched the movie 5 minutes longer than I wanted to, trying to figure out why it was so bad.  And the answer is it has the emotional range of a turnip.   What they are fighting, how they are fighting is presented, maybe over presented.  What they are fighting for  isn't:  safe communities, a country and people they care for, the honor, gratitude, and yes, money, or the masses.  A couple of panoramic vistas of where they were:  tall alpine mountains of Grimm legend in the background would have done wonders for setting the tone and giving the experience depth even without changing the characters as written.

Alas.  Maybe they couldn't afford it.  All I wanted was a  light film to pass the time while I ate dinner.  I wasn't planning to write a review.   At least I didn't pay for it.

Once Upon a Time: The Cricket Game Review

I always know when people lie...
but the writers forgot so this might get messy...

I've been enjoying Once Upon a Time since I discovered a reference to it via my interest in Fables.

Initially I was wroth..

."Who are these people what dare to make a TV series about Fairytale Characters in the Real World and not adapt Fables to the screen?  Grr...I suspect dishonorable motives!"

Which might still be true on the part of the executives, but I've been won over by the producers and writers who swear up and down they knew nothing of Willingham's work.  I could believe this--I've written things for years cloistered from the fan community.  However I reserve judgement about the executives who I have a hard time believing would take a chance on a fantasy property without knowing there is a fanbase for this theme AND knowing who built it.  So thank you Willingham for making Once Upon A Time possible as a TV series.

SPOILERS.

The series centers on character from well known fairytales: Snow White, The Evil Queen(Regina), Red Ridding Hood, Rumpelstiltskin, Beauty(Belle), Prince Charming and others.  Because Regina has never gotten over Snow White beating her out  in the Fairytale Fairest of Them All Competition--plus Snow accidentally getting Regina's BF killed when she was a kid, oops--Regina finally has her revenge by destroying the Homelands(Willingham's phraseology) and sending everyone to A World Without Magic aka a World with No Happy Endings, aka a picturesque  fictitious town on the east coast called  Storybrook.  It's not too miserable(Regina has to live there), except no one knows who they are with the exception of Regina, and we later find Rumpelstiltskin(Mr. Gold). Everyone happily lives as muggles, except Henry, Regina's adopted son who knows the Truth and sets out to find his real mum, Emma Swan,  a bailbond/bounty hunter who has the ability to know when someone is lying.  Henry is also convinced she is the Hero who will save the town.  This forms the story arc of the first series which is well done.  I eagerly looked forward to the second Season.

The second season started out solid, picking up after everyone remembers who they are.  Karma's a bitch, chickens come home to roost, and new developments arise.  Then the series takes a risk with Regina pulling an Angel , seeking redemption.  This can be tedious in the hands of the best writers.  Unwatchable in the hands of incompetent or naive writers.  Even Joss Whedon and Co, writing Angel and Buffy in my opinion averaged okay with the redemption themes.   And Regina doesn't have Angel's excuse of actually being a different person(Angelus) from the one who did all those horrid things.

There is a way to deal with this, properly deal with it: Regina can say she wants to be Good, but she has to allow people will suspect her motives.  Furthermore, she must allow some people will take years before they believe it, and, even if it's true, some people will NEVER forgive her.  And she has to have the sober humility to accept that they have a right to do that and she will have to live with it for the rest of her life.

This is how it is is reality, but is almost never done in TV.   Writers, producers or someone in the process is uncomfortable with Good characters failing to forgive all but the worst monsters. Hollywood culture has some very wooly thinking going on.  Or perhaps they're uncomfortable with hard truths in a contemporary setting.  I saw this in Buffy the year(Fifth Season) they pulled out of their asses that 'the Slayer never kills humans'.

Bollox.  (Warning fan mini rant ahead)

Patrice, the assassin from the Order of Taraka was killed in the fracas with Kendra the Slayer.

Buffy kicked numerous Knights of Byzantium of the top of the caravan, and they were nominally good guys!  What do you think is going to happen to someone falling off the top of a moving caravan, weighed down with armor, with no helmet?  The Slayer never kills humans except accidentally?  Didn't they give Faith a ton of grief about that?   And it's completely contradicted by the story of Sonnenblume, the slayer who operated during Nazi Germany.  The Slayer only kills humans if they're Nazis?

The probable real reason 'the Slayer never kills humans' bollox was invented is the culture was uncomfortable writing stories where a  contemporary young woman could use lethal force on humans and not be accountable by the legal system.  This wouldn't have been a problem in a historical setting.  It also wouldn't have been a problem if the hero was a young man.   Human's were turned into mincemeat all the time in Highlander..in the modern world.   It was like some executive was trying to reframe our experience of Buffy, make the powerful young woman culturally "safer".

These are the same people(in the industry generally, not the Buffy producers) who I'm now to trust with an emotionally believable redemption of the Evil Queen, when so far all they've given us is, "I want to be good to impress Henry."  Excuse me while I reserve judgment.

Back to this Once Upon a Time episode...I don't suspect cowardly executive meddling so much as sloppy writing.  Everything was going okay...the redemption theme was handled unevenly(close ups of hurt Regina...please.  She was the EVIL Queen.  Grin and bear it or leave gracefully, woman)..and now someone has handed the writers the idiot ball...

MORE SPOILERS

I'll try to be brief.  There was a murder.  The viewer knows it's Cora, Regina's Mommy Dearest, shaping up to be this season's Big Bad.  Because Cora is a twisted bitch, she kills disguised as Regina hoping to frame her and drive her back into mummy's arms.   So far , fine.  When Regina is questioned by the sheriff, Emma, who has the ability to know when someone is lying.  But Emma doesn't use this talent, instead relying on Regina's reactions, which are spot on for an innocent person.

But that's not the point.  Regina is on social "probation"; considering her past, it is unreasonable to rely on her reactions which could be faked.   So just using Emma's lie detector superpower, we can KNOW Regina is innocent and everything else is a frame.   But the writers forgot EMMA KNOWS WHEN PEOPLE ARE LYING.  It's on her abc page people:

http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/once-upon-a-time/bios/emma-swan

Emma Swan

Played by Jennifer Morrison

Emma 101
- Daughter of Snow White and Prince Charming

- Biological mother of Henry

- Broke The Dark Curse

- Skeptical; knows when people lie

This was  a plot point early in season two between Emma and Hook.  Even AV Club..whose views I don't always agree with, but are generally astute observers... let this slide in their review:

Ruby tells Emma about the day before and Regina is brought into custody, but while Snow and Charming are certain of Regina’s guilt, Emma believes her when she says she’s innocent. Surely there’s some kind of truth spell they could use on Regina to find out if she’s lying, but magic is only used when it’s convenient on this show.

Italics mine.  They don't need a truth spell.  They have Emma, who's inherent power is knowing if someone's lying.  The writers or production crew got inexcusably sloppy.  And I will not spin some fanwank benefit of the doubt rubbish to help them save face.

I was holding out to the end of the EP, hoping for a twist, but only more idiot balls:  Regina reactively defends herself against a binding spell, and that's PROOF she's not serious about quitting magic.  Uh huh.  And I suppose picking up a bottle in a bar brawl is PROOF you've been drinking.  Okay, not the best metaphor(a person quitting drinking is unlikely to be in a bar)... but what was she supposed to do?  She can't turn off two decades of magical combat training overnight.

Sloppy writing can be the sign of impending doom.  If someone isn't watching continuity, someone isn't giving the show the resources it needs to succeed.  I will still watch it and hope for the best, but do so with my expectations lowered.

The Hobbit: The Unexpectedly Good Film

 B+  or Exceeds Expectations

I had some doubts.  Skimmed a couple of reviews from "the very good but" to meh variety.  Friends of mine have sworn it off in protest..at least until it hits the second run beer theatres.  I shared their doubts that one book should be stretched to three movies.  But I gave Jackson the benefit of the doubt since he was approaching it as a prelude to the War of the Ring.  Because in another lifetime I felt I was the biggest Tolkien geek on the planet.

How big?  I know dug up the names of the two blue wizards,( Alatar and Pallando) back in the early '90's when you had to comb through The Unfinished Tales and the Lost Tales for such rare gems of geek knowledge no one else outside fandom would care about.  So, being familiar with the events concurrent with "There and Back Again",  I don't think Jackson's reasoning behind "stretching" the book into three movies is flawed.  "The Hobbit" is part of the War of the Ring, a cold war before Sauron revealed himself.  That's why Gandalf was always haring off, trusting the dwarves to their own devices for weeks at a time.  He had to work with the White Council and deal with the Sorcerer, who turned out to be Sauron testing the waters, and this is happening at the time of Bilbo's adventure.

But I also respect the criticisms; The Hobbit could have been a perfectly serviceable single movie, following the story as written.  Expanding it was a risk, it could have easily have become bloated and unwatchable.  I am happy to report it is neither and I'm finding myself enjoying it in some ways more than the LOTR trilogy films.  Of course, it's not over yet.  Two more films to go.  I confess, after rereading the Hobbit recently, I can understand getting two films from the material;  three I'm dubious about but let's hope all's well that end's better!

Spoilers Imminent:  You have been Warned

I was prepared for a substandard film and just surrendered myself to the idea I would enjoy it even if annoying liberties had been taken with the source material, a la Faramir tempted by the Ring(I still find that bit hard to watch in The Two Towers).  As it was the only truly silly bit is the rabbit sled (don't ask).

Highlights:

Radagast: inspired performance by Sylvester McCoy(that funny noise is a Type 40 taking off.  He is a VERY great wizard.)

Saruman: Christopher Lee's performance as the arrogant condescending Istari POS is always enjoyable, especially chuntering under his breath about what a disgrace Radagast is to the Order.
Galadriel telling him to STFU(you know, nicely) is equally enjoyable.  Lee is a big Tolkien geek himself and will correct your Middle Earth grammar at a drop of a hat BTW.

Gollum: our favorite Middle Earth nutcase returns.  Serkis is clearly having fun.

Smaug: taking a page from the first Jaws movie, Jackson only shows us hints of Smaug:  thundering feet, an eye, and of course FIRE.  It's more effective and conveying Smaug's size and terror than showing him full size.

Wargs: finally done properly.  Sorry, the wargs in the LOTR films looked like hyenas or sabertoothed tigers without the teeth.  Or half wolf bear things.  Seriously, wtf?

Thranduil:  OutFrackingStanding.  Especially on an Irish Elk(Megaloceros giganteus).  So cool, words escape me so I'll let a pic do the trick:

Not in source material but too cool to care

Thranduil is cast well, not just as a hot elf, but as Legolas' daddy:

Dwarves: the biggest and most ambivalent surprise personally .   Remember Gimli from the first films?  Of course you do:

Gimli was perfect as a dwarf.  He matched the source material and fan expectations:stout, stocky, strong, long beard, craggy features.  The dwarves in The Hobbit film...vary.   Half of them fit this description.   Another couple are acceptable variations.  But  Fili, and Kili (and to a lesser extent Thorin Oakenshield) are downright elven svelt, even pretty..nay I say hot... for dwarves:

Dwarves

Thorin Oakenshield

Who does hot dwarves? Seriously, Thorin looks like a burly Aragon, compare:

Aragorn

And the weird thing is...this isn't bothering me.  Or effecting how I imagine the dwarves in the book(still with long beards, etc).  It's like a religious experience: I can enjoy the book and film as two separate things and they're not getting in each others way.

This might not work for everyone, but it's working for me, and I eagerly await the next installment.

Music: Outstanding. Was pleased to hear the main LOTR theme used to set the film's mood.  I was mildly anxious someone would do something weird and recompose the entire theme, breaking the musical continuity.  I'm pleased to report my fears were unfounded.

Finally note: most showings are in 3D.  I saw it in 2D, like a normal person.   From discussions with people, it's possible 3D, while being excellent as an FX enhancer, is getting in the way of feeling the story.  And there is a good story here.

If you chose to see The Hobbit, happy adventuring.

Favorite Film Quotes:

[In Bagend]

Gandalf to Bilbo: “The world is not in your books and maps, it's out there."

[Rivendell ]

 Galadiel: Why the Hafling?
 Gandalf:  Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love.

Galu!