So, I've been making Down In Front Editions of some of my favorite movies, with custom-designed, sleek looking menus, trailers and DiF commentaries. I'll have to add this one to the list. This is THE perfect movie.

Near the end, DiF talks about how Biff is the only one doing an honest day's work. Actually, it gets pointed out that George caught Biff in a lie about putting on the second coat. Even after all these years, Biff is still a lying, no good scumbag. Also, I'm sure George paid him handsomely for the job, so it's not like he made Biff his bitch, exactly.

If by "stole" you mean "was practically force-fed", then yeah. And you're welcome.

Nice bit of reverse psychology there. Nobody leave me an iTunes review, either! Boy, how I hate those.

So, back when you recorded this (one of the few times I was unable to join the live chat), I decided to watch Tron Legacy for the first time. It was streaming on Netflix, through Starz, so I knew the opportunity to essentially watch it for free wouldn't last.

After watching it, I decided that was....fine. Alright. Nothing special. Had its moments. It was at least better than the first one, in that I didn't fall asleep or look at my watch or wish I was doing anything else. However, I've come to realize that both films share a lot of the same problems, in terms of structure, pacing, narrative through-lines and character motivations. What's more, is they share these issues almost verbatim. It's like building a fancy new modern home over the old one, using the same blueprints and doing it right over the original foundation, but being completely unaware that the whole reason you needed to try again in the first place was because the foundation and blueprints were problematic.

One example of this is the Solar Sailor. In both instances, it shows up at about the same time, moves like a snail precisely when time is critical and manages to bring the movie to almost a complete stop. It's weird. For years, I tried to figure out why in the first film, between the few exciting and memorable set pieces, the rest of it seemed so dull, uneventful and forgettable? A friend of mine cracked it for me about a year ago: Though the first film has a score, it's kind of stuffy, old-school and there are big stretches of the film where they just don't use it. It's too quiet and stale.

The sequel at least gets that right this time. Daft Punk's score, at least to me, is ultimately the best thing about this film. For being mostly electronic, it feels so alive, passionate and energetic. I for one will argue that yes, it deserved an Academy Award nomination. Maybe not a win, but at least a nomination.

My other favorite thing about the movie? Olivia Wilde. She played such an interesting character, and looked like she was having fun doing it, which was infectious, I felt.

Silent Running is a beautiful and tragic classic, forgotten or dismissed by a generation that likes to watch big, pointy CGI robot aliens punch each other and call it science fiction.

I'm not sure if people are complaining that Nielsen is discriminating against "geek favorites", but I do often hear/read that they believe Networks are doing that. The biggest offender being Fox. What they fail to realize is that the only reason Fox seems like the bigger culprit in this, is because they actually buy/air more "geek favorites" (heretofor named "genre shows") than most. They tend to pick up some of the more high-concept (or riskier), more off-the-beaten-path programming such as The X-Files, Werewolf, VR 5, Strange Luck, Millennium, Brimstone, Freaky Links, Greg The Bunny, Harsh Realm, The Adventures Of Brisco County Jr., Night Visions, Firefly, The Tick, Wonderfalls, Drive, Dollhouse, Fringe, etc. If these shows get canceled, Fox didn't do it to piss you off. They did it to patch a big hole in their boat. To stay afloat and relevant, they have to give the general public what they want, which is "general" content, meaning safe, familiar, easy and disposable.

Sure, every once in a while a smarter, more unique production will capture people's imagination. The X-Files and The Simpsons, for example. These are exceptions that prove the rule. The X-Files was full of monsters, aliens, brainy scientists and Canadians. At its core, it was a cop show. A police procedural. The Simpsons was animated, but it had swearing and more adult subject material. Not to mention, the characters were all yellow-skinned weirdos. At its core, it was a comedy-drama about a dysfunctional, lower-middle to middle class family, with kids, pets and a mortgage payment.

The other important point is at the time, Fox was a new network, just starting out. They were able to take such risks and allow shows to find an audience way easier back then. The same goes for UPN and The WB. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Roswell and Supernatural are all genre shows that would've most likely died halfway through their first seasons on the bigger networks, provided they could even get picked up in the first place.

I've been advised to stop intermediating, as it's only causing confusion and annoyance on both sides. I apologize and thus, I wash my hands of the mess I've made.

P.S. I'm told they will listen to the Intermission episode, so that's good, right? Maybe at least some new listeners might stem from this. If not for The Intermission, maybe for Down In Front proper.

Crap, in an attempt to clarify and educate, I seem to have only further fueled the proverbial fire. It was meant to be, "I used to say the same thing about Nielsen ratings, but I had little to no information to base my opinions on, then The Intermission explained it to me. I want to share this knowledge." I emailed the Slashfilmcast with all this stuff last night, providing links and pulling quotes from Trey here. I got a response from Adam an hour ago:

"I'd say it's more odd that my quote was interpreted that way. Nielsen ratings are represented by .02% of TV watchers. I repeat: .02%. And that .02% is comprised of Nielsen members who have agreed to have all their TV activity monitored, which requires active participation on their part. How many people from my generation care about or respect the Nielsen ratings, and would willingly give up their time to keep tabs on what they're watching and push a button every five minutes? Another question: How many people from my generation watch Community? I wonder if Trey has considered what the crossover is there, not just for Community, but for other canceled geek favorites like Firefly and Arrested Development.

The Nielsen ratings are bullshit. The system alone introduces an inherent, unavoidable bias in that it requires people's time, and as voting proves, the people far more likely to participate in something like this are those who have plenty of it (read: old people), and those who believe they're contributing something of value to the world (read: old people).

How I feel about Community is completely irrelevant in this debate. The depressing reality is that the numbers generated by Nielsen are being relied on to prop up a billion dollar industry, despite the objective impossibility that those numbers accurately reflect the TV viewing habits of all of America."

Then a response from David Chen about 30 minutes ago:

"While I think the details are a bit more nuanced than Adam lets on, I gotta side with him on this issue. Trey's misinterpretation is pretty significant.

More details here: http://splitsider.com/2011/01/why-niels … y-that-way "

I've only just started reading the article linked above. We'll see how this goes.

Heh, thanks. You should see a doctor about that cough, by the way. I know a guy, goes by the name of Submarine. "He's a good man, and thorough."

That's okay, Jimmy. I think she's cute, but at least we both agree that yes, her boobs are nice.

....I can't believe I'm having this conversation, on a message board.

This is quite common for Fox, as they tend to produce 13 episodes in a show's first season and if it gets cancelled before all 13 air, they can market the rest on DVD as "new, never before seen episodes", thus giving extra buying incentive for those who actually liked the show.

If you're a show like The Playboy Club, and all you have produced are seven episodes, you can forget about a DVD anytime soon. They'll just go up on iTunes and you can buy each unseen ep for a couple bucks a pop, and they're not out anything because they didn't have to spend money on producing, packaging and marketing DVDs. "Drive" (starring Nathan Fillion) and "Jezebel James" (starring Parker Posey) are examples of this.

If I remember correctly, I believe Joss says somewhere on a commentary that "Objects In Space" ended up being Firefly's last episode more by "accident". I believe the last thing they ever actually shot was "Heart of Gold". On occasion, if you get cancelled with enough notice and your 13 episodes are paid for (usually for foreign markets and DVD, like I mentioned above), you can make a point to produce a "finale" and wrap up as best you can. "Dollhouse" did this. Also, it is possible to make something of a finale, but still leave it open enough for more content. Tim Minear did this on purpose with "Wonderfalls".

Don't tease me like that, Trey! I live in Fort Worth! I'm one hour away from Dallas by train!

I actually did have that trope ready to go but DiF had relieved me of my duties by that point and they were wrapping up.

Fantastic video, Teague. I'm a massive score geek. I collect film and TV scores, particularly rare and bootleg stuff. I've always wanted to be a composer (I have long, bony fingers suited for instruments). Problem is, I can never retain any of the skill and knowledge that comes with playing an instrument and writing music. I tend to just latch on to what sounds good to me and what gets an emotional reaction out of me. At the end of the day, it just boils down to personal preference. I think not having that understanding of music theory and such is probably a good thing, at least for me.

I'm reminded of the video essay Jim Emerson put together on the editing and shooting of a key scene from The Dark Knight, and how it was all wrong/bad. He was so obsessed with the "right way" of doing things, I think he missed out on the momentum of the scene, which to me is more important. Not to mention, I personally never had an issue with knowing where Harvey Dent was located in the back of the police truck in relation to every one/thing else. Why? Two reasons: 1. In all of his shots within the truck, you can see the grating to his right side which allows him to talk to the driver. This implies he is leaning against the wall that is furthest away from The Joker's attacks, and his firepower at the truck supports this. 2. It doesn't ultimately matter. All you need to know is, there's a police truck. Harvey is in the back. The Joker is after the truck/Harvey.

So, while it may not be 100% right, it looks/sounds good enough to me. I'm not suggesting that's what you're doing, I'm just saying it's what your vid reminded me of. It could be the chord progression in "The Grid" is too easy. I'm fine with that. Those series of notes sound good to me and I'm moved by them. My ignorance of music is bliss, I guess.

Either way, I like your video. It's very informative. It doesn't change my mind about "The Grid", but I love scores so much, it doesn't have to for me to find the value in it. It's on a subject I'm passionate about and it's well-discussed and helpful.