Let's start with Golden Globes coverage. I don't even know what the Golden Globes actually are. Seriously. I grew up in LA, and I have no clue. As far as I'm concerned it's just another of the anonymous Hollywood awards shows, which are generally full of the toolish douchebaggery that viewers fawn over. I know what the Emmy's and the Oscar's are, and I know what the Grammy's are. (I know what the CMA's are because their name is self-explanatory. Other awards shows should look into this naming convention.) Here are two headlines from the LA Times that jumped out at me.
"Golden Globes Irrelevant? Maybe. But not the speeches"
"Censors have no problem with penis jokes"
Seriously. This is what the
only largest newspaper in this massive media market has to say about this awards show. Good to know that I'm on par with the rest of the population, and I'm not missing anything relevant. Frightening to know that, as a former Crespi student, I am qualified to be a censor for said awards show that I know dick nothing about. Print news may be dying, but I wish there was a way to see the pass along rate because I can pretty much guarantee people ate those stories up.
(Nicole is now telling me how Meryl Streep said "shit" because she forgot her glasses and couldn't read her speech. Clearly, that is frowned upon, but you can decide if it's frowned upon because you're not supposed to say that or because any moment of authenticity is verboten in the context of an entertainment event.)
So what I'm surmising is that this is one of the many screen-focused awards shows. But then there is this Madonna thing that I was informed about. And now we're back to being confused.
However, my confusion surrounding the awards show pales in comparison to my confusion about the Super Bowl halftime show. (I'm not making money off this blog. Fewer than 10 people will read it. It is not the "Big Game." It is the Super Bowl.) Who in their right mind thought that Madonna would be a good idea for that? Seriously, after Justin Timberlake-Janet Jackson Nipplegate, the whole concept of the halftime show has floundered and just been a directionless mess (kind of like my blog but MUCH more expensive and MUCH more visible).
Though I'm not a Springsteen guy, he makes sense. Prince didn't really make all that much sense to me, but I thought it was good. But then there are the Stones (who are awesome but what the hell are we doing putting a British band on stage at the freakin' Super Bowl?) and the Black Eyed Peas and whoever the hell else has been on there. It's all over the map and seems to be more miss than hit. Yes, Madonna is a legend. I get that. But does anyone really want to hear "Like a Virgin" or "Vogue" at halftime of the Super Bowl? If you do, I refuse to watch the game with you.
I may refuse to watch the game altogether if it's going to be
LSU and Alabama Part 3 the 49ers and the Ravens. Unless Ray Lewis tackles Jim Harbaugh. That I would watch. But since that's unlikely, please, for the love of God offense something watchable, we need a Giants-Patriots rematch.
So there you go. Huge thanks to Nicole (whose bosses are apparently racist and whose former coworkers think I'm racist), who had to work today and hit me on gchat when I logged in to check mail. Goes to show...you never know who you might inspire (or "inspire").