Celebrating America's 250th Birthday with the American Flag! 🇺🇲

I wanted to do something special for the United States of America's 250th Birthday and looked up different events to attend. This isn't just any Fourth of July where fireworks and hot dogs is enough. This is a milestone celebration. 

I realized that I can combine two of my passions and talents, writing and weaving, and in doing so come forth in defense of the American Flag. 

Anyone Can Write...Right?

Okay. Today I'm going to address some social media drama that you may or may not have heard about.

Cheers to New Beginnings 2019!

Happy New Year and Happy Anniversary to Taking it One Stef at a Time! :D

I'm excited about 2019. 2018 was somewhat of a difficult year for myself and my family, but a lot of good things happened too. I'm excited to see what this brand new year of new beginnings has to offer. I anticipate a lot more good things. The future is open and bright.

Oftentimes when I think of new beginnings, especially the new year, I feel like it's often a need to make an automatic switch to be a new person. However, I have to keep in mind that improving myself is a process and an ongoing project. Changes don't happen overnight. But it is a brand new year and I am excited to see what new experiences and successes I can accomplish. I am blessed to have gotten this far in life and I'm looking forward to what's next.

I'm also looking forward to contributing more to this blog again, depending on what I want to do with this blog further. I think I've been doing pretty good so far even though I was kind of on hiatus for a bit back there LOL. This month is also a great time to kick off my series of blog posts detailing my life lessons throughout my first ten years of adulthood so I hope to start sharing those soon. I think they're probably ready. I just have to tweak them all a little bit but I'll be hopefully sharing the little by little. Maybe I'll also resume other things as well, like my YouTube channel and podcasts. I haven't posted on them in like a year so I'm not sure if I'm going to return to that or not but we'll see.

It's nice to have a clean slate and to try to have a more positive outlook with less concerns and needless worries than before. I enjoy incorporating this mindset. I feel good and have good feelings about this new year. I have a list of resolutions that I'm planning too so I'm hoping I can keep up this momentum.

Once again, happy New Year to you all! Let's make this a fantastic one! :-)

-Stef :)

Is Nostalgia the Only Effective Marketing Scheme Nowadays?

What do "Spongebob Squarepants" (1999-present), Mean Girls (2004), The Band's Visit (2007), and Frozen (2013) all have in common?

Why, yes! They are all movies and a TV show that came out at least within the last 20 years that have gained quite the followings.

They're also all up for the Tony Award for Best Musical this year! I'm not kidding!

Let's talk about the Tony Awards! Particularly this observation (and my observations of people's reactions to these musicals).

When I first saw these nominations, my first thought was, "That's it? Surely you jest. Is there really no other new musical right now?"

But no. These are the ONLY nominees for Best Musical. Basically, there's nothing new here. They are just staged musical versions of movies. I thought at least The Band's Visit was an original idea, but nope! I was notified that this too is a pre-existed piece.

This is somewhat equivalent to the consistent popularity of books becoming movies. Now movies are becoming staged musicals.

Most specifically, in this case, nostalgic movies.

This isn't an entirely new thing, but looking back, I think this might be the first time EVERY nominee for the Best Musical Award is based on a film, hence why and how I took notice of it. Plus, these are films that I am very familiar with, so therefore at least nostalgic for me and my generation.

Nostalgic connections have been running rampant as of late. On June 15 we are getting the long awaited sequel to The Incredibles and in August we're getting a live action Disney film called Christopher Robin, with Jim Cummings voicing Pooh! And not to mention all of the TV and film remakes, revivals, and the live action adaptations of Disney franchises we are getting in the next few years!!

It seems as though Broadway is now using this same formula...

Okay, so let's check out some of the possible debates regarding this:

1) Broadway has officially run out of ideas.

We see this argument everywhere. Anytime Hollywood produces something seemingly dumb, overdone, or most commonly, unnecessary, or remakes something that was once prevalent, it's "Hollywood has officially run out of ideas." Audiences then voice their opinions about wanting to see new stories and leaving the past in the past.

Is Broadway suffering from the same ailment? It sure as heck seems like it, at least this year.

Remember, these aren't in the Best Musical Revival category. These are brand new shows.

2) Why?

I actually have been seeing this argument more than anything. Why do these movies need a staged musical adaptation to begin with? Just leave well enough alone and stop ruining our childhoods, darnit! :P

Though these shows have grown on audiences now, this wasn't always the case from my perspective. The interesting thing is, if banking on nostalgia to sell tickets is what they are going for, it initially wasn't working.

When the conception of these musicals were first announced, people reacted more like "No!" instead of "Yay!" I don't know about you, but I saw more complaints about all three even happening than anything, involving comments asking why these particular films were even chosen. "What's next?? Blah Blah Blah The Musical??"

The funny thing is that Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, Parts One and Two, which is up for Best Play and is of course associated with the nostalgic Harry Potter series, didn't get the same dread or flack from fans. This play excited them and still does. Maybe it's because it's not a musical but rather a successor, so therefore not necessarily "ruining" anything. Maybe it's simply because it is Harry Potter.

Or maybe people just have something against musicals... Are Broadway musical versions just too corny for our precious nostalgic films?

I clearly don't know a great deal about The Band's Visit, so unfortunately I can't speak on that one as much, but let's talk about the other three.

Well, I guess I understand the issue with Frozen. The most recent of the movies, people were constantly getting tired of this film's hype. It's a musical already, but because it's a Disney movie, it already gets points against it for just following the Disney Broadway musical trend. There were objections urging to "let it go" for awhile so we can miss it and give the spot to another deserving, perhaps less prevailing, Disney film, but nope. The Frozen mania is still alive and well.

People's problems with the Spongebob Squarepants musical are similar, not only against the musical itself, but the television show as well. It is currently one of the longest running animated series of all time, so therefore viewers are starting to consider it stale and lacking the flavor it once had. Like with Frozen, for Spongebob Squarepants it's more like, "Why are they doing THIS now??" and "They're really milking this franchise for all it's worth..."

Sometimes these musicals are somewhat at a disadvantage because they aren't creations being first introduced to us but are instead rather reminiscent (and therefore nostalgic) of their source material. Thus, comparisons are inevitable. This feedback was especially frequent with the Spongebob Squarepants musical. I had some of my own same criticisms as others about that one's portrayals without even seeing it, such as the whole "But they don't look like animals! Spongebob doesn't even look like a SPONGE!" protest. But then my friend Abby, who saw it for her birthday, convinced me otherwise while we were chowing down on Applebee's after suffering through a screening of Downsizing (2017).

Spongebob Squarepants still has the same humor, sound effects, and overall tone of the TV show, with the performers impersonating the characters so well that it raises audiences' suspension of disbelief. This, according to Abby, matters much more. It's just a different take on the show.

If you think about it, this is actually surprisingly an ADVANTAGE to the Spongebob Squarepants musical as well. No one would believe that Ethan Slater is playing a sponge unless we already knew the sponge the character was based on. Otherwise, if Slater was developing this character from scratch without any original source material to fall back on, he's just a giggling guy in a yellow t-shirt and we'd ask, "Why are we supposed to believe that he is an underwater sponge?"

The Mean Girls musical receives the least amount of beef I'd say, because Mean Girls is considered a classic, especially for people my age. It resonates so much with my generation but is still so relevant in today's American society as well (There are always catty women in every generation.) with just enough changes to perhaps make it more current. Also, people just love Tina Fey.

Mean Girls can be considered the most "grown up" of the three too, and we have seen this type of show accomplished before, so why not, I guess? The style resembles Broadway's Legally Blonde the Musical, Bring It On the Musical, and especially even the Off-Broadway Heathers the Musical, all of which were pretty successful and nostalgic in their own right. Taylor Louderman (Regina George) and Barrett Wilbert Weed (Janis Sarkisian) both have experience with these other musicals (Louderman with Legally Blonde and Bring It On as lead character Campbell Davis and Weed with Heathers as lead Veronica Sawyer), so audiences probably trust them more to do a good job with this one. Also, unlike the others, we haven't really been seeing Mean Girls everywhere throughout the years to the point where now seeing a musical version of it would bother us. This is the only one of the four that never had musical numbers before, so this is a new path for the story altogether.

Producing these shows in innovative ways gives them new structure instead of just copying the original movies. Theater is always going to be a different medium from film anyway. The musicals have the same tones to draw us in but they also offer something fresh.

The only musical that doesn't do this for me much is Frozen. Aside from a few new songs and some diverse casting, it doesn't really seem that much different from the movie. But there is also the criticism that the actresses playing Elsa and Anna, Caissie Levy and Patti Murin, don't look age appropriate for their characters. (Then again, I've seen this complaint for Mean Girls as well...) Otherwise, the approach looks pretty exact, down to the color schemes and costume design.

BUT, why SHOULD everything change just because it's onstage instead of onscreen? There are probably audiences that would prefer not many alterations anyway too so that they can connect the musicals to the films that much easier. I don't mind it. However, I will say that I love Janis's hairstyle in the Mean Girls musical much more than in the film.

Like I said, constant comparisons. But that's not really a bad thing.

However, this all being said, with these shows now moving onto performances and music distributions, more people seem to be jumping on board the nostalgic Broadway musical train. The shows are gauging plenty of approval now, and hey, they're now all up for Tony Awards. Maybe nostalgia does have something to do with it in a positive way.

The only thing is that none of them are really groundbreaking like the past couple of Best Musical Award winners Hamilton (2016) and Dear Evan Hanson (2017), which is seemingly a requirement to obtain this particular achievement. Instead, these are all just feel good, fun musicals that reinvent well known characters and stories. But maybe that's okay. My friends are pleased with them, stating that as long as they are good musicals, they deserve this acknowledgment.

Regardless of this blog post, I'm not complaining myself here. I would love to see all of them. This is just a trend that I felt was worth discussing. I'm excited to even write this because I feel so qualified enough to do so, partially because I am indeed very knowledgeable about the initial films.

By the way, isn't it cool how they are all kinda color coded? Mean Girls, Frozen, Spongebob Squarepants, The Band's Visit.

As for my Tony Award predictions, I think Spongebob Squarepants is actually going to be the one to take the trophy home considering how uniquely they reimagine the cartoon and it has been a family favorite of many for years. Mean Girls is my close second choice, Frozen is "meh" to me in regards to winning everything, and unfortunately, The Band's Visit doesn't stand a chance simply because I never really hear about that one as much, which is interesting because I am now seeing that it is up for 11 nominations as opposed to Frozen's three.

What do you think?

The New York Times Reviews:

'Spongebob Squarepants'

'Mean Girls'

'Frozen'

'The Band's Visit'

The 2018 Tony Awards airs on Sunday, June 10 at 8/7c EDT on CBS.

I'm Extremely Heartbroken and Angry Over "Digimon Adventure Tri." and Now I'm Here to Complain About It.

(I have since calmed down a bit about the following, but I am still disappointed and not pleased. Here are my thoughts about this that I have been working on throughout the month of April.)

I would normally say beware of spoilers if you haven't watched or heard about what happened in this, but frankly I am so annoyed about it that I don't even care.

But seriously though, I guess beware of spoilers here.

There's a lot to not like about this series, but this is the part that hit me the most. I felt the need to write this because I feel alone in my misery.

I can't believe I want to cry over an anime. That is so not me. But hey, it's "Digimon".

Before "So You Think You Can Dance" took over as my television obsession when I was 16, there was "Digimon".

"Digimon Adventure" was an anime that eventually came out as an English dub in America in 1999, so this was my thing during my late childhood, early preteen years. I was about 10 years old, let's say. I talked about this a bit when detailing my childhood friendships.

This show has gone through many incarnations, but my favorite will always be the absolute first season (aka the only season that really matters) with the original eight DigiDestined, Tai, Matt, Sora, Izzy, Mimi, Joe, T.K., and Kari. Given that I was their age when the show came out, it's like I grew up with them. As I age, they age, so that's pretty cool. This is unique to "Digimon" because it's very rare to watch animated characters age through time. I had a lot of "Digimon" merchandise regarding these characters growing up and the show influenced a lot of my creativity that I still have today. For example, I too tend to create large ensembles of characters with my own writing. :P

I'm actually surprised that I haven't blogged about this show more. I plan on sharing some more "Digimon" material on here in the future. :)

Biblical, Shakespearean, and Other Themes in "Heathers"

Let's celebrate my half birthday by sharing my first analytical blog essay in months! :D

For the past few weeks, I have been on a "Heathers" kick. Heathers was a teen movie in 1988 starring Winona Ryder and Christian Slater and it was remade as an Off-Broadway musical in 2014. I watched a YouTube video one Sunday morning, heard "Dead Girl Walking", liked it, looked it up along with the rest of the musical, and the rest was history.

I had heard about the musical when it came out, but still didn't really think that much about it. Although, I will give its Twitter account credit for being the one Broadway musical account to follow me. ;)

I never really knew what "Heathers" was about, hence my current interest to now delve more into it. All I knew was that it is about a clique of girls all with the name Heather and that this teenage bad boy tries to kill everybody. I always sensed the dark tone, but now I have more of an understanding of the story in general.

For example, I never knew that Ryder's character wasn't named Heather. I always thought that she was the fourth Heather or something. However, high school senior Veronica Sawyer (Winona Ryder in the movie, Barrett Wilbert Weed in the musical) is a teenage nobody who longs for life in elementary school when all of her classmates got along with each other. She hooks up with the awful popular girls, the Heathers (Heather Chandler, the Queen Bee, Heather Duke, the bitchy second-in-command, and Heather McNamara, the one that tags along and has some deep issues of her own), in order to avoid being targeted by the bullies. She becomes attracted to new kid Jason "J.D." Dean (Christian Slater in the movie, Ryan McCartan in the musical) when he is the only one strong enough to stand up to the bullies and wishes for him to protect her. The two develop a sort of flirtation and end up accidentally-on-purpose murdering the mean kids for revenge and framing the homicides as suicides to alleviate the blame, thus launching a whole teen suicide awareness campaign at their Westerburg High School. From this, Veronica's life starts to spiral out of control as J.D.'s true dark colors are revealed and he gets more and more determined to purge the bullies in order to sanctify society.

There are some themes in this plot that I believe are worth noticing, so let's dive right in! :) Incidentally, although I will be talking about both the film and the musical, I'll be going by the musical more. They made some changes from the film for the stage version and I feel more familiar with the latter.

Beware of spoilers and adult language!!!

Ryan Gosling Deserves More than an Academy Award for What He Did on Oscar Night 2017

This was originally going to be a "Chatting with Stef" video, but I think I can articulate my thoughts on the matter better here.

So the 2017 Academy Awards, also known as the Oscars, took place last night. Awards were given, political stances were taken, jokes were made (mostly at Donald Trump's expense), and everyone is talking about the mistake at the end.

However, there is something that nobody seems to be talking about nearly as much, but should. Although, it has gotten a lot of attention of Twitter and other comment sections.

The news is covering Gosling's facial expression to La La Land's loss and his sister Mandi, who he generously brought to join him, but this needs to be acknowledged so much more, which is why I am writing this blog post.

First of all, I can't stand jokes at award shows. It's like, shut up and just give out the awards. They're usually never that humorous and are all just ways to get people chattering. Then again, perhaps it depends on the jokes, but I digress.

One of the "jokes" was bringing a bunch of unsuspecting Hollywood tourists into the theater and parading them in front of the nominees. The tourists were understandably starstruck, taking photos and videos of their favorite actors and actresses before them as host Jimmy Kimmel guided them down the line and introduced them.

However, what struck me more was Ryan Gosling's reaction to all of this, which for me spoke volumes.

Ryan Gosling, who was up for La La Land and sat in the front row, was the ONLY celebrity to STAND UP and STAY STANDING to greet the lineup. Not only that, he seemed to have quick, lighthearted conversations with each member. I was actually appalled to see that the others didn't really follow suit. And not to change the subject, I heard that he also made a nice speech about his girlfriend Eva Mendes back at the Golden Globes.

The man is a Grade A class act and deserves to be commended.

At first I didn't notice this, but people have pointed out that he gave the first guy his box of candy (throughout the night they dropped candy from the ceiling) and may have even handed him his autograph. But all of this is beside the point. Gosling did what the rest of the celebrities would not.

Sure there were some guys who briefly stood up and took photos and Denzel Washington got up for that one couple, but that was more because the woman said that he was her favorite actor and Kimmel somewhat obligated him. I got the impression that Washington couldn't be bothered and neither could the rest of them. I'll even go as far as saying that they kinda looked borderline repulsed by the everyday people and couldn't wait for them to leave.

Then again, this was just my impression.

I could be over thinking this and overpraising the guy, but it holds true that Ryan Gosling was the only star to treat the tourists with respect as fellow human beings plainly by standing up to get on their level and connecting with them as opposed to gawking and giggling at the "hilarity" of it all. But then again, you can't really blame them for responding strangely like that. It can always be cool for fans to meet famous people and for famous people to meet fans, but this was just such an odd and cringeworthy way of doing it. Now, if the tourists were let into an after party and could freely mingle as equals, that might be another story.

It was as if both the tourists and the actors alike were on display. Okay, well maybe the actors were caught off guard and found the whole extravagancy just as awkward as I did, so they were put on the spot and too stunned and maybe even too shy and low key to respond right. Maybe they deal with fans on a daily basis and needed a break from it. Maybe they aren't supposed to interact with people on the fly to protect themselves. Some of them were friendly enough when hugging and shaking hands with their fans, which was the extent of their communications.

I also want to give all of the women the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps their feet were killing them because of their heels or they were restricted from movement in their outfits. As a woman who has worn such attire in the past, I can totally understand this.

This still doesn't excuse the fact that this looked more like an opportunity to mock the "lesser" common folk and their excitement than anything by tricking them to show up, which isn't necessarily the celebrities' fault. They clearly didn't plan for this to occur.

People are mostly commenting about how funny and/or awesome it was and how lucky these people were, but I did manage to find a few tweets and comments from the opposing side, and I agree with them. Here are two of them:

Parading the less fortunate in front of rich folks so they can laugh at them is highly fucked up #Oscars

— Kae Digital (@TwittsMcGee) February 27, 2017

@TwittsMcGee HERE LOOK AT THE SMALL. REMEMBER YOU ARE BETTER.

— (((Mrs Moose Lamb))) (@Nixanadoo) February 27, 2017

The others basically echo a similar theme.

I repeat that maybe I am overanalyzing this. Some say that it was nice of the Academy and Jimmy Kimmel to allow this and was a harmless surprise and Kimmel style prank. It was, after all, a once in a lifetime opportunity for the tourists to meet their favorite stars and certainly a night they will never forget. Maybe it was the best night of their lives! Many people will probably disagree with my opinions about this because the tourists themselves looked happy to be there and, like, they were at the Oscars and ran into so many stars at once! Some people wish that they were in their shoes and that this would happen to them.

Why, then, should I complain on their behalf? I don't speak for anybody else.

Perhaps they were also in on the joke? This definitely needs to be considered because they were going to be on the Oscars and maybe certain permissions needed to be verified, such as for being filmed. Some people might feel ashamed wearing street clothes to such a formal event in front of cameras and a bunch of celebrities who are all decked out for the Oscars, which again intensifies the idea of the rich and famous humiliating the common folk. They also most likely had to be fully surveyed for safety reasons before they stepped foot into that theater.

Plus, if they were serious Hollywood fans, how would they not know that the Oscars were being filmed at that location at that time? Isn't the Red Carpet outside also an obvious clue? Well, they did take them through the side door and not every Hollywood tourist has to be that knowledgeable about every single thing happening in the industry...

Maybe it's because I am a private person, but as I was watching this, sensing the uneasiness through the screen and wondering how I would respond to the situation, I thought to myself that I probably would have been annoyed by the spotlight and may not be alone. Furthermore, my desire to meet so many celebrities isn't that great.

The Hollywood elite need to remember that they were once just as ordinary as us and if it weren't for the people walking in, they wouldn't be sitting in those nice comfy chairs awaiting their award acceptances and distributions. People like us spend our well earned money, which is probably about 1/100,000,000 of what these celebrities make, on tickets to see these films because we appreciate this art and appreciate these performers producing that art. I hope to never change my perceptions about this and remain humble.

Ryan Gosling understands this, for instead of remaining in his chair like everyone else, he stood among the commoners. The least the rest could have done was rise from their seats along with him to recognize the people who have helped and continue to help them get into their current positions of success and stature. Not that they aren't grateful, but it would have been nice to see them take this extra step to show that gratitude and camaraderie between us and them. Then again, that could have dragged the uncomfortable segment out longer and they were already pressing on time.

Something tells me that if this happened at the Tony Awards, more of the performers would socialize with the entering fans. Theater people seem more inclusive and accepting.

Interestingly enough, I was never really that huge a fan of Ryan Gosling. Let me be clear that I never disliked him, but I also wasn't one of the many girls my age who gushed over his portrayal of Noah Calhoun in Nicholas Sparks's The Notebook (2004), which is how I first discovered him. If I had to choose a Ryan, I always chose Ryan Reynolds, another fellow decent human being in my opinion.

I truly enjoyed Gosling's performance in La La Land when Abby and I saw it back in late December (and shockingly didn't make a review vlog of it). Gosling was up Best Actor in a Leading Role, but lost to Casey Affleck for Manchester by the Sea.

He may not have received an award, but he certainly has received a new fan in me from his one simple act of kindness. Many claim it is because of his Canadian upbringing. Regardless of what it is, he certainly earned my respect last night.

Thank you, Ryan Gosling.

If you want to see what I am talking about throughout this piece, here is the video of it:

(But maybe the celebrities were in on it [too]. If so, their reactions were simply them acting! Hmm... If that's true, then they really are a pretty talented bunch and perhaps more talented than I thought because they managed to convince me enough to write a whole blog post criticizing them!)

PROCEED WITH CAUTION! Should You Be Reading This???

A few years ago my friend Janis and I were volunteering at our alma mater's Lacordaire Academy Annual Book Sale. During some of our down time, we sat on the gym stage together and reminisced about our high school years there.

"What is one word you would use to describe me?" I asked her.

After some thought, she responded, "Cautious. You think about things in-depth before you do them."

Thereafter this turned into a conversation about how I can get out of this and has actually stayed with me ever since, making me question how much of life I am actually living.

Lately I've been encouraging myself to do more things, especially with my writing. Although, I still am a little cautious with that as well.

The truth is, I agreed with her answer whole-heartedly and wasn't offended by it. I actually like the fact that I am cautious. It makes me consider every logical path before making a decision and jumping into things.

However, this cautiousness of mine could also be more of a curse than a blessing. Cautiousness allows over-thinking and procrastination to dominate.

A part of the reason why I question my writing profession is that I never feel like my work is at its complete best and good enough in my eyes or ready for the cruel outside world. Think about it this way. Sometimes sharing my written work and putting it in someone else's hands is metaphorically equivalent to me walking outside in the nude and giving people permission to judge and touch my exposed body.

Yeah. It's THAT intimidating. And I'm not the only writer who suffers from this.

Usually when I finally submit the piece and then others see it, everything turns out fine. I never really had an issue with my articles and usually my subjects are happy with them, so I don't know where this fear is coming from.

However, this article in particular is different. The following is a recount of me deliberating with myself concerning said article and then making peace with my decision.

My Theory for the Third Red Devil's Identity is...

My blog posts have really been "Scream Queens" themed lately, haven't they? lol

Okay so we already know that the two other Red Devils are Gigi and Boone, may he rest in peace. I've been muffling around in my head who the possible third Red Devil is the entire season, and I think I finally figured it out.

Let me let you in on my other possibility before I reveal my one true suspect. The Red Devil could very well be Chanel #3 for the mere fact that we're yet to see her get attacked by a Red Devil. It would also make sense for Sam to suspect her considering that heart to heart that they had. We also don't know her real name like we do with the other Chanels, so perhaps it would give her away. A lot of people seem to think that the third Red Devil is her. I still somewhat suspect Grace too because I think it would be a great twist that the one girl we've been following investigating these murders draw attention away from herself and turn out to be the perpetrator all along.

However, I believe that I finally figured it out. I finally figured out who the Red Devil is.

The Red Devil is none other than...

The Many July Rants of Stef Sears

This month on Facebook I posted quite a few well thought out lengthy posts that I believe are worth sharing with the masses. So here there are all together.

On Appreciation for America:

July 4, 2015

It makes me so angry when U.S. CITIZENS complain about America and burn the American Flag. You never really hear about any other country burning their flags, being offended by them, or being asked to take them down! Even if this does also occur in other countries, it's ridiculous.

Sure, we have our own problems here (Who doesn't?). Sure, we are not perfect (Who is?). Sure, we may not have the most positive history (Who does?). AND, because we ARE Americans, we DO have the freedom to express negative opinions. I'm not saying that we shouldn't utter any disapproval ever.

BUT, there is a REASON why SO MANY PEOPLE want to live and immigrate HERE. THEY know what America is all about. THEY know what opportunities America has to offer. If America is really as bad as these criticizers say, there wouldn't be so many people wanting to obtain U.S. citizenship AND there wouldn't be other countries often needing assistance from the U.S.

To me, the people who complain are just so accustomed to their American privileges that they don't even appreciate or even notice them. Practically everything is available to us and we need to remember how good we have it here.

I, for one, am grateful for the United States of America and for the men and women who have fought and continue to fight for and protect our freedom. I love this country and am glad that it exists. I am proud to be an American. America, as well as the veterans, deserve more respect, ESPECIALLY on days like today!

Happy Birthday, America!

On Catholicism, Christianity, and Priests:

July 11, 2015

On Thursday morning I made a mistake and was really distraught about it because there are times when I reach a breaking point and this was one of them. Loudly crying in the car and not wanting to go home yet, I didn't know where else to turn so I drove to the one place I thought I could turn - the local Catholic Church. I parked in the parking lot and wept for awhile. I then decided to go to the Rectory because I felt like I really needed to talk to someone. Amidst sobs, I rushed over and rang the doorbell. A woman answered on the intercom and I asked if a priest was in. She asked if I had an appointment, and I said no, unfortunately I don't. She told me to hold on. She then opened the door a few seconds later to my red, tear-stained face and told me that the priest would be with me in a few minutes. She led me into his office and I sat on the couch. She then gave me a box of tissues and offered me a cup of water. A few minutes later the priest walked in, greeted me in a friendly manner, shut the door, sat at his desk, and asked me to proceed. Through tears I then ranted to him about my frustrations of what has been bothering me and he listened attentively. He waited until I looked up at him and paused. He then responded to my situation and gave his opinion, along with his Godly wisdom and advice. God was certainly working through him. This went on for about an hour and I gradually calmed down, although I still didn't feel 100% better about my situation. I thanked him and we parted ways, a smile on my face. I also thanked the woman for her kindness earlier. I then went to pray in the church for a bit. Ideas came to me as I sat there and I decided to be very productive for the rest of the day in regards to what was upsetting me. I was in a better, not greatest, but better mood after talking to the priest and then talking to Jesus.

I decided to share that story because I am so tired of hearing so much negativity about Christians and Catholics. Priests aren't perfect, but they often tend to help me, so good stories about them and the laypeople of the Christian community like this one should be shared more often.

So, do you have any stories about when a priest or a layperson Christian helped you?

On Writers and Artists Getting Paid for Their Work:

July 17, 2015

I got angry at something I just read so I decided to write this:

Can you imagine going to a restaurant and not paying but say instead that you'll refer the place to someone else? Of course not.

But this is the reality most writers and other artists face everyday. EXPOSURE does not equal GETTING PAID FOR YOUR WORK. Writers and other artists are qualified professionals in their fields just like anyone else and deserve to be treated as such.

Writers and other artists, don't settle for less than what you deserve!! Settling is what keeps this unfair cycle going. There might be times when you may want to do work for free, but the only time it is truly acceptable is if it's for YOUR OWN ENJOYMENT. Employees put time in and then get paid for the hours they work, correct? Well, so should writers and other artists for theirs!
____

I should write a book. :P

Does Art Always Have to Have a Meaning? A Theater Journalist's First Green Room Interview Experience

This blog post has been inspired by something Richard Schechner, the director of Alexander Kasser Theater's 10th season's opening production "Imagining O", said to me. I was covering "Imagining O" for Baristanet, which led to my interaction with Mr. Schechner.

"Imagining O" is one of those plays that does not necessarily have a straightforward story line. This particular play more so prides itself with its little bits and pieces of dream imagination sequences. After the play concluded and I chatted with two of the cast members, I asked to meet Mr. Schechner. I was taken backstage to the green room where he was sharing notes of the night's performance with the cast. We were introduced and I asked to get a quote from him. He then told me to ask the cast anything I wanted.

I figured that now that I am a professional freelance writer and a college graduate actually working in my field, I was in a good position to do backstage interviews. I never did these back when I was a Montclarion staff writer. This was my first chance as a professional so I wanted to take advantage of it and do it right.

I turned to the girls. They were women of all different ages, so it being a female run show I was excited to interact with them all. They in turn looked thrilled to see me there, so I wanted to make a good impression. They asked me what I wanted to know, and I told them that they could tell me anything they wanted. I used this as an opportunity to let the performers just say anything they want about their experiences with no limitations. However, Mr. Schechner preferred that I ask them specific questions.

"Oh. Okay," I said, seating myself sideways at the nearest table to face the cast, who was eating their dinner on a leather couch in the middle of the room. Mr Schechner sat to my left facing them. My mind raced searching for the questions that I had been mentally asking throughout the production. So, I turned to my generic question, one that I had also asked the two cast members a few minutes beforehand.

"What message do you hope to convey with this performance?" I asked.

Now that I think about it, I think I often ask this question and ones like it. I like to get some insight from the performers based on their own perspective of the piece.

However, Mr. Schechner wasn't having it.

“There are no messages or morals,” said Mr. Schechner, “It is full of contradictions and about imagination.”

I actually used this for a quote in my article.

The cast asked me what I thought of the play. All eyes were on me and I felt somewhat unprepared, given that the play wasn't fully clear to me and once again I wanted to make a good impression.

I said, "Well, I'll be honest. There were times when I was lost." I felt a little hesitant to say that to their faces, actually turning around to place my pen on my notebook probably to subconsciously avoid eye contact. But that's understandable, right? To feel lost during an art piece?

Mr. Schechner seemed perplexed. "At what part specifically were you lost?" He proceeded to tell me to get the idea of messages out of my mind (I think this was when he said that quote.) and that the play was just a piece of art to watch. He then compared it to looking at a sunset or a thunderstorm.

"Is there a message in the sunset? Is there a message in the thunderstorm?" he asked me, awaiting my response.

A little dumbfounded, I shook my head and uttered a small, "No." I mean, he DID have a point...

But then a few days later I thought that there very well COULD be symbolic messages behind sunsets and thunderstorms!!

Since then my article was written and published, but this debate about artistic messages and lack thereof stayed with me. I always felt that art had its own interpretations based on the viewer. Art is used to directly or indirectly make a point, such as with use of symbolism and satire, two of which "Imagining O" incorporates.

I thought back to my college days (Ha! It's only been a year and a half and I'm already considering them "back to my college days.") during my junior/senior year when I took an Art of Drama course with one of my favorite professors and advisor, Professor Naomi Liebler. She enjoyed discussions and challenging her students, especially me because I often spoke up in class and she knew me from our advising sessions in her office. This same discussion came up when discussing a play and for some reason she brought up juggling. She claimed that juggling is an art form that has no meaning behind it and questioned what meaning it could try to portray. I retaliated by saying that juggling could be symbolic of keeping balance in the world or something like that.

I have always been a deep thinker, obviously.

Professor Liebler gave me a look. It wasn't, "Wow, you're absolutely right!" nor was it "No, you're absolutely wrong." It was an in-between confused, somewhat sarcastic and proud grin that said to me, "Really? You really think that? Come on, now!" She may have actually said those words, but she was mainly happy that I was thinking and willing to argue my point with her.

She gave me the same look another time when she said that drama is a genre and comedy isn't and I claimed that comedy is just as much a genre as drama is. I think she believed that drama has more depth to it with tragic heros and whatnot whereas comedy does not and is just there. However, I believe that comedy could have depth to it as well and if drama is a genre than why shouldn't comedy be? This was when she smirked at me, her head resting on her right hand as she sat before us. She then stated that she was reconsidering her claim.

So am I right in believing that all art has meaning or could certain things in this world exist without it? 

Is it even possible for things to not have meaning? Doesn't everything have a reason?

Moritz Stiefel's Hair: 'Mind-Blowing' Theories about the Bumbling "Spring Awakening" Supporting Character

Ever since I wrote about the Studio Players production of Spring Awakening for Baristanet, I've been on a Spring Awakening kick since its preview show. 

The more I thought about this musical, the more the character design of supporting character Moritz Stiefel came to mind.

Seriously, what is up with his hair?

I've always wondered this. For those of you who do not know what I am talking about, here is the original design of Moritz Stiefel, as played by John Gallagher, Jr. in the Broadway version:

John Gallagher, Jr. as "Moritz Stiefel" performing at the 2007 Tony Awards

Okay, now that you've seen it, let's talk about it. His hair definitely stands out. It stands out so much that when I first saw the Studio Players production and all of the guys first came out during the "Mama Who Bore Me (Reprise)", I immediately was able to pinpoint which cast member was playing Moritz based on his hair alone. He didn't have to do anything, he didn't have to say anything. All he had to do was walk out with his hair sticking up and flipped over and I was all like, "That's Moritz."

Here is the Studio Players version of Moritz Stiefel, as played by Montclair State University musical theater major Chris Newhouse:

Photo Credit: Claudia Budris
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=785384631493916&set=pb.103139329718453.-2207520000.1402362290.&type=3&theater

What's funny is it took me a little while to realize which actor was playing the lead character, resident radical Melchior Gabor. I didn't have this issue with Moritz by any means.

This tells me that the hairstyle for Moritz is so intentional that every actor who plays him has to make his hair look this way. I'm actually sensing that Newhouse grew and styled his hair out purposely for the role. If you look at the original costume sketches for the character from the book I have, you'll notice that his hair is the same there as well:

In fact, it is so iconic that it even HAS ITS OWN GOOGLE SEARCH RESULT.

So the question is: why?

White Disney Princesses, From the Perspective of a White Girl

When my friend Abby and I were discussing the movie Frozen, the subject came up about how the newest Disney Princesses, Elsa and Anna, are yet again white. I pointed out from something I had read that a reason why a majority of them are white depends on their stories' origins, such as Merida from Brave being Scottish. Then Abby retaliated with the fact that they could just make these characters from anywhere. For example, Elsa doesn't have to be white in order for the whole Ice Queen concept to work, unless they were going for a "white as snow" thing with her and wanted the setting to stay true to the Danish source. Disney actually did this already with The Princess and the Frog, making a story with German origins take place in New Orleans.

We talked about how the lack of diversity in the Disney Princesses is a problem. There is also the matter that little girls of all walks of life should have a Disney Princess to relate to.

I've been thinking about this subject for a while because it is a hot topic, especially trying to consider how fortunate I was growing up as a white girl with all of these white princesses at my disposal. But looking back at it now, let me tell you something: these white girls aren't all that.

Here is a rundown of white Disney Princesses that were supposedly my intended role models. There is the very first, Snow White (Eww. Never liked her much.), Cinderella, and Aurora. Well, Cinderella is somewhat redeemable because her main song is "A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes" and from what I recall she isn't necessarily specific about what her dreams are. Maybe she dreamt about being the CEO of a company. Or maybe she dreamt about having a better life in general, which is more likely and still honorable. Who knows? Snow White wishes for something as well with her song, "Wishing for the One I Love". She's straight forward about what she wants, but should she really be chastised for being a girl wanting to fall in love? Feminism goes in any direction.

Anyway, the only one I am able to relate to physically is Aurora, given that she has long blonde hair like myself. But that's where the similarities end. She does nothing to make me admire her, other than be pretty. Well, I do like to sleep too...

When compared to other Disney Princesses, the early white ones are pretty bland and boring. Plenty of people dislike them because they all need a man to save them and lack personality. In addition, they all kind of resemble each other. It is the ethnically diverse ones that are more active and unique, such as Jasmine from Aladdin and Kida from Atlantis: The Lost Empire.

You know who my favorite Disney Princess was growing up? Pocahontas. Not your conventional white Disney Princess, but I liked her cultural look (especially her blue necklace and long black hair flowing in the wind), love for nature and life, strong will and strength, and now I noticed that she's pretty much the only Disney Princess that doesn't get her guy at the end, making her more realistic. Like Pocahontas, I too have Native American roots, so that's another reason. In fact, I played with my Pocahontas and Jasmine dolls the most because I liked their outfits better and loved brushing their long black hair. As a child I had this phase of cutting all of my dolls' hair, but I spared these two of my beautician skills (Pocahontas's friend Nakoma wasn't so lucky). I have a Cinderella doll too, dressed up in her ballroom attire, but I never paid that much attention to her. I think it is because of how "dolled" up she is (no pun intended). You remember how she looked. Her hair is in a bun and she is dressed in a large blue gown. Maybe I felt that she looked too formal for playtime so I just didn't bother as much.

Badass white Disney Princesses wasn't really a thing until lately. I think it started with the Disney Renaissance Era opening up with Ariel in The Little Mermaid to kick things off. If you think about it, she was the character intended for girls in my age group. The movie came out in 1989 and I was born in 1990.

Okay, so I did make fun of her in the past, but she does have her own dreams of visiting land before laying eyes on Eric and makes mistakes like any other teenage girl, so I respect her for that. I like my Ariel doll more than my Cinderella one and played with it more, appreciating her shortness in contrast to my other dolls (maybe I was able to relate to her in this way), but this doll has its own annoyances. Her fin is all worn out now, her legs don't move and never did, and worst of all, her bra keeps falling off. And now she's reminding me too much of Rachel Tice from "The Most Popular Girls in School". As for Belle from Beauty and the Beast, another white Disney Princess designated for my generation made popular in 1991, though her movie has its own flaws with an abusive relationship undertone, she's more developed. She is educated through her love for books, doesn't take nonsense from anyone, and saves her father from the Beast.

It seems to me though that the strongest white Disney Princesses were born through the CGI-animated films. Meaning very, VERY recently. We were given Rapunzel (Tangled, 2010), Merida (Brave, 2012), and now Elsa and Anna (Frozen, 2013). These all came out in my adulthood, so it's kind of late for me to look up to these characters now as a little girl, but it's so great to see them existing now. The white Disney Princess just keeps evolving and Anna is actually a combination of them all. She is eager to fall in love like the earlier models, but her main focus in the movie is to find her sister and bring her back home and she stands up to the film's male characters in order to do so. Unlike Ariel, whose life goals change shape when she is inspired to make Eric love her and sacrifice herself to do it, these four girls never really include a boyfriend in their goals. For Rapunzel and Anna, it just happens for them.

I never really connected to a white Disney Princess until Elsa and Anna, which is why I felt inspired to write this post. Maybe it has something to do with the movie being a musical going to Broadway and the people who voiced them. Also, any person can relate to Elsa, suffering from the age old story of not being accepted because of differences and ultimately finding the courage and freedom to openly be yourself. "The cold never bothered me anyway," either. I watched Tangled for the first time on TV like a few weeks or months ago and though it entertained me with its charm and Rapunzel herself proves her worth, I didn't really think it was THAT special. That movie didn't seem to get the reaction Frozen has.

Although she came into the franchise later on, Tiana from The Princess and the Frog, known as Disney's first black Princess, is a role model for young girls right off the bat as a hard worker aspiring to open up her own restaurant whereas we had to go through numerous white Disney Princesses to get it right. For awhile there the black girl community was under-represented by Disney Princesses while the white girl community wasn't really represented by Disney Princesses in the best positive way.

Just because white Disney Princesses existed for me as a child, it doesn't mean that I was very proud of them or that they were amazing characters for me to like. As a kid you don't really think about whether or not these characters are good role models. They're just...there. Even now as an adult I'm not that crazy about them. I mean, I like them enough and I did pose for a picture and chatted with Cinderella and Prince Charming for a good hour in Disney World back when I was four, but they do lack substance. I don't recall ever being in awe of them or modeling myself after them, but they are still part of my Disney childhood memories of which I am well fond.

I still grew up to be a strong, independent woman even after watching these movies as a kid, let's just say that. They didn't influence me otherwise.

If we want to branch out a little bit and look beyond the Disney Princesses, we can check out the whiteness that are Alice from Alice in Wonderland, Wendy from Peter Pan, Megara from Hercules, Jane from Tarzan, and Jessie from A Toy Story. These characters are nice and their main focus isn't fully romance, at least not at first. I especially appreciate Alice for never getting involved with a guy at all in her movie and Jessie provides a nice foil to Bo Peep in hers. But I'm starting to think that the one I like the most is Tinker Bell from Peter Pan. She is a spunky, jealous little bitch and I love it. She is REAL (well, as real as a flying mute fairy can get). Chances are we all know a woman that fits the Tink criteria. But then again her jealousy and realness is instigated because of a guy (well, boy), so in this respect her attachment to a dude makes her not that much different from past Disney Princesses.

Then there's Esmeralda from The Hunchback of Notre Dame. She's not white or a princess, so she just might be the most diverse of them all. Her motivation isn't as much romance as it is love for her people. I love her look and style and my Esmeralda dolls are some of my favorites. One of them actually has flexible elbows and knees and gyrating hips, making her body a lot more human-like. Hear that, Ariel?

Quite possibly the best one of them all is Mulan. I've always been a fan. Once again, not white or a princess (though she is in the Disney Princess lineup), but she fights in a war disguised as a guy and single-handedly saves China. Her motivation is not love for a man, but rather to protect her aging father, much like Belle actually. And I loved playing with my Mulan doll. Enough said.

I think I like these non-white ladies because they are so different from me. Even their doll counterparts stand out next to my white, blonde Barbies. The Disney Princess industry has made strides, but there is still so much more that can be done. I enjoy seeing the variety. Every single one of them, including the original white princesses and unofficial princesses, brings something to the table and the Disney family wouldn't be complete without them. It's nice to see them all together as this sisterhood.

Found this on Facebook back in November and thought it appropriate to include in this.

Hey, at least women ARE being represented. There's another argument I can make that men aren't very well represented at all or as popular as Disney's female characters. There are movies that come to mind with a human guy as the title main character, such as Aladdin, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Tarzan, The Emperor's New Groove, and now there is Wreck-It Ralph, but the Disney Princes are often overshadowed by their leading ladies because the Disney Princess franchise is such a hit. Even The Disney Wiki just defines these guys as "an official line-up of male leads who're the love interests of the Disney Princesses." It's actually refreshing to see this change of pace and the only way the original three, Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty, can be considered feminist films. Now that I think about it, what's also somewhat feminist about these three movies is that they teach and recognize that there's nothing wrong with sometimes accepting help from a man if need be and if a man is willing to help you, why refuse it? Even Quasimodo swoops in to save Esmeralda, regardless of how tough she is, and earlier in the film she comes to his defense and saves him from humiliation. Flynn Rider/Eugene lends Rapunzel a hand, even though at first through a deal, and in turn Rapunzel comes to his aid as well, perhaps more often. It's all about partnership between the two sexes.

I'll tell you what I'm waiting for. I'm waiting for an Italian Disney Princess, or better yet, heroine. All we have is that goofy marionette film Pinocchio to represent us, and that movie scarred me for life with that awful donkey scene.

Plus, there's no powerful women in it. What? That white, blonde Blue Fairy? Nah. Not memorable enough.

Get on it! :)

And since I talked a great deal about them throughout this piece, here are my Disney lady dolls from childhood! :)

From left to right: Nakoma, Pocahontas, Jasmine, Esmeralda 1, Esmeralda 2, Mulan, Ariel, and Cinderella. Like Nakoma, Mulan and Ariel were also victims of my doll hair-cutting stage. I feel like I had a Snow White doll as a child too but I think like I may have given her away HAHA. Also, Jasmine came with a flower in her hair, but I didn't want to go crazy looking for it for this. They all look pretty happy to be in the shot except for Cinderella. She was giving me trouble not looking at the camera. It's like she thinks she's a princess or something. :P

Why I'm Not Crazy About the New "Whose Line"

The revival premiere of the improv show "Whose Line is it Anyway?" premiered last night on The CW. Unfortunately, needless to say, I was underwhelmed.

First let's look at the positives. I love that they brought back the original cast, which consists of Ryan Stiles, Colin Mochrie, and Wayne Brady. They even brought back the original musicians for the song games, Laura Hall and Linda Taylor. The coolest part is that the set looks exactly the same. Basically, to quote a tweet of Wayne Brady, it's like they never left. They still have the same chemistry with each other. I also really like the new game "Sideways Scene", which is when they perform the scene lying on the floor and the camera films them from above. The audience is also just as cheerful and interactive.

Then there are the minor changes that I'm not crazy about, but I think I can live with. First of all, the guys have aged and gained a little weight, except for Wayne Brady because that guy never changes. It's kind of depressing to see that they have gotten older, but they don't look that drastically different. They still have the same flavor that they did back then. It's like the show never ended but decided to fast forward a few years. The original red background curtain is now blue and the intro music from commercial and title card in the beginning have been altered. There are also new guest performers. These all are actually pretty good changes because it makes it not just like the original U.S. program. It's a clean slate, a fresh start. The red to the blue symbolizes that this is the revival.

Now I'll bring up my true problem with the show. Drew Carey isn't there but Aisha Tyler is.

Don't get me wrong. I love Aisha. I was first introduced to her as a host of CBS's "The Talk" and she is actually my favorite host on that show. I find that I agree with her most on what she has to say about topics and find that she is the one that speaks for me. I even took a "Which 'The Talk' host are you?" online quiz, wanted her as my result, and got her. I even fangirled when I saw her make a cameo appearance on "Glee" as Jake Puckerman's mother.

However, she does NOT fit the "Whose Line" family at all.

I'm sure the guys like her, but you can tell that they feel awkward around her. She's just not funny and tries too hard to be, as if trying to live up to the franchise, and ends up just being too loud or annoying. Every time she tries to crack a joke, they seem to find it difficult to respond. They just grin. She is not that funny on her own show either. I mean, she has some chuckle worthy lines here and there, but on "The Talk" she is more of the serious person of the group, which is fine. You don't have be that funny for a talk show, especially when you're a foil to those funnier than you as your co-hosts. Even though she's not humorous she's still very intelligent and well spoken, which is what a talk show needs. But, you kind of have to be funny for "Whose Line".

As much as the guys made fun of Drew Carey for doing nothing on the show, he made "Whose Line" what it is today. In fact, they actually look a little depressed not having Drew there with them. He wasn't as good of an actor as the rest, but he still made an excellent, funny host. The show originated in Britain, and that host was as boring and unmemorable as can be. Not only this, but the guys are friends with Drew and they made fun of him for everything: sitting behind the desk, pressing the button, having two shows on ABC, his occasional screw ups, his movie Geppetto, everything about him. And then Drew would make fun of them right back. He was one of them. Can you imagine the guys, especially Ryan, who was notorious for mocking Drew, making fun of Aisha? For what? It would be so weird.

They are just a bunch of dudes used to joking around with each other, with the occasional female guest performer, whom sadly is never really as into it as they are. With Aisha as the host, it's like a bunch of goofy teenage boys replacing their fellow goofy teenage boy friend with a little girl, which is kind of how I see this! They are older men hosted by a younger woman. Just looking at them together in photos doesn't feel right. She looks like she doesn't belong. I can see maybe having Aisha as a guest performer, but definitely not a host. Now if you were to see Aisha on "The Talk" with her female co-hosts, she fits right in with their banters, but she's also one of the quieter ones as well, which is another reason why her loudness is so off-putting. It's just not her.

I keep trying to figure out who would be a good replacement host for this show, and I can't think of anybody but Drew! Now, would I feel better if another guy replaced Drew? Possibly. It depends on who it is. And maybe I wouldn't feel as bad about Aisha hosting if there was a female host all along. But I still think Drew is the only one who deserves the title.

From my understanding Drew couldn't host "Whose Line" due to his obligations to "The Price is Right". I don't understand this because Wayne Brady hosts "Let's Make a Deal", which airs an hour before Drew's show on the same station, and Aisha hosts "The Talk". At the time of the original "Whose Line", Drew starred in his own sitcom "The Drew Carey Show". If other people can juggle more than one TV show and he has done it in the past, why can't he do it again?

I will admit that although I was excited about the show's revival, I wasn't really keeping an open mind about Aisha, and I felt this way since finding out that she was the new host months ago on Twitter. I think this is what ruined my perception of the rest of the show. I just couldn't enjoy it fully and found it a little boring. I was so upset when I found out that "Whose Line" and "So You Think You Can Dance" landed on the same night and time, and was grateful when I discovered that there was an All-Star baseball game in place of "SYTYCD" this particular night, leaving me free to watch the "Whose Line" premiere without having to swap channels back and forth. It was a sign for me to watch it. I didn't know what I'd do in the future when "SYTYCD" returns, but now that I was given the chance to view "Whose Line", it was a sign for me to leave the show from that point on. I think I'm going to dedicate my Tuesday nights to "SYTYCD", which was my plan anyway, even though I'm STILL upset that they eliminated Jasmine Mason!

"Whose Line" is a show I turned to on YouTube to cheer myself up when upset or sick, to relieve boredom or stress, or just because I felt like it. I was so excited to look forward to brand new jokes in addition to the reruns with jokes I expected. I hate to say it, but I'm very disappointed and kind of sad, especially seeing how a lot of people seem to like Aisha in the host seat, though I discovered today via social media that I am not alone in my feelings either. I feel like I won't like the show fully unless Drew Carey returns. I'm definitely willing to give it another chance, but yet I feel like not tuning in. I don't see how she got the job.

Maybe it's not her that is the problem. Maybe I'm just seriously missing Drew Carey and nobody else compares to him. Maybe any other host would get this reaction out of me as well.

I just needed to vent this. Oh, and I also decided to watch the premiere of a new dating game show following "Whose Line" on The CW called "Perfect Score". Boy was that quality TV.

PBS Kids TV Shows and their Unexplained

My gigantic PBS Kids analytical essays are back again, this time not to poke fun at useless new characters, but to discuss details of the shows that are often left unexplained. These are details that I have come across and wondered about.

PBS Kids does everything from academic lessons to moral lessons, but there are some aspects of PBS Kids that seem to miss the mark.

For example...

What exactly do the hordes/hoards (spelling?) look like in "Dragon Tales"? 

In "Dragon Tales" the dragons have these pouches on their abdomens called "hordes" and they treat them like kangaroo pouches. The dragons store random objects in them. It's like their version of backpacks, only it's built in.

However, there is something I always wondered about these things. How big are they? What is the depth of these hordes? I know this is a cartoon, but these hordes have infinite space in there. The dragons constantly and often conveniently pull out random objects from these hordes, objects that look like they wouldn't fit in them. I keep recalling Ord taking a 7-foot sandwich out of his horde in one episode. Where did he store it? How did it fit? In another episode, Zak tells Wheezie that her side of the horde is messy. Do two-headed dragons have two separate compartments in their hordes?

How much stuff can they fit in there? What do they look like inside?

The Ghost Town Universe in "Sid the Science Kid"

First of all, I really want to commend "Sid the Science Kid" for getting kids excited about learning science. It's very rare that you see a show do that. The last time we saw this on PBS Kids was "Bill Nye the Science Guy", which is oddly enough a similar title.

"Sid the Science Kid" is about a biracial little boy named Sid that is fascinated by science. Every episode he has a different science related question which is answered later on because coincidentally it is what he and his classmates end up learning about in that very episode.

Maybe perhaps one of these episodes can discuss the lack of life forms in the show.

The next time you watch "Sid The Science Kid", see if you take notice of this. The only people viewers see are the main characters. Oh, and there was also a dog in one episode. But you never see any other random people walking on the sidewalk or cars out and about. It looks like they are the only inhabitants in their town. You know how in "Arthur" even though they aren't important characters you still see random civilians around? That's not the case in "Sid". It's actually kind of scary. Almost post-apocalyptic. I guess we can say that this is because "Arthur" takes place in all different settings whereas the "Sid" setting is limited, but it is still very eerie.

The show also makes it look like there are only four kids (Sid, Gerald, Gabriela, and May) and one teacher (Teacher Susie) in the entire school because you never see anybody else on the playground or in the building. One explanation for this that I've seen people state is that perhaps Sid attends a special education school. This makes sense because special education schools often consist of smaller class sizes. We also never meet any of the other kids' parents.

But there are even episodes where Teacher Susie takes the kids on a field trip to the local science center. Guess what? You don't see anybody else in these places either.

This is a public place! Where is everybody? It often looks like the place is closed and Teacher Susie and the kids just broke in.

Wait a minute. I just found this on Wikipedia.

Well there goes that.

There's a picture of this character on Google, but I've never seen her before. She must be new. Maybe they're starting to add new characters now.

But still, she's only one character. The rest of the atmosphere is still very empty.

Additional Puzzlement: The only thing these kids learn in school is science and no other subjects. I know that the show is dedicated to science, but yeah, just wanted to point this out.

Talking Dogs in Various PBS Kids Shows: Why Dog from "Word World" was Cheated

"Word World" is an interesting show with an interesting concept. Everything in Word World is built from the letters that spell the word. For example, the character of "Dog" takes the shape of the letters D-O-G. The characters consist of animals (and objects) shaped in this way and they all speak English (and probably other human languages as well depending on where the show airs and what languages it provides).

"Dog" from "Word World"

That is, except for Dog. Even though Dog is living in a universe where there are no humans and animals can talk, Dog is the only character that acts like an everyday dog and is treated as such whereas the other animals in this universe don't act like regular everyday animals. The other "Word World" characters are personified. They speak with words and walk on their hind legs, especially characters like Sheep, Bear, and Pig. They are almost equivalent to human beings in their world yet Dog barks, walks on all fours, and is sometimes treated like a pet rather than one of them. Why is this? Why isn't he (or she) considered equal to them? See, I don't even know what gender this dog is because he or she never speaks to help me determine this, but I'm pretty sure Dog is often referred to as a "he."

When compared to other PBS Kids shows that involve talking dogs, this makes even less sense. First, let's look at the show that makes the most sense, which is "Clifford the Big Red Dog". Imagine that. A cartoon series about a red dog the size of a house being the most realistic. Well it is when it comes to talking animals. To the humans in "Clifford", Clifford and the rest of the dogs are normal pets that bark. The only time these dogs speak English is when they speak to each other, and when the dogs speak English, the only thing the humans hear is barking.

Then there is "Arthur". Recently Pal and the other pets of the series, like Francine's cat Nemo (I just found out that this is the correct spelling. This whole time I thought it was spelled "Mimo".) and Alberto's dog Amigo (Get it? Pal? Amigo? Ha! Clever!) are all of a sudden speaking English to each other like the dogs in "Clifford". However, the only difference in this show is that they are taking it a step further and the animals are also able to communicate with Baby Kate, Arthur's toddler little sister. Yes, Kate is now speaking perfect English as well, to the animals at least. This is fine I guess because normally dogs and younger children have this sort of connection in fiction.

The worst and most offensive comparison is "Martha Speaks". Ha! This is the actual title of this series, which is about a dog that walks on all fours and is able to speak English and communicate with her human peers. It is explained in the opening theme that Martha can do this because she ate alphabet soup and instead of it going to her stomach the soup took a wrong turn and traveled to her brain instead...

I'm not kidding! See for yourself! This is seriously what supposedly happened!

Hey, it's PBS Kids, people!

But here's what's so offensive about it. So you're telling me that Martha, from eating alphabet soup and having a weird digestive tract, is able to talk fluently with humans in a human run everyday world like our own? Where dogs normally don't speak and she actually lives with another normal barking non-speaking dog, Skits? But Dog can't speak in a non-human world, a place only populated by animals, where animals much like himself can but only HE cannot?

What a slap in the face! He's like the one dog on PBS Kids that doesn't speak and should considering the world in which he lives and that the rest of his peers do. Dog should totally take this up with his creator and sue PBS for this injustice!

Additional Puzzlement: Not only do Pal and Nemo speak English, they also have English accents. How did that happen? Amigo has a Latin accent because he lives with a Latin family, but the other two don't live with British families, so what influenced their British accents?

"Daniel the Tiger's Neighborhood": Daniel No Longer Lives in the Clock Factory

When I saw this "Daniel the Tiger's Neighborhood" for the first time, I found so many things wrong with it, so much that I was planning on dedicating an entire blog post to it. I originally thought that the people creating the show got everything wrong, especially names, and were failing at being loyal to the original "Mister Rogers" franchise, making things up and just changing things out of nowhere.

Then after awhile I got my explanation. It turns out that this show is much like a "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood: The Next Generation" type of show with Daniel getting his own spinoff starring the descendents of the original characters. Daniel hangs out with X the Owl's nephew O the Owl, Henrietta Pussycat's kitten Katerina Kittycat, King Friday's son and Prince Tuesday's younger brother Prince Wednesday, and Lady Elaine Fairchilde's daughter, Miss Elaina. Now that this is all explained, it is all well and good. But, there is one detail that still doesn't sit right with me.

Remember how back in the days of "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" Daniel lived in a clock tower and any time the human characters wanted to talk with him, they simply walked over to the Clock Factory and he would pop up.

This isn't the case anymore. Now the Tiger family lives in a hut and Daniel's father simply works at the Clock Factory. Why was this changed? This is an unnecessary change because Lady Elaine Fairchilde and her family still live in the Museum-Go-Round like she originally did, so why doesn't he and his family still live in the Clock Factory? Unless I only thought that he lived there...

I just found this on Wikipedia. See, I'm not crazy! He did actually live there!

But this suggests that the original Daniel the Tiger from "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" is the father of lead character Daniel from "Daniel the Tiger's Neighborhood". But I don't recall the original Daniel being called "Daniel the Striped Tiger".

Wait. From "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" Wikipedia:

Unless they edited this Wikipedia page to make it match the "Daniel the Tiger's Neighborhood" Wikipedia page, but probably not.

I had to look this up to confirm because I was starting to remember. Apparently this was his name. The fact that his kid's name is Daniel as well threw me off. I thought the lead character of the spinoff series was the original Daniel. This does explain a bit why Daniel from the next generation hangs out with Prince Wednesday and not Prince Tuesday, giving a little insight into why Prince Wednesday was created. The original Daniel used to be the same age as Prince Tuesday so they had to create a younger prince to hang out with the original Daniel's son. That is, if that is their intention here and I am guessing the characters right.

Well, perhaps Daniel felt that living in a clock factory was no place to raise a family so he moved out of his bachelor pad into the hut with his family. It does make sense why Daniel still works there. He still wants to be connected to the old days. I'm just glad that he's not totally removed from the Clock Factory.

Whew! PBS Kids TV shows weren't this complex when I was a kid...

An Unrealistic Outcome: The Sad Truth About Charles Dickens's "A Christmas Carol"

Welcome to my Christmas essay of 2012! I originally thought of this idea and began writing it in January of 2012, but since it was after Christmas I didn't want to post it, so I decided to work on it for this Christmas instead. It's funny because I have other ideas to write about when it comes to A Christmas Carol, such as the different film versions and how they each tell the story differently. I may still do that, but I also want to point out this observation I have recently made.

Alastair Sim as "Ebenezer Scrooge" in the 1951 film version

We all know the story of Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol, right? An old miser named Ebenezer Scrooge is pretty much the world's biggest jerk. It isn't until he is visited by four ghosts, his old business partner Jacob Marley included, that he changes his ways and is a good man all around come Christmas morning.

It's such a heartwarming book, film, and Christmas classic, guaranteed to make your spirits bright and give you hope for the world. But what if I told you that A Christmas Carol isn't necessarily as heartwarming as we think it is?

This change in Scrooge's character isn't realistic and we shouldn't necessarily be proud of him. A Christmas Carol has such a happy ending just because it's a Christmas story ending on Christmas Day. Christmas is supposed to ignite happiness, so it would be blasphemous if a Christmas story, especially one that ends on Christmas Day, has a negative outcome.

This sudden 180 in Scrooge's personality is not natural even how it is done. How many of us want to make changes in our lives but find it difficult to do so? We can't expect flaws to leave altogether and never return. That would make us perfect, and we all know that perfection doesn't exist. It's a process and it takes time. We also all know that famous phrase: "Things don't change overnight." And yet, this is what Dickens leads us to believe, or at least tries to. Scrooge changes very quickly and we're supposed to assume that he never commits a bad act again and from here on in he is a good guy. All of a sudden he has a heart of gold and we're not supposed to question it.

Also, Scrooge is reluctant to change throughout the story until the point in his dream and ghostly visitations where he sees Tiny Tim and begins to sympathize with him. If a person is indeed going to change, the want to change also has to be there throughout the process as well. Here Scrooge changes without even having the desire to do so at first and throughout the story. It also seems like he gets off too easy. He doesn't want to at first, but yet it happens for him anyway. That's not fair to others that try to change but struggle with it.

So apparently at the end of the story Scrooge is an angelic man for the rest of his life, but who's to say that he didn't go back to his humbug ways the following days? The story ends on Christmas Day, which is when people are just automatically happy. Then again, this is the first time in his life after a long period that Scrooge is actually celebrating Christmas, so in that respect we can say that his reaction to it is genuine. However, a person doesn't make such a big shift that quickly and stay that way. First we are to assume that he does change, and now we are to assume that this change now lasts without any slip ups because the story concludes idealistically.

And finally, Dickens is trying to convince us that the life altering event that changes him so drastically is a bunch of dreams consisting of four wacky ghosts? Come on! If anything should change him, it should be an actual realistic event that he has to live through because that's how real life works. Even The Grinch from Dr. Seuss's "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" has a change of heart when he hears the Whos of Whoville singing, and he's not even human! Now that I think about it, Scrooge and The Grinch have a lot in common. They're both grumpy guys that isolate themselves from the rest of their worlds at Christmas time and then at the end learn to truly appreciate the season and everybody around them. We can argue that The Grinch's transformation is even quicker and less fair than Scrooge's, especially in the original 1957 book and 1966 cartoon version where all he has to do is hear the Whos sing and then realize that Christmas isn't about the presents but the people with whom you share it. It isn't until the year 2000 when a live action film version of the story came out starring Jim Carrey and provided us with a backstory and motivations for The Grinch, kind of like how the Ghost of Christmas Past shows Scrooge and the reader and audience his past. Past occurrences, and the fact that he isn't human, are the reasons why he hates Christmas. He meets little Cindy Lou Who and Martha May Whovier, his love interest, who help him along the way throughout the movie to make his changes and give him reason to do so. Sure it seems like throughout the movie he doesn't want to change, much like Scrooge, but there are moments where he does cave and seems willing. Also, keep in mind that in the movie the Whos ostracize him because they consider him a monster, making him feel unwelcome.

But the difference with Scrooge is people actually want him around to celebrate with them. Unlike The Grinch, who is pushed away by people because they make assumptions about him, Scrooge is the one that does the pushing away his entire life and it is ultimately his choice to be isolated whereas it may not be The Grinch's choice in his story necessarily. So The Grinch's story changes in the live action version to give him more to work with, but A Christmas Carol has never changed its traditional story too much (thankfully, because I made it clear in my Christmas essay last year that I don't really like that), so basically we have to work with the same thing we've always been seeing for years, which are his dreams. Also, we're supposed to relate to Scrooge more than The Grinch because Scrooge is a human being living among others in society whereas The Grinch looks like a distant relative of Oscar the Grouch and lives in the mountains by himself. (I've never noticed this before, but they look and act a lot alike, don't they? LOL.)

Sure the ghosts show Scrooge real past and present occurrences, as well as peeking into the future and how dire it is going to be if Scrooge doesn't change his ways, but these happen in dream sequences and you know how we humans are with dreams. When we first wake up we still feel like we are in the dream, so therefore Scrooge waking up fearing that he missed Christmas and dancing around in his pajamas in his first waking moment makes sense. He is still in dream mode, that limbo between being asleep and being awake. In this moment too he asks the kid walking by his house to buy his employee Bob Cratchit a huge turkey for his family using his money. All of a sudden he now trusts little children with his money.

This is all being done right after Scrooge wakes up because he didn't even have any time to register anything. He does all of this so hastily. When we wake up from such realistic dreams, aren't we shaken up too? Don't we have trouble thinking straight and critically? As we gradually wake up, the dream starts to make no sense at all. We even start to forget it until eventually it totally disappears from our minds and we come back to reality, thus returning back to our regular routines. After a couple of days, or maybe even later on in the day, since the story seems to conclude on Christmas MORNING, Scrooge could look back on his dream and ghost encounters that Christmas Eve and consider it a bunch of malarkey, returning him back to his old, nasty self.

Looking at it now, I'm actually pretty shocked that his belief in his dream seems to last the entire day, because there are versions of the story where he attends dinners and parties. I've always wondered what exact time he wakes up actually, because the little boy answers that it's Christmas Day, not Christmas morning. If he does wake up in the morning, time moves pretty fast in the final minutes of A Christmas Carol.

I know it's supposed to be fiction so therefore reality shouldn't really matter, but all of this makes me question just how joyful and moralistic this story really is. He supposedly learns his lesson after only ONE night of dreaming, but does he really? He dreams about his rough past and how currently people don't really like him, which actually brings up some unanswered questions on Dickens's part. Knowing Scrooge, why would he care about people liking him anyway? Also, why does he all of a sudden change his tune upon seeing Tiny Tim and how the Cratchit family struggles? He almost presents himself as a misanthrope not caring much about the well being of others, so how does all of this initiate change in him?

How sincere do you think Scrooge is at the end of A Christmas Carol? After reading what I have to say about it, do you still consider it an appropriate Christmas special? What about "How The Grinch Stole Christmas"?