Lamenting the Gilmore Girls

Posted by Bob Greenberger on November 29, 2006

Much has been written about the change in management on Gilmore Girls, a series that has been a Greenberger Family favorite since its debut. The critics have pretty much savaged the writing, noting the hip and current asides are missing, the speech pacing has slowed down and therefore the leads – Lorelei and Rory – no longer resemble themselves.

After watching last night’s episode, I realized the show’s problems run deeper. The entire point of view has altered and not for the better.

In the beginning we were introduced to Lorelei who rejected everything her parents stood for and set out on her own, sixteen and pregnant, to find her own way. Her fierce independence has been demonstrated time and again, from living in the barn behind the Inn to seeking out her dream to own and run her own Inn. It was always Lorelei and Rory first and foremost.

With time, though, Lorelei has been slowly learning to not only trust others and let them in to her life, but that to achieve her dreams she needs to accept help from others. First, Luke was there with a loan when the money to refurbish the Dragonfly Inn ran out and later when there was a fire and her father had to step in and help her with the insurance. The latter actually helped heal long-standing wounds between father and daughter and both characters benefited.

Today, though, the series has been less about independence and more about class warfare. Now that Lorelei’s first love, Christopher, has come in to money, we have the Gilmores at the top of the pyramid followed by Lorelei and Christopher and Rory and the very rich Logan. Storyline after storyline has played with this battle and it’s rather wearisome. The show even tried to show us that Lorelei was wistful for the things that weren’t during the cotillion episode – perhaps the least in character moment of the season. The loveably idiosyncratic residents of Starrs Hollow now appear less unique and more like country bumpkins. That was made clear in Tuesday’s episode with how they reacted to Christopher marrying Lorelei and later after Christopher made up the shortfall in the fund raising drive. Worse, in the teaser for next week, he calls Luke the “diner guy”.

Luke is anything but that. Luke is as fiercely independent as Lorelei has been, keeping the diner his way and again, very slowly have we seen him accept other people in his life. The parallels between him and April and Lorelei and Rory are clear and as annoying as April was as a plot device, the relationship has grown nicely.

Christopher was a screw up, one reason he and Lorelei never really stayed together. He was failure in his personal life and his professional life. Despite Richard Gilmore’s support, he continued to screw up his career. Now that he’s come into significant money, he has proven that inheriting money equals character makeover. His character arc is unrecognizable and somewhat of a series low point.

Deb observed recently that Lorelei hasn’t looked happy all season despite rejecting Luke’s re-proposal of marriage, jetting the Paris and ultimately marrying Christopher. There’s little joy in her life as she’s allowed events to carry her along as opposed to the Lorelei of the past, the one who charted her course and bulled ahead to make the absurd a reality. If anything, the show has missed a key character point in never showing us her repaying Luke the thousands of dollars because if nothing else, she wanted to be beholden to nobody.

The show’s ratings have taken a beating as people have not warmed to the new production team’s approach to the show. We’re nearing the season’s halfway point and there’s little sign they’ve taken any of the criticism to heart. It’s a real shame since this was one of the freshest shows and most original voices on prime time television for six straight years.

Partisan Politics

Posted by Bob Greenberger on November 28, 2006

We were reminded last night that serving on the RTM is an honor. The people in town elected us to represent their best interests and all 50 of us making up the body truly have their best interests in mind.

On the other hand, we’re also 50 individuals who uniquely see the world and our place in it. As a result, when we try and do right by the town, we don’t always agree on how to accomplish that. Sadly, a lot of it can be ascribed to ideologies under the Democratic and Republican banners. There are times, though; people at our meeting seem to put allegiance to those banners ahead of their allegiance to the town’s interests.

The partisan spirit was well in evidence last night. We began with the election of Moderator and Deputy Moderator and candidates from both parties were nominated. In a futile waste of time, the vote went as expected, 26 Democrats voted for Joel Green, 23 Republicans voted for Brian LeClerc and so on.

It also reared up when the body took up the Eminent Domain Ordinance. By this point, we had tidily whipped through items 5-11 by at least agreeing on the basic business and putting it all on the consent calendar, allowing us to vote for all seven items in one fell swoop.

Jamie Millington wrote the Ordinance in response to last year’s Supreme Court decision, stemming from a case in New London. As with many towns, the idea here was put a rule on the books to prevent the town from seizing private property in favor of commercial development. In our town, such seizure would come before the RTM so one of the arguments made during the deliberations these last two months is that even if we approve the Ordinance, we could merely repeal it whenever it suited the body.

Ordinances in our town have two months of Committee and RTM meetings for review and comment. Last month, when it became clear the lawyers in our congregation thought the language could be tightened and others had some doubts that it was merely a “feel good” measure, our caucus decided to suggest it be referred to a special committee or directed to the Legislation & Administration committee. I volunteered to make the motion, thinking my own team would close ranks behind me. Didn’t happen and it got shot down.

This month, at caucus, there was even more concern over the language. One of our lawyers saw that the Ordinance was in response to Connecticut State Statutes for Blighted Properties not Personal Properties. As written, Jamie’s Ordinance was addressed the wrong concern entirely. While a technical error, it spoke to the need for more careful scrutiny.

Doug Jones, our Majority Leader, managed to get everyone rallied behind the suggestion for a special committee to review this from top to bottom. No one wanted it dead, but everyone wanted it right. This time, someone else could try the motion.

Sure enough, we got to the topic and, to be certain everyone remained of one mind, we called a caucus. Sounded like everyone still believed in the ordinance, in principal, and would support the motion.

We filed back in and Julie DeMarco got up and made her motion. In the course of proposing the sub-committee, with a 60 day mandate, she got a promise from our First Selectman that no property was in danger for the next two months (and much longer). She also had Ðìçk Saxl, the Town Attorney, to read from a letter from a lawyer well versed in Eminent Domain, who found “holes” in the Ordinance as written. The debate grew hot pretty quickly. Jamie spoke first and insisted we’ve had five months since he first distributed the Ordinance for consideration so now was not the time to go nitpicking. He said there was urgency to getting this passed and there should be no delay. In fact, the Republicans who spoke had the theme of “pass it now, we’ll fix it later”.

Last month I said, we needed to get this done right and to take the time necessary. I’ve come to live with these words coming back to me in my own sub-committee and still think that’s the best way to govern. Jamie’s intent is fine, but to insist we pass something that was clearly flawed, is wrong-headed.

The motion passed and as you might expect, it went exactly along party lines 26-23. So, a sub-committee is being assembled today and in January the town will hear back on the topic.

We finally adjourned, no one feeling happy about the way the night went. Sure, some things got accomplished, but the tension in the room was uncomfortable and few Republicans were visible during our “socialable soda” afterwards.

Before going for a soda, though, my own sub-committee met, in the hopes of passing our three Ordinances. We got through two of them without a problem. The third, though, proved a sticking point. Paul Fattibene, who has been terrific in fine tuning our language and intent, got high marks for a last minute draft of one ordinance. He also tried to clean up the final one and got stuck in a procedural morass that we created. As a result, we wrestled with our intent and realized we needed more information before acting. So, 2 out of 3, as Meatloaf sings, ain’t bad. The third should be settled next month and our work will be done.

Five of us, 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans, managed to come together, hash through the issues and come up with things we think will benefit the town. It gave me some hope that the larger body might manage to do the same if it could only remember to put the town and its citizens first, and then party ideologies.

Rebooting James Bond

Posted by Bob Greenberger on November 26, 2006

Reboots are all the rage these days. DC rebooted their universe recently and in any given year, DC or Marvel will reboot at least half a dozen characters. The current Battlestar Galactica is a successful reboot on television. Batman Begins is seen as a very successful reboot of a moribund franchise while Superman Returns is seen as a less successful attempt.

Then there’s James Bond. Since his debut in theaters, there have been numerous actors portraying 007 but the reality in which they work has remained a constant. Age and death have forced the film series to replace M and Moneypenny as well as introduce a successor to Q. But, until now, there really hasn’t been a total reboot.

Casino Royale is just that, despite the appearance of Judi Dench, once more, as M. The producers, Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, decided that once they obtained the rights to the first Ian Fleming Bond novel, it was time to tell his origin for movie fans. The timing couldn’t have been better since they were iffy about Pierce Brosnan coming back for a fifth film.

So, it was time to turn back the clock and imagine a world of spies, espionage, arms trading and the like, without over-the-top gizmos. It was to be a grimmer Bond film and showing how he became the successful spy we have all come to know and love. Director Martin Campbell has handled Bond before and one could argue a different director was required for the reboot, but given the strength of the script he inherited and the desires of the producers, he knew what was expected. He delivered. Mostly.

Casino Royale has been hailed as the best Bond since (fill in the blank). While very good, it is certainly not the best Bond film of all time.

We have to look at the film two ways. First, as a Bond film, it’s terrific. Exotic locales around the world, spectacular chases and stunts, an involved plot – all hallmarks of a good Bond movie. Unlike too many previous offerings, the story actually is linear and makes sense. The characters are well introduced and we watch Bond evolve, the most character development he’s had since, arguably, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. His growing relationship with M is nicely done as is the slow development of the repertoire of Bondisms. Much has been made of the martini origin but I liked how the film ended with the familiar introduction of “Bond. James Bond.” Only then do we get the traditional theme music as the end credits roll. By this time, he’s earned it and it’s a nice touch.

I’ve said all along Daniel Craig at 38 is too old to be Bond as he earns his 00 status. Now that I’ve seen the film, it works just fine largely due to Craig’s marvelous performance. He’s surrounded with many good actors including Mads Mikkelson as La Chiffre and Eva Green as Vesper Lynde, the least annoying Bond girl in memory.

It’s a very good, probably terrific Bond film.

It’s not a very good movie.

The problem stems largely from the movie changing pace and tone without warning about two-thirds of the way through. But first, having Felix Leiter on hand is from the novel as well as a nod to their friendship but Jeffrey Wright is wasted as Leiter. He has nothing to do and just sits there. Also, Ivana Millcevic (Valenka) shows up well into the poker game, is never introduced, and then has a key plot twist handed to her and we don’t know what’s going on.

As soon as the La Chiffre story ends and Bond is on the road to recovery (from one of the most effectively brutal torture scenes on film), the movie morphs into something else. The pace slows to something excruciatingly slow, too much is told expositorily between characters rather than letting the audience in on the fun. By the time it finally ends, we’re still not entirely sure who this man is that Bond has tracked or who the man with the eye patch was. It’s poorly paced and leaves much left unexplained.

Still, this reboot sets us up for the Daniel Craig era with the second installment already promised for May 2008. In fact, I stayed through the end credits for the traditional promise that “James Bond will be Back” because despite its flaws, I was sold on the reimagining of the franchise.

Done!

Posted by Bob Greenberger on November 25, 2006

The following was written on Friday but internet connectivity issues delayed posting this:

Traditions and schedules will be maintained if one is to retain one’s sanity.

Yesterday I enjoyed my first non-writing day in a month. I started catching up on Veronica Mars, a show I enjoy which Deb is fine with skipping. Then, as we got ready to leave, we watched the Thanksgiving Day Parade, something never missed in our household.

With the rain and Long Island traffic awaiting us, though, we did make some sacrifices and hit the road before Santa arrived in Herald Square.

The traffic was horrendous, incredible volume all through Connecticut and much of Westchester right to the Throg’s Neck Bridge. It could be that many got the same early start or the thick rain or more likely both, but the trip was slow and tedious. We of course listened to Arlo sing “Alice’s Restaurant” as tradition insists. We then heard about half of it again as WFUV was just minutes behind us. No matter, we had plenty of time to kill.

We did arrive at Chez Rozakis after two and a half hours, making us about an hour late. Still, we visited with our adoptive family and enjoyed ourselves immensely. Robbie gobbled the olives Laurie stocks mainly just for him. They saved us pigs and blankets from the appetizer spread which was thoughtful. The dinner itself, served just the 14 of us (down from the usual 20+) but there was enough for twice that number. And it was all quite tasty.

Dessert was even better.

We stayed and chatted until about 10 and then we tried the return trip, hoping against hope that the traffic crunch would have ended by then. Ha. Neither the rain nor the volume let up and we got home just after midnight.

Today, as is our wont, we largely stayed home to avoid Black Friday. Our only journey away from home was to tend to some banking. Deb had homework, Robbie had friends to see and me, I had a book to finish.

And around 3:15 this afternoon, the first draft of Predator: Flesh & Blood was completed. Weighing in around 66,500 words, it’s fine for a first draft length. On Sunday I shall begin a light review before turning the whole thing over to Mike Friedman and moving on to the next project.

Yes, even more to be thankful for.

Being Thankful

Posted by Bob Greenberger on November 22, 2006

All sorts of progress has been made since Sunday morning, for which I have to give thanks. After all, this is the time of year where we all should be stopping and taking a moment to look back and make certain we acknowledge the good things that have happened over the last 12 months.

Predator: Flesh & Blood is nearing the first draft finish line. I cracked 61,000 words yesterday so if nothing else, it proves I can complete a Na-No-Re-Mo project (much to Kate’s consternation). Actually, I was very pleased by yesterday’s session and it may be among the best parts of the book written to date.

One of the things I’ve fit in over the last few days were two brief interviews with friends who deserve a little exposure. I was IMing with my pal, Jen Contino, keeper of The Pulse, and was lamenting how DC and Marvel had several cool novels out that no one knew about. One of my pet peeves is that the companies sell novel rights but then neither the company nor the book publishers do much promotion to the core fan base that would most enjoy them. As a result, David Mack’s Wolverine novel or Denny O’Neil’s DC Universe novel featuring The Question (with appearances by Richard Dragon, Lady Shiva and Batman) sit on the shelves undiscovered. To remedy that, I chatted with Dave about his book and that just got posted on the site. An interview with Greg Cox on adapting Infinite Crisis into prose will be available by Monday.

I did, also, manage to turn around my Corps of Engineers galleys over the weekend and got deadlines on some of the other tasks I complained about that fall after my self-imposed Thanksgiving weekend deadline on the novel. It allows me to breathe a bit.

This also meant I could attend the annual SFWA Holiday Reception, nicknamed the Mill & Swill. I had a pre-Swill dinner with Peter & Kathleen David and Greg Cox and then we hit the Society of Illustrators for the reception. As usual, I saw many old colleagues, and met several new ones. The reception is for members, agents, editors and the like so it’s a huge party that also doubles as a great networking opportunity. I met my editor on the unnamed project and in turn introduced David Mack to people at DelRey who had only read his proposed work for them. I did meet some new editors and renewed acquaintances with others. Best, I had a nice chat with Mike Mignola, who I have not seen in years so it was great to catch up.

The short work week had the potential to cause havoc in closing a weekly newspaper early but we managed to pull everything together and are closing by our noon deadline today. Next week’s issue of Weekly World News is also running in good shape so we’re passing the first hurdle of the holiday season without a problem.

I can safely say there is much to be thankful for. Hope the same is true for one and all.

And How was Your Weekend?

Posted by Bob Greenberger on November 19, 2006

It never just rains on a freelancer. It is either dry or it’s pouring.

The last few days, many existing projects suddenly reared up and demanded attention. The timing could be better but rarely is.

As you know, I’m working hard to complete the first draft of Predator: Flesh & Blood. Beginning this morning, I am at 52,000+ words and remain on a pace to complete the first draft by next weekend.

On Thursday, I came home to find galleys to Troubleshooting, my Star Trek: Corps of Engineers novella awaiting me. Keith DeCandido tells me they’re due back by next Friday.

On Friday, Leah Wilson, my benevolent editor at BenBella, gets back to me about my essay for their forthcoming Grey’s Anatomy book. She says many complimentary things about it but concludes that it needs another draft, a light polish. No deadline provided but no doubt it’ll be soon.

Also on Friday, my editor on an as-yet unannounced project, finally got back to me about my outline. She asked some good questions, made some fine suggestions and then asked if I could rework the outline this weekend. I asked for a delay until after Flesh & Blood was done. No answer so I took it as a yes otherwise my brain would explode.

On Saturday, I received the galleys to “Things That Aren’t”, my story for Analog that I co-wrote with Michael A. Burstein. They want the notes back on the 28th, which is at least after the Thanksgiving weekend.

Deb happily notes that much of the above all started when I was out of work and desperate to fill my plate and it’s nice to see all the activity. I concur, but I do wish things had been evenly space a bit better.

After all, not only do I have all of this writing, but I will lose a day (happily) to Thanksgiving, I have my government commitments still dragging on and Robbie will be home for five days so I’d like some time with him, too. Trust me; the above is much better than the alternative.

Flesh & Blood: Day 22

Posted by Bob Greenberger on November 16, 2006

Today marks the beginning of week four in my quest to write a quality Predator novel without losing my mind or neglecting any other obligations.

I will sit at the computer some time later today and will continue work on chapter fifteen. As I start the session, I will have already completed 46,000 words (give or take a few hundred).

It has been a long, long time since I’ve had this kind of deadline and I can’t recall the last sustained period of intense writing. Since beginning the actual prose part 21 days ago, I have written every single day without fail. Some days it has been a mere 1000 words or so while other days have been 5000 blockbusters. But I am writing steadily and can anticipate completing my draft over Thanksgiving weekend. I’ll then take a day or two to rest, then review the manuscript and tweak it before turning it over to my collaborator, Mike Friedman with the words, “Now it’s your headache.”

I write best when I have a good solid roadmap. As I have said before, my problem tends to be the middle of the book and sure enough, chapter 11 is the middle and I suspect it’s the most muddled chapter that will need some reworking. There are stretches where I am very happy with how I depict a scene or make the characters work. Other times I know I am struggling and get past it knowing there will not only be time for me to rework it but have Mike to lean on for help.

What has surprised me the most so far, is that I am doing some things structurally with the book that I have not done before nor was suggested by the outline but feel makes for better storytelling.

Are there enough blood and guts and imaginative dismemberment to satisfy the long-time Predator fans? Is this a strong enough follow-up entry to DH Books’ line? Ðámnëd if I know.

Aftermath

Posted by Bob Greenberger on November 15, 2006

One of the pleasures of writing for Star Trek is the wide variety of franchises, all stemming from the original core concept. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses and I’ve dabbled in all of them save Enterprise. One of the most enjoyable have been my visits to the crew of the da Vinci in the Star Trek: Starfleet Corps of Engineers eBook series.

One of the reasons I enjoy them so is that they grow and change over time. Each monthly installment allowed the various writers to explore interesting problems while spotlighting the evolving status quo among the crew. It is the series most closely resembling a modern day television series with its ensemble cast and continuing character storylines.

My second story, “Buying Time”, has just been published in book form under the title Star Trek: Corps of Engineers – Aftermath. The trade edition collects SCE episodes 29-36 so I get to share space with pals like Aaron Rosenberg and the team of Andy Mangels & Michael Martin. The book is massive, 640 pages, but at the affordable price of $15.

My third visit, “Troubleshooting” is scheduled for online debut next month. Pocket Books decided to revamp how the eFiction line was going to work — they stopped Star Trek: SCE after episode 66. The line is now split between six Corps of Engineers releases a year along with six of some other project. The Corps of Engineers stories remain focused on the da Vinci and its crew but they won’t be numbered. (The other slots are currently being filled with the entertaining Mere Anarchy serial, celebrating Star Trek’s 40th anniversary.)

If you have ever wanted to try an eBook, now is a terrific time. Pocket Books just launched a sale through the end of the year with deep discounts to all the eBooks. And if you remain disinterested in the format, then Aftermath is for you. Trust me, it’ll look really spiffy covered in wrapping paper and placed under a tree.

Citi Field? Feh.

Posted by Bob Greenberger on November 14, 2006

The Mets have played in cookie-cutter Shea Stadium since 1964 and they feel they need something new. Interestingly, they’re growing smaller, ensuring more sellouts, and the basic design for the new stadium evokes old Ebbets Field, home of the Brooklyn Dodgers. What I find interesting about this is that the team is based in Queens, an entirely different borough. Still, the Mets were born in the void left when the Dodgers and the New York Giants abandoned New York City for the west coast.

Even though they broke ground four months ago on the new Mets stadium, the Wilpons had a ground breaking ceremony in the Shea Stadium parking lot yesterday. The event was to call attention to the $20 million a year naming rights that had been secured by Citibank and to also give Jackie Robinson his due by naming the forthcoming rotunda after him.

Among the dignitaries in attendance was outgoing Governor George Pataki who admitted to his Yankee bias. He even showed how incredibly ill-prepared he was by referring to the west coast move as an event from the 1960s. Sheesh.

The new ballpark, scheduled to open in time for the 2009 season, will be named Citi Field. Given the choices Citibank surveyed, this one is fairly inoffensive. (OK, I take a lot of online surveys and one happened to be all about how I felt about Citibank being the sponsor and picking names. I thought selling naming rights was silly since they did little to lower my ticket prices. Since Citibank had no previous relationship with the Mets and that MLB is affiliated with Bank of America, I thought it sounded bad. The names were also fairly bad to merely pedestrian.) The entire naming rights thing has drained the personality out of ballparks. You had names like Solider Field or Jack Murphy Stadium, names that meant something. In the past decade, a lot of the corporations that overspent for naming rights changed hands or went out of business so something cool like the BOB (Bank One Ballpark) suddenly became Chase Field (yawn).

There’s no question Shea was aging and impersonal. Still, it had one of the best organized scoreboards I’d seen across the country and it’s where I’ve been going to games since I was a wee lad. It’ll take quite some time before saying “We’re going to Opening Day at Citi Field” sounds the least bit comfortable.

My team came really close this season and is already laying the ground work for 2007. Re-signing Jose Valentin was a somewhat surprising move but he certainly deserved consideration and pairing him with someone a little younger and with a little more pop in his bat wouldn’t be such a terrible move.

In one of those poetic justice moments, they open the new season on Sunday, April 1, a night game in St. Louis, facing the very team that prematurely ended the quest for the World Series. I can’t wait.

A Vapid Marie

Posted by Bob Greenberger on November 13, 2006

While I appreciate what Sofia Coppola was attempting with Marie Antoinette, it doesn’t work. She took the approach that Louis and Marie were so cloistered in Versailles that they were woefully ignorant of what was happening to the very people they were to govern. Additionally, she was pressured on a regular basis to produce an heir out of her mother’s fear that the politics will shunt her daughter aside.

We’re treated to lovely images of Marie and friends eating, lounging, sampling the latest styles, and enjoying life at its most relaxed. The ‘80s pop soundtrack reinforces that vapid feel.

Those without a working understanding of the reality will take away the impression that Marie (and Louis) got what they deserved.

What’s interesting is that the director based her film on Antonia Fraser’s well received biography; she picks and chooses the bits that fit her limited vision. Between the Fraser book and Caroline Weber’s more recent Queen of Fashion; a very different Marie is portrayed. While I have read neither book, the reviews tell us more than enough to know Coppola skimped. There’s a concise and fascinating short history in the current issue of Smithsonian which I happened to read the same day as seeing the film.

Marie was thrust, largely ill-prepared, for life in France after being raised in her native Austria. She did develop a social conscience and the people genuinely liked her until the high price of bread drove them to rebel. The film even gets her long-term affair wrong and a richer film would have been the story of Marie, her lover the Count Axel von Fersen and Louis. Much has been speculated as to the exact nature of Fersen’s relationship with Marie but he was a constant factor in her life from when they met when she was just 16 until her death at 38. Fersen went so far as to try and protect them as they fled Paris but Louis rejected his help which proved a fatal error.

A pretty but largely empty movie wastes nice performances by Kirsten Dunst and Jonathan Schwartzman.