Lowered Expectations Could Make You Happier

Stop having unrealistic expectations about such hotly (and nervously) anticipated TV shows and movies such as the Netflix "Arrested Development." It's like some of you wanted it to be 2003-2006 all over again but then again you didn't. So what do you really want? It's like you're happy there are new episodes and then one episode in, you wish it would be dead for good. Stop. It.

And yes we knew it would be Khan as the villain in Star Trek Into Darkness and yes some of us knew it would be like The Wrath of Khan. (Don't blame just Entertainment Weekly for its oversight.) You want to really like "Into Darkness" and yet something holds you back from doing so? Good lord. It's got action, twists (silly as some of them might be). Oh, you really want your love for the movie to be validated. And yet, it doesn't happen.

Some of us have read most if not all the released "A Game of Thrones" books, so some of us knew the time for the infamous "red wedding" would be soon upon us. My God, it's like Twitter broke down and cried for three days after the TV series scene aired, finally, in its bloody glory and some of us are surprised it actually happened? What's with you people?

"Iron Man 3" ups the ante with its share of violence, in-your-face CGI action, anti-heroism, twists (including another Iron Man villain who doesn't turn out to the bad guy that many of us expected) and, while it's a vast improvement over "Iron Man 2," it doesn't come close to the first film.

It's true of human nature to have high expectations - or our ideal visions of what should be and what could be - when it comes to certain things in pop culture. The disappointment level in specific character turns in Iron Man 3 and the whole idea of even the existence of sequels to "The Hangover" are tantamount to our freak-outs over The Godfather Part 3, Star Wars Episode 1, and the Lost and Battlestar Galactica finales.

Now imagine all the irrational expectations that led up to the release of "Man of Steel." From the trailers early on, it looked kinda sorta kinda sorta like the original Superman except it appeared more more like Superman II. It ended up being both those flicks meeting Watchmen with a liberal dose of grandiose moroseness and numbing CGI'd violence.

I'm okay with the movie. I didn't terribly mind the non-linear style of storytelling. But with all the pre-screening conceptions and expectations, while I didn't think "Man of Steel" would ever top the original "Superman" movie in any way, I figured it would be way better than "Superman Returns." Instead, those two are roughly on par with one another. Henry Cavill makes a fine Superman (don't know yet really Clark Kent) and Amy Adams almost erases Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane from our memory banks, but the cons nearly outnumber the pros.

Think of the cons (in my opinion): No "kneel before Zod!"; we barely have a Jenny Olson instead of the ol' reliable Jimmy Olson; no slight campy comical feel that every comic book adaptation deserves; an exhaustible second half that almost makes the first half seem tame and moot by comparsion; an overwrought, overlong, mind-numbing Zod/Superman fight scene that nearly makes the alley fistfight scene from "They Live" between Roddy Piper and Keith David look like Oscar-winning material; a cartoonishly thorough demolition of Smallville and Metropolis where a body count soars and yet you don't care about anybody thanks to the emotional disconnect. And Zod gets dealt with like THAT? You're kidding. At about two hours into it, you instead care about how soon the movie ends. Not soon enough. You tried, Zack Snyder, you tried. But you also tried too hard. You and Christopher Nolan overthought it. "Man of Steel" is exciting yet joyless.

Now we get word that, indeed, Christian Bale won't play Batman once more and that, while "Man of Steel 2" is in the works, whatever Justice League movie becomes a reality won't do so for some time to come. Our insanely high expectations of a Justice League movie - our varying versions of what it proper one could and should be - are tempered by the mixed results of the DC Comics/Warner Bros. movies outside of The Dark Knight trilogy. Our cynicism in DC comic book adaptations such as Superman Returns and The Green Lantern makes us have pessimism for future DC film efforts to the point of developing ulcers.

If the violence was/is too much in "Man of Steel" and in "The Lone Ranger" -- itself a strange, loud, annoying, bombastic, outrageously violent, misguided, needlessly overlong TV-to-cinema adaptation -- there's too little of the graphic carnage translation from the book version of "World War Z" to the film version. There's too little of everything from the book that's missing from the movie. I guess we knew that, based upon pre-screening trailers and online reports, "World War Z" the film was going to be VERY LOOSELY BASED on the book. And boy, is it in almost every conceivable way. C'mon, not even hints of the battle of Yonkers, the South African solution or the hell on Earth known as Iceland?

As a movie in itself, not considering the source material, "World War Z" is a serviceable, entertaining flick. It's apparent that the story developers and the screenwriters, including interestingly enough Damon Lindelof and J. Michael Stracyznski, took cues from two Spielberg movie adaptations, "War of the Worlds" and "Jurassic Park," to put together a PG-13 zombie movie for the casual fan. But no doubt, "World War Z" is/was unfilmable in a Hollywood big budget way. What would work better? A TV series. The book works better as a TV series. I think the world is big enough for two serialized zombie dramas.

So here we are at the summer movie season midpoint (a summer of rage, one Twitter movie geek described it as) and, perhaps aside from some parts of "Star Trek Into Darkness," not one film this summer has wowed me.

What has met or exceeded my expectations.  Well, "This Is The End" - for one, amazingly enough - did the trick. Then there's "Pacific Rim," which only nourished my inner geek fandom for all things robots and giant monsters. Oh God, critic Roger Moore (not James Bond's Roger Moore)...take his critique of "Pacific Rim" as an example of simply not getting it: "dumb"..."suspend all belief."

Dude, IT'S GIANT MONSTERS VS. GIANT ROBOTS! What's there to understand? It is a fun movie from start to finish. My lord, you have: Charlie Day from "It's Always Sunny..." and "Horrible Bosses;" a relevation in Rinko Kikuchi; probably the next James Bond (or should possibly be the next Doctor Who) in Idris Elba; Ron Perlman doing his best Ron Perlman imitation; Owen from "Torchwood"; odes to "Independence Day" and "Starship Troopers"...what more do you want? Heck, I want Kaiju and Jaeger action figures. Really, you're gonna go see "Grown Ups 2" over this? It's not the most original, Oscar-worthy movie ever, but it's close to a near-perfect summer flick as you'll get in 2013...and before we get another Godzilla reboot on the big screen.

My hope had been that something during the latter part of this summer, on the big or small screen, would doubly reinforce my faith in television or cinematic entertainment. "The Wolverine" and "Elysium" didn't quite do that. " Sure, it's disappointing but not surprising "The Wolverine" didn't totally faithfully follow Chris Claremont and Frank Miller's famed 1982 comic book miniseries. Heck, the movie didn't even list Claremont or Miller as credit for the original story. But I think many of us expect different things from a Wolverine-only/not-so-really X-Men flick.

He kills a lot of Yakuza, yes.  Does he massacre a lot of ninjas? No. Is it a gritty, dark, noir-ish cinematic version of the comic book? For the most part, no, but in the same vein it's not comic bookish like most superhero movies. It's still a human drama about Wolverine/Logan trying to escape his mutant past. It's a crime drama that gets out of hand. We could've done without all the Jean Grey flashbacks. They almost remind us too much of the disasters that were X-Men 3 and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The end is a tad absurd. But the end credit scene sets things up nicely for X-Men: Days of Future Past. A good try for director James Mangold, but not totally satisfying.

Not totally satisfying is a way to sum up "Elysium," Neill Bloemkamp's follow-up to his excellent "District 9." It's essentially the same story: A schism between two societies; a hard-luck case who's forced by circumstances to the extremes and ends up redeeming himself and practically changing "the way things are." But with District 9, Bloemkamp skillfully weaved some semblance of character development that's allowable in a sci-fi/action film, with decent acting, a solid script and a desire to keep you hanging until the very end to see how it all turns out.

That's not the case with Elysium. Visually like with District 9, it's stunning, with the 1970s conceptual art of future human outer space habitats come to life. The scenes of desolation, poverty, disease and desperation of 22nd century Earth contrasted with the almost surreal artificial perfection and beauty aboard Elysium are stark and overwhelming. Then you have a rather unoriginal plot, with stock characters portrayed by otherwise great actors, and a predictable ending. And you can't forget what is fast becoming a trademark of Bloemkamp films: lots of explosions or gory destruction of organic beings and robots.

Well, I'm still looking at you "The World's End" to provide me with some giddiness as this summer movie season comes to a close. But expectations aren't as high with that as they are with the now unfolding final episodes of "Breaking Bad" and - woo boy, JJ Abrams' Star Wars Episode 7.

The amazing awesomeness of "The Avengers" movie has us so giddy for more Marvel comic book adaptations that we fans are now overthinking the smallest things. Consider the worry some of us fans have about "S.H.I.E.L.D.," the Marvel TV series. Take a look at online talk of ongoing production for Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Look at the chatter for Thor: The Dark World, which lost its composer and its director is under fire.

It's nice to dream of "what could and should be" in your favorite TV shows and films, but there's a reasonable limit. Perhaps some producers and writers want to take acceptable risks. If there's a sense that certain risks ultimately fall flat, maybe not all the fault lies with those writers and producers.

South by Central North West East Part 2 of Deux

Ballroom for first round and finals of SXSW Accelerator competition

Just another night on Sixth Street

Trade show block party was rockin'. No, really.

Revolucionario Awards and Party at Ballet Austin

Robert Scoble interviews Joanna Montgomery of Little Riot/Pillow Talk at Rackspace/Champions Sports Bar

HuffingtonPostWeirdNews/NASA/Illuminode party at The Garage

HuffingtonPostWeirdNews/NASA/Illuminode party at The Garage

British Music Showcase at Latitude 30

Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal in a keynote address

Fred Armisen headlines a short, unannounced appearance at the IFC Crossroads House.

Alan Weinkrantz and Jeff Pulver in an Israeli startups session

Silicon Valley Bank party

Obligatory crowd shot inside the Austin Convention Center. Ooh, Newton's Cradle in the left corner!

Rackspace Rackers talk with visitors at Champions Sports Bar

I didn't partake in the massage chairs at Rackspace/Champions Sports Bar.

Scene from Republic Square Park

Innovation and convergence were key words of 2013 South by Southwest Interactive.
Bwhahaha. When aren't they?

My half-hearted effort (read that, driving to Austin from San Antonio daily when I could) to cover SXSW yielded six panel sessions, one keynote session, a tiny bit of the Accelerator competition finals, two startup crawls, the trade show block party, a visit to the Rackspace/Champions Bar Cloud Experience...and a bunch of parties.

It's amazing I get any work done from SXSW mixed in with family life and Express-News regular work back in S.A. But one story about the local startup Kirpeep is up no online. My second article isn't a focus on, but does include, TrueAbility, another fledgling company led by former Rackspace Rackers.

TrueAbility underwent a sales pitch-type first round contest in innovative web technologies at the Accelerator competition before a packed room on Monday. TrueAbility advanced to the finals in its category the next day, but didn't win. Nonetheless, TrueAbility is on the map, offering cloud-based technical assessment tool to recruiters and hiring managers. I had a great, lengthy talk with co-founders Luke Owen and March Robertson between rounds and I'll have their story up shortly with the next North Central News edition.

Along the lines of covering locals, I got in a few minutes of the Israeli startups session involving Alan Weinkrantz from San Antonio. He spoke with Jeff Pulver, who spoke of his investing in about 40 startups in the past year or two. Pulver knows a good business plan when he sees it. But just as much, Pulver appreciates persistence.

"When you embrace something you're passionate about, it's awesome. If there's one guy with four business failures and there's one guy with one success, I'd rather invest with the guy with the four failures," he said. "The numbers will be in my favor."

I liked that this SXSWi included more space technology, One panel's question was whether 21st century space exploration will see any kind of golden era like the ones we experienced in the beginnings of space travel and the during the NASA space shuttle period.
The panelists agreed while it's good to have private companies and organizations such as Space X helping to usher in a new wave of innovation and experimentation post-space shuttle, objectives and expectations for the whole of humanity must be realistic.

"Space exploration is a worthy human endeavor but doesn't work well on balance sheet. But there are current on-earthly endeavors that don't look good on balance sheet too," Griffin said.

He added whatever lofty goals we all seek in space exploration will never be achieved in one or two lifetimes. It's something to keep in mind. Sara Seagar of MIT offered that interstellar travel shouldn't consist of humans merely landing on the moon - whenever that happens again - only to mine it for fuel to convert the moon as a launch pad of sorts. We could and should mine the moon and whatever other places filled with valuable minerals for those minerals that could help replenish our present and near-term resources terra firma.

Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal fame was -- it goes without saying -- entertaining in his keynote address, recalling his journey from just another online comics artist to the brains behind web comedy gold. But more than that, he lauded two crowdfunding campaigns -- one led to preserving the lab that once belonged to Nikolai Tesla. Inman got heat for his advocacy of shoring up Tesla's legacy.

Tesla comic wasn't meant to deify the man, but to make the man a man. He deserved a better legacy," he added.

I did pop briefly into journalisting sessions, led respectively by Jane Pratt and Texas Observer editor Dave Mann. Their insights into alternative approaches to newspaper and magazine publishing make me wish I had turned my attempted alt-newsmonthly from the late '90s, the San Antonio Scene, into a non-profit outlet. Either that, or I really wish Kickstarter had been around at that time.

I wish I could've had more time to get into sessions involving the Arrested Development crew, or Cory Booker, or Rachel Maddow, or Al Gore, or Deadmau5 and Richie Hawtin talking music tech, or the '80s party with Girl Talk. There's only so much I could do while balancing family and office newspaper deadline obligations back home.

I'd like to think I burned many calories with the dozens upon dozens of walks from my car, parked most often near the county buildings and state capitol, to the hubbub of activity around the convention center. And now there is the annual onslaught of criticism of SXSW interactive -- it's too crowded, too expansive and mired with corporate sponsorships, a 180 from the pre-supposed hipster, DIY attitude with which SXSWi began. That there are too many parties and free events (official and unofficial) and that, really, SXSW is just one big shindig where no "real work" actually gets done. (Hey, I contest that claim -- I handled work emails, wrote news copy and formatted photos during parties. You'd be amazed with the level of productivity when it's dark around you and you have only the drone of a good DJ's music or a decent live band to serve as your aural background for concentration.)

Indeed, there were fewer startups at this SXSWi, and many younger and mid-level firms ranged from having minimal involvement to no involvement in this year's festival. No doubt many Austinites feel, in general, the entire event (including film and music parts) have jumped the shark years ago.
While marketing was up, so is the expansion of panels and events addressing newer subtopics such as health care, biotech, public service, civic activism, sports and journalism.

That's the challenge -- for an event and a city that thrive(s) on a reputation of being a well for technological innovation to keep reinventing itself every so often, to be more creative and original -- even more useful to some extent -- while balancing costs and expectations. I'm relatively sure, right now, I'll return to cover 2014 SXSW and hopefully not just interactive. I'll just have to be more creative about my stay in the Austin area and how I cover the event.  Now if you'll excuse me, I must catch up on an estimated 20 combined hours of lost sleep and rest my poor feet.

South by Northeast West Round 1

It's my first full South by Southwest Interactive (to the extent that it can be full for me) I've covered in several years. The things I do for my North Central News community weekly readers and to tame my inner geek.

I'm doing this half-assed. I'm driving from San Antonio to Austin and back almost every day and STILL handling deadline work back at the Express-News office. So far, I haven't gotten much in, other than picking up press credentials and visiting the Austin Startup Crawl on Thursday. That was my first visit to the Capitol Factory in downtown Austin, at the Omni Hotel.

It's an impressive sight -- office and conference space for startups and small high-tech enterprises -- but the winding, condensed rooms filled to the brim with visitors were not for the claustrophobic. Warm bodies packed tightly together makes for a hot time in the city, eh?

But that was before the real SXSWi officially began. And when it began...I missed lots of the fun stuff, of course. On Friday, I missed out on Grumpy Cat's appearance at Mashable while dealing with deadline editing back in S.A. (Oh, column writers...why couldn't you have sent me your oped pieces earlier?! And I didn't get to enter the BBC America Roadhouse area. But I know. I have additional chances to hit up BBCA and Grumpy Cat (not HIT Grumpy Cat -- whatever) this weekend.

On Friday, I only attended one session -- a panel discussion on Latinos attempting to bridge the digital divide. Why yes, the divide exists but is closing mainly, not surprisingly, due to the attitude shift between generations. One great line I heard, regarding Latinos' overwhelming support for President Obama in 2012, was that the GOP shouldn't sweat this supposed Latino wave in favor of Democrats. Truth is, Latinos are active in both parties, and they're just as apathetic, too.

Following the late afternoon session, I attended the Startup America happy hour. There were stacks of the Startup Owners' Manual, which in a different way I wish had existed when I began my alternative monthly newspaper in the late '90s. Following that, I enjoyed a breather at the registrants lounge before taking on the gaming expo at Palmer Center.

I admit, I'm not a gamer. Not a 21st century gamer. My allegiance (read that, experience) lies primarily with the Atari/Collico/Activision/early Nintendo days. So for me, gaming expo is a purely drive-by visual experience and nothing more. Wish I could appreciate it more inside. But outside...ah, the Frog Design interactive opening party, filled with the otherearthly glow of giant TouchTunes devices and LED panels, and the drone of attendee-selected music. Quite impressive.

Want science? I love science. Science! Then visit a full-scale, tennis court-sized, four-story-high model of the James Webb space telescope, the successor to the Hubble space telescope. NASA's display area includes an interactive, 3D globe and other activities and displays to remind us that, despite budget woes and a sense of malaise, there's still lots of space exploration to be done.

SouthBItes food truck area, curated by Paul Qui, near Red River and I-35, isn't the easiest to access part, but it's a nice stopover. Well, it was for me given that was 9 p.m. and I hadn't eaten anything since breakfast in S.A. It's also Lenten Friday and my options were rather limited. Thank goodness for the Peached Tortilla and its fish tacos. They did the trick. However, I was soured on the overkill promotion partnership between Peached Tortilla and NBC concerning the network's upcoming Hannibal Lecter/Silence of the Lambs prequel TV series. "Terror tacos"? Really? Eh.

All the while in the evening, I hadn't even thought of attending the film screenings of "The Incredible Burt Wonderstone" and the "Evil Dead" remake. According to Twitter, both flicks appear to be big hits. I've been hesitant about getting on board with the new "Evil Dead."

Initially, it seemed weird that Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell, who brought us legendary horror in the '80s with the original Evil Dead flicks, would be willing to redo their material for a 2000s crowd. But it seems that, even with a novice director, they've succeeded. Wish I could've stuck around late for that screening. Sounded like fun.  Last but not least for sure, it was bittersweet to see SXSWi pay a little tribute to the memory of Jessica Ghawi in its official program.

Alas, it's back to work. I've finished writing my first SXSW article involving S.A. startup Kirpeep, who's doing this swag challenge this weekend in downtown Austin. It's a scavenger hunt for geeks, and some nifty prizes are up for prizes. The article includes Rackspace and its involvement level in this year's SXSWi. I hope to visit with a few Rackers at their Champions Sports Bar as they hold court there this weekend.

My other article will be about another young S.A. company, TrueAbility, whose a select participant in the SXSWi Accelerator competition for startups Monday and Tuesday. Otherwise, it's onward to see Grumpy Cat, BBC America, trade show, parties, screenings and concerts (official and unofficial), journalisting and Latino-themed sessions and whatever else pops up.
Pray for me.

There's An Alt-Universe Where J.J. Abrams Doesn't Exist

This blog was originally supposed to be only about the end of “Fringe.” But given the developments with the future of “Star Wars” movies the last few days, this blog has certifiably turned into a J.J. Abrams missive.

First, to touch upon the “Fringe” finale – it was a fun, but more so it made miss all that made this sci-fi series terrific in its first three seasons. Fox could be commended for giving Abrams and his cohorts the creative freedom to handle the series finale as best they could in a limited time.

The Observers didn’t make for a horrifyingly convincing set of villains. They manipulated time and space. They were cold, calculating and unfeeling. But I didn’t fear them. While Peter, Walter and Olivia did, in a way, save the world, they didn’t do it with a flourish that I had anticipated, considering the range of powers and intellect they possessed together.

Ultimately, a very special boy named Michael from far off the future, recalled slightly in Season 1 and without saying a world, came on in the final few episodes to make a crucial difference. He and Walter, by happenstance, get zipped off into a future to prevent scientists from creating Observers, from creating a group of humans devoid of emotion. 

But you recall how crucial Peter Bishop’s existence was “in this universe,” when he wasn’t supposed to be there, when only he could activate the wave-sink device. Or Olivia and her Cortexiphan-enhanced abilities, which apparently helped Windmark the Observer get squashed by a pickup like a pancake. But that’s it.

All the main characters we had come to know and appreciate during the past four and a half seasons had a part to play in the final few episodes, yet the final-final 20 minutes of the last episode seemed a tad rushed and even by-the-numbers. I almost wish that, in some way, Charlie Francis could’ve made it into the finale or that we could’ve gotten more from Peter and Olivia’s heroic, plucky daughter-to-be, Etta.

Instead, I choose to reflect fondly on a few key scenes in the finale: Walter and Peter embracing one last time. We’ve seen Walter dad-talk to Peter before, but not quite like this. The video that Walter had the foresight to make and have Peter see, at this time, was chilling and exquisite. Walter knew what fate had in store for him. He also knew that, while the actions he took to “save” Peter all those years ago would hold dire consequences for time and space, it was all worth it.

“I don’t want you to be sad. The time together we stole. I cheated fate to be with you. And we shouldn't have had that time together but we did. And I wouldn’t change it for the world. I don't want to say goodbye. But I will say, ‘I love you son.’”

For all his occasional blubbering, that last hug between Walter and Peter was tearful, mournful and heartfelt, as was that last line a father shared with his once estranged son: “You are my very favorite thing, Peter.”

Even Walter’s last scene with Astrid was a nice touch. We all know how often Walter mangled her first name.

“It’s a beautiful name.”

“What is?”

“Astrid was a nice name.” 

It reflected Walter’s off-kilter behavior so well. Astrid and Walter had such a nuanced professional relationship. Through the years, John Noble filled Walter Bishop with such a quietly powerful intellect and a certain kind of grace. How the hell Noble has never been nominated for an Emmy Award for his role is an injustice.

Certainly, also, the white tulip was a nice touch. It symbolizes worthiness and forgiveness. It recalls a great, vital Season 2 episode by the same title where Walter prepped a letter, confessing to Peter how he had “saved” him and owning up to the harsh consequences of his actions. 

Walter himself received a drawing of a white tulip on paper from a time-traveler who, like Walter, risked his life and the fabric of time and space themselves to save a loved one from death, to reboot reality. Peter receiving mail in a new reality, an envelope containing the white tulip drawing from Walter. Fans held up white tulip drawings at the 2012 Comic-Con, where the “Fringe” cast and crew made their final appearance.

On the whole, the “Fringe” finale was about fathers and sons…Walter making amends with Peter, Peter keeping in mind the right way to cherish his daughter’s lasting memory while fighting the Observers, Donald helping his son Michael to escape to safety while himself getting killed. More than temporal paradoxes and scientific anomalies, “Fringe” was about the bonds that keep us together and help us to learn to what unimaginable lengths one person goes to save another.

These and other little things amounted to the “Fringe” finale being one huge sentimental send-off gesture. Aside from the clunky, gory, action-packed battle in the climax of the final episode, Season 5 was more along the lines of what I expected from Abrams and company, and not what I hoped to see. Appropriately enough, Season 5 essentially is like that infamous season of “Dallas” – a season that didn’t happen because our heroes retconned the Observers out of existence.

Abrams and company chose the “Jughead” option – a nod to nuclear bomb-time reset in “Lost” to create a paradox and tie up loose ends in “Fringe.” It marks a fitting end to a fantastic if not spectacular sci-fi TV series.

Season 5 left me somewhat satisfied yet exasperated. Then again, J.J. Abrams’ creations will leave such an effect on the viewer. It happened with “Alias,” “Lost,” “Cloverfield” and “Mission: Impossible 3.” For as much as I appreciate Abrams’ embrace of sci-fi and geek nostalgia, early on his movies and TV shows efficient, clever and entertaining. Then if it goes on too long, things get convoluted, overboard and even uninspired at times.

So, it is with great excitement and trepidation that I say to you, J.J., don’t screw up the “Star Wars” cinematic legacy. After Disney’s announcement that there’d be more Star Wars flicks, the rumor mill regarding directors, casting and storylines has been unbearable. It’s surprising to some extent that J.J would sign on to take at least (as far as we know) one Star Wars movie when he also guides the Star Trek film franchise. This alone is an astonishing fact.

I still hold mixed feelings. It’s fun and frustrating to keep wondering what other director could bring to the table in a new round of Star Wars flicks. But we have J.J. He has an eye for a rollicking visual style, but indeed he has yet to maintain an even keel when it comes to keeping an audience engaged with his type of “storytelling.”

As far as possible story goes, it would make sense for Disney to tread into that expanded Star Wars universe beginning – HOPEFULLY – with Timothy Zahn’s “Heir to the Empire” novel series. There’s conjecture on the Internetz that new Star Wars movies won’t touch “Heir to the Empire,” but let us remember that with J.J. in charge, disinformation and secrecy are of paramount importance to the filmmakers.

A few folks have theorized the next movie trilogy would involve a directing triumvirate of Abrams, Jon Favreau and Ben Affleck. If nothing else we’ve learned from Star Wars movies that it’s not so much the director as it is about crisp, concise, upwardly mobile storytelling to garner success. There’s a bit of hope that lies with screenwriter Michael Arndt, who gave us the scripts to “Toy Story 3” (aka the movie that made grown men cry) and “Little Miss Sunshine.” And longtime Spielberg associate Kathleen Kennedy is producing. It’s a strong pedigree providing for a solid foundation.

Regarding casting…oh God. Speculation is already at an awful fever pitch. Could Josh Holloway make for a great “younger” Han Solo? Sure. Could I see Cloverfield monster make an appearance as the rancor pit monster’s long-lost cousin seeking revenge? Easily.

Good luck, J.J., you’ll need it. As for the scheduled release date of 2015, which already boasts a Justice League flick and sequels to “The Avengers” and “Avatar,” two years from now will be a cinematic doozy. For once, at this point, I can’t wait to turn 40.

The Mayans Couldn't Figure Out College Football Playoffs, Sadly

The Mayans Couldn't Figure Out College Football Playoffs, Sadly

It's my favorite time of year. It's not so much a matter of stocking up on my "special" supply of eggnog, hot chocolate and cider. It's not so much a matter of enduring bad Lifetime holiday-themed movies. It's not even about commiserating over family dysfunction during a time that's supposed to be filled with positive personal reflection and cheer.

When it comes to the NCAA Division I football national championship, it's again time to debate the fairness of the Bull Crap Series, errr, umm, Bowl Championship Series. I won't say Notre Dame or Alabama isn’t deserving to play for the national title. While many SEC fans voice their confidence in romping the Knute Rocknes, or even claiming the Irish don't belong in the final match, Notre Dame did its job. It went undefeated, even grinding out wins when the outcome wasn't so sure.

And oh, Crimson Tide. They did lose a game at home. It's not like last year where they failed to win the SEC championship yet got to the BCS title game and secured a victory. But no matter. They found a way into the final championship contest this year. However, we're two years away from a semblance of an overdue Division I college football "playoff system." It's fun to ponder "what ifs" -- what if a computer didn't help to arbitrarily determine the two teams that'll play for a national championship?

Again, Alabama and Notre Dame may have proven they've been among the best two schools to play this season, wire to wire. The title game looks to be better than many of you think. (I'm looking at you, SEC fan.) But aside from a couple of other bowl games this season, the undercard looks rather underwhelming. Consider No. 4 Florida taking on Big East champion Louisville, which was unranked prior to their conference title match. Look at unranked Wisconsin run roughshod over a ranked Nebraska squad in the Big 10 championship game and secure a Rose Bowl berth. Then, there are the college football elitists complaining about Northern Illinois crashing the party and snagging an Orange Bowl berth. The Huskies did their job. They won and won well. Don't hate the program, hate the current system.

Consider the Sun Bowl featuring a losing team in Georgia Tech against a bunch of underachievers, USC. Two teams with 6-6 marks -- Rice and Air Force -- will be mired in the Armed Forces Bowl while Pittsburgh meets Ole Miss in the BBVA Compass Bowl. We're talking ratings gold barnburners here. And through the bedlam of Selection Sunday, Louisiana, Tech, the nation's highest-scoring team that won nine games and had a sniff of Top 25 fame, didn't get chosen for any of the 35 or 102 bowl games, whatever the number is nowadays. (It didn't help when the Bulldogs got too big for their britches and, reportedly, said "nyet" to going to the nearby Independence Bowl for the possibility of what could've been a decent all-Louisiana affair in UL-Monroe).

The “powers that be” that help to determine BCS and non-BCS bowl contestants are primarily television executives and power conference presidents who only want to see and sell sex when it comes to bowl games. They'd rather arbitrarily pair two traditional powerhouses via a computer rather than let rising star schools settle such questions where it truly counts: on the playing field. Just like virtually every other level of sport. Wow. What a startling concept. Even the Kazahkistani kick-goathead league has a playoff. I’ve won some money there. I've lost a lot more there. Without the NCAA basketball tournament, schools like George Mason and Butler likely would have never made it to the Final Four. You see Gonzagas and Marquettes make their mark on the national scene. Without the College World Series, schools like Cal State-Fullerton and Long Beach State -- not so much a Texas or USC -- get to shine and quite often.

In most existing playoff systems/postseason tournaments, the most "deserving" teams make the playoffs, not necessarily the ones picked "the best." There's a difference. We can debate all we want about good losses, bad losses, strength of schedule, etc., during the regular season, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty to determine an absolute champion, why not go the way of a tournament?

Well, we won’t waste further time going into the minds of those myopically opposed to a NCAA Division I tournament of some kind. Even the “bowl games are a tradition” and “schools will lose money” and “you can’t make the student-athletes play that long or late into January” philosophies. None of those arguments really work. Never did, never will. Some say the BCS isn’t perfect, but that it’s a start.

So, what if a playoff system did exist for college football? My goodness, what fun that’d be. OK, let’s use dying BCS as a springboard. This is what I'd do to create a 16-team tournament. You start with automatic champions from 11 FBS (Football Championship Series) conferences (regular-season champs and/or championship game victors). There is the thought that if an annual playoff system is allowed to mature, conference championship games might become relevant. That's fine. Until then let's play with what we have.

If there are co-champions, it’s up to the affected conference to determine who gets what we’ll call an FBS bid. You could combine the final regular season total average poll ranking with regular-season head-to-head outcomes for a tie-breaker. (Sound unfair? Good. You get to retain some semblance of unfairness in the process of arriving at a final national champion)

You could average the rankings of the AP, ESPN, USA Today, Harris, Legends and Coaches' polls, emphasizing which schools get the most place votes and arrive at a final aggregate Top 25 poll (a de facto BCS ranking system, if you will, without the computer interference). Those are arguably the strongest, long-standing, most popular and credible of Division I polls. And you get to a beautiful bracket like the one above (courtesy of NCAA). Isn't it gorgeous and awe-inspiring?

Here’s what a final 2012 FBS aggregate poll would look like:

1. Notre Dame (12-0)

2. Alabama (12-1) (SEC champion)

3. Oregon (11-1)

4. Florida (11-1)

5. Georgia (11-2)

6. Kansas State (11-1) (Big 12 champion)

7.  Stanford (11-2) (Pac-12 champion)

8. LSU (10-2)

9. Texas A&M (10-2)

10. South Carolina (10-2)

11. Oklahoma (10-2)

12. Florida State (11-2) (ACC champion)

13. Oregon State (9-3)

14. Clemson CL(10-2)

15. Boise State (10-2) (Mountain West co-champion)

16. Northern Illinois            (12-1) (MAC champion)

17. Nebraska (10-3)

18. UCLA (9-4)

19. Michigan            (8-4)

20. Louisville (10-2) (Big East champion)

21. Northwestern (9-3)

22. Utah State (10-2) (WAC champion)

23. Texas (8-4)

24. San Jose State (10-2)

25. Kent State (11-2)

Wisconsin (Big 10 champion)

Arkansas State (Sun Belt champion)

Tulsa (Conference USA champion)

Ultimately, FBS automatic bids would go to Alabama, Kansas State, Stanford, Florida State, Boise State (highest ranked co-champion of MWC), Northern Illinois, Louisville, Utah State, Wisconsin, Arkansas State and Tulsa.

You add the top independent team ranked high enough overall in polls for an FBS bid and/or four (or five) other highest-ranked schools, overall in polls. So this year these schools get an at-large bid: Notre Dame, Oregon, Florida, Georgia and LSU.

The ultimate FBS tournament seedings in a 16 vs. 1, 15 vs. 2, 14, vs. 3, etc. format would be:

1. Notre Dame

2. Alabama

3. Oregon

4. Florida

5. Georgia

6. Kansas State

7. Stanford

8. LSU

9. Florida State

10. Boise State

11. Northern Illinois

12. Louisville

13. Utah State

14. Wisconsin

15. Tulsa

16. Arkansas State

Take into account the oldest, popular, most lucrative, traditional bowls and mix in some regional flair and considerate schedules. You can keep some of the best bowls. (I mean, really. The glut of bowls is ludicrous. More and more are added each year, some from inauspicious sponsors. Does anyone care to see the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl? Oooh, must-see. No offense, Michigan State and TCU, but really? The Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl, formerly Insight Bowl-turned-Valley of the Sun Bowl? I like dining at BWW, not watching its sponsored bowl games. Beef O'Brady's Bowl, that standard-bearer of non-BCS bowl games, this year has...meh, who gives a crap. If we ignore the Meineke Care Care Bowl of Texas, featuring - inexplicably - Texas Tech and Minnesota (how did they get a bid), does that game cease to exist? And Heart of Dallas Bowl? Seriously? Oh, we could so perpetuate a Roady's Truck Stops FreeCreditReport.com Pomegranate Cherry Salad Bowl presented by Franklin American Mortgage Company joke.

All joking aside, use 15 of those prestigious, richest, most famous (i.e. powerful, established) bowls as the FBS bowl matches. All other bowls… yes, even your precious Idaho Potato, Bell Helicopter Armed Forces, GoDaddy.com… may remain independent and ongoing aside from the FBS contests. No changes needed there.

Rotate the FBS bowls as quarterfinal, semifinal and final games, all of which could retain and maybe even increase the number of ticket-buyers, TV viewers and payouts. One reason? There’s even greater incentive to play in such a bowl. Not just one bowl. But a series of true head-to-head games where all the conference champions (not just the typical, known powerhouses) and other top-ranked squads have a genuine (and fair) shot at an undisputed national title. Throw in serious regional consideration and voila. Imagine that!

The younger, Decemberish bowls host quarterfinals on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, given this year’s calendar:

December 12

Tulsa vs. Alabama -- Advocare V100 Independence Bowl; Shreveport

Arkansas State vs. Notre Dame -- Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl (Insight, Copper, whatever else it used to be); Tempe

Dec. 13

Florida State vs. LSU -- Chick-Fil-A (Peach) Bowl, Atlanta

Boise State vs. Stanford -- Hyundai Sun Bowl, El Paso

Dec. 14

Louisville vs. Georgia -- Taxslayer.com (Taxslayer.com?) Gator Bowl, Jacksonville

Northern Illinois vs. Kansas State -- Valero Alamo Bowl, San Antonio

Dec. 15

Utah State vs. Florida -- AutoZone Liberty Bowl, Memphis

Wisconsin vs. Oregon -- Bridgepoint Education Holiday Bowl, San Diego

Probable winners?

Alabama, Notre Dame, Stanford, Florida State, Georgia, Kansas State, Florida, Oregon

More bowls in Thursday and Friday semifinals involve 1-16 vs. 8-9; 5-12 vs. 4-13; 6-11 vs. 3-14; 7-10 vs. 2-15.

Dec. 20

Florida State vs. Notre Dame -- Capital One (Citrus) Bowl, Orlando

Stanford vs. Alabama -- AT&T Cotton Bowl, Dallas

Dec. 21

Kansas State vs. Oregon -- Fiesta Bowl, Tempe

Georgia vs. Florida -- Outback Bowl, Tampa

Probable winners?

Notre Dame, Stanford, Kansas State, Georgia

Final Four of sorts/Tuesday, Jan. 1

Stanford vs. Kansas State -- Sugar Bowl, New Orleans

Georgia vs. Notre Dame -- Orange Bowl, Miami

Championship game, Monday, Jan. 7

Rose Bowl, Pasadena

Kansas State vs. Georgia

Who wins? Well, let this unfold in reality. I recall how a House subcommittee approved legislation in late 2009 aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine a national champion, over the objections of some lawmakers who said Congress had more pressing matters on its plate. To those naysayers, I say: screw war and the national debt, let’s have some MACtion.

Darkness and Light

I don't know what to make of "The Dark Knight Rises." A part of me wants to love, love, love it, just like the initial time I watched "The Dark Knight." But second thoughts turn into quibbling. Which turns into nitpicking. Which then becomes self-destructive.

Let's first be clear: Christopher and Jonathan Nolan have created a riveting comic book/superhero trilogy for the ages. Immensely brooding, hypnotic, engrossing. The Nolans' take on Batman is, as a whole, celluloid masterpiece. All three films are a perfect reflection of our present era of faint hope amid cynicism, discontent and bleakness. Each movie explored crucial philosophical themes.

But where we geeks and non-geeks alike reveled in the near-movie perfection that lies between "Batman Begins and "The Dark Knight," it's human nature for expectations to be raised way too high.

What have we really expected from "The Dark Knight Rises"? Something somehow more than "The Dark Knight?" Something that matches our love for all or specific arcs in the Batman comics past and present? Something that exceeds Heath Ledger's mesmerizing portrayal of The Joker?

It's not all that dissimilar from the range of emotions that many of us geeks held prior to the release of "The Phantom Menace." We had built up two whole decades worth of hopes, expectations and fanboy dreams in seeing what new technology-driven "Star Wars" world George Lucas could deliver in the digital era. Ultimately, aside from a few scenes of sheer joy in "Revenge of the Sith," the second "Star Wars" trilogy was a downer.

Here with "The Dark Knight Rises," we've had four years to digest what TDK gave us. Each teaser, rumor and interview brought us fans an equal amount of anxiety and excitement. A few days since my initial viewing, "The Dark Knight Rises" is a rousing, super-epic, unnerving, relentless finale to the Nolans' Batman trilogy. It caps one of the great film trilogies. It's grim, well-acted, bold, ambitious, awe-inspiring. It provides a decent send-off, if that is really the case, for our friends.

It also - not surprisingly - leaves things open to a fourth installment and/or possibly a link to a Justice League flick, which – given the way things are going with DC Comics movies lately – may not come for at least a decade.

Alas, enter the second thoughts, quibbling and nitpicking. For all the amazing set action pieces the Nolans have provided throughout the trilogy, there are a few moments of bewilderment -- yes, even for a comic book adaptation (beware spoilers):

* Wow, an armed three-month occupation of a major city by a small hodgepodge of armed criminals and hybrid Occupiers/self-proclaimed freedom fighters?

* None of Bane’s guys caught that camouflaged Batcopter atop the roof?

* The same siege that's essentially supposed to leave Gotham City to wither doesn't seem horrible, not when cops in hiding are still able to meet each other in daylight to lay out plans for insurrection. They seem fed and clothed. So does most of the remaining population. And hey, if the U.S. government can send in a relief convoy (occupied by Special Forces members) with relative ease, things can't be that bad.

*Did Bruce Wayne really have a terrible background check for his employers?

* Bruce Wayne is an injured recluse, is able to walk with a robotic leg brace, then gets his back, umm, bent (not broken) by Bane, and then is able to escape what is pretty much the Lazarus Pit, a brutal prison that only Bane is said to have escaped as a child?

I do assume Bruce Wayne, once he's financially wiped out, still has plenty of contacts and favors to cash in around the world. Otherwise, I'm not sure how he covertly returns to a Gotham City under siege, from India, in a matter of days after being literally broken and imprisoned for weeks. (A-ha! Superman or Green Lantern could've given him a lift to the states. There you go, DC and Warner Brothers. I just gave you a connection to big-screen Justice League.)

*John Blake instantly recognizes Bruce Wayne as Batman, when almost nobody else in Gotham City does for years? Dude is gonna make an excellent detective. Hell, he might make a better sidekick/successor to Batman. He should just go by his middle name, Robin.

Oh wait.

Sure we can, yes, quibble whether this would be Robin from the comics or a new creation by the Nolans – and perhaps a collective, subtle “screw you” to Warner Brothers. You decide.

Speaking of the ending, that too inspires great debate. Which film entry has the strongest final scene? Batman Begins finished with a flourish, with Jim Gordon and Batman discussing escalation in crime and alluding to The Joker arriving on the scene. The last scene in TDK was astonishing, the ultimate cliffhanger as Gordon talked of Batman being a dark knight, of being Batman being hunted down by the police. Geek giddiness. The end of TDKR almost spoils everything leading up to it.

And shall we mention a lot of the film's first half seems rather tedious - too tedious - in its build-up. I almost feel George Lucas could've inserted the banality of dialogue and plot contrivances from his newer "Star Wars" trilogy rather easily here.

I admit Tom Hardy breathes life - no pun intended - into a solid villain, Bane. It makes us almost forget the atrocity that was Bane of "Batman and Robin." By no means does he surpass Ledger's Joker. Anne Hathaway does a great job as Selina Kyle/Catwoman, but she still remains below a slinkier performance by Michelle Pfeiffer in "Batman Returns."

However, Bane and Catwoman's true motivations and machinations are muddy at best. Their decisions and revelations seem, at times, rushed and oddly out of place. Perhaps the bigger challenge/problem for the Nolans was to include so many great, strong individual performances in a grand-scale finale. But that's a dilemma common to most trilogy finales. (See "Spider-man 3," "Return of the King" and "Return of the Jedi".)

There are a few moments of levity in TDKR. Very few. Fewer than I expected. Of course, I knew this film would be just that, a film with a scattershot of worthy peers, larger than life. TDKR is the perfect foil to the lighter, more amusing superhero/comic book blockbusters this summer, "The Avengers" and "The Amazing Spider-man." But like with Alfred the butler reaching his limit to which he's willing to see a self-sacrificing Bruce Wayne, the last of the family he's served and loved nearly all of his life, there's a limit of drab that TDKR breaches.

"The Dark Knight Rises" is a spectacular piece of movie-making and the Nolans and David Goyer are to be commended for bringing this iconic version of Batman to the big screen over the past seven years. But at the end of this "film," I still feel disconnected from the psychologically nightmarish world that Ra's al Ghul and The Joker attempted to bring to Gotham City in the previous two films. Near-near-perfection is what I'll have to settle for.

Additionally, I don't know what to make of the Superman teaser, "Man of Steel." Half of geeks want Zack Snyder to succeed; the other half wants him to flop on his face. There is a risk in having other DC Comics heroes "Nolan-rised," as seems to be the case with this reboot of the Clark Kent origin story. "Superman Returns" under Bryan Singer wasn't horrible. Not at all. But be patient: Maybe in a sense, "Man of Steel" will be this generation's "Superman the Movie.” It might be our "Batman Begins." We can only hope.

And now I've come to the hardest part of my blog. Talking about "The Dark Knight Rises" here makes me recall monitoring Twitter early on the night of July 20. Looking for remarks from anyone who had seen midnight showings of TDKR. But sleepiness fast took hold and off to bed I went. I woke up late in the morning, about 9 a.m. That's when I saw my best friend's text messages about what happened in Aurora, Colorado just a few hours prior.

I didn't know Jessica Ghawi well. I wish I had. I had only talked with her briefly a couple of times in person, more so on Twitter. I loved her unbridled love for hockey and her humor. I enjoyed listening to Jessica's adventures/misadventures as she interned on Ticket 760 radio. Her microphone mishap at a Rampage game entertained me to no end.

That's one of the many things that family and friends remember best about Jessica: Her lust for life. Even in a moment of self-proclaimed silliness or embarrassment, Jessica shook it all off, carried on and learned from her mistakes. She smiled and laughed. She was serious about her professional and personal dreams, about wanting to help others. Her enthusiasm for life, friends, family and fun was infectious. A force of nature, if you will.

On a family trip, I missed the memorial service for Jessica last weekend here in San Antonio, but I caught bits and pieces thanks to online live streaming and later news recaps. Through those summaries and the interviews with her brave brother Jordan and pals who knew her best, in the hours and days following the tragedy, it's unfortunate I didn't have enough time to get to know Jessica better. I wish I had.

But Jessica's friends and family are correct: We don't dwell on the poor excuse for a human being who's taken away 13 innocent lives and destroyed so many families. We can't let win through fear. We instead celebrate the lives of those lost. I'm choosing to focus, like Jessica, on a pursuit of happiness in life. I aim to do my best to efficiently spend every waking moment trying to achieve my dreams, to help others in need and enjoy all that I can in this life. Hope you will, too.