We Could Be Heroes

By -
I've been watching the show Heroes on DVDs, and it's kind of entertaining, but, man oh man, they just didn't worry much about intellectual content when throwing this thing together, did they? Every time the young Indian guy starts talking "philosophy" I want to throw something at the computer. You could pretty much string random words from pop science and religion together with a computer program that placed English verbs, conjunctions, etc. between them and it would make no less sense than the blather the writers put in that guys mouth. "Cockroaches are the pinnacle of evolution"! If you view evolution scientifically, it has no "pinnacle". And if you view it spiritually, you certainly wouldn't place cockroaches at the "pinnacle"! "We only use 10% of our brains." That's an old urban legend with no basis whatsoever in fact.

And what's up with his accent? He's an American, raised in Texas, but if you're going to make him a character from Madras, India, and have him speak in a foreign accent, why make it an English accent? I think the theory is, "Americans are so stupid they won't know the difference."

Comments

  1. Jim7:43 AM

    The other BIG problem with Heroes is that very few members of the cast can act. They were mostly chosen for their optical sweetener content. After BSG, it's just not acceptable to have a cast that bad.

    ReplyDelete
  2. bobvis9:41 AM

    I should point out that a good number of people in the world who think they are talking philosophy *do* talk like that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous11:16 AM

    Since when was TV remotely realistic?

    ReplyDelete
  4. gcallah4:48 AM

    "Since when was TV remotely realistic?"

    I hold The Sopranos as a counter-example to your skepticism -- remember, I live in Brooklyn -- I have never seen a Sopranos scene where I couldn't imagine one of the guys I know in my local acting just like that.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more