Reality backlash... why?

So I am reading yet another article on the hell of reality television and how the backlash is coming soon and I just don't think people get it (just for the record, I like Tim Goodman, I just think the end of the article misses the point of why reality TV is here). Sure, it is hip and PC to say how reality TV is some sort of unwanted scourge forced down our throats by network execs, but I think that misses the point entirely. Reality TV is not some sort of monster about to face a backlash. Reality television IS THE BACKLASH. For the last few decades the tv viewing audience has be fed a diet of crappy derivative sitcoms and even more derivative dramas. One guy puts up a court room drama and suddenly there are 10 of them out there. Hell, Law and Order and CSI have several versions of themselves alone. "News Magazine" programs do little but promote all this junk. So someone comes along and puts out something like Real World or Survivor and viewers say "Well that is different than what I have been watching" and the ratings rise. So now that is the new trend. And to all you arrogant writers out there, the viewers KNOW it is not "real". Viewers did not coin the term "reality tv", you guys did. People do not watch because they think it is "real". They watch because watching a bunch of average joes do stupid things is currently more entertaining than watching a bunch of second rate "actors" read stupid lines from bad scripts. As for the backlash, why should it come so soon? We had the sitcom and drama garbage (with the occasional M*A*S*H or Seinfeld helping us come up for air) for decades. Reality is not going anywhere until someone puts up something better. And as for the cries that this is putting 'creative' writers and professional actors out of work...GOOD! I SHOULD HOPE SO! Perhaps this purge will get a new breed to come up with better programing. (Ask HBO, finding decent actors and writing talent is not impossible). THEN, reality will give way to whatever is better.

Google IPO concerns

I was reading the article "IPO Anyone remember Pets.com? Webvan? Apparently not" (read it here if you have not yet and wish to do so). It is another article warning us that investing in Google is frought with certain doom, and I have to bring up my own take on some of the author's observations. Google is VERY different than all those dot com failures. Google is extremely profitable. Pets.com never was and never could be (there is no way to sell and ship very heavy bags of cat food for less than one could simply buy it while shopping for groceries. You get killed by the high cost comparison or the cost of all that subsidized shipping). Google should be more closely compared to Ebay, and to a lesser extent Yahoo, and the like. Second, just because Yahoo and Ebay are off their one time over inflated highs does not mean Google is destined to rise to hundreds of dollars and then plunge. Those days are over as there is no dot.com boom and economic fervor to drive the inertia of that kind of trading. Again, they will probably perform more like Ebay and Yahoo today, which is just fine as an investment. Third, Google has more life than "search engines" or other "navigation" products because it is not one of them. Google stopped being a search company a long time ago. It is an advertising company. It makes virtually all it's money on selling very successful ads (AdWords) and these ads run on thousands of sites that have NOTHING to do with search (SFGate for example). Orkut is just another way they gather profile information to be able to charge higher ad click through rates. GMail is all about targeted ads and gaining more profile info as well. So, search is just one way to bring in eyeballs and serve ads, and they need search less and less as they expand their product line. I am not trying to jump all over the article, I like much of what this columnist writes, and I do think one needs to keep a level head in investing decisions. But I do think the concern I keep hearing that "Google is the second coming of the dot.com implosion" is not as well founded as people seem to think.

Saw Hellboy recently...

So I saw Hellboy a bit ago. I personally thought it was a lot of fun. I am only vaguely familiar with the comic, but it seemed to nail the various characters I was familiar with. Ron Perlman was born to that role. The thing that set it apart from most comic based movies is that it did not play like most opening stories. Most comic genre movies pretty much stick to doing an origin story first. This movie felt more like a sequel. Just jump in and tell a story with minimal set up. Made it tough to follow a couple of the relationships and know why some things were the way they were, but it did allow you to just tell a full story (more like X-men 2). Pretty gutsy move considering that Hellboy does not nearly have the fanbase of Batman or X-men. Heck, the next Batman movie is going to re-tell his origin again.