MacGyver - New versus Old - a few thoughts

I thought I would wait with a post about the new MacGyver series until I had watch more episodes and maybe contructed a better opinion on the series. As someone who grew up with MacGyver, I was worried that I would be too critical of the series. After quite a few episodes, I still don't really know what I think.
 


It's now more than 30 years since the original MacGyver aired. Since then it has gone from TV show to an icon to a verb in the dictionary.
What I liked about the show was that he proved that you could be cool by using your head. It wasn't just street smarts but book smarts as well. He said no to firearms and yes to his Swiss Army knife, duct tape and some paperclips. He also liked a more vegetarian diet, sustainable development, education, kindness and knowledge.






What made the show even better was that he sometimes reached out to the viewers and actual social problems. To name a few; teenage alcoholism, problems in school, nature, suicide, Dana Elcars galucoma etc. This was a great way to connect with the viewers,  who themselves either could know someone who needs help or they might even have needed help themselves. Were are series like these today. Series that actually try to help people and not paint unrealistic realities for young people.
 



I must say that I still miss some of this in the new MacGyver. I don't dislike the new, but it isn't all I hoped it would be. I think they still can do better.
It also seems a little weird that this younger MacGyver already has the same reputation as the almost 10 years older MacGyver had.
The Phoenix Foundation is suppose to be big, but we usually only see a few people there. And the new Thornton is supposed to have a lot to do, but still finds time to come on missions and just do a lot of other things as well. Dalton and MacGyver have a great relationship (although Dalton is not at all similar to the original) but the relationship between MacGyver and Thornton just isn't there...

MacGyver now seems like a smart person, but he still isn't out of the ordinary. MacGyver of old was something more, but not out of reach. He was someone one could aspire to become.

When solidarity won over propaganda and will we ever have a ESC without politics

The dream of Eurovision Song Contest has been to unite Europe through singing. After the second world war people were rather fed up with going to war with each other and were looking for a way to work together. So, of course, a singing competition was formed. And why not? Estonia later showed us that a singing revolution could fix one's problems with independence.

If I ever moved to another country within Europe, I would probably keep quite strong ties to my native land. As the ESC is organized now I would have more than one vote to cast. So I guess I would vote once for a song I like and maybe through in one for my native country as well. I also understand that countries close to each other will vote for each other because the culture is similar and music taste is probably similar as well. Although, I do get a bit cynical when a country doesn't give any votes for a country that has a potentially winning song and it's obvious that those countries have a political feud. I'm looking at you Norway. What's up with no points for Sweden? I bet it's from the whole Sweden-Norway union.

Nah, I'm kidding. But in all seriousness, it has become a lot better. About 10 years ago it was much easier to guess the votes based on some history and some knowledge of current affairs. Then again it's more difficult now to know how the countries themselves voted, since all the peoples' votes are grouped together and we only see the jurys' votes during the show. Albeit one could discern some tendencies in their votes as well.

It is also sad that the artists are the ones that get the hate. They might get booed and a good song might not get to win just because it is song by an unpopular country.

Hopefully, most people don't care about the possible political backgrounds, but enjoy the songs and the shows and that for other people it leads to discussion.

It was a good song that won. Let's hope it can bring some peace and stability to the country, now that more eyes will be on them for next year.

I do agree with ESC in the aspect that the two political views that are OK are peace and pacifism. We have seen enough of wars and conflicts, wouldn't it be more fun if we just chilled.
Let's take a page out of Estonia's songbook.

Batman vs Superman - actually a good movie. *Spoilers*

I've been thinking back an forth about writing my thoughts on the latest movie, but seeing all negativity towards it, I thought I would give my 2 cents. I have only seen the movie once and that was a couple of weeks ago.

I'll start in a pedagogical fashion with the bad stuff and leave the good for last.
In my opinion there was  lot of CGI happening. If you don't like action then this will seriously dull your senses for a while. But in a way I guess I do understand why they overdid it. One of Bruce Wayne's problems with Superman was the destruction that was left behind Supermans "heroics". Batman usually fought bad guys on earth with much less powers, though Superman took on much greater alien powers. So, in a way, the amount of destruction that was left behind the confrontation between Batman and Doomsday had to be almost as great as between Superman and General Zod. This way it would make Batman understand the context in which Superman exists.

Another thing I really didn't like was the part where Lois was captured and Superman came to save her. When he flew into the terrorist he  most likely killed him in the process. I know that in previous movies Superman has caught people in ways that would probably have killed them and that there are speculations on how his powers work in protecting people near him. However, in this scene we never get to know what happened to the terrorist and most viewers might just think he got killed and ask "so what? He was a terrorist. He killed  Zod in the last movie as well." And this is were it goes wrong. Superman doesn't kill people. I know they tried to make that point in the Man of Steel movie, but I don't know if it stuck in peoples memory. Especially now that he seemingly flat out kills a person. I fear that they just put that scene in because it would look cool.

This brings me to my other thought - who did they make the movie for? The opening scene is almost iconic from a comic standpoint but for other movie goers it will mostly just be another reminder of how Bruce's parents died. Of course they got in Martha's name now, but they could have done it another way as well.

Probably my biggest question was surrounding Batman's almost nihilistic and very blunt attitude towards the criminals and his surroundings. I don't know if the average viewer understands that he has become like this after years of ungrateful and vain effort to clean up Gotham. One scene was extra gripping where he stops to look at Robins costume covered with Joker's writings. Here he still thinks Robin is dead. Robin was just about Bruce's only friend and pride and he was taken away from him by the Joker. This was one of the most crucial events in Bruce's life that sent him spiraling down and I'm afraid a lot of people might have missed it.

My previous two points I count as positive as well, if you are a person that recognized the subtle hints they gave, especially in Bruce's dreams. As I am not a hardcore fan of any comic, but I keep myself informed, I got a good feeling whenever i recognized something in the movie. And I also welcomed that some things were sort of required by the audience to know, so things weren't repeated in aeternum (looking at you Thomas and Martha). 
I have also come to rest with the fact that they made Luthor a younger version. I remember my aunt saying that the creepiest character from the previous Batman trilogy was Jonathan Crane. The fact that such a young guy was so smart and evil and had such power scared her, and i guess she might have a point. This time Luthor is more of  a modern business man, sure he had inherited a lot, but he also resonates with the modern millionaires and billionaires who has acquired much at a young age. And yeah, I didn't like his insane clinking at the end either. 

It was nice to see Wonder Woman. She was still quite mysterious in this film and wasn't given much screen-time. I guess it can be forgiven because it was nice to see a heroine that didn't need to be rescued, quite the opposite. I look forward to seeing more of her and how her character will evolve. 

I also liked the switch where the movie surprised me with Doomsday. I was really all in on the idea of it all being about Batman Versus Superman and then Luthor "gave us our doomsday". And then I knew we would see Superman dying and even though I was prepared the funeral really got to me, and movies don't usually do that. ...but then I later found out that they gave this all away in a trailer... so, not a smart move... I didn't see the trailer and got quite excited but I guess the trailer spoiled it for many people...
I must say that Superman's coffin looked really elegant. If I were buried in a coffin like that with some bagpipes in the background I would be content, or as content as can be...

It was interesting how the movie also touched upon teodicé. It's an old question that wouldn't really be applicable for Superman since he isn't omnipresent, nor actually  omnipotent. However, I can see why people in the movie had started seeing him as a god. 
The question was lying in the background of the movie for a while and I thought it was going to be left there, but Luthor brought it up quite abruptly by paraphrasing Epicuros trilemma. It's interesting to see theological questions in a movie but I still fail to see a real connection. As I previously stated, Superman is in no way a god, and even more, he is quite real. He is not a lofty or abstract idea. He is not transcendent, maybe immanent if one wants to dabble in religious terms, but he is still a concrete person, albeit supernatural. Of course there could be loads to talk about Superman as a Christ-figure or rather a messianic figure, his name being Kal-El which is quite close to  קול אל "Voice of God" etc. But that one I'll leave to the more hardened theologians and fans of Superman.

One of my most favorite scenes from this movie is the one where Superman has chosen to appear in court. He is ready to stand for his actions, once again. He humbly walks in and even opens the door, although he wouldn't have to do any that. He then stand before the peoples' court to hear their opinion. Whilst doing this he misses a bomb (errare humanum est) hidden in the chair. When he notices - it's too late. All he can do is watch as a room full of people - good, innocent people - are killed. A vicious act that he could have prevented, but he didn't. Children will come home to a house without a parent. Parents will not see their children again. Couples have lost their other half.. And he himself walks off without a scratch. This is such an emotional scene, the most powerful person on earth, completely powerless.

As a whole I liked the fact that the film was close to comics, at times, and that they brought in some philosophy, that opens up the movie to new levels. I liked the characters and the actors as well as the music. Although they could have left out a bit of effort in trying to make it epic with the extra CGI and taken another look at the script instead.

And remember that Superman is about hope and light, leave the darkness to Batman.