Last Word on Person of Interest

So I've caught up with Person of Interest. All five seasons. Well, maybe I should say all four and a half seasons because season five only had 13 episodes. The last time I wrote about it I was still new to the series. Now that I've seen the entire series my opinion will be more comprehensive.

I had been comparing it to Blacklist, and I liked Blacklist better. I still do. I've seen all the Blacklist there is to see. It's in the middle of season four right now. But PoI is done, and I was left disappointed. That's not unusual. I seem to be disappointed frequently with TV shows and movies.

Those few movies that did not disappoint, like The Transporter, John Wick, Jason Bourne, and the Riddick movies, were perfect. They didn't disappoint. All went as it should have. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have written some of them differently. I probably would have. But those aren't my babies. My baby is the Trent Smith Killer of Killer stories, which are now available in two novels.

Ultimately, PoI was a disappointment and a huge one. I remember saying that PoI was a two man show, and I seemed somewhat critical of the show for that reason.

Well, they answered that criticism and made it a two woman show. Um, that wasn't what I was talking about when I criticized it. Being a two woman show made it worse. Far worse. And for the reasons I've been making clear often on the blog. If the women were like the women on Downton Abby, then fine. But no. They replaced the tough guy Reese with two "tough guy" chicks. And it was very unbelievable. They were asking their audience to believe a 5 foot, 3 inch, 110 pound Sarah Shahi playing a 5' 3" 110 lbs Sameen Shaw could beat up ten dudes all at once. And by ten dudes, I'm not talking about ten street thugs. She's beating up dudes who themselves were supposed to be top fighter dudes, like Navy Seal dudes, and such.

It was the epitome of phony. And I will deny any accusations of sexism or chauvinism. Strong female characters exist. I admit it. Downton Abby is not the only example. The show Outlander featured a strong female character, remember? Who's to say Claire was not strong? She sure was. But she didn't have to prove how strong she was by beating up ten dudes all at once. Or even one dude. She didn't go around beating anyone up. She didn't go around killing anyone. But she was strong, and she was the main character of the show, too, I might add.

PoI shoved both Harold Finch and John Reese aside, and featured Root, played by Amy Acker, and Shaw as the new stars of the show. It was during season two. And since then, through seasons three, four and five, the show sucked. I mean...it sucked bad. I had to force myself to sit and watch Shaw outdo John Reese in fighting and beating people up, and killing the bad guys, or shoot them in the knees. John Reese is 6' 2" and 220 lbs, yet he's upstaged by the 5' 3" 110 pound Shaw in toughness. That just didn't work.

I noticed that the show took a nose dive in popularity when all this started to happen. So it's not just me. And it explains why the show was cancelled midway through season five. It couldn't even last the full final season. They just cut it off, and I don't blame them. It was a show that was dying.

But it didn't have to die. Why did they go with the feminist thing? I don't have anything against feminism, really. But I've blogged many times that women don't have to go around beating people up and killing people to prove how strong they are. And I've also raised the point that women don't want to see that either. It's not what makes women tick. And I'll bet anyone that I'm right. The fact that PoI lost popularity, fell in the ratings, and got cancelled proves I'm right.

But it's like I've always known. The people who have the power to do the things the rest of us wish we could do, are the worst ones to do it. They always make mistakes, and they never learn from their mistakes. Like with PoI. When the two "tough chicks" were the stars, PoI fell in the ratings. But did they learn? No. They kept it up, and then the popularity was gone. Then it's cancelled. Anyone with a brain could have figured out the problem. But their brains were in short supply. Too bad.

Kong-Skull Island OK

I did not really want to go see Kong-Skull Island, but it was my younger son's birthday weekend, and he wanted me to take him to see that movie. I relented. As for action adventure movies, it was okay. But it had so many holes in it, and the writing could have been so much better. I left the movie thinking if the producers, director, and writers wanted to, they could have made that movie into a movie to be remembered. As it was, it won't be.

As far as King Kong movies go, I'd rank it with that forgettable Kong movie from the seventies. Peter Jackson's King Kong still rates as the best, imo, followed by the original from the thirties. And to me, those are the only ones worth seeing. Like I said, the other two are forgettable.

Now for an evening with your son, this latest one was okay. I don't believe I wasted my money. It would have been a waste had I seen it alone, but time spent with your son is never wasted, and so...

As for holes, they were too obvious. The first one that struck me, is the ship had four helicopters on the deck, and it was all that would fit. The next thing you see, is over a dozen of them flying toward Skull Island. It's like, wait a minute... Where did all those extra copters come from?

Then when Kong suddenly appears, he throws a strike from a distance. Meaning a tree comes from out of nowhere and lands a bull's-eye into the lead copter. Then Kong himself jumps out of nowhere and starts swatting the copters out of the sky like mosquitos.

Okay, it can be argued the copters are caught by surprise, and Kong gets two or three of them. But do the others recover from their shock and fly beyond his reach? Why, no, they don't. They start circling around him firing their machine guns at him. You might say that's what they should do. If that's what you say, then you're not so smart. What I would say is get those choppers beyond arm's reach of the big ape. Surely, soldiers know that machine guns have a long range. But instead of flying beyond Kong's reach to shoot him, they remain within his reach so that he can continue to swat them down.

And that's exactly what he does until every chopper is swatted out of the sky. Every single one of them. I just can't believe not one pilot had the brains to say, "You know, maybe I should fly a little farther away from that monster so he can't grab my copter like he's doing to all the other copters, and smash it to the ground." Nope. Not one. At one point the civilian guy said, "Get this chopper out of here!" but the brainless pilot replies, "You're not the one who gives me orders."

So of course that copter, too, gets swatted down like all the others. I am not one to verbalize my displeasure during the course of a movie out of respect to my fellow movie goers, but I instinctively said "Bullshit!" out loud at that point. My son didn't mind. He agreed. No one turned to frown at me, so I'm thinking everyone else agreed too.

There were many other holes, but there were good things, too, btw. The special effects were good, and the acting was good. Samuel Jackson, although overexposed by being in just about every movie these days, is a good actor and played his part well. The guy from WWII had a good role and played it well. The British secret service guy was well cast, and well written.

I don't know why they made the bad monsters legless. I'm talking about the "Skull-crushers" as the old dude called them. They crawled around using their front two legs, or arms. It reminded me of the crippled son from the TV show Viking. I think they should have had rear legs, and ran around like lizards, but whatever.

There was another thing that bugged me. There were too many useless deaths. Too many dudes getting offed just for effect, it seemed. The lowest point being when John Goodman's character was offed. It just didn't work. Nor did the killing off of most of the soldiers. The surviving soldiers were one white, one Asian, and one black. I guess they wanted equity. Of course, no female characters were killed. The girls seemed immune to any danger. In this movie you had to be a dude to die.

There were so many other holes, like since when do apes stand straight like a man? King Kong was standing straight the whole time. Even my wife made that point. I had noticed it too, but there were so many other holes, that one, although major, was minor in comparison.

So go with your son, and have a good time. My son did like the movie and was glad we went. I was glad to spend time with him at the movies. A show like this is good for that. But that was all it was good for. Too bad we missed The Great Wall. Was that one any good? I'll find out soon enough when it comes on TV. Until then...

Walking Dead - Back on Track

I had all but given up on The Walking Dead TV show. It had introduced a character who had no business doing the things he was doing. You know, the usual things like being mean to strangers, killing strangers, as in people he had never met before, and just being an all around despicable guy. And all the while he's smiling while he's doing all these bad things. It's like being a mean person, hurting and killing, maiming, etc. it's like he's having the time of his life.

Well, the brutal murders of helpless victims, Glen and Abraham, as in having their heads bashed in as they are bound and on their knees, was just too much for me to bear. It wasn't fun, and it wasn't nice to watch. It was downright ugly. I don't watch movies or TV shows to see ugly stuff. I don't take time to watch shows to see things that make me sick. It's not entertainment. Sure, some people love to see scary shows, and the Walking Dead has those moments, but this Neegan character was just not makin' it. Not even close.

So yesterday we got a break from that. I had mentioned in a blog post some months ago, that I was glad to see Rick and Michonne hooking up. But then the storyline took a detour from that hookup and that detour was right though Neeganland. I was very disappointed.

But The Walking Dead is back on track. Yesterday I finally got the episode I wanted to see, which is Rick and Michonne out on the town together doing their thing as only they can do. The writing was good, the acting was good, and the events that took place were near perfect. It was fun to watch, and yes, it was entertaining.


Rick and Michonne - best TV couple ever


I want to see more of Rick and Michonne. I really do. I think Rick and Michonne make the best couple in TV history. Better than Ricky and Lucy. Better than John and Maureen Robinson. And better than Ward and June Cleaver!





Everything about that last Walking Dead show as far as Rick and Michonne are concerned was perfect. It's what I had been waiting for and I want to see more of that. Hopefully I will. We'll see.

The Preface to John Dunn Heart of a Zulu

As I said I would do in yesterday's blog post, I have cut and pasted the Preface to my soon to be released book John Dunn Heart of a Zulu. A Preface is supposed to pique curiosity in a potential reader. I hope it succeeds. I think it will be a couple months before the book comes out. I'll have a better idea on that when my publisher sends the new publishing schedule on Monday. So without further ado, here it is, the Preface to my upcoming book, John Dunn; Heart of a Zulu:

Preface

      It was a 1990’s documentary about the Anglo-Zulu War in which I first heard of John Dunn. I was intrigued to learn about a white man who was born in Africa, lived with the natives, and advised a Zulu king. And the more I learned, the more his fantastic story struck me like an African version of an epic tale from the American West.

      Fictitious stories of a white man living with Native Americans have been featured in Hollywood movies for years. Little Big Man, A Man Called Horse, and Dances with Wolves come to mind. Although John Dunn: Heart of a Zulu is a work of historical fiction, most of the events in the story are true, and I believe the overall storyline captures the essence of who John Dunn was and what he experienced in the years between 1856 and 1879.

      During that time period there were two Ondini kraals in Zululand. The original Ondini kraal was located near the coast at Hlalangubo. The royal kraal at Ulundi, which Cetshwayo built after his coronation, was also called Ondini. It was located within sight of Nodwengo on the Mahlabatini Plain. Because portions of the story take place in each—and to distinguish one from the other—I opted to retain the Ondini name for the original Ondini kraal near the coast and use the name Ulundi for the royal kraal on the Mahlabatini Plain.

      I used Zulu words frequently in the story, which brings me to the issue of spelling. During my research, I discovered that different literary sources contained different spelling of Zulu words and Zulu names. In fact, almost every Zulu word and Zulu name I encountered had been spelled differently in different texts, books, and online material. For this reason I included a glossary in which I listed the isiZulu nouns used in the story. I did not include proper nouns on this list. I did, however, include a separate list of the historical characters—British, Zulus, and colonists—who play important roles in the story.

      As the primary source in the writing of this story, I used John Dunn’s autobiography John Dunn, Cetywayo, and the Three Generals as edited by D. C. F. Moodie. As a secondary source, I used Cetshwayo’s notes from A Zulu King Speaks as edited by C. de B. Webb and J. B. Wright. I also referenced Zulu Rising; The Epic Story of iSandlwana and Rorke’s Drift by Ian Knight, Who’s Who in the Anglo-Zulu War 1879 Volume 1: The British and Volume 2: Colonials and Zulus by Adrian Greaves and Ian Knight, The Washing of the Spears by Donald R. Morris, Like Lions They Fought by Robert B. Edgerton, The Zulu War by Angus McBride, and Charles Ballard’s thesis on John Dunn, (courtesy of the local History Museum, Durban.)

      My objective in the writing of this book is singular: to entertain the reader. Thus, this work should not be used for research purposes or as source material for any historical information on the period or the people included therein.

No "Foreward" for Fiction - but yes to a "Preface"

You don't put a Foreward in a fiction book. I read that you can, but it's not typical. Mostly the Foreward is written for nonfiction books and by another author, meaning not the same author who wrote the book. This other author is supposed to be well known and highly regarded in whatever genre the book falls into. The well known author is supposed to have a high opinion of the book. This author, perhaps, is not even an author, but an authority in the field in which the book is written. And as such, this person believes the book is good enough to meet his or her standards and is worth the price of purchase and therefore is worth reading.

For my book John Dunn Heart of a Zulu, I don't want a Foreward. First of all, it's not a nonfiction book, so it should not have one. The alternative is a "Preface." A fiction book, particularly an Historical Fiction book should have a Preface not a Foreward. A "Preface" is something that the author of the book has written him/herself. And in this "Preface" the author writes things like why he or she wrote the book, what inspired him or her, and who might have helped him or her, so that means the acknowledgments can go in there, too.

A Preface isn't necessary, really, as it's not a required part of any book. But for Historical Fiction, I have come to believe that having a Preface is preferable to not having one. Other fiction books, like Thrillers, Suspense, Horror, Romance, etc, don't need a Preface. But Historical Fiction, in my opinion, is better if you have one. Especially if that particular Historical Fiction is based on a true story, in a true time period, involving events that are true and global, like wars and such.

Even though the Anglo-Zulu War didn't involve anyone in America, it was still "global" in the sense that it affected people on two different continents. So yes, my book John Dunn, Heart of a Zulu does have a "Preface." Since it's based on the true story of John Dunn, and involves the true events leading up to and including the Zulu War, I'd say it's global. Totally.

I will be perfecting my Preface today. Fortunately my publisher has just advised its authors that the new publishing schedule is going to be sent out this coming Monday. I replied that I had taken advantage of this extra time perfecting the manuscript. Which I am still doing. So I will let everyone reading this know when the updated schedule is in and when to expect the updated publication date of John Dunn Heart of a Zulu.

In the meantime I will be perfecting the Preface. Perhaps I will post the Preface here on the blog to give my readers a "sneak peek." It's just the Preface after all. but another purpose of the Preface is to intrigue potential readers, and make them interested in reading and buying the book. So I think I'll do it. So check it out. It should be posted on here tomorrow. Until then.

John Wick 2 - Great Movie

As the author and creator of a great "tough guy" character, (Trent Smith, the world's greatest martial artist, who appears in two books so far, Killer of Killers and Killer Eyes,) I happen to appreciate great tough guy characters in the movies, and there have been several.

Recently, I talked about how John Wick was a great character and a very good movie. John Wick 2 was even better. I said before that Keanu Reeves does not necessarily look like a tough guy. Not like Vin Diesel, Jason Statham, and Matt Damon do for their respective roles as Richard Riddick, Frank Martin, and Jason Bourne. But I also noted that being a good actor can make up for that. And Keanu Reeves is a good actor, and being such, he can play the part, and pull it off.

In the two (so far) John Wick movies, Keanu Reeves does pull it off. No, not as well as Diesel, Statham, and Damon can, but well enough. Being over six feet tall, Reeves' moves, sometimes come off as somewhat stiff. That never happens, say, for Statham, who's a natural when it comes to fighting moves. He's trained in the martial arts, and it shows on the screen. Like Jet Li, who's a martial arts champion, he's fluid in all of his fight scenes. But when it comes to being a pure tough guy, no one has a step on Vin Diesel. Matt Damon as Jason Bourne is not necessarily a natural, but he does look like the role he plays in that franchise. It works. Very well.

Perhaps what I like most about the John Wick movies is the writing. The writer has created a great character, and, for me, the John Wick character has proven worthy enough to rank up there with the great tough guy characters. They include James Bond, Conan, Captain Kirk, Frank Martin, and perhaps yes, Jason Bourne. I could be forgetting some. For instance, I've already ranked many of the old time actors as the classic tough guys. Actors which of course include Sean Connery, Burt Lancaster, John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, James Coburn, and Charles Bronson.

But beside Connery in his seven movies as Bond, and Bronson in the five Death Wish movies, those actors never really had a franchise series of movies portraying the same tough guy. The Bond movies and the Death Wish movies were the exception back in the old days instead of the rule. Nowadays, a series of movies, AKA a franchise is the rule. Diesel has three Riddick movies to date, Statham has three Transporter movies, and Damon, now has four movies as Jason Bourne!

The John Wick character with its second movie has become a franchise for Reeves. He had one franchise already with the Matrix movies. And they were good movies, but the character of Neo really wasn't a "tough" guy. He was a hero, to be sure, more like Captain Kirk was more of a hero than a tough guy in the original Star Trek TV show.

But clearly more than Neo, John Wick is a badass. And in these movies, he's a top ranking badass worthy to be placed with Riddick, Frank Martin, and Jason Bourne of the modern badassess, and James Bond, Conan, and Captain Kirk of the badasses of old. And as far as franchises go, it does appear as though there will be a third one. Because at the end of John Wick 2, it appeared that it wasn't ending. It sure seemed like a third one was set to go. And that's fine with me. Can't wait!

John Dunn manuscript better than ever

I was talking about how The Vase manuscript was better than ever. Well, my John Dunn manuscript also is better than ever. When my publisher advised its authors that its publishing schedule was behind, that might have been bad news to some of the authors. But to me, for John Dunn, it was good news. I've been using this extra time making the manuscript better than ever. And every day it's getting better. And the days keep going by, and the manuscript is better every day.

So much detail is in this book. Detail regarding places in Natal, places in Zululand, and the distances involved in traveling to those places by horseback, by carriage, barouche, and even on foot. The Zulu ran everywhere they went. With rare exceptions, they did not ride horses or ride in carriages. John Dunn of course rode a horse. He taught Dabulamanzi to ride a horse, and he took Cetshwayo with him in a barouche. And I had to get it right how much time it would take to get to different places in Natal and Zululand by horse, barouche, and on foot. I've nailed it by now.

And the prose is better. The battles are also necessary to have the detail correct. I have four battles in the book. iSandlwana, Rorke's Drift, Gingindlovu, and Ulundi. All major battles in the war. And I've made sure the details are right on.

Lastly the cover. Here's the cover.

I wish the publisher would have gone with a cover that depicted a battle scene like this:

But oh well. It's all good. Can't wait. Look for John Dunn, Heart of a Zulu coming soon.