The Attack of Fall Television

This season of television isn't even over yet (gee, thanks, CW) and I already need to do a post on the upcoming Fall season. Yikes.

If you haven't heard, Fox has already dropped some of their upcoming shows, and the list of the season in general.

Let's see some of the highlights.

THE RETURNING

Lucifer will be back in the spring. If you don't know this show already, it's really quite inoffensive ... okay, Lucifer is an arrogant hedonistic egomaniac with a chip on his shoulder the size of Plymouth Rock, and always does the right thing when he realizes that even he benefits from it, but it's like working a redemption story with the unredeemable. Next year will probably be fighting more supernatural threats -- when Lucifer refers to "mom" escaping, I presume he means Lilith, because that's the only thing that makes sense, really. At least he's more likable than House.

And that's ... the only show on Fox I care about, really. You'd have to pay me to watch Gotham.

THE NEW ... ISH

The Exorcist (Friday Nights, Fall)

Yes. Really. What the hell? No pun intended. I'm not sure what's stranger: That this is actually a series, or that Geena Davis is in it.  Yes, the mother is Geena Davis. I don't recall the film that much -- was the mother such a big role that they got movie-quality star power for it?  Or is Geena Davis not doing that well in this point of her career?

They want to make this a psychological thriller, following two priests tackling one case of demonic possession. There's Father new priest of Chicago, all shiny and new and "progressive," and probably screwed. The other is ... sigh ... "a modern-day Templar Knight, an orphan raised since childhood by the Vatican to wage war against its enemies. Father Marcus is everything Father Tomas is not: relentless, abrasive and utterly consumed by his sacred mission." While I have no problem with that, there are so many ways to spin that as a negative that I'm almost certain they're going to make him look like an utter nutcase by the end of the day.

And "it's the house"? Yeah. Sure. Thanks. I think I heard this movie was called The Amityville Horror. The original incident of The Exorcist (yes, based on a true story) had a little boy playing with occult crap that ended up playing with him.

Pros? If William Peter Blatty -- author of the original book -- is involved, this should be awesome. We should be seeing the entire process of what it takes to get an exorcism performed in this day and age. MRIs, psychologists, every expert scientist in every field should come on the show, run tests, and come up with alternate solutions for what's wrong with ... whoever this child is, I guess.

Cons: If they make this another stupid horror show like The Following or Sleepy Hollow, I'll throw rocks at the screen.

Lethal Weapon (Weds night, Fall, 2017)

All right, hold on. When I wrote that post "The Return of everything," I didn't think that I would be that predictive. Stop it already. First Rush Hour, then The Exorcist, now this?

No, seriously, was this inspired by the Rush Hour TV show? You know, "If CBS can make this crappy movie into an ok TV show, we can do it with better original material?"

While I grew up with the Lethal Weapon films, has anyone watched them recently? Sure, they almost started the genre of "opposite personality syndrome" in cops shows (I don't recall it in DragNet, The FBI Story, The Untouchables, The Naked City, or Hill Street Blues), but wow, those films do not hold up as well. Far too shallow, and far, far too superseded by movies that came after them and did it better.

But now it's Damon Wayans? Remind me, is he trying to get a career as a serious actor? Because "insane cop / bad comedian cop" doesn't sound like a show I want to see.

I'll give it a try.

This time they want to make Riggs a former Navy SEAL, and they want Murtaugh to have recently had a heart attack.

Pros: There's a lot of room for improvement on the originals.

Cons: There's also a lot they can do terribly, terribly wrong.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show.... 

Do I even need to say any more about this?

Didn't think so.

Let's move on.

Prison Break

I guess Wentwood Miller and Dominic Purcell made an impression on The Flash.

24: Legacy

I am so conflicted about this one. On the one  hand: YES, MORE 24, BWAHAHAHAHA

On the other hand ... WHERE'S MY JACK BAUER. I WANT BAUER BACK NOW DAMNIT! THERE'S NO TIME!

Anyway, again, another terrorist attack is coming to United States soil. After killing an Osama knockoff, the Rangers from the mission have been targeted by not-Osama's followers. With the help of Eowyn (Miranda Otto, “Lord of the Rings”), he's going to strike back. Here, Eowyn is "a brilliant and ambitious intelligence officer who has stepped down from her post as National Director of CTU to support her husband (Jimmy Smits) in his campaign for President of the United States."

Dear Hollyweird, while I appreciate you bringing back one of my favorite shows, could you please read a book or something and make a tv show out of that? And not for premium cable?

Cons: Our lead looks like a kid. He could be the brother of Jax from Berlanti's Arrow-verse. He's supposed to be an officer, with a wife and family? What happened to the veteran?  Oh yes, and least I forget, WHERE'S JACK BAUER? ... oh, wait, he's producing.

Pros: It's more 24, with several solid actors, even some bit players.

THE NEW: YES, REALLY

APB (Spring, 2017)

So, Tony Stark took over a police department, and he's now on his way to taking over the police department of the entire city.

Do you want to create RoboCop? Because this is how you get RoboCop.

Seriously, this feels like someone saw the 90s show The District, and just threw in Tony Stark.

However....

The executive producer is the same one from Lucifer, and the creator of Burn Notice, Matt Nix.

All right, they have my attention.

"Inspired by true events" ... huh. Okay.

Pros: This looks like insane fun. With the guys from Lucifer, Burn Notice, and Ernie Hudson.

Cons: Too many possibilities to take this into Mary Sue territory ... which they may have deflated in the last scene of the trailer, so who knows, there may be hope for this.

Philosophy, Religion, and Sex.

Dear Pope Benedict, I've been a fan of your career since you worked under John Paul II.  The press hated you because you were hostile to them, and for that I applaud you.  But you have to stop having statements come out so close together, it messes up my schedule.

Last week, I explained why the Catholic Church wanted to hire exorcists.

This week, because no one in the Vatican can shut up, I'm going to try explaining something else that was recently in the news.

The New York Times recently reported that, "Yippie, the Pope is giving in and endorsing condom use."

The old gray hag of The New York Times has, once again, gotten it wrong.  One day, they may actually try to get a theologian to explain theology to them.  Unfortunately, given most theologians, that may not help much.

Let's start at the beginning: Why does the Catholic Church have an issue with condom use?  Or any contraceptives?

It basically involves philosophy ... bare with me a minute, I'll keep it short and comprehensible ... and what is the function of "a thing."  In the case of sex, the mechanism of sex is "insert tab A into slot B."  The "function" of sex is procreation, and a darn good time, if you're doing it correctly.

Contraceptions mess with the natural function of sex by removing elements that are inherent to the act -- procreation comes with sex.  The Vatican position is, that if you mess around with it and start taking out elements, then you are messing around with things that are not yours to mess with.

If you are pondering what the Catholic church's advice is on STD prevention when you have sex with your boy/girlfriend, the Church's position is that you should be having sex with your spouse, only with your spouse, have a nice day, thank you.  Under this rubrick, STDs are not a problem, since if you only ever insert one tab A into one tab B, STDs are not an issue; pregnancy remains in effect, but in the Catholic church, marriage is a contract to have sex, have kids, and spread the spawn around the globe, carrying the faith with it.

You are currently up on previously held positions.


The NY Times said, on November 21st .....

“Pope Benedict XVI has said that condom use can be justified in some cases to help stop the spread of AIDS . . . .”

However, George Wiegel, papal biographer and general Vatican busybody, corrected the Times report.  You can find the full text online, but since that will take forever for you to read, I'm going to translate it for you, gentle reader, into something easily comprehensible.

The pope's actual statement, in context, was during an interview.  The pope mentioned how the Catholic Church runs more AIDS hospitals, and stresses "prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment."  IE: The pope pointed out that, unlike pontificating reporters, the Church actually does something,

The pope even stressed that "we cannot solve the problem [of AIDS] by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease."

The pope continued:

.... people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence–Be Faithful–Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality .... the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

Short version: sex is important, has an effect on a person, and is also for the purpose of expressing love.  Throw in a condom, and you just make it another way to drug yourself into a stupor.

The part where the NYTimes gets confused is probably in the following section:

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

When asked if "the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?"  Pope Benedict XVI answered that "She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality."

Short version: If it's someone infected with AIDS, yes, the Church would rather that they NOT KILL PEOPLE by infecting them further.

Basically, it's like robbing a bank -- if you rob a bank, the Church would rather have someone use an empty gun; it'll lessen the risk of someone getting their head blown off.

So, despite news reports, the Catholic Church's position hasn't changed.

With luck, we can all move on to something important now.

The Catholics are Doing What Now? Exorcism and the Church.

The Catholic Church is running low on exorcists. Positions are now open for new applicants. Please register at your local parish, thank you.

Don't look at me like that, I'm not joking.

Okay, maybe a little.

Seriously, the Catholic Church is running low on exorcists. If you've been near a Catholic Church lately in America, then you may have heard the daily intentions going out for “vocations,” hopefully to the priesthood … there are some parishes who would like at least ONE priest who was born within the boundaries of the United States. Me, I prefer the ones from Ireland and Vietnam, but that's just me.

There are also similar calls within the priesthood itself for vocations ... to become exorcists. Why would they be running low?

Remember that funny look that you gave me at the start of the blog entry? That's pretty much how a lot of priests look at exorcists, especially in America, where we suffer from visions of Linda Blair every time we think of exorcism.

One thing that no one remembers is that The Exorcist was based on true story. There was case of an actual possession in Georgetown. The possessed in that case was a boy, not a girl, and he stills needs therapy to this day, and no priest was harmed during the performance of that exorcism. If you look at the credits of the film, there are several real-life priests involved in the movie; several of them were involved in the original incident.

But, at this point, you're probably wondering what sort of barbaric, medieval lunatic tries an exorcism nowadays.

If you're asking that, I would actually recommend that you read the book The Exorcist. You see, with the Catholic Church, unlike some other Christian groups, you have the largest collection of skeptics ever when it comes to supernatural events. During the European witch hunts of the early Protestant Revolutions / Reformation period, the Spanish Inquisition would listen to tales of people who confessed to being witches who went flying with Satan. The Inquisition politely told them all to get lost, a variation on CW Fields' “Go away kid, ya bother me.”

More recently, trying to get miracles verified requires a small army of scientists who can confirm or deny that something is a scientific impossibility. For example, Father Stanley Jaki, PhD, physicist and Catholic priest, once wrote about the miracle of the sun dancing in the sky over Fatima (early 20th century). Jaki concluded that the effect was produced by a rare, naturally occuring phenomenon of frozen ice particles in the sky that turn into a giant convex lens; this giant lens appears to make the sun jiggle around the sky, like looking at it through a a magnifying glass. Did Jaki conclude that it was no longer a miracle? No; because it is scientifically impossible for anyone to predict such a meteorological event, to heck with three small children in the middle of Portugal.

In the case of exorcism, the book The Exorcist catalogs what the subject has to go through in order to get a Cardinal to sign off on an exorcism. The movie covers it a little, but not as much as the book does. Blisters appear on the skin? The stigmata appears on their hands? Sorry, those can be psychosomatic. Do you smell strange odors around the “possessed,” even if they've bathed, and you've lined the room with car fresheners? That could be caused by mental suggestion. Can the symptoms be caused by schizophrenia? Tourette's? Multiple personality? Thank you very much, come back when you have a problem that can't be found in the PDR, theDSM-IV, and might look more akin to something out of Ghostbusters (“...[S]he sleeps above her covers... *four feet* above her covers.”).

The Catholic Church gets about 9,000 applications for exorcism per year. If they do two, that's a lot.

Just so we can all be clear on the terms, when I say possession, I mean a case that defies all scientific explanation. I don't mean “possessions” that are “cured” by every other storefront preacher in a backwoods somewhere.

If you're an atheist, you could have an argument for saying that what appears to be possession is just a form of advanced psychosomatic disease that we haven't figured out yet. It could be a variation of Clarke's law, only this time, any sufficiently advanced biology is indistinguishable from magic. Maybe it's some variety of alien head-cold out of Doctor Who that creates mood swings and personality changes and enables the cold victim to speak in tongues, cause visions, and other things that appear to be supernatural.

However, no matter the cause of possession (or “possession” if you like), they still happen, even under the strict Catholic guidelines. And exorcisms still work— Pope John Paul II performed a few of them himself. If you're an atheist, and think that cases of possession are some extremely bizarre disease that no one has discovered the cause of yet, just look at an exorcism as a case where one human being, through sheer force of will, can help another be cured of their affliction.

And if you're a believer, I promise you, the Vatican is not going crazy … well, not anymore than usual. I'm a member, so someone has to have a screw loose somewhere.