The Vicious Cycle Keeps On Turnin'

If you had asked me over the weekend when the Miss USA Pageant was, I wouldn't have been able to answer your question.  Turns out it was just last night, and I knew this for two reasons:

1.) People were talking about Miss Utah on Facebook;

and

2.) There's a video clip of her answer to a question that has quickly become very popular for all the wrong reasons.

If you haven't seen it yet, take a look below:

Some of you may hate me for posting a video of such stupidity, and for that I'm sorry.  But I had to say a little bit about this video, and get into the bigger picture for a bit.

The first thing that came to my mind once I had seen this video was the notorious clip of Miss Teen South Carolina from a couple years ago.  Even when that video became an internet sensation, my reaction was the same to this clip:

Why do we still have these beauty pageants?

I'm asking that as a genuine question hoping to find a real response.  Do the networks and sponsors still really make enough money off this crap?  Is that why we're subjected to these offensive and fairly misogynistic shows?  Twenty years ago they were sort of relevant, but now they're just fodder for the entertainment world.  Who really cares about who "wins" these contests?  They're nothing but free advertising for makeup and clothing brands.  Nothing is really at stake.

Part of me even feels bad for the contestants in these pageants.  I only pity them to a certain degree, considering the kinds of answers we get to questions in the interview round.  They're clearly programmed to use fire words like education, jobs, America, and gender roles.  They babble on for a minute or two using those words thinking that will lead them to getting votes from the judges.

Just who are these judges at these pageants anyway?  What kinds of qualifications do they have to adequately judge these contestants?  As much as I hate ice skating at the Winter Olympics for being roughly equivalent to these beauty pageants, I can expect that many of the judges in that event are former ice skaters.  They know the skills involved in all the moves an Olympic skater needs to perform, so they have some qualifications.

But this lady who asked Miss Utah.....who the hell is she and why should I care?  How is she more qualified than anyone else to judge these pageants?

There's a bigger problem here with these pageants that I don't think most people stop to consider.  That problem is the parents of these contestants.  These women are very likely competing in beauty pageants of some kind from the time they're in kindergarten, and I can't imagine many of them dream from that moment they want to follow this course for their lives.  What's disturbing is the kind of lengths they'll go to in order to get their kids involved in a beauty pageant, and this clip from the movie Bruno will make my point for me:

That clip was one of two parts of Bruno that I found to be funny, but this was funny for all sorts of horrifying reasons.  These parents don't care about what they have to agree to in order for their kids to get into show business, and the joke is clearly on them for being so dumb that they'd allow their kids to be involved with heavy machinery, live animals, and other dangers so the kids would have a chance at a big break.  The social implications of this clip show what kinds of families many of these beauty pageant contestants could have possibly grown up in.  I'm not going to surmise that the majority of contestants follow this pattern, but I think it'd be naive to assume that all of them got started because of their own desires.  The parents want to live vicariously through their children's careers, and the vicious cycle perpetuates itself.

I guess I answered my own question from earlier as to why we still have beauty pageants.  Designer makeup and clothing brands will always market themselves, but the big driving force is having parents who want their kids to be the most beautiful one in town.  There's nothing wrong for parents to take some pride in the accomplishments of their child or children, but it's the crazy ones who push their kids into career paths such as Miss USA that keep this garbage coming back.

Unfortunately the reality is that as long as these pageants are still on TV, we're bound to get more nonsense responses like Miss Utah's or Miss Teen South Carolina's.  I can only go on ignoring useless TV programs like these, but I sincerely hope that no one I know turns out to be like the parents in Bruno.

It's Past Time For Pat Robertson to Retire

When I was 8 years old, my dad and I went to a live taping of The 700 Club.  It's a Christian-based television show, most well-known for its host Pat Robertson.  I had a lot of respect for him during my childhood because of his notoriety, but as I got older I paid less and less attention to him.

To this day Robertson still tapes episodes of The 700 Club at the age of 83.  Frankly I'm surprised he's still chugging along and able to keep up with the hectic demands of such a schedule, but he somehow is able to push himself.  Over the last few years he's had his share of moments where he's shown signs of losing touch with the rest of society, like when he claimed Twilight was demonic in nature.

Before I get to my point - and you may already know where this is going ultimately - I have a few words regarding his thoughts on Twilight.  First, I think Twilight is insipidly stupid and immature in nature.  I may not be part of the target audience, but when you strip away all the supernatural elements of the series, it boils down to a childish love triangle where a teenage girl manipulates two guys into falling in love with her.  It's just really, really dumb.

Anyway, just because Twilight features vampires and werewolves does not automatically translate to it being demonic, which Robertson claimed it did.  He sounded like a man who had no knowledge of what Twilight was at all except that it involved vampires and werewolves.  His position fit completely within the stereotype of Christians being out of touch with what goes on in modern media today.

As minor as those comments were, they would be dumb enough.  But no, Pat Robertson chose to open his mouth once again to another viewer question last week.  A woman found out her husband had been having an affair and asked Robertson what she should do in terms of choosing between forgiving him and taking him back, or walking away completely.

I've known many women who have had to deal with infidelity in their past relationships, both married women and unmarried women.  It's heartbreaking regardless of whether there's a ring on the finger or not, and it's also something that I personally would have a difficult time with accepting it and forgiving my girlfriend if she ever cheated on me.  My position has always been that cheating would be an absolute deal breaker, but that's an easy thing to say and much more difficult choice to simply walk away.

The key is the underlying point that Robertson said in his response to the question: He said it's on the woman's shoulders to make the relationship so wonderful and happy, that the man would never think to cheat on her.  Exactly how is that fair to a woman in a relationship?  In such a slanted situation, the man would essentially have the right to dominate the relationship and put minimal effort in making his wife happy because he's so susceptible to outside influences.  

I'm absolutely horrified at the implications of his response.  No relationship - married or otherwise - should depend solely on the efforts of the woman to make her man happy.  That's insulting to both men and woman on far too many levels to talk about here.  Men apparently are incapable of resisting temptation in his mind, so we're reduced to a bunch of horny cavemen, leaving women to bear the responsibilities of homemaker, mother, cook, baker, cleaner, and lover.  

I also find it shockingly disturbing that Robertson's female co-host didn't jump in at any moment to point out the lunacy of his remarks.  If she thought he was nuts for making such statements, why didn't she speak up and be his counterpoint?  Her blood had to be boiling at the notion that Robertson expected her to be a human welcome mat for the man in her life.  Unless she had been brainwashed into buying into Robertson's ideas, she had to have been biting her tongue to prevent herself from jumping in the conversation.

There's also the question of why the viewer even asked Robertson in the first place.  Why not find a Christian marriage counselor close to home to advise her?  How could a one minute answer from Pat Robertson possibly address this woman's issues and needs adequately?  For that matter, why not advise her to seek out a Christian marriage counselor in her area?  Her original question was not so much about how to prevent her husband from cheating on her, but to decide on whether she should even take him back in the first place.  Robertson didn't even properly answer her question.

Many non-Christian friends of mine love to cite cases like Pat Robertson as reasons why they don't like evangelical Christians on the whole.  I don't blame them.  I don't like being associated even tangentially with the likes of Robertson, Jerry Falwell (even though he's been deceased for several years), or Ted Haggard because of the arrogant and sometimes hypocritical statements they make.  The sad reality is they have millions of followers nationwide who have watched them and read their books over the course of decades, and their followers will in many cases follow them blindly.

Of course, maybe it's the fault of the sheep who follow misguided (or worse) talking heads who offer the kind of offensive "advice" that Robertson gives.  They don't stop to think about how or why Pat Robertson (or someone similar to him) is even relevant now.  I don't doubt that Robertson has some great insight when it comes to marriage, considering he's been with his wife for nearly 60 years.  He has worked on staying in the limelight for much longer than he should have been, and he should have walked away into retirement years ago.

Review: Iron Man 3

I had very high hopes for Iron Man 3, considering Marvel brought in Shane Black (Lethal Weapon, The Long Kiss Goodnight) to write and direct the film.  I also had hoped for a more stand-alone story this time around, considering Marvel's Phase One had wrapped up with last year's The Avengers, leaving the main characters to be on their own for their next adventures before Avengers 2 arrives in 2015.

Let me also say for the record that I was completely disappointed with Iron Man 2.  I thought the story had little to no focus and the dialogue felt almost completely ad-libbed from start to finish.  The entire movie was deliberately designed to set the stage for The Avengers with introducing Black Widow and the rest of S.H.I.E.L.D., leaving very little for actual Iron Man action (save the finale).

Having said all that, Iron Man 3 is quite an enigma.  There's a lot that I loved about the movie, but there's a crucial story element that really annoyed me.  Unfortunately that means spoiling a major plot twist in the movie later in this review, so be warned.

The film opens in 1999 on New Year's Eve.  Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) is partying it up, and during the course of the evening, he meets Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce, looking like Val Kilmer in The Doors).  Killian has a crazy idea that catches Stark's interest, but Tony blows him off in typical Tony fashion.

Fast forward to present day.  Tony is still dealing with the toll of The Avengers, finding himself unable to sleep at night.  His only venue to distract himself is to continue building more suits while his girlfriend Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow) runs Stark Enterprises.  When the U.S. finds itself under attack from a series of terrorist bombings by a man who calls himself The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), Tony wants in on the action.

Tony finds himself on his own midway through the film, with no gadgets or backup to help him.  This is arguably the best stuff in the film, even superior to the action sequences (which are impressive themselves).  Tony has been shown to be incredibly resourceful and intelligent, which hasn't really been since the first Iron Man.  Here, he's got real detective work to do in finding the Mandarin and piecing together the clues he finds along the way.  There's a funny scene of him running through a Home Depot and filling his shopping carts with all sorts of random items that he eventually uses to break into the Mandarin's hideout.  He's a 21st century MacGyver.

Speaking of that break-in, that brings me to the major plot twist in the film that really annoyed me.  If you haven't already seen the film and don't want to be spoiled, skip ahead a bit to avoid what I'm about to discuss.

***SPOILER ALERT***

Eventually Tony finds out that the Mandarin isn't a real guy at all.  He's a persona, a phony character created by the real villain of the film, Killian.  Killian wanted to create the Mandarin as a face for the U.S. to hunt down as a distraction so he can further his own agenda.  There are two major flaws with this twist, one from the source comic book material and the other being from the first Iron Man film.

I'm only vaguely familiar with the comic book, but I know enough about it to know the Mandarin is Iron Man's arch nemesis, much like the Joker is to Batman.  I don't normally mind changes from source material to film, but this idea really undermines the nature of the character.  The first half of the film is stellar in how the Mandarin sets up one attack after another, and such a change undermines all the tension and build up that came before it.  I normally like having the rug pulled out under me with a great plot twist, but this one doesn't fit with the rest of the film.

Second, this twist doesn't make sense when taking into the first Iron Man into account.  When Tony was kidnapped and ordered to build a Jericho missile for a terrorist group, those men were part of the Ten Rings.  The Ten Rings were sworn followers of the Mandarin.  All the bad guys in Iron Man 3 were Killian's henchmen, so unless the Ten Rings from the first film also worked for Killian (which might actually make some sense, given Killian's rivalry with Tony), the connection doesn't work.

***END SPOILER ALERT***

In spite of the plot twist failure, the first half of the film is really excellent, and there's a much stronger story being told here than Iron Man 2.  Shane Black also understands the concept of maximizing excitement from a few action sequences.  An Iron Man movie doesn't need nonstop action, only three or four big sequences to show off the suits.  There's also a good amount of comedy to break the tension of the film, which is to be expected from a Shane Black script.  Overall, I'd say this is a big step up from Iron Man 2, but not quite as good as the first Iron Man.

Thoughts on the Boston Marathon Bombing

I was going to write a post about my moving into my new place this past weekend and how I'm still unpacking and organizing everything, and probably even talk about how I'm already getting along with my new roommates really well too, but yesterday's events suddenly made me feel like writing about my move was borderline offensive to those affected by the bombings in Boston.

The news broke as people in my office started chatting about it yesterday, so I went online to find news reports about it.  The only details released at first were that an explosion of some kind happened, and there were some injuries.  Of course that sounded awful, but my first question was whether the nature of the explosion was an accident of some kind, like a gas line blowing, or was it more of a bomb?  Also, were the injuries scrapes and bruises with some broken bones, or more serious than that?

I quickly got my answers.

I haven't watched the video recordings from people's cell phones or cameras at all.  I don't want to see them.  I saw enough panic and screaming in the videos taken on 9/11, and when reports came out of people's feet and/or legs being amputated, I decided images like those weren't ones I'd want to see.

The more details that are released paint a clearer picture of how deliberate this operation was.  CNN reported that people with injuries treated at area hospitals were having shards of metal, ball bearings, and other small debris removed from their bodies, indicating the bombs were packed with such pieces in them in order to inflict maximum damage in the victims.  I watched CNN as I unpacked my clothes and other belongings last night, and at least one guest with an extensive background in security and counter-terrorism said the bombing had all the tell tale signs of a terrorist event.  Obviously since the investigation was only just beginning, any formal labeling of a terrorist attack would be irresponsible.

As sickening and horrifying as all these reports are, the worst is arguably the story surrounding one of the three confirmed fatalities in the bombing.  Martin Richard was 8 years old, and he was at the marathon with his mother and younger sister waiting for his dad who was one of the runners in the race.  Martin was killed in the blast, his sister lost her leg, and their mother suffered a brain injury.  How does a man approaching the end of the Boston marathon handle watching his family smile and wave at him as he's closing in on finishing the race, and then watch an explosion take out his entire family?  I'm not sure I can think of something more horrific than that.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have Joe Andruzzi.  Joe Andruzzi is a former NFL lineman, who most notably played for the Patriots during their Super Bowl dynasty during the first half of the previous decade.  Andruzzi is a native New Yorker, whose three brothers are all NYC firefighters and rescued trapped civilians in the World Trade Center (all three brothers are still active firefighters to this day).  Andruzzi quickly became a bit of a spokesman who actively raised money for charity for families who lost loved ones at 9/11, but almost more importantly also started the Joe Andruzzi Foundation which works towards fighting pediatric brain cancer.  Andruzzi started the foundation after he himself beat cancer and met kids who dealt with inoperable forms of brain cancer in hospitals.

If all that didn't make you a complete Joe Andruzzi fan, keep reading.

One of the ways Andruzzi raises money for his foundation is by putting together a team of runners every year in the Boston marathon.  He attends the race every year himself too, and yesterday was no different.  After the blast, he found a woman who was injured, so he did the only thing he could do: he picked her up and carried her to receive medical attention.

Picture for a moment how much better of a world we'd be living in if there were more people like Joe Andruzzi.  Labeling someone a hero is a very overused practice nowadays, especially in the world of sports and entertainment.  True heroes are the people like Joe Andruzzi, who don't even think what they're doing is beyond anything than what should be considered common decency.  He doesn't want any kind of special recognition for his actions either.  He's very much a modern day Superman, and hardly anyone knows about his heroic deeds.  If not for his immense size, he probably wouldn't even draw much attention walking down the street.

Thank God for people like Joe Andruzzi though.  It's his actions and resolve that give hope to others immediately around him, and inspire the rest of us.  Every great tragedy has one small glimmer of hope and light, and yesterday he was that light.

Today brought another beacon of light following the bombing.  Newly-signed Patriots wide receiver Danny Amendola posted on Twitter he'd donate $100 for every catch he makes next season towards any Boston Marathon Relief Fund, and another $200 per dropped ball he makes.  Now that's class.

This was one of the harder blog posts I've had to write in a while, but I have a little more hope for humanity again after yesterday's horror.  The upside to any tragedy is that there's the chance for the best in generosity, courage, and selflessness in the aftermath.  Just as it was following 9/11 and the Newtown shooting, the best in us still shines through even now.

Requiem

During my high school years, I became fascinated with the filmmaking process.  I think I drove more than a few friends nuts with how much I had talked about movies, and which ones I had wanted to see or already seen.  I made a point to watch as many critic reviews shows to see which movies were supposed to be good, and which ones were disappointing and/or flat out awful.

One of the first movie critic shows I watched every week was Siskel & Ebert, which was arguably the most popular of all the critics' shows out there, and certainly the most iconic.  They had their individual tastes, but their friendship and chemistry showed through every week.  I never had a preference for one versus the other, though I got the sense Ebert knew when to stop taking summer blockbusters seriously more often than Siskel did.

When Gene Siskel had passed away in 1999, there was a great void in the world of movie critics.  Ebert eventually found a new partner in Richard Roeper every week on his show, and even though they were clearly friends as well, things weren't quite the same once the pair had permanently broken up.  I still watched the show as Ebert & Roeper, though not nearly with as much dedication as I did during those first few years.

Word eventually came out that Ebert had to leave his show after being diagnosed with cancer, and eventually had surgery on his jaw to remove the cancerous cells.  He wasn't able to speak at all after his surgery, though he still regularly posted his reviews on his website.  His style of humor was still as present as it was before his surgery, so I enjoyed reading his reviews of everything from superhero movies to small indie favorites.

However last week he posted an update that due to health issues he would no longer be able to post reviews on his website on a regular basis anymore.  He intended to continue posting on his blog news about his cancer and statuses on his health, until he sadly passed away only days after posting his final update.  He is survived by his wife, two stepchildren, and several grandchildren.

Roger Ebert was an inspiration to me in doing my own movie reviews, many of which I've posted on this blog.  I'll never be able to capture the nuances or subtle cues added in most films the way he did during his career, though that doesn't mean I won't keep doing them.  I certainly have learned a lot about directing styles, writing, inconsistent plots and/or characters, and editing through his works.  I still have one of his most well-known books that I enjoy reading to this day: "I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie!"  I've used that book as a model for how to write reviews, especially of movies that I didn't like.

There have been plenty of films that Ebert hated that I still enjoyed, and vice versa.  I've often wondered what purpose critics really serve nowadays with social media taking the place of many well-known movie critics.  With the likes of Gene Siskel, Joel Siegel, and now Roger Ebert gone, there aren't too many critics the mass public can easily recognize anymore.  Studios used to take brief quotes from some big name critics to help promote their releases, but there aren't too many critics the public really take seriously now.  I stopped relying on most of them a long time ago too, and the reviews I post on my blog are mostly for my own purpose.

Still, I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge someone who was a major influence on film critics and journalism in general.  Thumbs up, Roger.

2013 MLB Predictions Sure to Go Wrong

I am switching up my preseason predictions for baseball this year.  Normally I just pick divisional winners, World Series champs, and major award winners.  This time I'm changing things up to match the theme I use for my NFL season predictions, so here we go....

1. The Yankees and Red Sox will both fail to make the playoffs.  Many baseball talking heads on TV seem to think the Red Sox will be much improved this season.  Admittedly, they can't be much worse than they were last season, and they certainly had no choice but to fire Bobby Valentine for the job he did (or rather, didn't do).  But how exactly has the team improved?  They have no power bats in their lineup now that Adrian Gonzalez is long gone, their starting pitching is slightly above average, and their speed is average. How are they going to even finish above .500, much less make a playoff run?

As for the Yankees, there's a real chance that Mark Teixeira and Alex Rodriguez could miss most, if not all, of the upcoming season.  Curtis Granderson is also out until nearly Memorial Day, which leaves Robinson Cano as the only power in their lineup.  That's anything but intimidating.

2. Mike Trout will come back to Earth.  Mike Trout's rookie season was one for the history books.  I have no doubt he will be an elite player for his career long term, but I would be shocked if he kept up the same pace he had set last year.  He's the consensus #1 overall pick for fantasy baseball, but I don't see how he could put up the kinds of numbers this year that he did last year.  Pitchers and catchers will figure him out, and he'll face a learning curve this season.

3. The Pirates will finally have a winning season.  The Pirates gave their fans something to cheer about for the first time in 20 years last year, looking destined to contend for the divisional title.  They tapered off in August and September, but they have a good core of young players, led by Andrew McCutchen.  I don't know if they'll make a playoff run this year, but Gerritt Cole will anchor their pitching staff by season's end and for the foreseeable future.

4.  The Tigers' margin of victory in the AL Central will be the widest of all divisional winners.  The Tigers somehow managed to underachieve most of the season, until a late push edged out the White Sox and resulted in them winning the division.  I don't think winning the Central will be a cake walk necessarily, but given how almost every other division has at least two teams who could realistically win the division, I don't see any other division winner with a wider margin of victory than the Tigers.  The White Sox and Indians will both be good, and the Royals might actually be ready to compete more, but I expect the Tigers to still win the division by at least 5 games over the next team in line.

5.  At least three teams will lose over 100 games.  Miami, Houston, and Minnesota will all field the equivalent of Triple-A teams this year.  They're all deep into rebuilding mode, and are a long way off from contending again.  Miami fans in particular have a reason to be upset since the team had been so aggressive in spending money in the off-season a year ago.  Now the only notable player the Marlins have left is Giancarlo Stanton, and I wouldn't blame him if he wanted out too.

6.  The Braves' outfielders will combine for over 90 home runs.  The Braves' trio of Jason Heyward and the Upton brothers is the best overall outfield I can recall in memory.  I'm really pressed to think of a trio of teammates with a better combination of power and speed than those three guys, and if anyone can think of a better group of outfielders on the same team, please tell me.

7.  The Rangers will not finish any higher than third in the AL West.  The Rangers are by no means a bad team, but they have to compete with the Angels (who have too much power and pitching to underachieve yet again) and the A's (who played with house money for most of last year, but aren't going to fall backward).  The Mariners are better too, and could end up in a dogfight with the Rangers for third place in their division.

8.  Stephen Strasburg and Jered Weaver will win the Cy Young Award.  Strasburg is going to play this season with a chip on his shoulder, given how the Nationals stuck to their guns about shutting him down after pitching 160 innings last year.  This time, he will be Strasburg Unchained, and he is going to dominate opposing lineups.  Meanwhile, Weaver has consistently quietly put together one good season after another, and this year he will have too good of a lineup to give him run support to go along with his strikeout numbers.

9.  Matt Kemp and Jose Bautista will win the league MVPs.  There are a number of similarities between these two guys.  Both had injuries cut their 2012 seasons short, and I expect both to bounce back in 2013 in big ways.  They could both lead their individual leagues in home runs, and I expect them both to lead their respective teams into the playoffs come October.

10.  The Reds will defeat the Angels in the World Series in 7 games.  I normally don't get more than 3 predictions correct per season in this format, but if this prediction comes true I think we could get one of the greatest World Series ever.  It would almost certainly be the best World Series so far in the 21st century, and there would be plenty of story lines for the average baseball fan to enjoy.

Review: The Bible

My title is slightly misleading.  I'm not going to review the actual Bible; my ego isn't that inflated.  I also don't think it's a good idea to take on The Almighty and tell Him what parts of His book worked and what didn't work so well.

I'm talking about the History Channel's miniseries The Bible.  It's a five-part miniseries, and as of this writing three of the five parts have aired.  So far the series has been very impressive from a technical standpoint.  The cinematography, music, special effects, and overall production values are excellent.  The acting has been solid as well, which isn't easy when spouting off lines about God and spirituality.  Many religiously-based films I've seen in the past have come off somewhat hokey, in my opinion, when bringing in spirituality in the mix.  Here, the writing has been at least decent, and in many cases very mature.

The series so far has not been nearly as family-friendly as previous Biblical epics have been (The Passion of the Christ notwithstanding).  Most of the biblically-based films made to date have been about either the teachings of Jesus, or centered around a single character from the Bible.  Here, the story starts off with creation, and jumps forward in time periodically to cover some of the most well-known stories throughout the entire Bible.

Like I said, the special effects are first-rate.  Moses parting the Red Sea and leading the Jews to freedom from the Egyptians was one of the most exciting sequences so far.  Last night's episode featured Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego being set afire by King Nebuchadnezzar, and the CGI fire was extremely well-done.  I don't know for certain what the budget for the miniseries is, but it has to be along the lines of what some major Hollywood productions have been.

I mentioned how this isn't as family-friendly as other previous Biblical productions have been.  The violence in this series is borderline R-rated, filled with copious amounts of blood, brutality, and whipping.  Since this is cable television, I'm not saying it's anything close to the whipping scene in The Passion of the Christ (I could only watch about half that scene before I finally had to tilt my head down and wait for it to end), but it's certainly a far cry from the traditional Jesus of Nazareth miniseries that shows up on television every Easter.

I should mention that I'd glad and grateful that A&E chose to include the violence in this series.  One thing that has always upset me about many Christians today is their aversion to violence, even in The Passion of the Christ.  I've found it to be quite hypocritical to talk about Jesus being whipped and beaten by the Romans, leading to his crucifixion to die for the sins of mankind, but turn right around and never want to watch the actual brutality.  I won't spend too much time on my soap box about this subject since that's better saved for another blog post, but I will say I hope Christians do tune in to this miniseries and realize the violent stories contained in the Bible aren't just fun stories to share and inspire others.

If there is a complaint I have about this series, I would have to say I'm disappointed at the omission of several important figures and stories from the Old Testament.  There were plenty of great stories included, such as Abraham, Moses, David, and Samson, but the likes of Job, Jonah, and Joseph were all notably missed.  I'm sure they were left out for time reasons, considering this is a 10-hour miniseries.  Had there been twice the amount of time than what was provided, those figures who were left out could have very likely been added back in.

Part three ended with Jesus recruiting Peter to aid him in his quest to become "fishers of men."  I have to assume part four will be all about Jesus and his teachings, leading up to his crucifixion and resurrection.  The final part will probably be about the Apostles and Paul's writings, concluding with what is projected to happen when the End Times arrive.

Overall I'm very happy with the production, and I'm thrilled it's gotten great ratings so far.  If you haven't checked it out yet, the episodes that have aired so far are likely available on demand, and each 2-hour episode flows by very quickly.  I'd highly recommend checking it out.