America, odd ya see

A female special forces soldier witnesses her squad murdered in North Africa by an evil private security firm hired by an even more evil American corporate cabal.

That’s the back story for a new program called American Odyssey.

She sounds like a character that regular folks will be able to relate to doesn’t she? And those of us who work for anything larger than a sole proprietorship can wipe off the festering gelatinous remnants from the last marinade and wait to have this new self effacing sauce brushed on.

Sundays at 10/9C

 

 

 

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “America, odd ya see

  1. Ugh, saw an ad for that in which the female supersoldier is attempting to break out of where she’s being held in order to battle her way back to her husband and child. The fact that a thing like that has probably never happened in the whole of human history is no reason why we shouldn’t pretend that it’s plausible, right? What’s wrong with a little make-believe now and then?

  2. I have a very strong disregard for the BS known as patriotism. We have 3,000 an d 5,000 miles of water on 2 borders and dependent neighbors on our North and South. We need a robust militia, which would include a full time air wing, a missile defense shield and a naval picket line in mid ocean. That’s it. Anything else is aggressive and is working for Wall Street.
    I agree with the implausibility of the above story line but in 1755 there was a woman named Mary Draper Ingles… (Not Laura Ingles) The book of her tale is called “Down The River.” I highly recommend it to anyone who likes adventure and pioneer history. Or anyone, like me, who thinks women are capable of exponentially more than they currently calling their “upper limit.”

  3. @Eidolon, I get it. All women are whores who hate their families.

    Well, if that’s true, then I guess all men are rapists … who like their families???

    You overly cynical misogynistic a-holes probably pick bad women because you are bad men. Birds of a feather flock together.

  4. So essentially, you believe that women are forced into their roles, despite all the freedom in the world to do what they please. Literally nothing is forcing your imaginary woman into the horrible, life-draining situation in which she finds herself (by no fault of her own, of course). In scenario #1, she could say “no thanks” and walk away; in scenario #2 she could call the cops; in scenario #3 she could say no. Thus your assertion is that women are so weak they cannot even serve their own interests properly.

    If that were the case, would the noble thing not be to serve those interests for her? Perhaps, to create a system wherein women are protected and their rights looked out for by men, who are able to pursue the interests of their female relatives (since you have just asserted that women are unable to serve their own)? This system perhaps would involve fathers looking out for their daughters primarily, as fathers would be the most invested and knowledgeable about their daughters. You might call such a man a…patriarch.

  5. I get it. All women are whores who hate their families

    You are an idiot, and you are now blocked from posting. I have no issue with strong disagreement. I cannot suffer nonsense at the lowest level.

  6. You are an idiot, and you are now blocked from posting.

    Insanitybytes22/GG/yttik posting under a new handle? The M.O. definitely matches…

  7. Maybe this is just another turn of the wheel of the Laura Croft fantasy / syndrome? The 2nd stage “men and women are exactly the same except for babies and boobs” myth, pushed more explicitly? The writer of this drek are for sure millennials under 30, because that’s pretty much standard, but who produces it? Who vets scripts? Some aging Boomer most likely, saturated with GrrlPowr to the gills.

    It’s propaganda, really – “this is how things SHOULD be for women” – and any disagreement will be branded as mysogyny, hatespeech, etc.

    I read somewhere that off air TV viewing is a thing for people over 50 (that’s the average age). Can’t help but wonder how long this series will last, because the average aging Boomer is not really the target market for such a show.

    I quit viewing prime time network TV in the 80’s. The millennials approach (netflix and other on-demand services) makes more sense than arranging my life around a TV schedule. Besides that way I miss the adverts, and promos for crap like this.

  8. Americans seem to have a reflexive need to self-destruct. It’s like we’re the only people who want to punish achievement and reward failure.

  9. @Eric:

    Well, there’s also Europe.

    Does anyone else feel like there was some transition point in the past where the makers of movies and TV went from attempting to reflect reality to attempting to create it? I suppose it’s a continuum, not a flipped switch, but it seems like films in the past were interested in reflecting (perhaps an idealized) reality, the people as they are, our society as it is, whereas now they’re interested in telling us how it should be and how we should feel about it.

    For example, you go from, say, I Love Lucy to Modern Family. In the former the foibles of humans we can recognize are seen. Obviously the wife is sillier than a real wife would be, but we can see aspects of real marriages and real people we know in the characters. It isn’t trying to make the point that the husband is the more responsible one, though we see it. It isn’t trying to make the point that she ought to listen to him more, though it does. It simply shows us a silly version of life as we know it. As far as I can tell it has no agenda.

    On the other hand, Modern Family depicts its gay characters as they emphatically are not; they don’t reflect the reality of gay men, because the reality would be unappealing, and therefore must be suppressed. An elaborate fantasy of gay male couples being almost exactly like normal middle-class married couples is constructed, despite the reality being nothing like that. But that’s what it has to be to influence people, to sway them, to make them think what they ought to think, so that’s what is put on the screen.

    It reminds me of C.S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Men, where he discusses the difference between classical and modern education. The former was intended to transmit the culture of the older generation to the younger, to share common humanity with them; Lewis describes this as older birds teaching younger birds to fly. The latter is propaganda intended to create a certain sort of person with specific beliefs, using tactics that the teacher may himself recognize as false or misleading but which creates the intended result (for the teacher, not the student); he describes this as the chicken farmer raising his chickens a certain way. I think our movies and TV shows have made this transition as well as our education. Perhaps it’s inevitable that one would follow the other.

  10. Eidolon:
    The media’s always engaged in fantasy to some extent, but yes—the 1970s or so the media elites decided to add social engineering to their repertoire.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s