I thought I'd do a second annual TV.com "year in review" - lots of stuff has happened on the site since the odometer rolled over from 2007 - and...well...I did one last year.

1. The Ban Hammer Following lots of trouble with spam blogs and threads in anime forums veering into thousands of posts of nonsense and subsequent bannings of users, danmod himself started a thread in the "Avatar: The Last Airbender" Forum inviting anyone who had a problem to speak up. Thousands of posts later, the furor died down and the problem seems to have lessened. Ironically, the "instant message" feature of the new TV.com hompage seems to invite just as much spam with thoughtful postings like "yes", "sucks", or "the new TV.com blows".

2. 2008's Level Snafu Earlier in the year, developers added a half-baked new calculation formula that caused lower level users to leap multiple levels in one day simply by making a few forum posts. Higher level users got much smaller "automatic increases" and a great cry was heard across the land. It was fixed within a week but the odd numbers couldn't be removed. Strangely, despite the September "redesign" - the level system was fairly stable in 2008, only going south again this last week and a half of the old year.

3. The New Look aka "We Asked For It" Obviously, this was the biggie and one that bothered me less than most of the vocal users. I never thought CBS would pay millions and millions for CNET just to keep everything the same but other people disagree. Objections fall into about four camps - those that think old bugs should have been fixed first (unrealistic to my mind, CBS wants to see something faster than that - and they paid the money), those that have trouble reading the site (I guess I can agree there, while it's OK to my almost 48 year old bifocaled eyes, others seem much more bothered), the changes to blog structure (less blogs visible, fewer "creative" options in blogs, etc.), and those that hate change or large corporations in general. Whatever I think about any of the changes, I really am disappointed in those who are calling the community managers names for not responding to every feedback post personally or just go off on "staff" in general. These folk are not high on the CNET foodchain and presumably chose to keep their jobs and make the best of introducing the changes. Sure - dan, Jaxie, and nilla could take on top management at CBS/CNET - but it would only end up in them being canned. They don't even supervise the website developers, much less CNET department directors and CBS Vice Presidents.. What did bother me about the whole affair was that new database bugs were introduced, I find that technically pretty inexcusable as re-skinning a site or adding new media fields shouldn't have any impact on already existing functions. I never could understand why beta testing isn't done on TV.com, but this was true before September. If I have a criticism of community staff - it's with the language they use to first announce changes, i.e the "we listened and responded" lines that are pretty ludicrous.

4. The Ghost Town It's easy to see the falling numbers of site visitors to TV.com by looking at data from Alexa.com. These numbers are interesting but the nose dive had begun before the redesign. The numbers for imdb and TV viewing stats in general have suffered identical decreases. Frankly, the Presidential election in the US and the nosediving economy are probably big factors. Even 1,000 long-time users leaving in one week and never coming back wouldn't explain the decline in site visitors that has been happening since March 2008. Probably all these things are in play, and there is no doubt that the site is really dead these last few months. I wonder if Mad_Buck will ever return to deride watchers of "Buffy" and "Charmed" or those who name actors in "Lost" as "all-time greats"?

5. New Horizons Despite all the negative reactions to TV.com lately, it is kind of interesting to see the site venture into new and uncharted waters. It might not work, but it sort of fits the theme of the new year. Have a good one, all.

Since I love movies and I love history, I thought I would revisit three silent screen blockbusters from the 1910s, watching them back-to-back to get a sense of comparison. While people dismiss silent movies, they are such a different genre that they deserve to be seen as representing something unique. The list of "big spectacles" included the obvious - Pastrone's 1914 Italian classic "Cabiria" and D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" and "Intolerance". It took a long weekend to do it, these movies are all three hours in length.

"Cabiria" (1914)
A fascinating movie, supposedly the first great blockbuster and an influence on Griffith's work. Grand sets and lots of extras are certainly apparent, some of the sets are highly stylized. The special effects miniatures of the volcano Etna are quite good.

What is not quite there in this movie is the storytelling technique itself. The Roman patrician and his muscular slave perform rescues and dering-do much in the style of Victorian theater - hugely melodramatic tales of tragedy averted and often stacked one on top of the other like a serial. Pastrone also reveals WAY too much in his title cards, the audience often waits to see if the scene is going to be as exciting as what is written. The actors don't make characters here, the tale of Rome and Carthage gets no personalization.

Still, a grand and important film in the evolution of narrative movies.

"Birth of a Nation" (1915)
It's really hard to separate the message from the film here, the racist images ARE all over the second half of this movie, the idea of believing the idea of the Ku Klux Klan as white knights of justice riding to the rescue was pretty hard for even many 1915 audiences to accept.

But as a movie it works where few had before and many haven't since. Griffith expertly uses narrative device, supplying great Civil War battlefield scenes and little clues to upcoming conflict (I really like the little interlude where a cat is dropped on a puppy early in the film). Contrasting with earlier movies, the characters have real meaning, more complicated motivations, and integrate into the story. The storyline would work on many levels if not for the unfortunate use of races of people to represent good and evil.

And that's a big deal. Still, I find it the best film made in the silent era and would recommend watching it just to see the cinematography and technique.

"Intolerance" (1916)
The film features all of D.W. Griffith's pioneering trademarks, moving cameras, big sets, intercutting, surprising little vignettes (again, some with animals), and in many ways, Griffith has better mastered how long an audience is willing to stay with a scene in a silent context - not overstaying his welcome so much as in "Birth of a Nation". Even in cases where the director clobbers the viewer over the head with his message of human vanity and hypocrisy - though not always "intolerance". The actors' excellent use of eye expressions neatly tie together the "sameness" of human actions throughout history, as does the lonely rocking of the child to represent the passing of generations.

In many ways, Griffith's increased facility is thrown away as the story here is too big for the format. As questionable as "Birth of a Nation" is, it is more coherent and doesn't veer out of focus. EVERYONE here is a paradigm, a symbol - there is much less to grab onto in the sense of characterization. It lends an ethereal academic sense to it all that is not as tightly integrated as it needs to be. Though the modern story of social reform was first planned and shot to be it's own film, the story of Babylon is the most amazing, both in the stupendous sets and the refreshingly feminist actions of the "mountain girl".

Fans of exciting intercuts and fast-paced chase scenes should not miss the conclusion here, but while innovative, it remains unclear why the modern story is the only one of ultimate justice, leaving the viewer wondering how coherent the director's definition of intolerance really is.

Although there have always been funny TV commercials, the United States has often lagged behind other countries in really pulling out all the stops. In the 60s and 70s, advertisers were deliberately taught not to use humor because it was thought that TV watchers remembered the funny parts and forgot the name of the products. "Rosie" could hawk paper towels and "Madge" could talk about dishwashing detergent, but only if they repeated the same catch-phrase over and over. Alka Seltzer and Tidy Bowl, etc. bucked the trends but thanks to the Super Bowl and more refined focus groups - the US has had some marginally more interesting commercials in the last 20 years.

One internet phenomenon appears to be "Flo", the dark-haired and perky woman who sells insurance for Progressive.com and is wearing a pound of cherry red lipstick. Actress/comedienne Stephanie Courtney appears to really work perfectly and is accomplished enough to pull off a unique personality type. It seems like the public is split - really loving or really hating her - but it's kind of amusing to see the number of guys on YouTube who are physically attracted to the quirky character.

AN EXAMPLE OF "FLO"

More effort seems to go into scripting a persona for her than was put into "Mrs. Oleson", "Mr. Whipple", or "Mrs. Butterworth", though I still wouldn't look for these commercials to win any international awards.