Just yesterday I was talking about how Hollywood was on the verge of a new money gobbling trend, 3-D movies. I spoke about how the extra money that a 3-D movie brings in is too lucrative for movie studios to ignore. But there was something I forgot about.
The porn industry.
Yes, the one industry that outsells Hollywood every year. An industry with more winning films and higher audience count that Avatar will likely ever get to. The only industry that makes billions in profit, yet amazingly no one has ever seen or bought.
Well even in porn the bottom line is money. How to get more bang from an audience. How to plunge into a pocket and pull off a quick money grab. The latest answer is , 3-D.
Tinto Brass, a director best known for the 1979 film Caligula, has announced that he will make the first ever 3-D porn film. The film will deal with Romans and Americans, ever so original an idea. And you won't have to wait too long, he plans to start filming in May or June.
If this porn film gets made, and makes a profit of any amount, it will confirm the new trend. Porn always sets standards for Hollywood. The move from Beta to VHS, porn made the decision Hollywood followed. The move to DVD's, exactly the same. Ditto online movies. No one may want to speak about it, but porn is the Warren Buffett of the entertainment industry. When they make a move, the industry generally follows quickly.
So my guess about 3-D becoming the new craze in movies is even more likely than I first thought. But the concept of a 3-D porn kind of scares me. Don't think on it to hard, but there are many things I can imagine I don't want poking at my eyes. Yet, I am sure, this will make tons of money.
It's a scary world out there.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Burn Notice: Friendly Fire
So after the tepid start of the season, the next episode for Burn Notice picks up the pace a bit. It's more of the familiar, but at least this time the cast look and feel like they want to be involved in the acting.
Friendly Fire is more of what we enjoy about this show. Smart plans, stylish execution, and an interesting yet swarmy bad guy that you just want to dislike and see taken down. This is true of the Vega (Danny Trejo) and Rincon characters in the episode, and the Gilroy character for the seasonal arc.
You just have to love the outfit that Michael Westen wears to emphasize his role as a bad ass from hell. This episode truly had a flair of the exotic. And it was perfect.
The timing of misdirection, playing on deep-seated religous fears, and just the persona made watching the episode enjoyable. Plus it was interesting to watch Jeffery Donovan play a role that had a hint of mayhem to it. The snap-of-death was a great touch, when matched with the deep brooding look and the constant looking down.
The side story of Sam (Bruce Campbell) was a bit less interesting, though it did fill out a bit more about his character. Learning more about his past gives me the indication that something is about to happen to him in this story arc that most fans will not enjoy.
Then there is the lovestory between Westen and Fiona (Gabrielle Anwar). I can't buy it. I'm sorry but she is too damn skinny. I just can't see anyone wanting to be with a bunch of bones except a dog. Seriously the director and producers should let the woman gain 15 pounds, maybe 25.
But going beyond my personal tastes, you can see where this is headed too. The fact that they are getting so close, again for them, only means that the major story arc is going to cause an issue neither can like with. There's just no room in war for love, and their business is war.
Was this the best episode of the show ever? No. Not even close. But it was one of the more stylish, and far better than average. It definitely was better than the season opening episode. It was more of a reason to keep watching the series, at the very least.
So what can we conclude at this point? Not much. Just that Michael and Fiona are going to get very close and then very far apart. Sam will have a major crisis that no one will be able to help him with.
I also suspect that the original people responsible for Michael getting his burn notice are coming back. With a vengance. They haven't forgotten about the wayward spy that cost them their Miami operations. The fact that he has survived, and flourished to a degree means they want his services more than ever.
Gilroy is a trap. He is the means to push Westen further away from ever working for the U.S. and good guys. He is their way in. Perhaps by providing Michael with a choice he cannot refuse. Work for us, or let the monster that Gilroy is continue to be loose in Miami and the world.
That's how I see the long major arc turning out. And that would be quite a season ending situation. Westen stuck with that choice of 2 evils and no option out of it.
Perhaps the season will go in a different direction, but the clue is in this episode. Westen and crew helped a bad guy to take down a bigger bad guy. The net result still kept a negative in place, all for the price of removing a child molester who deserved to be in jail (or worse).
It's a slippery slope down, and if it spirals it could be a vortex that takes everything with it. Which would be great television to watch happen. But we will see how close I am to the truth.
Friendly Fire is more of what we enjoy about this show. Smart plans, stylish execution, and an interesting yet swarmy bad guy that you just want to dislike and see taken down. This is true of the Vega (Danny Trejo) and Rincon characters in the episode, and the Gilroy character for the seasonal arc.
You just have to love the outfit that Michael Westen wears to emphasize his role as a bad ass from hell. This episode truly had a flair of the exotic. And it was perfect.
The timing of misdirection, playing on deep-seated religous fears, and just the persona made watching the episode enjoyable. Plus it was interesting to watch Jeffery Donovan play a role that had a hint of mayhem to it. The snap-of-death was a great touch, when matched with the deep brooding look and the constant looking down.
The side story of Sam (Bruce Campbell) was a bit less interesting, though it did fill out a bit more about his character. Learning more about his past gives me the indication that something is about to happen to him in this story arc that most fans will not enjoy.
Then there is the lovestory between Westen and Fiona (Gabrielle Anwar). I can't buy it. I'm sorry but she is too damn skinny. I just can't see anyone wanting to be with a bunch of bones except a dog. Seriously the director and producers should let the woman gain 15 pounds, maybe 25.
But going beyond my personal tastes, you can see where this is headed too. The fact that they are getting so close, again for them, only means that the major story arc is going to cause an issue neither can like with. There's just no room in war for love, and their business is war.
Was this the best episode of the show ever? No. Not even close. But it was one of the more stylish, and far better than average. It definitely was better than the season opening episode. It was more of a reason to keep watching the series, at the very least.
So what can we conclude at this point? Not much. Just that Michael and Fiona are going to get very close and then very far apart. Sam will have a major crisis that no one will be able to help him with.
I also suspect that the original people responsible for Michael getting his burn notice are coming back. With a vengance. They haven't forgotten about the wayward spy that cost them their Miami operations. The fact that he has survived, and flourished to a degree means they want his services more than ever.
Gilroy is a trap. He is the means to push Westen further away from ever working for the U.S. and good guys. He is their way in. Perhaps by providing Michael with a choice he cannot refuse. Work for us, or let the monster that Gilroy is continue to be loose in Miami and the world.
That's how I see the long major arc turning out. And that would be quite a season ending situation. Westen stuck with that choice of 2 evils and no option out of it.
Perhaps the season will go in a different direction, but the clue is in this episode. Westen and crew helped a bad guy to take down a bigger bad guy. The net result still kept a negative in place, all for the price of removing a child molester who deserved to be in jail (or worse).
It's a slippery slope down, and if it spirals it could be a vortex that takes everything with it. Which would be great television to watch happen. But we will see how close I am to the truth.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The greatest Black films ever - in domestic dollars
Here is a list of the highest grossing films to feature Black actors, directors, writers and on. It's something you never really hear about, but Black film makes money. And lots of it.
1. The Lion King ($576 million inflation adjusted dollars) - yes I know it's animated. And yes I realize that its about animals. But this is Africa. The reality is that this film, if portrayed by human beings (even animated ones) is about Black people.
2. Shrek 2 ($530 million) - there is no shrek movie without one of the most successful Black actors ever, Eddie Murphy. He is a co-star of the film and a central theme. So this film counts.
3. Independance Day ($516 million) - the word is Will Smith.
4. Beverly Hills Cop ($500 million) - An undisputed Black film. And the first film that stars prominently and solely and African America - Eddie Murphy.
5. Blazing Saddles ($471 million) - the film is co-written by Richard Pryor (the Sheriff Bart role was supposed to be his). It stars Cleavon Little. It's about the racist history of America, in a very comical way. Yes, it's a Black film, made by jewish Mel Brooks.
**Note ** The next should be The Passion of the Christ which made $445 million. Because Jesus was Black - unless you think a man with bronze skin and hair of wool describes your average European. But since Mel Gibson chose to depict him as he did I won't include him in this list.
6. West Side Story ($417 million) - ok so they aren't Black but Puerto Rican. So am I. And the Caribbean was filled with African slaves. Ok, it doesn't belong on the list but deal with it.
**Lawrence of Arabia (417 million) - Again a film that was made about Africans and Middle Eastern people, that I define as Black, that were all shown as White.
7. Men In Black ($407 million) - Will Smith again.
8. Aladdin ($391 million) - That isn't a suntan every character in this film (except the genie) had.
That would make the top ten list of greatest grossing Black films ever, if you include the notes I made. I'm sure there is dispute about many of these films. I'd like to hear that dispute.
But the next time you hear some dumb Hollywood exec make an obtuse statement like "American won't watch a show starring an African American/Latino/person of color" remember this list. Because American will watch people of color and African American, so long as the film good. Just like anyone else.
The numbers are from Box Office Mojo
1. The Lion King ($576 million inflation adjusted dollars) - yes I know it's animated. And yes I realize that its about animals. But this is Africa. The reality is that this film, if portrayed by human beings (even animated ones) is about Black people.
2. Shrek 2 ($530 million) - there is no shrek movie without one of the most successful Black actors ever, Eddie Murphy. He is a co-star of the film and a central theme. So this film counts.
3. Independance Day ($516 million) - the word is Will Smith.
4. Beverly Hills Cop ($500 million) - An undisputed Black film. And the first film that stars prominently and solely and African America - Eddie Murphy.
5. Blazing Saddles ($471 million) - the film is co-written by Richard Pryor (the Sheriff Bart role was supposed to be his). It stars Cleavon Little. It's about the racist history of America, in a very comical way. Yes, it's a Black film, made by jewish Mel Brooks.
**Note ** The next should be The Passion of the Christ which made $445 million. Because Jesus was Black - unless you think a man with bronze skin and hair of wool describes your average European. But since Mel Gibson chose to depict him as he did I won't include him in this list.
6. West Side Story ($417 million) - ok so they aren't Black but Puerto Rican. So am I. And the Caribbean was filled with African slaves. Ok, it doesn't belong on the list but deal with it.
**Lawrence of Arabia (417 million) - Again a film that was made about Africans and Middle Eastern people, that I define as Black, that were all shown as White.
7. Men In Black ($407 million) - Will Smith again.
8. Aladdin ($391 million) - That isn't a suntan every character in this film (except the genie) had.
That would make the top ten list of greatest grossing Black films ever, if you include the notes I made. I'm sure there is dispute about many of these films. I'd like to hear that dispute.
But the next time you hear some dumb Hollywood exec make an obtuse statement like "American won't watch a show starring an African American/Latino/person of color" remember this list. Because American will watch people of color and African American, so long as the film good. Just like anyone else.
The numbers are from Box Office Mojo
The answer for movies - 3-D
In an economy that sucks for everyone, how can movie studios make the most bang for their buck? That is the question plaguing Hollywood as the recession continues.
One option that has been popular is to make revisioned movies. Just take a successful film (or television show) and redo it. The name alone will draw in fans, and if you throw out the original premise you can add lots of sex scenes, explosions, and/or anything else to draw a younger audience that has no idea what the movie should be about or why it was popular originally.
This business model has brought us great films like Land of the Lost, Dukes of Hazzard, and the Halloween remakes. Yes, they all were flops to varying degrees. But because many are so cost effective there will be even more of them - Nightmare on Elm Street may well be next on that list.
Still Hollywood is not happy (of course neither are movie audiences, if that matters). They want more money. They need blockbuster films. So what do you do?
Yet another idea has ben conversion films. If it's been in a book or comic book it needs to be a movie. That's been the trend for a long time in Hollywood, but right now it's hot. So hot that all the biggest books and comic books have been used up. X-Men is done, Spiderman is used up, Iron Man is still going so far, Lord of the Rings is almost finished and Harry Potter is down to the final book. Say it isn't so.
It isn't.
The X-Men are being used to make spin-offs (so far of low quality). Spiderman is being revised as we speak to start over for a new young generation. Harry Potter is being drawn out to fill 2 films just to make a bigger payday.
Then there are the lesser ideas. The Avengers film, Thor, Green Lantern, Twillight, and a host of other 2nd rate conversions are set to flood theaters. Because a trend is only as good as the money you can pull from it.
But that still doesn't generate real money. The money that creates secure jobs in Hollywood. Which leaves the latest scam. 3-D.
Avatar has made more money than anything. Even Titanic was sunk by this blue alien hype. All because of the 3-D technique. Because it adds $3 per ticket to see. And that's a gimmick you know Hollywood can't let go. Thus the start of the latest trend is beginning. The word is that the Harry Potter films will be in 3-D too. And since that will be a success, you know there will be more. Maybe Iron Man 3-D, or Twillight 3-D. and on and on.
The thing is that none of this is real. These films are mostly doing big numbers because of the cost of tickets, not viewers. Tickets cost $9 now in many places, as opposed to less than $5 some 20 years ago. So the same number of people going to see Seargent York in 1941 ($16 million at the time) equals a collossal failure for a film like Tooth Fairy ($14 million last week) or Jennifer's Body ($16 million in 2009). Except that isn't true.
Seargent York, adjusted for inflation is worth $358 million. The 69 year old film is the 97th higest rated film ever. Because it was good.
In fact the best films, in adjusted for inflation dollars, don't include a single film since 2000 before 26th place. And that is Avatar. In other words, 25 films made without 3-D, most without any form of CGI, made significantly more money. Because they didn't need gimmicks. They were good movies.
The top 5 films are all 28 or more years old. If Hollywood wants to make big money, maybe they want to make quality films that have great storylines and solid actors? But that takes work.
So enjoy the 3-D craze that is sure to follow Avatar. Because Hollywood just wants your money.
One option that has been popular is to make revisioned movies. Just take a successful film (or television show) and redo it. The name alone will draw in fans, and if you throw out the original premise you can add lots of sex scenes, explosions, and/or anything else to draw a younger audience that has no idea what the movie should be about or why it was popular originally.
This business model has brought us great films like Land of the Lost, Dukes of Hazzard, and the Halloween remakes. Yes, they all were flops to varying degrees. But because many are so cost effective there will be even more of them - Nightmare on Elm Street may well be next on that list.
Still Hollywood is not happy (of course neither are movie audiences, if that matters). They want more money. They need blockbuster films. So what do you do?
Yet another idea has ben conversion films. If it's been in a book or comic book it needs to be a movie. That's been the trend for a long time in Hollywood, but right now it's hot. So hot that all the biggest books and comic books have been used up. X-Men is done, Spiderman is used up, Iron Man is still going so far, Lord of the Rings is almost finished and Harry Potter is down to the final book. Say it isn't so.
It isn't.
The X-Men are being used to make spin-offs (so far of low quality). Spiderman is being revised as we speak to start over for a new young generation. Harry Potter is being drawn out to fill 2 films just to make a bigger payday.
Then there are the lesser ideas. The Avengers film, Thor, Green Lantern, Twillight, and a host of other 2nd rate conversions are set to flood theaters. Because a trend is only as good as the money you can pull from it.
But that still doesn't generate real money. The money that creates secure jobs in Hollywood. Which leaves the latest scam. 3-D.
Avatar has made more money than anything. Even Titanic was sunk by this blue alien hype. All because of the 3-D technique. Because it adds $3 per ticket to see. And that's a gimmick you know Hollywood can't let go. Thus the start of the latest trend is beginning. The word is that the Harry Potter films will be in 3-D too. And since that will be a success, you know there will be more. Maybe Iron Man 3-D, or Twillight 3-D. and on and on.
The thing is that none of this is real. These films are mostly doing big numbers because of the cost of tickets, not viewers. Tickets cost $9 now in many places, as opposed to less than $5 some 20 years ago. So the same number of people going to see Seargent York in 1941 ($16 million at the time) equals a collossal failure for a film like Tooth Fairy ($14 million last week) or Jennifer's Body ($16 million in 2009). Except that isn't true.
Seargent York, adjusted for inflation is worth $358 million. The 69 year old film is the 97th higest rated film ever. Because it was good.
In fact the best films, in adjusted for inflation dollars, don't include a single film since 2000 before 26th place. And that is Avatar. In other words, 25 films made without 3-D, most without any form of CGI, made significantly more money. Because they didn't need gimmicks. They were good movies.
The top 5 films are all 28 or more years old. If Hollywood wants to make big money, maybe they want to make quality films that have great storylines and solid actors? But that takes work.
So enjoy the 3-D craze that is sure to follow Avatar. Because Hollywood just wants your money.
News flash from Chris Matthews: Obama is Black
I realize that most people do not watch MSNBC. There are many reasons for this, but the latest comments from Chris Matthews helps to make it quite clear.
So if I understand this correctly, Chris Matthews forgot that President Obama is (by Matthews comments) a Black, loincloth wearing, spear chucking, Tarzan movie escapee that can stand infront of a crowd of Whites and not cower and simper? And Matthews believes this because America is past the racial divide of the 1950's?
Ok, let's smell the coffee and wake up. President Obama is African American, and there are no Blacks in the modern world that run around in loincloths. To my knowledge there are not tribes of African Americans, not even during the centuries of slavery. And President Obama is not the only African American will and capable of standing in front of a crowd of any and all groups of people in a position of authority and leadership without a loss of respect, power, or anything else.
Yes, in the 1950's African Americans couldn't do a lot of things. Yes, even today stereotypes and small-minded individuals make life difficult for people of color. It's true that loans, for anything, tend to be priced higher for people of color. It's true that inner city schools with high percentages of people of color are more likely to be underfunded and the teachers overworked. It's true that the worst stereotypes and images of people of color are promoted to this day on television, music videos, and every other media. It's even true that right now, in every industry in America, people of color are underrepresented at the top level even though qualified people exist for those positions.
But all of that together does not make President Obama less Black, or any of the numerous insults that Chris Matthews let fly.
I wonder what will happen to Matthews, if anything. If this were a White Conservative, say Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or anyone on Fox News, you could guarantee that there would be an outcry for them to be fired. But I wonder how Black "leaders" like Rev. Sharpton or Rev. Jesse Jackson will respond to this, if at all.
So if I understand this correctly, Chris Matthews forgot that President Obama is (by Matthews comments) a Black, loincloth wearing, spear chucking, Tarzan movie escapee that can stand infront of a crowd of Whites and not cower and simper? And Matthews believes this because America is past the racial divide of the 1950's?
Ok, let's smell the coffee and wake up. President Obama is African American, and there are no Blacks in the modern world that run around in loincloths. To my knowledge there are not tribes of African Americans, not even during the centuries of slavery. And President Obama is not the only African American will and capable of standing in front of a crowd of any and all groups of people in a position of authority and leadership without a loss of respect, power, or anything else.
Yes, in the 1950's African Americans couldn't do a lot of things. Yes, even today stereotypes and small-minded individuals make life difficult for people of color. It's true that loans, for anything, tend to be priced higher for people of color. It's true that inner city schools with high percentages of people of color are more likely to be underfunded and the teachers overworked. It's true that the worst stereotypes and images of people of color are promoted to this day on television, music videos, and every other media. It's even true that right now, in every industry in America, people of color are underrepresented at the top level even though qualified people exist for those positions.
But all of that together does not make President Obama less Black, or any of the numerous insults that Chris Matthews let fly.
I wonder what will happen to Matthews, if anything. If this were a White Conservative, say Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or anyone on Fox News, you could guarantee that there would be an outcry for them to be fired. But I wonder how Black "leaders" like Rev. Sharpton or Rev. Jesse Jackson will respond to this, if at all.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Video Game Review: Star Trek Online
Are you a Trekkie? Have you seen every episode ever at least 7 times? Do you have fights with friends over how long a red shirt can survive in an episode? If you can't answer those questions, fear not because Star Trek Online does not require that kind of fan devotion.
Star Trek Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online game (MMO) that will be officially opening on Feb 2, 2010. Those that have pre-ordered the game will be able to play from Friday on through. Given the number of fans the universe of Star Trek inhabits, expectations are high.
The first question you might ask is the first thing I addressed here. Is it a uber-fan targeted game. And the answer is no. It is not focused on any 1 Star Trek series or movie, nor is it restricted to information and actions that only the ultimate fan might know. The MMO is actually more casual gamer based, and something anyone could enjoy from die hard fans to those with even no knowledge of Star Trek, if such a thing were possible.
With that main question out of the way, what is STO like? Is it similar to other MMO's? Is it worth the time? Is it a complete fiasco like Star Wars Online?
I would say that STO (Star Trek Online) is a decent MMO. In a way it's kind of like jumping into an episode of Star Trek, any of them, for a while. You really get the feeling that you are part of the Star Trek universe.
STO is similar to most MMO's in that you can modify characters in a dozen differnt ways. You can have aliens of your own creation, make a 8' gaint Vulcan female character, or a tiny Bajoran for that matter. You can select from a host of clothes and hairstyles, even adjust the length of fingers and/or scars and skin color if you wish.
There are 2 main character races in the game, Klingons and Federation. If you have pre-ordered the game and taken the option to sign up for the lifetime subscription (a limited time offer as of now) you also have the option to create a Borg character - so expect that to be an option in the future along with Romulans I expect. So far I have only played the Federation side of the game.
Once you create a character you go through a tutorial that places you right in the middle of the action. In STO you are told up front that this is the universe outside of the latest revisioned movie, you are in the original universe where Jame T. Kirk is Shatner and all the television shows are derived from. (We are told this by Leonard Nimoy's Spock no less) Thus you are in the middle of another Klingon-Federation war, with the Dominion, Romulans, Borg, and everyone else involved as well.
Within minutes of starting the game you get to become a Captain of your own starship. Don't worry that you are starting as a Ensign (the lowest rank officer) since whoever is in command is automatically Captain. The logic of this upgrade in position makes sense and feels organic.
The initial battles, on ship and in space, are pretty easy. Just enough to keep you busy enough to pay attention to what is the next button you want to mash. The ground game, where you get to roam with an away team and fight phaser to phaser or hand-to-hand, is decent but hardly the kind of battles you get in say WoW. Then again, the focus of the game is really not the ground game. It's primarily about space.
Focusing on the ground play for a bit, you get an away team that is initially just 1 other character. The character is similar to pets in other MMO's or NPC characters you have limited control over. They can heal you in battle, set up turrets and provide additional firepower, and other similar background tasks. So far the ground game is decent but not thrilling.
Space on the other hand is what it's all about. That is where the game excells. Even in the initial levels of the game you get the feel of running around and fighting the good fight just like James T. himself. The controls do take a bit of getting used to as a fight in space is 3-dimensional. So you can fly over, around, and under other ships in space. I only did it onece, but you can also bump inot another ship, though other space items like asteroids are not collidable.
There a lots of GUI controls when you are in space, but they are organic in that their use is logical, the size is not too large to interfere with the game, and the information is easily understood at a glance.
The graphics of flying through space are superb. You get a feeling of really being out there. That space is huge. And you get to do this via an over the shoulder view of your ship. It really works well. That alone would make this game worth the money.
But like any new MMO there are detractions. They aren't so much in the gameplay as in other places. The pacing of some missions are slow. Flying through space takes time (when you are in a planetary system or in the Warp zone to another galaxy). You don't just instantly pop up against whatever, you need to find it. When in a planetary system with gas and asteroids, it can take a couple of minutes to find what you are looking for if you are moving at less than top speed.
Another issue is the specializations. There are 3 - Tactical officer (warrior class), Science (magic user class), and Engineering (support/ranged class). You can be any of the 3 and you will have a set of bridge officers that will have at least one of each of these titles. This allows you to focus and enhance certain aspects of your ship and crew on the ground. But at least early on, you don't get a feel for what effect that really has on your ship or in ground battles. Yes there are buffs and weapon specializations, but the need for one or the other isn't clear early on.
The biggest issue I had is the rank and promotion system. You get skill trees instead of skill levels used in most MMO's. That system was a fiasco in Star Wars Online. In STO it's not too clear exactly what you want to take on as a skill, how high you should make it go, and what benefit you are getting from choosing one option over another. But you must take on new skills becuase your characters rank, and thus ability to gain more ships, better crew, improved weapons, ect are based on rank.
Overall playing STO is kind of like being the star of your own television show. You are the Captain in charge, you set the course to travel thru space and fight the good fight. It's the kind of game that I would not want to play for 3 days in a row (but likely would like all MMO's I own), but surely would play 3x a week for a few hours each time.
These are just the early impressions of playing the game for about 8 hours. This is very early in any MMO and so there is much more to evaluate. But as MMO's go, this is a great start and an indication of a solid game that is worth the time investment any MMO player knows goes with building a good character.
Star Trek Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online game (MMO) that will be officially opening on Feb 2, 2010. Those that have pre-ordered the game will be able to play from Friday on through. Given the number of fans the universe of Star Trek inhabits, expectations are high.
The first question you might ask is the first thing I addressed here. Is it a uber-fan targeted game. And the answer is no. It is not focused on any 1 Star Trek series or movie, nor is it restricted to information and actions that only the ultimate fan might know. The MMO is actually more casual gamer based, and something anyone could enjoy from die hard fans to those with even no knowledge of Star Trek, if such a thing were possible.
With that main question out of the way, what is STO like? Is it similar to other MMO's? Is it worth the time? Is it a complete fiasco like Star Wars Online?
I would say that STO (Star Trek Online) is a decent MMO. In a way it's kind of like jumping into an episode of Star Trek, any of them, for a while. You really get the feeling that you are part of the Star Trek universe.
STO is similar to most MMO's in that you can modify characters in a dozen differnt ways. You can have aliens of your own creation, make a 8' gaint Vulcan female character, or a tiny Bajoran for that matter. You can select from a host of clothes and hairstyles, even adjust the length of fingers and/or scars and skin color if you wish.
There are 2 main character races in the game, Klingons and Federation. If you have pre-ordered the game and taken the option to sign up for the lifetime subscription (a limited time offer as of now) you also have the option to create a Borg character - so expect that to be an option in the future along with Romulans I expect. So far I have only played the Federation side of the game.
Once you create a character you go through a tutorial that places you right in the middle of the action. In STO you are told up front that this is the universe outside of the latest revisioned movie, you are in the original universe where Jame T. Kirk is Shatner and all the television shows are derived from. (We are told this by Leonard Nimoy's Spock no less) Thus you are in the middle of another Klingon-Federation war, with the Dominion, Romulans, Borg, and everyone else involved as well.
Within minutes of starting the game you get to become a Captain of your own starship. Don't worry that you are starting as a Ensign (the lowest rank officer) since whoever is in command is automatically Captain. The logic of this upgrade in position makes sense and feels organic.
The initial battles, on ship and in space, are pretty easy. Just enough to keep you busy enough to pay attention to what is the next button you want to mash. The ground game, where you get to roam with an away team and fight phaser to phaser or hand-to-hand, is decent but hardly the kind of battles you get in say WoW. Then again, the focus of the game is really not the ground game. It's primarily about space.
Focusing on the ground play for a bit, you get an away team that is initially just 1 other character. The character is similar to pets in other MMO's or NPC characters you have limited control over. They can heal you in battle, set up turrets and provide additional firepower, and other similar background tasks. So far the ground game is decent but not thrilling.
Space on the other hand is what it's all about. That is where the game excells. Even in the initial levels of the game you get the feel of running around and fighting the good fight just like James T. himself. The controls do take a bit of getting used to as a fight in space is 3-dimensional. So you can fly over, around, and under other ships in space. I only did it onece, but you can also bump inot another ship, though other space items like asteroids are not collidable.
There a lots of GUI controls when you are in space, but they are organic in that their use is logical, the size is not too large to interfere with the game, and the information is easily understood at a glance.
The graphics of flying through space are superb. You get a feeling of really being out there. That space is huge. And you get to do this via an over the shoulder view of your ship. It really works well. That alone would make this game worth the money.
But like any new MMO there are detractions. They aren't so much in the gameplay as in other places. The pacing of some missions are slow. Flying through space takes time (when you are in a planetary system or in the Warp zone to another galaxy). You don't just instantly pop up against whatever, you need to find it. When in a planetary system with gas and asteroids, it can take a couple of minutes to find what you are looking for if you are moving at less than top speed.
Another issue is the specializations. There are 3 - Tactical officer (warrior class), Science (magic user class), and Engineering (support/ranged class). You can be any of the 3 and you will have a set of bridge officers that will have at least one of each of these titles. This allows you to focus and enhance certain aspects of your ship and crew on the ground. But at least early on, you don't get a feel for what effect that really has on your ship or in ground battles. Yes there are buffs and weapon specializations, but the need for one or the other isn't clear early on.
The biggest issue I had is the rank and promotion system. You get skill trees instead of skill levels used in most MMO's. That system was a fiasco in Star Wars Online. In STO it's not too clear exactly what you want to take on as a skill, how high you should make it go, and what benefit you are getting from choosing one option over another. But you must take on new skills becuase your characters rank, and thus ability to gain more ships, better crew, improved weapons, ect are based on rank.
Overall playing STO is kind of like being the star of your own television show. You are the Captain in charge, you set the course to travel thru space and fight the good fight. It's the kind of game that I would not want to play for 3 days in a row (but likely would like all MMO's I own), but surely would play 3x a week for a few hours each time.
These are just the early impressions of playing the game for about 8 hours. This is very early in any MMO and so there is much more to evaluate. But as MMO's go, this is a great start and an indication of a solid game that is worth the time investment any MMO player knows goes with building a good character.
In case you missed it
If you happen to be like myself, and not in the 25 - 34 demographic, you might miss some of the shows on these days. Generally that's a good thing, but on occassion it does mean catching up on something really good after the fact.
I like Jon Stewart. His show is funny, especially when viewed after watching the real news and reading the facts of the issues he mocks. There is nothing more interesting than watching his ultra-liberal view in defense of say Health Care Reform, or defense of Democrats, to just bring on the laughs.
Still, he does take on Democrats and Liberals too. Just far less often and harshly. Though they often make for some of the most outrageous bits. Of course that being said I never thought I'd see this
Well he was having a bad day. It was right before Martha Coakley got stomped in Massachuesetts. But if you thought that public self-realization of the obvious was enough to force Stewart to give up his Liberal card, wait it gets better.
Not only does Jon Stewart nail Keith Olbermann rightly for his pompous and offensive comments about Senator Scott Brown, but when Obermann decides to respond he makes himself look even worse.
Who knew Olbermann was doing sketch comedy at MSNBC. Well, actually anyone who watches him probably already knew that.
Nicely done Stewart. Now if only my readers can view the videos before you have your staff pull the video clips - as they tend to do with anyone that uses their material in a non-liberal love manner.
I like Jon Stewart. His show is funny, especially when viewed after watching the real news and reading the facts of the issues he mocks. There is nothing more interesting than watching his ultra-liberal view in defense of say Health Care Reform, or defense of Democrats, to just bring on the laughs.
Still, he does take on Democrats and Liberals too. Just far less often and harshly. Though they often make for some of the most outrageous bits. Of course that being said I never thought I'd see this
Well he was having a bad day. It was right before Martha Coakley got stomped in Massachuesetts. But if you thought that public self-realization of the obvious was enough to force Stewart to give up his Liberal card, wait it gets better.
Not only does Jon Stewart nail Keith Olbermann rightly for his pompous and offensive comments about Senator Scott Brown, but when Obermann decides to respond he makes himself look even worse.
Who knew Olbermann was doing sketch comedy at MSNBC. Well, actually anyone who watches him probably already knew that.
Nicely done Stewart. Now if only my readers can view the videos before you have your staff pull the video clips - as they tend to do with anyone that uses their material in a non-liberal love manner.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Movie Review: Legion
What do you expect from a film that has the name of a demon, the revisioned plot of Armmagedom on Earth, and Angels that are anything but angelic? In general you get a mix of The Prophesy, Terminator, and perhaps a bit of the Road Warrior.
I realize that is an odd mix of generally good to great films. And to put them all together in one film sounds strange, and unlikely. Yet Legion does all of that. Sadly the end product is not as good as any of its parts.
Let's just jump right into the plot. God has suddenly lost faith in humanity. No reason why or why now. Yet there is an unborn child that can save humanity; from what is never stated. We can stop right there.
I'm not the most religious individual. But my understanding of God, in any religion, is that the closest non-religious word would be omnipotent. How could anything stop God? Ok, taking a slightly different tack, the Angels. They are powerful beyond belief, smoting entire cities and virtually beyond comprehension to see. The Archangels are even more powerful than that.
So in this movie, these powerful beings have no choice but to takeover the bodies of the innocent (children) and weak-willed to try to kill the mother of the would be future savior. Hello Terminator. Except not one of these possessed beings has a gun, blowtorch, lighter, not even so much as a wiffle ball bat. They won't even use their cars to get into a small, unfortified, old diner where the unborn child is at.
Ok, here I am thinking again. If this is all to kill the child, why wait until mere days before the birth? Angels are not restricted by time. Why not go back to the conception of the child, or the birth of the mom-to-be? Why not have Gabriel (one of the Archangels) walk in at the very begining and kill her then? Or have a city smoting lesser angel turn the diner and all in it to salt?
Ok, over thinking. Back to the movie.
Michael (another Archangel) chooses to become human to save this woman. So he goes out to the diner in the middle of nowhere just in time for fending off the horde of possessed humans that arrive. Not that their overwhelming numbers are used to swarm the diner. All of this leading to a confrontation between the now human Michael and Gabriel.
Simply put the plot sucks. There is just too much to try to suspend your belief on. This requires more than a leap of faith it requires absolutely the vaccuation of thought.
But if you think the action will save this film, give the movie a reason to charge $9 a ticket, you will again be disappointed. There is a small bit of gunplay, mostly after the middle of the film. It's short lived, much like half of the cast. Truely there is nothing impressive about the effects or the action. Many B-movies have more and better.
So what about the cast? Well there is Paul Bettany who is a good actor and becoming a known name. He also has a penchant for quasi-religious characters (he was the albino in The DaVinci Code). He is Michael and does a decent job of being brooding, direct, and less than comforting. His action scenes are fair, and he is moderately believeable given the shortcomings of the plot.
Charles Dutton plays a short-order cook with only one hand and a prosthetic hook. You get the feeling, though it is never clear, that he might have been in Viet Nam. Of course since my father had the same prosthetic and was a vet I may be projecting. Beyond that, the character is unremarkable. He looks concerned when he should, rushes around like everyone, and dies a noble but useless death.
Then there is Dennis Quaid. Like Dutton, far better an actor than this film deserves or requires. He is the father of a key character and owner of the forlorn diner. He is a grizzled man who gave up on life as all his dreams crumbled around him. Bitter about his divorce 5 years earlier, and as lost as everyone else in this film. Quaid is believable and adds a lot of credibility to the film, but can't save it. Ditto the noble death.
I have to mention Tyrese Gibson because he is the next most well known actor in the film. His role is the obligatory thug/gangsta wannabe, with a heart. The best that can be said about his role and acting is that it does not distract from the film. He is a useless character that likely got to die a noble (but obvious and stupid) death because of Gibson's ability to draw a female and/or ghetto audience.
The effects are common and less than spectacular. The best ones can be seen in the movie trailer for the film. Actually much of the action is in the trailer as well.
The photography is at times good and adds to the atmosphere of isolation and despair, like Road Warrior. At it's worst it is too dark and murky.
The directing is on par with a B-film. You never get to feel the intensity or impending doom after the first 10 minutes of the film. In fact it feels like there was 2 seperate ideas in the film - the first more of a Terminator feel, the second more of a Prophesy rip-off.
When it's all said and done, this film is forgettable. It does not live up to the quality of the movie trailer (whoever made that should get a raise and more work). I'd more likely buy this as a DVD ($10 or so) so I could see what extras were pulled from the film, or just watch it on cable some night when insomnia had hold of me.
Do yourself a favor and don't see this film. There is a reason this was released in January, and it lives up to that reason alone.
I realize that is an odd mix of generally good to great films. And to put them all together in one film sounds strange, and unlikely. Yet Legion does all of that. Sadly the end product is not as good as any of its parts.
Let's just jump right into the plot. God has suddenly lost faith in humanity. No reason why or why now. Yet there is an unborn child that can save humanity; from what is never stated. We can stop right there.
I'm not the most religious individual. But my understanding of God, in any religion, is that the closest non-religious word would be omnipotent. How could anything stop God? Ok, taking a slightly different tack, the Angels. They are powerful beyond belief, smoting entire cities and virtually beyond comprehension to see. The Archangels are even more powerful than that.
So in this movie, these powerful beings have no choice but to takeover the bodies of the innocent (children) and weak-willed to try to kill the mother of the would be future savior. Hello Terminator. Except not one of these possessed beings has a gun, blowtorch, lighter, not even so much as a wiffle ball bat. They won't even use their cars to get into a small, unfortified, old diner where the unborn child is at.
Ok, here I am thinking again. If this is all to kill the child, why wait until mere days before the birth? Angels are not restricted by time. Why not go back to the conception of the child, or the birth of the mom-to-be? Why not have Gabriel (one of the Archangels) walk in at the very begining and kill her then? Or have a city smoting lesser angel turn the diner and all in it to salt?
Ok, over thinking. Back to the movie.
Michael (another Archangel) chooses to become human to save this woman. So he goes out to the diner in the middle of nowhere just in time for fending off the horde of possessed humans that arrive. Not that their overwhelming numbers are used to swarm the diner. All of this leading to a confrontation between the now human Michael and Gabriel.
Simply put the plot sucks. There is just too much to try to suspend your belief on. This requires more than a leap of faith it requires absolutely the vaccuation of thought.
But if you think the action will save this film, give the movie a reason to charge $9 a ticket, you will again be disappointed. There is a small bit of gunplay, mostly after the middle of the film. It's short lived, much like half of the cast. Truely there is nothing impressive about the effects or the action. Many B-movies have more and better.
So what about the cast? Well there is Paul Bettany who is a good actor and becoming a known name. He also has a penchant for quasi-religious characters (he was the albino in The DaVinci Code). He is Michael and does a decent job of being brooding, direct, and less than comforting. His action scenes are fair, and he is moderately believeable given the shortcomings of the plot.
Charles Dutton plays a short-order cook with only one hand and a prosthetic hook. You get the feeling, though it is never clear, that he might have been in Viet Nam. Of course since my father had the same prosthetic and was a vet I may be projecting. Beyond that, the character is unremarkable. He looks concerned when he should, rushes around like everyone, and dies a noble but useless death.
Then there is Dennis Quaid. Like Dutton, far better an actor than this film deserves or requires. He is the father of a key character and owner of the forlorn diner. He is a grizzled man who gave up on life as all his dreams crumbled around him. Bitter about his divorce 5 years earlier, and as lost as everyone else in this film. Quaid is believable and adds a lot of credibility to the film, but can't save it. Ditto the noble death.
I have to mention Tyrese Gibson because he is the next most well known actor in the film. His role is the obligatory thug/gangsta wannabe, with a heart. The best that can be said about his role and acting is that it does not distract from the film. He is a useless character that likely got to die a noble (but obvious and stupid) death because of Gibson's ability to draw a female and/or ghetto audience.
The effects are common and less than spectacular. The best ones can be seen in the movie trailer for the film. Actually much of the action is in the trailer as well.
The photography is at times good and adds to the atmosphere of isolation and despair, like Road Warrior. At it's worst it is too dark and murky.
The directing is on par with a B-film. You never get to feel the intensity or impending doom after the first 10 minutes of the film. In fact it feels like there was 2 seperate ideas in the film - the first more of a Terminator feel, the second more of a Prophesy rip-off.
When it's all said and done, this film is forgettable. It does not live up to the quality of the movie trailer (whoever made that should get a raise and more work). I'd more likely buy this as a DVD ($10 or so) so I could see what extras were pulled from the film, or just watch it on cable some night when insomnia had hold of me.
Do yourself a favor and don't see this film. There is a reason this was released in January, and it lives up to that reason alone.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Saints vs Colts at the Superbowl
This has been an aggravating day. The Jets lost, and then the massive upset with the Vikings losing as well.
Considering how the Jets played against the Chargers last week it is no major shock that they lost today. They played a poor game, and let the Colts control the tempo of the game. Much of the loss can be blamed on the inexperience of quarterback Sanchez (though the late hit he took in the second half that the refs ignored didn't help). Given the added experience of another season Sanchez will likely grow into a NFL quarterback of contention, but this was not his post-season. A shame though, since he looked ready to go all the way in the first half.
More upseting is the loss of the Vikings. Even with the 2 interceptions of Farve, the only conclusion has to be that the rest of the offense let him down. The flurry of fumbles cost the Vikings 3 chances to score and win the game. Not to mention several questionable penalties, and a couple that were just blatantly bad plays.
Farve took hits all game long. He was being hit like a ping pong ball. And the game surely would have been different if he was getting more protection. Still, you have to admire his resolve to stay in the game and keep going. His will and the defense made all the differnce.
But you just have to be pissed off when you consider that the Viking s controlled the ball over 35 minutes of the game before overtime. They cleared over 450 yards in over 75 plays and held the Saints for about 77 yards in the second half. To say the Vikings dominated the game in all but the score would be an understatement.
So looking forward what can we see?
The Colts will be the favorites. I'd say by 7 maybe 10 points. They are more experienced, have been in the big game before, and looked more in control than when compared to the Saints today. Given that this is the first time that the Saints have made it to the Super Bowl, and that alone is motivation to win.
While I will of course watch the game, I really could care less who wins. Neither the Saints nor Colts are teams I ever have cared about. They are not major teams that have hordes of fans, like say the Giants, Dallas, even Miami. But they are more followed than the Browns (outside of Cleveland), the Lions, or say the Jaguars. Still, I have no motivation to pick either for the win.
I imagine the Super Bowl this year will be a blowout game. Not quite as bad as the Bears vs the Patriots (a 46-10 rout that was just embarrassing to watch). But it won't be close either.
In a way it will be the perfect game to symbolize the year that has passed. Fewer Super Bowl commercials with less flair. Lesser teams that have smaller followings. A promise of a new chapter for one team, with a far more experienced team waiting for the chance to pounce. Plus fans that will watch just because they have no better option available.
Indeed, Super Bowl XLIV (44 if you don't recall Roman numerals) is exactly what 2009 was. At least this year we can look forward to the World Cup (though the US won't come close to winning that either).
Considering how the Jets played against the Chargers last week it is no major shock that they lost today. They played a poor game, and let the Colts control the tempo of the game. Much of the loss can be blamed on the inexperience of quarterback Sanchez (though the late hit he took in the second half that the refs ignored didn't help). Given the added experience of another season Sanchez will likely grow into a NFL quarterback of contention, but this was not his post-season. A shame though, since he looked ready to go all the way in the first half.
More upseting is the loss of the Vikings. Even with the 2 interceptions of Farve, the only conclusion has to be that the rest of the offense let him down. The flurry of fumbles cost the Vikings 3 chances to score and win the game. Not to mention several questionable penalties, and a couple that were just blatantly bad plays.
Farve took hits all game long. He was being hit like a ping pong ball. And the game surely would have been different if he was getting more protection. Still, you have to admire his resolve to stay in the game and keep going. His will and the defense made all the differnce.
But you just have to be pissed off when you consider that the Viking s controlled the ball over 35 minutes of the game before overtime. They cleared over 450 yards in over 75 plays and held the Saints for about 77 yards in the second half. To say the Vikings dominated the game in all but the score would be an understatement.
So looking forward what can we see?
The Colts will be the favorites. I'd say by 7 maybe 10 points. They are more experienced, have been in the big game before, and looked more in control than when compared to the Saints today. Given that this is the first time that the Saints have made it to the Super Bowl, and that alone is motivation to win.
While I will of course watch the game, I really could care less who wins. Neither the Saints nor Colts are teams I ever have cared about. They are not major teams that have hordes of fans, like say the Giants, Dallas, even Miami. But they are more followed than the Browns (outside of Cleveland), the Lions, or say the Jaguars. Still, I have no motivation to pick either for the win.
I imagine the Super Bowl this year will be a blowout game. Not quite as bad as the Bears vs the Patriots (a 46-10 rout that was just embarrassing to watch). But it won't be close either.
In a way it will be the perfect game to symbolize the year that has passed. Fewer Super Bowl commercials with less flair. Lesser teams that have smaller followings. A promise of a new chapter for one team, with a far more experienced team waiting for the chance to pounce. Plus fans that will watch just because they have no better option available.
Indeed, Super Bowl XLIV (44 if you don't recall Roman numerals) is exactly what 2009 was. At least this year we can look forward to the World Cup (though the US won't come close to winning that either).
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Movie Review: Smokin' Aces 2 Assassin's Ball
I realize that this film went straight to DVD. But this is only about the film and not any extras that might be on the DVD that might add to the value of buying this. And there would have to be a lot of extras of great quality.
Smokin' Aces 2 Assassin's Ball is hardly a worthy film. Given that it is a prequel and meant to suck up extra money based on it's original's success. It is also a given that sequels and prequels of mediocre films tend to be even less entertaining that the parent film. Aces 2 is no exception to these givens.
The films timeline seems to make this prequel close to the original, if you aren't paying attention you would never know. But it really doesn't matter. The goal is to get several assassins together to kill one man. In this case it's Walter Weed (Tom Berenger) that is the target, a meek FBI agent in his declining year of his career. The assassins are introduced, extermely slowly, and include:
Ariella Martinez (Martha Higareda) - a skinny killer that prefers a black widow kiss
Finbar McTeague (Vinnie Jones) - a "surgeon" that believes in medically precises torture
Lazlo Soot (Tommy Flanagan) - the killer with a multitude of faces [in the first film]
Kaitlyn "AK-47" Tremor (Autumn Reeser) - Well named and the opposite of Ariella in most any comparison
Fritz Tremor (Michael Parks) - Father of the Tremor family
Lester Tremor (Maury Sterling) - One of the Tremor boys [in the first film]
Baby Boy Tremor (C. Ernst Harth) - the other and favored Tremor son
And of course we have a team of agents that are on the job to protect Weed from this group, Agent Baker (Clayne Crawford) and Malcolm Little (Christopher Michael Holley) are the only ones of note.
Earnie Hudson has a small role in the film at the end, slightly more than a cameo, to tie up the loose ends of the story - much like Andy Garcia's role in the first film - as Anthony Vejar.
Now the characters include 2 from the original film. Neither is really all that important. Nor does this film break any new ground. It's formula is almost exactly the same as the first, except it's pace is slower and he events even less logical or intersting.
Basically Weed is taken to a location that is supposed to be secret to everyone, a safehouse in Chicago that the FBI has disguised as a functioning Jazz bar. Of course every single bad guy knows exactly where this is, and the schematics of the safehouse bunker.
After more time getting to the location than needed, and various scenes foretelling the final climax of the film, and an extened time in the Jazz bar itself, the killing finally starts. This is supposed to be the big payoff for watching the film to this point, but it fails to really deliver. Then enters Vejar after all the shooting is done, informing Baker of vital information that would have prevented all this, and Baker ending the film much in the manner as did Ryan Reynold's character from the first film - though without the negative consequences to his career.
There are 3 things I liked in this film.
The introduction of AK-47 Tremor. A gratuitous sex scene with a climax that you don't expect. The big question being, where did she hide the AK-47.
The facts about the history of a deck of cards.
Oh forgot one more. Watching Little play the saxaphone.
Yes, those are the best parts of the film. The instant love affair between McTeague and Martinez is just unbelievable. The pace of the film is slower than listening to Soot talk. The Tremor family is more interesting in thier incest driven conversations than anything else. It strains belief that only after all this happens that Baker would be given all the details, that he had a crew of people investigating for throughout the film.
The worst of the film is likely the political statement that is set up in the first 5 minutes of the film and brought back for the last 15 minutes. It's America bashing, and useless. But it does connect all the dots in the plot.
Why Berenger, Jones, and Hudson did this film I don't understand. They all should deserve, and are capable of making, far more money and working in far better films.
Hollywood knew this film was so bad it couldn't make money in theaters. They went straight to DVD to cash in on the name of the first film, since there was nothing else worth paying for in this film. Hollywood was right. Don't buy this DVD.
Smokin' Aces 2 Assassin's Ball is hardly a worthy film. Given that it is a prequel and meant to suck up extra money based on it's original's success. It is also a given that sequels and prequels of mediocre films tend to be even less entertaining that the parent film. Aces 2 is no exception to these givens.
The films timeline seems to make this prequel close to the original, if you aren't paying attention you would never know. But it really doesn't matter. The goal is to get several assassins together to kill one man. In this case it's Walter Weed (Tom Berenger) that is the target, a meek FBI agent in his declining year of his career. The assassins are introduced, extermely slowly, and include:
And of course we have a team of agents that are on the job to protect Weed from this group, Agent Baker (Clayne Crawford) and Malcolm Little (Christopher Michael Holley) are the only ones of note.
Earnie Hudson has a small role in the film at the end, slightly more than a cameo, to tie up the loose ends of the story - much like Andy Garcia's role in the first film - as Anthony Vejar.
Now the characters include 2 from the original film. Neither is really all that important. Nor does this film break any new ground. It's formula is almost exactly the same as the first, except it's pace is slower and he events even less logical or intersting.
Basically Weed is taken to a location that is supposed to be secret to everyone, a safehouse in Chicago that the FBI has disguised as a functioning Jazz bar. Of course every single bad guy knows exactly where this is, and the schematics of the safehouse bunker.
After more time getting to the location than needed, and various scenes foretelling the final climax of the film, and an extened time in the Jazz bar itself, the killing finally starts. This is supposed to be the big payoff for watching the film to this point, but it fails to really deliver. Then enters Vejar after all the shooting is done, informing Baker of vital information that would have prevented all this, and Baker ending the film much in the manner as did Ryan Reynold's character from the first film - though without the negative consequences to his career.
There are 3 things I liked in this film.
"Hip hop is the unwanted bastard son of superior musical forms like Jazz, Blues. The Kids today don't know about Miles Davis, Dizzy Guilespe." - Malcolm Little discussing why he does not like rap that he needs to be a fan of for an upcoming undercover assignment.
Yes, those are the best parts of the film. The instant love affair between McTeague and Martinez is just unbelievable. The pace of the film is slower than listening to Soot talk. The Tremor family is more interesting in thier incest driven conversations than anything else. It strains belief that only after all this happens that Baker would be given all the details, that he had a crew of people investigating for throughout the film.
The worst of the film is likely the political statement that is set up in the first 5 minutes of the film and brought back for the last 15 minutes. It's America bashing, and useless. But it does connect all the dots in the plot.
Why Berenger, Jones, and Hudson did this film I don't understand. They all should deserve, and are capable of making, far more money and working in far better films.
Hollywood knew this film was so bad it couldn't make money in theaters. They went straight to DVD to cash in on the name of the first film, since there was nothing else worth paying for in this film. Hollywood was right. Don't buy this DVD.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Movie Preview: A-Team
I had many reservations on how this film, based on the 80's television show, would turn out.
Well the first indications are now getting out.
Ok no that isn't it, but I thought it was funny. And at least as good as the actual movie trailer. Ok, for the serious look at the movie trailer
So my fear of the weakest link being the BA Baraccus character seems to be correct. Also the obvious link to the Iraq war is firmly in place. Beyond that many of the old standbys of the television series have been kept. Well at least a couple of the catch-phrases of the leading characters.
What is new are some of the gadgets that are used. C-130 planes, tanks, high-end weapons and such really make it seem unrealistic that this group of men could operate in a post-9/11 Homeland Security America. And who are they using these weapons against?
Believability is also seemingly out the window. Surviving a rocket attack in a C-130 by being in a tank that cleanly escapes the mid-air wreckage and deploys it's parachute, then popping out and shooting down a plane with an M-60 is beyond the pale. Thus we can conclude the film is solidly focused on explosions, with the characters the means by which we can get from one to another.
Given that the A-Team television show was not Shakesperian writing, it did have a bit more credibility and slightly tighter plotting. Plus the acting abilities of the stars were far more solid and recognized. Even Mr. T (then) was far more accomplished than Quinton Jackson - an obvious ploy to draw sports fans that have moderate expectations beyond watching things go boom or crunch.
But, if your expectations are very low and you have never seen the original A-Team and you prefer a movie with more explosions than spoken words, this will be a fine film. If you are merely looking to waste roughly 90 minutes of your life and at least $9 of your hard earned cash, this is your film.
For the rest of us, that might want just a bit more from a movie - like entertainment - I would suggest this film on DVD (bargain bin) or wait for cable. You won't be missing much.
"Will the A-Team movie be worth watching? If Ridley Scott were directing I’d say yes in a heartbeat. With Carnahan I think not. His tendency to pick popular and low quality actors does not inspire confidence. Plus this is a remake (likely a revisioning) which bodes badly. And it involves a subject that Hollywood can’t get right these days, soldiers. With a writer that is 50/50 at best."
Well the first indications are now getting out.
Ok no that isn't it, but I thought it was funny. And at least as good as the actual movie trailer. Ok, for the serious look at the movie trailer
So my fear of the weakest link being the BA Baraccus character seems to be correct. Also the obvious link to the Iraq war is firmly in place. Beyond that many of the old standbys of the television series have been kept. Well at least a couple of the catch-phrases of the leading characters.
What is new are some of the gadgets that are used. C-130 planes, tanks, high-end weapons and such really make it seem unrealistic that this group of men could operate in a post-9/11 Homeland Security America. And who are they using these weapons against?
Believability is also seemingly out the window. Surviving a rocket attack in a C-130 by being in a tank that cleanly escapes the mid-air wreckage and deploys it's parachute, then popping out and shooting down a plane with an M-60 is beyond the pale. Thus we can conclude the film is solidly focused on explosions, with the characters the means by which we can get from one to another.
Given that the A-Team television show was not Shakesperian writing, it did have a bit more credibility and slightly tighter plotting. Plus the acting abilities of the stars were far more solid and recognized. Even Mr. T (then) was far more accomplished than Quinton Jackson - an obvious ploy to draw sports fans that have moderate expectations beyond watching things go boom or crunch.
But, if your expectations are very low and you have never seen the original A-Team and you prefer a movie with more explosions than spoken words, this will be a fine film. If you are merely looking to waste roughly 90 minutes of your life and at least $9 of your hard earned cash, this is your film.
For the rest of us, that might want just a bit more from a movie - like entertainment - I would suggest this film on DVD (bargain bin) or wait for cable. You won't be missing much.
Burn Notice is back for season 4
The latest season of USA Networks hit show Burn Notice starteed last night. All the characters that we love are back, as is the main theme of the show. But somehow there seems to be something off.
The episode was the usual mix of Michael Westen (Jeffrey Donovan) going out to help some innocent from criminals that only care about money and a longer arcing background issue. In the first season that issue was finding out who burned him and ended his career as a spy. In the next season it was Westen trying to get back into the spy biz. Now its some unknown radical mecenary that wants to use Westen for some unknown reason or else all of the friends and family of Westen will go bye bye.
The concept is solid enough. It adds a flavor of danger and imminent need. But maybe its a touch too much like season 2 to feel original.
Let's leave that for the moment. The episode at hand had a woman whose husband was killed in a car insurance scam. He was doing it because the family needed money badly. Now the bad guys are thretening the family that if they don't sue the city, and hand over any restitutions, well you can imagine what will happen.
The team goes to work and with a mix of good timing, bad timing, and a touch of over the top acting (on purpose) the bad guys are outwitted in their own game. The only difference this time is that Westen's mother (Sharon Gless) was drawn into the plan. And in this she ws forced to act like the operatives that everyone else on the team has been. That means that a budding friendship was destroyed, and in terms without question, while placing this innocent's (Tyne Daly) job at risk.
But by the end of the episode all has worked out for the best. Even the relationship between Michael and his mother improves after he arranges things to ensure that his mother's former new asset friend will not lose her job.
And then we learn that the mysterious figure has a plan that Michael Westen and crew must do. The plan, and exactly who this is is still not clear. But it just feels so much like Carla at that arc's start.
In fact the whole episode felt like something I'd seen before. The actors seemed somewhat bored. It was nothing blatant or easily identified, but over the episode you just felt like this was all done before. It wasn't the usual crisp pace and more or less intense acting. It was just there.
Still there have been bad episodes in this series before. The writting has dropped off and an arc has had missteps before it became a interesting foreground storyline. But the question remains if season 4 is just after the peak of the show. Did it jump the shark by saving Fiona (a still too thin Gabrielle Anwar) and killing (literally) Westen's chance at getting back into the official operative world?
As a fan I won't judge the series yet. As a ctitic I have my doubts at what might be next. Either way, the next 2 or 3 episodes at the most will likely reveal what state the show is now in and what future it might have.
The episode was the usual mix of Michael Westen (Jeffrey Donovan) going out to help some innocent from criminals that only care about money and a longer arcing background issue. In the first season that issue was finding out who burned him and ended his career as a spy. In the next season it was Westen trying to get back into the spy biz. Now its some unknown radical mecenary that wants to use Westen for some unknown reason or else all of the friends and family of Westen will go bye bye.
The concept is solid enough. It adds a flavor of danger and imminent need. But maybe its a touch too much like season 2 to feel original.
Let's leave that for the moment. The episode at hand had a woman whose husband was killed in a car insurance scam. He was doing it because the family needed money badly. Now the bad guys are thretening the family that if they don't sue the city, and hand over any restitutions, well you can imagine what will happen.
The team goes to work and with a mix of good timing, bad timing, and a touch of over the top acting (on purpose) the bad guys are outwitted in their own game. The only difference this time is that Westen's mother (Sharon Gless) was drawn into the plan. And in this she ws forced to act like the operatives that everyone else on the team has been. That means that a budding friendship was destroyed, and in terms without question, while placing this innocent's (Tyne Daly) job at risk.
But by the end of the episode all has worked out for the best. Even the relationship between Michael and his mother improves after he arranges things to ensure that his mother's former new asset friend will not lose her job.
And then we learn that the mysterious figure has a plan that Michael Westen and crew must do. The plan, and exactly who this is is still not clear. But it just feels so much like Carla at that arc's start.
In fact the whole episode felt like something I'd seen before. The actors seemed somewhat bored. It was nothing blatant or easily identified, but over the episode you just felt like this was all done before. It wasn't the usual crisp pace and more or less intense acting. It was just there.
Still there have been bad episodes in this series before. The writting has dropped off and an arc has had missteps before it became a interesting foreground storyline. But the question remains if season 4 is just after the peak of the show. Did it jump the shark by saving Fiona (a still too thin Gabrielle Anwar) and killing (literally) Westen's chance at getting back into the official operative world?
As a fan I won't judge the series yet. As a ctitic I have my doubts at what might be next. Either way, the next 2 or 3 episodes at the most will likely reveal what state the show is now in and what future it might have.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Movie Preview: Green Zone
Let's say you are a Hollywood Liberal. You hate President Bush, dislike Republicans, loathe the war in Iraq (and likely Afghanistan) and gernerally want to tell the world that America is wrong (on just about everything). What do you do?
The result is likely Green Zone. A film that focuses on the Iraq War in it's pre-surge stages. A time when admittedly America was not focused in it's efforts or goals. A war that did not have a clear justification, and was the focal point of Liberal disgust with the Government.
But films of this nature have been made before. Lions for Lambs is just one example. There are many. The general public made a clear statement that such films were distasteful, and far too politically biased, to be worthy of viewing - even as DVD's or on cable. Thus the Hollywood Liberal is stuck; wanting to spread a message that no one wishes to hear, nor believes in total.
Green Zone resolves that in 2 ways. First is the use of Matt Damon, a solid actor, as a quasi-Bourne/average joe soldier. Damon is the spy/soldier of fortune of this generation. Sort of a Rambo with a brain or Bond with brawn. His name is sure to draw action and adventure fans, while still bringing in a female audience that just likes his looks.
The second part is the loose use of the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone. A book that purported to not pick sides, and was a moment in time in the war in Iraq. A moment that specifically emphasizes the less than stellar actions of America.
With these 2 elements a film can be created that sets the American Government as bad guys, the American soldier as caught in the middle of deceptions and intrigue, and the military as bullies. It can ram home the dreams of the Liberal Hollywood in a format that will seem less political in movie trailers and finally be seen by the public at large.
I am a fan of Matt Damon. I like his acting, and I have no doubt that he will make this role interesting. Politically we are on opposite sides of the spectrum, which is fine. Until politics invades a movie in the disguise of entertainment.
I don't mind politics in movies. Anti-war movies and those with political commentaries can be great films. Like Apocalypse Now or Platoon. When the point is entertainment and then politics and not the other way around.
I dislike films that are mere propoganda, no matter how stylishly done or how many star entertainers it may contain. I dislike films that use the military as a tool to exploit to spread a message. And yes, I am no fan of anti-American films.
Thus you can take this preview of Green Zone with a grain of salt or not. You may not see the elements that I believe are present and at the fore of the film. You may agree with these ideas, in part or whole, and like the package that has been made to present them.
I do not.
Paul Greengrass is an excellent director (Bourne Ultimatum), and Damon is a solid actor. This film will have action and superb war fight scenes. It looks to have a pace that is intense, writing that is on par or above most films these days. Even the plot will be logical, if biased.
But these trappings do not seperate the true reason this film exists. To spread a political philosophy that Hollywood Liberals espouse and have been trying to disseminate for years without success by any metric.
I do not recommend this film. I won't recommend it as a DVD either. I may be completely wrong, and I will be the first to stand up and state so if I am, but that is about as likely as Hollywood becoming Conservatives.
The result is likely Green Zone. A film that focuses on the Iraq War in it's pre-surge stages. A time when admittedly America was not focused in it's efforts or goals. A war that did not have a clear justification, and was the focal point of Liberal disgust with the Government.
But films of this nature have been made before. Lions for Lambs is just one example. There are many. The general public made a clear statement that such films were distasteful, and far too politically biased, to be worthy of viewing - even as DVD's or on cable. Thus the Hollywood Liberal is stuck; wanting to spread a message that no one wishes to hear, nor believes in total.
Green Zone resolves that in 2 ways. First is the use of Matt Damon, a solid actor, as a quasi-Bourne/average joe soldier. Damon is the spy/soldier of fortune of this generation. Sort of a Rambo with a brain or Bond with brawn. His name is sure to draw action and adventure fans, while still bringing in a female audience that just likes his looks.
The second part is the loose use of the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone. A book that purported to not pick sides, and was a moment in time in the war in Iraq. A moment that specifically emphasizes the less than stellar actions of America.
With these 2 elements a film can be created that sets the American Government as bad guys, the American soldier as caught in the middle of deceptions and intrigue, and the military as bullies. It can ram home the dreams of the Liberal Hollywood in a format that will seem less political in movie trailers and finally be seen by the public at large.
I am a fan of Matt Damon. I like his acting, and I have no doubt that he will make this role interesting. Politically we are on opposite sides of the spectrum, which is fine. Until politics invades a movie in the disguise of entertainment.
I don't mind politics in movies. Anti-war movies and those with political commentaries can be great films. Like Apocalypse Now or Platoon. When the point is entertainment and then politics and not the other way around.
I dislike films that are mere propoganda, no matter how stylishly done or how many star entertainers it may contain. I dislike films that use the military as a tool to exploit to spread a message. And yes, I am no fan of anti-American films.
Thus you can take this preview of Green Zone with a grain of salt or not. You may not see the elements that I believe are present and at the fore of the film. You may agree with these ideas, in part or whole, and like the package that has been made to present them.
I do not.
Paul Greengrass is an excellent director (Bourne Ultimatum), and Damon is a solid actor. This film will have action and superb war fight scenes. It looks to have a pace that is intense, writing that is on par or above most films these days. Even the plot will be logical, if biased.
But these trappings do not seperate the true reason this film exists. To spread a political philosophy that Hollywood Liberals espouse and have been trying to disseminate for years without success by any metric.
I do not recommend this film. I won't recommend it as a DVD either. I may be completely wrong, and I will be the first to stand up and state so if I am, but that is about as likely as Hollywood becoming Conservatives.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
List of 12 greatest sci-fi shows
Considering the nnews that the Push is being developed into a television series, I thought about what in fact are the best science fiction television series ever? Well ever may be a bit too long, but at least since I have been alive and that I have seen.
Every list I have come across seems to be geared toward promoting advertising sales, patronizing some target group of readers, and/or restricted or inclusive to shows that really don't qualify as sci-fi. So here is my list, from best to worst, without influence of advertising rates, job security, or pandering.
1. Star Trek. Make all the comparisons you want, argue the inconsistencies and quality all day but the fact is this is the best sci-fi television show ever. It influnced everything to come after it, and continues to endure decades after it ended.
2. Dr. Who. The same theme and plot continues to appear on televisions across the world since 1963, that says a lot. It may not have the reach of Star Trek, but every serious sci-fi fan knows the show. To many Americans it's the television equvalent of the World Cup - the world knows it but America thinks it can do better. And actually we did, just once.
3. Farscape. Besides the Fugitive name another show that had so much fan adoration that the network had to respond? This show put Sci-Fi Channel on the map, and the manner in which it was taken off television had a lot to do with the change of the cable network to Syfy. Literally the best collection of science fiction ideas done incedibly well on television.
4. Babylon 5. Another great assortment of sci-fi ideas, done with style and serious attention to plot and details. Way before it's time.
5. Superman. I mean the original George Reeves series. Yes it was campy, but it just had a spark to it. It took the incredulous and made it enjoyable. Something almost all shows on television since have failed miserably to do.
6. Flash Gordon. Yes this was a television series long before it was a cartoon, movie, or porno. Buster Keaton took you on an adventure and every week you wanted to join him. The effects were bad, the acting anything but stellar. Yet it came together as more than it's parts.
7. Futurama. Comedic, animated, and enjoyable. Who says sci-fi can't be funny?
8. Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. Serious anime, with strong plots and engaging characters. The science is solid, if futuristic. The art is cool. The themes are adult. The plots make more sense than almost anything on television. See it.
9. Star Trek Deep Space 9. Much of the flair and storytelling of the original came back in this series. The Federation stopped being wimps, Kingons got to fight, and aliens were alien. Amazing what a bit of imagination can do.
10. V. The miniseries shocked and amazed everyone. It reminded us that if an alien could get to Earth they likely were superior, since we can't get to them. It's a sci-fi future just seconds away from reality. And it encompassed political issues and human frailties that technology or delusions of granduer cannot conquer.
11. Alien Nation. The most honest depiction of the bias and incoherent fears that exist in the human race (and America) right now. Perhaps only Archie Bunker made it more obvious that we all have a long way to go still.
12. Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. It's British, bare-bones effects, funny, and completely silly. Another example of how the absurd, mixed with sci-fi, can be widly entertaining.
Other great shows worth mention: The Greatest American Hero, Wild Wild West, Twillight Zone, UFO, The Avengers, X-Files, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Space: 1999, Sliders, Six Million Dollar Man, Quantum Leap, Max Headroom, First Wave, Firefly, Torchwood
Not included for consideration: Cartoons - ie. Jetsons, Starblazers, Battle of the Planets, Code Lyocko, Digimon, ect.; Shows that have nothing to do with science - Get Smart, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Charmed, Bewitched, Batman, Dead Like Me, Night Stalker, Airwolf, Highlander, Highlander: The Raven, ect.
Shows to avoid forever: Homeboys in Space, Ark II, Automan, Battlestar Galactica (revision), Star Trek Enterprise, Knight Rider (remake), Logan's Run, Mutant X, Primeval, Roswell, any seaQuest, Swamp Thing
Like the list? Did I miss anything? Let me know.
Every list I have come across seems to be geared toward promoting advertising sales, patronizing some target group of readers, and/or restricted or inclusive to shows that really don't qualify as sci-fi. So here is my list, from best to worst, without influence of advertising rates, job security, or pandering.
1. Star Trek. Make all the comparisons you want, argue the inconsistencies and quality all day but the fact is this is the best sci-fi television show ever. It influnced everything to come after it, and continues to endure decades after it ended.
2. Dr. Who. The same theme and plot continues to appear on televisions across the world since 1963, that says a lot. It may not have the reach of Star Trek, but every serious sci-fi fan knows the show. To many Americans it's the television equvalent of the World Cup - the world knows it but America thinks it can do better. And actually we did, just once.
3. Farscape. Besides the Fugitive name another show that had so much fan adoration that the network had to respond? This show put Sci-Fi Channel on the map, and the manner in which it was taken off television had a lot to do with the change of the cable network to Syfy. Literally the best collection of science fiction ideas done incedibly well on television.
4. Babylon 5. Another great assortment of sci-fi ideas, done with style and serious attention to plot and details. Way before it's time.
5. Superman. I mean the original George Reeves series. Yes it was campy, but it just had a spark to it. It took the incredulous and made it enjoyable. Something almost all shows on television since have failed miserably to do.
6. Flash Gordon. Yes this was a television series long before it was a cartoon, movie, or porno. Buster Keaton took you on an adventure and every week you wanted to join him. The effects were bad, the acting anything but stellar. Yet it came together as more than it's parts.
7. Futurama. Comedic, animated, and enjoyable. Who says sci-fi can't be funny?
8. Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. Serious anime, with strong plots and engaging characters. The science is solid, if futuristic. The art is cool. The themes are adult. The plots make more sense than almost anything on television. See it.
9. Star Trek Deep Space 9. Much of the flair and storytelling of the original came back in this series. The Federation stopped being wimps, Kingons got to fight, and aliens were alien. Amazing what a bit of imagination can do.
10. V. The miniseries shocked and amazed everyone. It reminded us that if an alien could get to Earth they likely were superior, since we can't get to them. It's a sci-fi future just seconds away from reality. And it encompassed political issues and human frailties that technology or delusions of granduer cannot conquer.
11. Alien Nation. The most honest depiction of the bias and incoherent fears that exist in the human race (and America) right now. Perhaps only Archie Bunker made it more obvious that we all have a long way to go still.
12. Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. It's British, bare-bones effects, funny, and completely silly. Another example of how the absurd, mixed with sci-fi, can be widly entertaining.
Other great shows worth mention: The Greatest American Hero, Wild Wild West, Twillight Zone, UFO, The Avengers, X-Files, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Space: 1999, Sliders, Six Million Dollar Man, Quantum Leap, Max Headroom, First Wave, Firefly, Torchwood
Not included for consideration: Cartoons - ie. Jetsons, Starblazers, Battle of the Planets, Code Lyocko, Digimon, ect.; Shows that have nothing to do with science - Get Smart, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Charmed, Bewitched, Batman, Dead Like Me, Night Stalker, Airwolf, Highlander, Highlander: The Raven, ect.
Shows to avoid forever: Homeboys in Space, Ark II, Automan, Battlestar Galactica (revision), Star Trek Enterprise, Knight Rider (remake), Logan's Run, Mutant X, Primeval, Roswell, any seaQuest, Swamp Thing
Like the list? Did I miss anything? Let me know.
Push: the television series
There is somethig about sci-fi on television that just makes you wonder. Occassionally you can get great shows like Farscape, Dr. Who, The Invisible Man, the original Battlestar Galactica, even The Six Million Dollar Man and Eureka fall into this category. But more often you get shows like Homeboys in Space (be happy you didn't see it), The Battlestar Galactica remake, Santuary, Demons, the V revisioned series and soon Push.
Push is the failed movie that most in the world never bothered to watch. It was a January 2009 release that can be summed up as a revisioned cross between X-Men and Firestarter. To say that it was a waste of time is to give the film credit.
But in Hollywood, where useless ideas and revisioning of anything someone else did is better than an original idea, a failed movie is exactly what television needs. Thus Push is about to become a television show.
So far there are no entertainers attached to the proposed show. Which is no surprise because I can't imagine who would need the money that badly if they are established. There is also no television network admitting they want the idea, broadcast or cable. My guess is that this will wind up on the SyFy Network, because they have proven they have no clue what good sci-fi is.
The plot is unknown but a couple of conclusions can be made. There will be omnipresent bad guys who are Government agents. There will be a young guy and woman that are being chased by the agents. There will be a huge world of pther people that are equally hiding from agents, mostly criminals, that will want to use the guy and woman as much as the agents do. At the end of each episode the duo will escape and continue to evade everyone, ala Bill Bixby at the end of every episode of The Hulk (the 70's television show which wasn't bad for the time).
Most likely the summation I just made will be more exciting and far easier to understand than the show will be. Because if you start with an inferior base, and then strip out the better qualities, you really get junk unworthy of anything put mindless goo. Which is not what sci-fi is about.
Could I be wrong about Push the television series? Sure, just as I was wrong about Demons (I hoped it would be new and different, but it turned out to be a rehash of Buffy the Vampire Killer). But betting odds are in my favor that this will be closer to the short-lived Mutant X (anthor show trying to score off of the X-Men movie craze) than Star Trek, Andromeda, Farscape, or even Ark II (based on the bad Damnation Alley movie, and something only those around since the 70's will have any clue about).
Push is the failed movie that most in the world never bothered to watch. It was a January 2009 release that can be summed up as a revisioned cross between X-Men and Firestarter. To say that it was a waste of time is to give the film credit.
But in Hollywood, where useless ideas and revisioning of anything someone else did is better than an original idea, a failed movie is exactly what television needs. Thus Push is about to become a television show.
So far there are no entertainers attached to the proposed show. Which is no surprise because I can't imagine who would need the money that badly if they are established. There is also no television network admitting they want the idea, broadcast or cable. My guess is that this will wind up on the SyFy Network, because they have proven they have no clue what good sci-fi is.
The plot is unknown but a couple of conclusions can be made. There will be omnipresent bad guys who are Government agents. There will be a young guy and woman that are being chased by the agents. There will be a huge world of pther people that are equally hiding from agents, mostly criminals, that will want to use the guy and woman as much as the agents do. At the end of each episode the duo will escape and continue to evade everyone, ala Bill Bixby at the end of every episode of The Hulk (the 70's television show which wasn't bad for the time).
Most likely the summation I just made will be more exciting and far easier to understand than the show will be. Because if you start with an inferior base, and then strip out the better qualities, you really get junk unworthy of anything put mindless goo. Which is not what sci-fi is about.
Could I be wrong about Push the television series? Sure, just as I was wrong about Demons (I hoped it would be new and different, but it turned out to be a rehash of Buffy the Vampire Killer). But betting odds are in my favor that this will be closer to the short-lived Mutant X (anthor show trying to score off of the X-Men movie craze) than Star Trek, Andromeda, Farscape, or even Ark II (based on the bad Damnation Alley movie, and something only those around since the 70's will have any clue about).
Conan O'Brien doing the right thing for staff
For all the back and forth over who gets the Tonight Show, I have had nothing to say. It's broadcast television and I generally don't watch it. Plus Jay Leno is not my cup of tea. Then again, Conan O'Brien isn't quite it either.
I do think that O'Brien got screwed by NBC. But his contract will ensure that he will be well paid for this public slap in the face. Leno on the other hand is a sinking ship. I believe that even his fan-base will reject him back in his old time slot because of the way this all worked out.
But the thing that got me writing is none of this. It's the most recent news of what is happening in the negotiations between NBC and O'Brien.
NBC is stuck and they know it. They must pay O'Brien since they broke the terms of his contract. That's worth $30 million. But the contract is not inclusive of the staff. They are a seperate situation.
O'Brien, it is reported by the AP, is sticking by his guns and fighting for a deal that will take care of his 200 or so staff members. NBC for it's part says it's made a nice deal for them and that this is just PR. So it's a he-said-she-said situation.
I believe O'Brien. NBC screwed him. NBC caused the situation. NBC is the ne trying to preserve as much money as possible while being forced to live up to the contract they broke. If anyone is likely to be pinching pennies, it would be NBC. Especially when it comes to people the public is unaware of and thus far more expendable in NBC's eyes.
I have a lot more respect for Conan O'Brien having heard about his support of his staff. He may be funny, but it's his staff that allows him to be so, night after night. The fact he is standing up for them is the right thing to do. Something that many stars in Hollywood and television forget.
So I really don't care who gets the Tonight Show. I won't be watching it any more than I have for the last 2 decades. But just because of what O'Brien has done, I will watch a bit of whatever he does next. Do you agree he has earned that much?
I do think that O'Brien got screwed by NBC. But his contract will ensure that he will be well paid for this public slap in the face. Leno on the other hand is a sinking ship. I believe that even his fan-base will reject him back in his old time slot because of the way this all worked out.
But the thing that got me writing is none of this. It's the most recent news of what is happening in the negotiations between NBC and O'Brien.
NBC is stuck and they know it. They must pay O'Brien since they broke the terms of his contract. That's worth $30 million. But the contract is not inclusive of the staff. They are a seperate situation.
O'Brien, it is reported by the AP, is sticking by his guns and fighting for a deal that will take care of his 200 or so staff members. NBC for it's part says it's made a nice deal for them and that this is just PR. So it's a he-said-she-said situation.
I believe O'Brien. NBC screwed him. NBC caused the situation. NBC is the ne trying to preserve as much money as possible while being forced to live up to the contract they broke. If anyone is likely to be pinching pennies, it would be NBC. Especially when it comes to people the public is unaware of and thus far more expendable in NBC's eyes.
I have a lot more respect for Conan O'Brien having heard about his support of his staff. He may be funny, but it's his staff that allows him to be so, night after night. The fact he is standing up for them is the right thing to do. Something that many stars in Hollywood and television forget.
So I really don't care who gets the Tonight Show. I won't be watching it any more than I have for the last 2 decades. But just because of what O'Brien has done, I will watch a bit of whatever he does next. Do you agree he has earned that much?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
New at Alchemy at World of VASS
The latest additions at Alchemy at World of VASS have just been added. Just in time for Valentine's Day. This brings the number of imported English pewter and Swarovski crystal goods to over 160 different items.
The Alchemy line includes:
Flasks
Posters and Flags
Goblets
Crystal Glassware
T-shirts (for Men and Women)
Earrings
Pendants and Neclaces
Handbags
Canes
Bracelets
Shot Glasses
Chalices
Rings
Cigarette cases and Lighters
Cell Phone chains
and more
There is something for every loved one you would like to share an expression of love with. Delivered direct to you, from England with the highest of quality.
And there is a bonus! Every item purchased at either Alchemy at World of VASS and/or World of VASS will have 50% of the profits donated to benefit the people of Haiti. These donations will continue on all sales up to February 14th.
So you will not only be expressing your love for those special people in your life, but you will be helping improve the lives of those in desparate need.
Take a moment and check out our online store. Pick up a small gift for your girlfriend/boyfriend/mom/dad/siter/brother or even yourself. Buy several dozen gifts and have something for everyone. Either way, you will be helping others with your purchase.
Thank you for helping M V Consulting, Inc. give to those that need all of our help.
Sincerely
Michael Vass
President
info@vassconsult.com
The Alchemy line includes:
Flasks
Posters and Flags
Goblets
Crystal Glassware
T-shirts (for Men and Women)
Earrings
Pendants and Neclaces
Handbags
Canes
Bracelets
Shot Glasses
Chalices
Rings
Cigarette cases and Lighters
Cell Phone chains
and more
There is something for every loved one you would like to share an expression of love with. Delivered direct to you, from England with the highest of quality.
And there is a bonus! Every item purchased at either Alchemy at World of VASS and/or World of VASS will have 50% of the profits donated to benefit the people of Haiti. These donations will continue on all sales up to February 14th.
So you will not only be expressing your love for those special people in your life, but you will be helping improve the lives of those in desparate need.
Take a moment and check out our online store. Pick up a small gift for your girlfriend/boyfriend/mom/dad/siter/brother or even yourself. Buy several dozen gifts and have something for everyone. Either way, you will be helping others with your purchase.
Thank you for helping M V Consulting, Inc. give to those that need all of our help.
Sincerely
Michael Vass
President
info@vassconsult.com
Monday, January 18, 2010
Movie Review: The Book of Eli
When you see the movie trailers for the Book of Eli, you get a feeling of Mad Max. A post-apocalypic world filled with violence and action. You get a sense of the lone gunsliner (ala Clint Eastwood's famous gunfighter without a name, or even the Samurai his character is based upon) wandering the land spreading a unique mix of justice, vengance, honor, and moral apathy. This is what the trailer brings to mind.
The movie itself is another thing though. It is slow in pace, like Once Upon A Time In America. It's bleak, like so many after the end of the world movies. It's a journey that is dark and harsh, and not quite enjoyable because it's not supposed to be. Which makes complete sense why the film was released in January. Execs didn't know how to market this.
The harsh lighting of the film makes you never comfortable with what you are seeing. Almost making you want to squint as much as the actors. It is a constant reminder that the world has become unpleasant, and brutal.
The soundtrack is filled with interesting notes. It easily matches the feel of the movie as it surges in confrontation and ebbs through transition. It's almost completely unheard, save for 2 songs that will strike a cord for anyone that listens to oldies channels. Personally I think either Classical or 60's rock would have been better, but the choices used make sense.
Book of Eli gives us the mostly silent, brooding hero that is imperfect in a far from perfect world. The early inaction to save a woman from being raped is matched with the compassion of allowing another woman that is bait to live. A good deed that has a reward just as painful as you might imagine it to be.
Early on we know what the book is, though there is a twist to it that you just won't expect. Even so this is hardly a religious film. It's a film about conviction and faith. The faith of Eli to do what he believes he must, and to walk though the valley of death to get it done.
Denzel Washington is not the action hero you would expect for this film. If you are hoping for Mad Max, you won't get it. But you do get a strong character with a presence that stands out in every seen. And you feel the burden of his character in every word and step.
Mila Kunis has a decent role. A far cry from her television personality, the role hints at greater acting depth. Hints at it but never quite makes it. You never get to feel for her character Solaris. You just understand that she is there. Not really helping, or standing out. But not a disteraction either. It's an odd role to fill and if she was intended to be so subdued then she did a great job.
Gary Oldman was probably the least pleasant of all the actors in the film. Not because he is a bad actor, but because he never really gets into the Carnegie character. You know that Carnegie is willing to do whatever it takes to keep control. That he wants power. That he can be ruthless. But you never feel the fear he seems to instill in the townsfolk, nor the loyalty of his key enforcers. He's a bad guy virtually devoid of his evil, like a Stansfield without the energy or panache.
Watching this film you feel like you are always waiting for something to happen. Not in an edge of your seat kind of way, but s in a "something big should happen" kind of feeling. And it never does. Even in the final scenes of the film you never get a sense of completion. It feels empty, like something was missed.
I can't balme the writing or acting, or visuals of this film. None are impeccable yet none are badly done. It's just not compelling. Interesting but not the rush you expect walking into the film.
The Book of Eli is a good film for watching on DVD. To pick at the subtle references, and specific lines. To let it simmer in your mind and to wonder about a world gone so wrong. To consider what price redemption might cost, and how it might be paid.
This is not an action movie fan's movie. This is not a Mad Max sci-fi fan film. It's just odd. Watchable, but odd. Almost like watching Grand Canyon - a film that is more just a moment in time than entertainment.
The movie itself is another thing though. It is slow in pace, like Once Upon A Time In America. It's bleak, like so many after the end of the world movies. It's a journey that is dark and harsh, and not quite enjoyable because it's not supposed to be. Which makes complete sense why the film was released in January. Execs didn't know how to market this.
The harsh lighting of the film makes you never comfortable with what you are seeing. Almost making you want to squint as much as the actors. It is a constant reminder that the world has become unpleasant, and brutal.
The soundtrack is filled with interesting notes. It easily matches the feel of the movie as it surges in confrontation and ebbs through transition. It's almost completely unheard, save for 2 songs that will strike a cord for anyone that listens to oldies channels. Personally I think either Classical or 60's rock would have been better, but the choices used make sense.
Book of Eli gives us the mostly silent, brooding hero that is imperfect in a far from perfect world. The early inaction to save a woman from being raped is matched with the compassion of allowing another woman that is bait to live. A good deed that has a reward just as painful as you might imagine it to be.
Early on we know what the book is, though there is a twist to it that you just won't expect. Even so this is hardly a religious film. It's a film about conviction and faith. The faith of Eli to do what he believes he must, and to walk though the valley of death to get it done.
Denzel Washington is not the action hero you would expect for this film. If you are hoping for Mad Max, you won't get it. But you do get a strong character with a presence that stands out in every seen. And you feel the burden of his character in every word and step.
Mila Kunis has a decent role. A far cry from her television personality, the role hints at greater acting depth. Hints at it but never quite makes it. You never get to feel for her character Solaris. You just understand that she is there. Not really helping, or standing out. But not a disteraction either. It's an odd role to fill and if she was intended to be so subdued then she did a great job.
Gary Oldman was probably the least pleasant of all the actors in the film. Not because he is a bad actor, but because he never really gets into the Carnegie character. You know that Carnegie is willing to do whatever it takes to keep control. That he wants power. That he can be ruthless. But you never feel the fear he seems to instill in the townsfolk, nor the loyalty of his key enforcers. He's a bad guy virtually devoid of his evil, like a Stansfield without the energy or panache.
Watching this film you feel like you are always waiting for something to happen. Not in an edge of your seat kind of way, but s in a "something big should happen" kind of feeling. And it never does. Even in the final scenes of the film you never get a sense of completion. It feels empty, like something was missed.
I can't balme the writing or acting, or visuals of this film. None are impeccable yet none are badly done. It's just not compelling. Interesting but not the rush you expect walking into the film.
The Book of Eli is a good film for watching on DVD. To pick at the subtle references, and specific lines. To let it simmer in your mind and to wonder about a world gone so wrong. To consider what price redemption might cost, and how it might be paid.
This is not an action movie fan's movie. This is not a Mad Max sci-fi fan film. It's just odd. Watchable, but odd. Almost like watching Grand Canyon - a film that is more just a moment in time than entertainment.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Jets vs. Chargers - halftime
Ok, so the game is nothing like the complete embarassment that the Vikings gave the Cowboys. But that was somewhat expected (that it would be a different game, not the score).
The Jets look horrible. Sanchez looks like he is being out thought and outclassed. His plays are just that bad. Not to mention his REALLY bad choice of spiking the ball with 55 seconds in the 2nd half. He did have a timeout available, and why he didn't use it makes no sense.
But I think the really big play of the game so far has to be the penalty of the 2nd half. Chargers had the ball and made a pass. It was about 10:30 in the 2nd quarter. The Chargers (I forget the players) catch the ball in the air, comes down with both feet, is hit by the Jets player and drops the ball. The jets player then goes on to recover the ball. It is called an incomplete pass.
What was the ref smoking. If this were a play by the sideline, where the ball was caught and both feet were in it would have been called a completed pass. If the play was in the middle of the field and the Charger just dropped the ball after this catch it would have been a fumble. But how this was not a completed pass I don't understand. Control, both feet on the ground, what else does it take to make a completion.
But that is the nature of the game so far. I believe there have been some 8 or 9 penalties, most being technical and stupid, between both teams. But this, plus the inexperience of Sanchez have led to a game that is a bit plodding and lopsided towards the Chargers favor.
The fact that it took 5 possesions before the Jets made a first down says a lot about wehat the outcome may be in this game. It may just be 7 - 0 Chargers favor at the half but it looks like the game is over. The Jets need to run the ball and make short completions. Sanchez needs to think about what he is doing.
Between bad plays, bad punts, bad time management, and refs with lopsided penalties that don't exist the game appears headed for an outcome not unlike the 34 - 3 landslide for the Vikings. I'd say that if the Jets don't get their collective heads out of their asses the game will be 28 - 7.
But if Sanchex can calm down, and if Rivas can make a couple of plays like the final seconds of the 2nd half (running back a failed wide field goal attempt, made it to the 35), we could see a football game. We might see a score of 14 - 24 or 10 - 27 with either team winning.
The Giants are out of it so the default for me is to see the Jets win. But so far I don't see how they can. But that's just half-time chatter.
The Jets look horrible. Sanchez looks like he is being out thought and outclassed. His plays are just that bad. Not to mention his REALLY bad choice of spiking the ball with 55 seconds in the 2nd half. He did have a timeout available, and why he didn't use it makes no sense.
But I think the really big play of the game so far has to be the penalty of the 2nd half. Chargers had the ball and made a pass. It was about 10:30 in the 2nd quarter. The Chargers (I forget the players) catch the ball in the air, comes down with both feet, is hit by the Jets player and drops the ball. The jets player then goes on to recover the ball. It is called an incomplete pass.
What was the ref smoking. If this were a play by the sideline, where the ball was caught and both feet were in it would have been called a completed pass. If the play was in the middle of the field and the Charger just dropped the ball after this catch it would have been a fumble. But how this was not a completed pass I don't understand. Control, both feet on the ground, what else does it take to make a completion.
But that is the nature of the game so far. I believe there have been some 8 or 9 penalties, most being technical and stupid, between both teams. But this, plus the inexperience of Sanchez have led to a game that is a bit plodding and lopsided towards the Chargers favor.
The fact that it took 5 possesions before the Jets made a first down says a lot about wehat the outcome may be in this game. It may just be 7 - 0 Chargers favor at the half but it looks like the game is over. The Jets need to run the ball and make short completions. Sanchez needs to think about what he is doing.
Between bad plays, bad punts, bad time management, and refs with lopsided penalties that don't exist the game appears headed for an outcome not unlike the 34 - 3 landslide for the Vikings. I'd say that if the Jets don't get their collective heads out of their asses the game will be 28 - 7.
But if Sanchex can calm down, and if Rivas can make a couple of plays like the final seconds of the 2nd half (running back a failed wide field goal attempt, made it to the 35), we could see a football game. We might see a score of 14 - 24 or 10 - 27 with either team winning.
The Giants are out of it so the default for me is to see the Jets win. But so far I don't see how they can. But that's just half-time chatter.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Valentines for Haiti
Valentine's Day is a celebration of love. Usually it's a day when a gift or expression of love is given to someone that you know and care about. But love is not limited to those in our immediate circle of friends, family, and relationships. There is also the love of our fellow human being.
Haiti has been devastated by an enormous earthquake. The news has been filling the airwaves, the magnitude of the horror can only be measured in the tens of thousands of lives this has affected. And the true giving spirit of humanity has come forward, as it always does in such a tragedy.
George Clooney is working with MTV to create a telethon to help the people of Haiti. Presidents Bush and Clinton have come together to urge donations for this island nation. President Obama has guaranteed at least $100 million in aide. But the need will be greater than even that.
M V Consulting is not a mega-corporation. Our wells are not without limit, and while I wish I could create a telethon it is not possible. But there is something that we can do. With your help.
Valentine's Day is 30 days away. During this time 50% of all the profits from the sale of any item found at the online stores of M V Consulting, Inc. (Alchemy at World of VASS and World of VASS) will be donated to American Red Cross at www.redcross.org and Yele Haiti at www.yele.org.
So if you were hoping to give your girlfriend a new necklace for Valentine's Day like
- Heavily carved cross from the Middle Ages featuring a red-enamelled Sacred Heart and suspended with large Austrian crystal dropper.
or you thought your boyfriend might enjoy
- A classic straight-sided 1 pint ale glass, but in black glass and branded with an antiqued pewter badge of Triple X Black Rose Ale.
The proceeds will help out those in need in Hati as well.
Maybe you wanted to just get yourself or your brother/sister/mother/father something like
That too will help those in Haiti.
Whatever you choose, no matter how big or small, we will help Haiti with it. Because love of your fellow human being is not about how much you do, but that you do it at all.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
Sincerely
Michael Vass
President - M V Consulting, Inc.
info@vassconsult.com
Haiti has been devastated by an enormous earthquake. The news has been filling the airwaves, the magnitude of the horror can only be measured in the tens of thousands of lives this has affected. And the true giving spirit of humanity has come forward, as it always does in such a tragedy.
George Clooney is working with MTV to create a telethon to help the people of Haiti. Presidents Bush and Clinton have come together to urge donations for this island nation. President Obama has guaranteed at least $100 million in aide. But the need will be greater than even that.
M V Consulting is not a mega-corporation. Our wells are not without limit, and while I wish I could create a telethon it is not possible. But there is something that we can do. With your help.
Valentine's Day is 30 days away. During this time 50% of all the profits from the sale of any item found at the online stores of M V Consulting, Inc. (Alchemy at World of VASS and World of VASS) will be donated to American Red Cross at www.redcross.org and Yele Haiti at www.yele.org.
So if you were hoping to give your girlfriend a new necklace for Valentine's Day like
- Heavily carved cross from the Middle Ages featuring a red-enamelled Sacred Heart and suspended with large Austrian crystal dropper.
or you thought your boyfriend might enjoy
- A classic straight-sided 1 pint ale glass, but in black glass and branded with an antiqued pewter badge of Triple X Black Rose Ale.
The proceeds will help out those in need in Hati as well.
Maybe you wanted to just get yourself or your brother/sister/mother/father something like
That too will help those in Haiti.
Whatever you choose, no matter how big or small, we will help Haiti with it. Because love of your fellow human being is not about how much you do, but that you do it at all.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
Sincerely
Michael Vass
President - M V Consulting, Inc.
info@vassconsult.com
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Television Show Review: Archer
FX Network is the latest to create an animated adult-oriented anime program for the Thursday night slot. But unlike The Simpsons, this is a show more aking to Cartoon Networks celebrated Adult Swim line-up than the prime time original.
Even before the show came on the month long rollout from FX has made it clear that the college crowd was the target audience. The multiple 30 second spots promoting the show made it clear that this was meant to be a mix of non-PC themed jokes, crude sexual inuendo, and a parody of James Bond style spy movies.
The real question is will the program work in its 30 minute format as well as it did in 30 seconds? The answer was, not really.
It's not the over-used semi-3D blockish art that takes away form the show (which has been used for Frisky Dingo and Assy McGee among others). It's not the style of jokes. It's not the voice acting. It's a combination of all the above.
Obviously the first thing most will notice is the art. Fans of Adult Swim will be bored as this is a style that is quickly becoming overused. It's not overly detailed, eye-catching, or involving. For those that haven't seen it before it might be a change of pace, but it gets old by the end of an episode. Probably because the colors are more of a bland wash-out than bold or striking.
The voice acting is much on the same level. The actors are competent in what they are doing. The lead character, Sterling Archer, is H. Jon Benjamin - best known for being the voice of Assy McGee. His former love interest is Lana Kane, Aisha Tyler who may be most recognized from her role on CSI. Jessica Walter adds experience to the cast in the role of Mallory Archer, the mother of Sterling. Another accomplished actor is George Coe as Woodhouse, the longtime man-servant of Sterling.
They are all good at what they do. But listening to them with 80% of their lines you just don't get a feeling that there is any excitement. That somehow the cast is just not in snyc. Or that they really aren't enjoyig the lines that they have.
Which brings up the writing. It's just par. It hits the mark, but just misses the big laugh. Like the pace is off. It's so close to being very funny, but not quite.
There are many good lines though. Little bits of side comments or quick quips that catch the attention. But it's not consistent.
Watching the first 2 episodes you get a feel for the programs' potential. There is huge potential for the show to get it's legs and take off. You can feel how it could be really good. Or come completely off the wheels and crash and burn.
One thing I liked was Lana and her hyper-sexuality and interracial porn addiction. The almost Clousea-like nature of Sterling Archer is good as well, though his character would definitely be grating at an hour length.
The negatives are far more numerous. I won't even try to list them. But the good news is they are things that the show can work to remove. In fact I would imagine that many of these issues are likely worked out by the end of the season.
Archer is a bold try to grab the attention of college 20-somethings. It makes fun of the Bond types and the serious outlook on the spy thriller. The art is ok, as is the writing. But potential must be realized for the show to make it past the first set of episodes. I'll watch it again, maybe even for the most of the season, as long as this does not compete with Burn Notice. Ultimately, I don't see the show making it past 2 season though. It just doesn't have enough to make it tread water.
Even before the show came on the month long rollout from FX has made it clear that the college crowd was the target audience. The multiple 30 second spots promoting the show made it clear that this was meant to be a mix of non-PC themed jokes, crude sexual inuendo, and a parody of James Bond style spy movies.
The real question is will the program work in its 30 minute format as well as it did in 30 seconds? The answer was, not really.
It's not the over-used semi-3D blockish art that takes away form the show (which has been used for Frisky Dingo and Assy McGee among others). It's not the style of jokes. It's not the voice acting. It's a combination of all the above.
Obviously the first thing most will notice is the art. Fans of Adult Swim will be bored as this is a style that is quickly becoming overused. It's not overly detailed, eye-catching, or involving. For those that haven't seen it before it might be a change of pace, but it gets old by the end of an episode. Probably because the colors are more of a bland wash-out than bold or striking.
The voice acting is much on the same level. The actors are competent in what they are doing. The lead character, Sterling Archer, is H. Jon Benjamin - best known for being the voice of Assy McGee. His former love interest is Lana Kane, Aisha Tyler who may be most recognized from her role on CSI. Jessica Walter adds experience to the cast in the role of Mallory Archer, the mother of Sterling. Another accomplished actor is George Coe as Woodhouse, the longtime man-servant of Sterling.
They are all good at what they do. But listening to them with 80% of their lines you just don't get a feeling that there is any excitement. That somehow the cast is just not in snyc. Or that they really aren't enjoyig the lines that they have.
Which brings up the writing. It's just par. It hits the mark, but just misses the big laugh. Like the pace is off. It's so close to being very funny, but not quite.
There are many good lines though. Little bits of side comments or quick quips that catch the attention. But it's not consistent.
Watching the first 2 episodes you get a feel for the programs' potential. There is huge potential for the show to get it's legs and take off. You can feel how it could be really good. Or come completely off the wheels and crash and burn.
One thing I liked was Lana and her hyper-sexuality and interracial porn addiction. The almost Clousea-like nature of Sterling Archer is good as well, though his character would definitely be grating at an hour length.
The negatives are far more numerous. I won't even try to list them. But the good news is they are things that the show can work to remove. In fact I would imagine that many of these issues are likely worked out by the end of the season.
Archer is a bold try to grab the attention of college 20-somethings. It makes fun of the Bond types and the serious outlook on the spy thriller. The art is ok, as is the writing. But potential must be realized for the show to make it past the first set of episodes. I'll watch it again, maybe even for the most of the season, as long as this does not compete with Burn Notice. Ultimately, I don't see the show making it past 2 season though. It just doesn't have enough to make it tread water.
Teddy Pendergrass - an inspiration passes
It's a shame to have to say that Teddy Pendergrass has passed away. The man was an inspirational entertainer. Not only because of his talent, that required no gimmicks or manipulation of his voice in a studio as many today require, but also because of his perserverance after the accident that left him in a wheelchair.
Teddy Pendergrass was one of the few entertainers that has endured the test of time. His music has found countless new fans, while remaining cherished by old fans for decades. He was part of an age of entertainers that didn't need music videos, or blatant sexual imagery, to sell. He was quality before the current age of quantity flooded the markets.
And any discussion of Pendergrass is not complete without mentioning the Teddy Pendergrass Alliance which raised money, awareness, and inspired those that suffered from spinal cord injuries.
Music has lost a great, far too young and far too soon. There is no replacement for his style, voice, and talent in the industry today and likely ever to come. Truly its a sad day.
Teddy Pendergrass was one of the few entertainers that has endured the test of time. His music has found countless new fans, while remaining cherished by old fans for decades. He was part of an age of entertainers that didn't need music videos, or blatant sexual imagery, to sell. He was quality before the current age of quantity flooded the markets.
And any discussion of Pendergrass is not complete without mentioning the Teddy Pendergrass Alliance which raised money, awareness, and inspired those that suffered from spinal cord injuries.
Music has lost a great, far too young and far too soon. There is no replacement for his style, voice, and talent in the industry today and likely ever to come. Truly its a sad day.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Are you ready for Sarah Palin on your TV?
She is probably one of the most recognized women in America. She is loved by millions, and despised by almost as many. She is anything but a media darling, yet the media can't stay away from her. And the blogosphere often lives to tout or taunt her.
Sarah Palin.
The best book selling, vice presidential candidate, former-Governor and mom is coming to a television near you. Unless of course you are a die-hard MSNBC loving Liberal. If so, you won't even notice. But everyone else surely will.
Ms. Palin is going to join the pundits and commentators of Fox News today. She will make her first appearance (as a pundit) today on the O'Reilly Factor. And I can already feel the warm buzz of liberal bloggers blood boiling.
Honestly, anyone that can be the target of so many slings and arrows and still be a success impresses me. The fact that she is a woman, in a mostly male dominated arena, that holds her own just adds to her image.
There are a lot of views people have about Palin. Most I find are second-hand regurgitations of political commentators like Chris "I feel a tingle" Matthews and/or quasi-political activists like David "I know a joke about a young girl" Letterman. But it's surprisig how few people really know much more than these tidbits about Palin's career, political views, intelligence, or any other aspect. Especially when you consider that she ran for the number 2 spot in running the nation.
Will Palin be a success? Will this help launch her political ambitions towards the Presidency? Well it can't hurt considering how low the expectations are from the career politicians and most media.
Like every other blogger around, I intend to watch her today and review her performance. One thing is for sure, Liberals will hate her and Conservatives will be mixed. But it will be a ratings coup for Fox News.
Sarah Palin.
The best book selling, vice presidential candidate, former-Governor and mom is coming to a television near you. Unless of course you are a die-hard MSNBC loving Liberal. If so, you won't even notice. But everyone else surely will.
Ms. Palin is going to join the pundits and commentators of Fox News today. She will make her first appearance (as a pundit) today on the O'Reilly Factor. And I can already feel the warm buzz of liberal bloggers blood boiling.
Honestly, anyone that can be the target of so many slings and arrows and still be a success impresses me. The fact that she is a woman, in a mostly male dominated arena, that holds her own just adds to her image.
There are a lot of views people have about Palin. Most I find are second-hand regurgitations of political commentators like Chris "I feel a tingle" Matthews and/or quasi-political activists like David "I know a joke about a young girl" Letterman. But it's surprisig how few people really know much more than these tidbits about Palin's career, political views, intelligence, or any other aspect. Especially when you consider that she ran for the number 2 spot in running the nation.
Will Palin be a success? Will this help launch her political ambitions towards the Presidency? Well it can't hurt considering how low the expectations are from the career politicians and most media.
Like every other blogger around, I intend to watch her today and review her performance. One thing is for sure, Liberals will hate her and Conservatives will be mixed. But it will be a ratings coup for Fox News.
Spiderman no more
So did you think that Tobey Maguire was the perfect Peter Parker? Did you think that the huge volume of stories in comic books could keep the franchise going for years more to come? Where you just looking forward to the 4th movie in the series, expected in the summer of 2011?
Whatever you thought, you were wrong. At least according to the thinking of Marvel and Sony. Because they just pulled the plug on the 4th Spiderman movie.
Yep, the series is now officially done at 3. Well sort of. Because Sony and Marvel Comics won't let a good thing go. Not if there is even a slight chance of making a bit more money.
The problem was that Sam Raimi wasn't feeling 100% about doing abnother Spiderman movie. Add to that the huge cost of the recurring cast (who were apparently all for another try) and problems sorting out a script and/or villian. It's enough to make even J. Jonah Jameson cry.
But never fear. The powers that be (executives with an eye on the trends of the day) have figured out a way to help people with their Spidey fix, and make even more boatloads of money. Plans are now underway to scrap the original cast, get a new director, and start the whole thing over. But since the series is hardly old, a new twist is going to be added so it has a nice revisionist feel.
The hottest movies out now are teen movies. Twilight, Harry Potter, and so on. But Potter is about to end, and there is just so much angst that you can get from a hormonal vampire with pimples. Which is where Spidey comes in.
The new film will be all about the angst of being a teen-ager with spider powers, a curfew, and bullies you just can't do anything to even though you could. Add a couple of Teenbeat cover stars and you have a surefire money maker.
If I sound a bit jaded, I am. I don't like revisionist remakes. I generally don't like remakes either. And dropping a more than healthy dose of teen angst into the mix does not make a recipe for quality anything. I could be wrong, but it won't matter. As long as they fill the screen with the latest tween and young star, it'll make money.
On a seperate note, this now confirms the trend in Marvel movies. You get 3 and you're out. With the X-Men they could have skipped the 3rd. Hopefully Iron Man will be up to the task. Thor doesn't even need to be made once. And a remake of Daredevil can't be worse than what we already got. Oh, and the Wolverine movies? I can live without it.
But if Spiderman - the teen years is not enough for you, don't worry. A new, revisioned, all teen and 20-something X-Men prequel movie is already being planned. And that will probably kill the comic book to movie conversions for a while. I hope.
Whatever you thought, you were wrong. At least according to the thinking of Marvel and Sony. Because they just pulled the plug on the 4th Spiderman movie.
Yep, the series is now officially done at 3. Well sort of. Because Sony and Marvel Comics won't let a good thing go. Not if there is even a slight chance of making a bit more money.
The problem was that Sam Raimi wasn't feeling 100% about doing abnother Spiderman movie. Add to that the huge cost of the recurring cast (who were apparently all for another try) and problems sorting out a script and/or villian. It's enough to make even J. Jonah Jameson cry.
But never fear. The powers that be (executives with an eye on the trends of the day) have figured out a way to help people with their Spidey fix, and make even more boatloads of money. Plans are now underway to scrap the original cast, get a new director, and start the whole thing over. But since the series is hardly old, a new twist is going to be added so it has a nice revisionist feel.
The hottest movies out now are teen movies. Twilight, Harry Potter, and so on. But Potter is about to end, and there is just so much angst that you can get from a hormonal vampire with pimples. Which is where Spidey comes in.
The new film will be all about the angst of being a teen-ager with spider powers, a curfew, and bullies you just can't do anything to even though you could. Add a couple of Teenbeat cover stars and you have a surefire money maker.
If I sound a bit jaded, I am. I don't like revisionist remakes. I generally don't like remakes either. And dropping a more than healthy dose of teen angst into the mix does not make a recipe for quality anything. I could be wrong, but it won't matter. As long as they fill the screen with the latest tween and young star, it'll make money.
On a seperate note, this now confirms the trend in Marvel movies. You get 3 and you're out. With the X-Men they could have skipped the 3rd. Hopefully Iron Man will be up to the task. Thor doesn't even need to be made once. And a remake of Daredevil can't be worse than what we already got. Oh, and the Wolverine movies? I can live without it.
But if Spiderman - the teen years is not enough for you, don't worry. A new, revisioned, all teen and 20-something X-Men prequel movie is already being planned. And that will probably kill the comic book to movie conversions for a while. I hope.
NYC, the frontline of the war on...salt
California used to be know for it's sunny weather, earthquakes and hyper-health food craze. But it seems that Mayor Bloomberg is looking to take that title.
Salt is now enemy number 1 in New York City. New initiatives call for massive reductions in the salt count of foods from hamburgers to popcorn, to cereal (yep, there's salt in that). But don't go hiding your saltshakers yet, the reduction will take place of 5 years. And it's voluntary.
But there is another thing to keep in mind about this new idea. Given that there is more than enough salt in prepared foods in America. Given also is the fact that too much salt increases the chances of stroke and high blood pressure (as if life in NYC won't give you that anyway). But there is also the fact that New Yorkers are giving up their freedom at the same time.
Trans fat, salt, cigarettes, soon to be joined by prohibative taxes on soda, snacks, and pretty much everything else. While all of this is supposed to be for the best interest of the public, it feels like the government is the parent and adults are the ignorant children that don't know better. The only thing that's left, it feels like, is the ability to breathe. Of course that's if you don't worry about the government regulations that cover CO2 gas - which we all exhale when we breathe (yet another tax perhaps?).
One might consider NYC the smaller cousin of Big Brother, molded and in the shape of Mayor Michael Bloomberg himself.
It's one thing to be helpful, but as the choices get fewer and fewer the thought of what goes next seems more prominent. Perhaps Mayor Bloomberg (and/or Gov. Patterson) will seek to tax prohibatively video games, because they can't be good for anyone's eyes. Maybe it will be television, President Obama already tried to remove Fox News from the airwaves. Baseball, football, and other sports get fans far too excited. And blue is a happy color, so everyone should wear it for their mental health.
Exaggeration? Right now, yes. But just 10 years ago an adult in New York was more free than today. And 30 years ago more than that.
Why think about this on an entertainment blog? Because in a climate of ever reducing freedoms, the choice of what you can or cannot entertain yourself with will be the last freedom to go. Otherwise you might notice what's happening.
You may disagree, but keep an eye open. Because if I'm not wrong...
Salt is now enemy number 1 in New York City. New initiatives call for massive reductions in the salt count of foods from hamburgers to popcorn, to cereal (yep, there's salt in that). But don't go hiding your saltshakers yet, the reduction will take place of 5 years. And it's voluntary.
But there is another thing to keep in mind about this new idea. Given that there is more than enough salt in prepared foods in America. Given also is the fact that too much salt increases the chances of stroke and high blood pressure (as if life in NYC won't give you that anyway). But there is also the fact that New Yorkers are giving up their freedom at the same time.
Trans fat, salt, cigarettes, soon to be joined by prohibative taxes on soda, snacks, and pretty much everything else. While all of this is supposed to be for the best interest of the public, it feels like the government is the parent and adults are the ignorant children that don't know better. The only thing that's left, it feels like, is the ability to breathe. Of course that's if you don't worry about the government regulations that cover CO2 gas - which we all exhale when we breathe (yet another tax perhaps?).
One might consider NYC the smaller cousin of Big Brother, molded and in the shape of Mayor Michael Bloomberg himself.
It's one thing to be helpful, but as the choices get fewer and fewer the thought of what goes next seems more prominent. Perhaps Mayor Bloomberg (and/or Gov. Patterson) will seek to tax prohibatively video games, because they can't be good for anyone's eyes. Maybe it will be television, President Obama already tried to remove Fox News from the airwaves. Baseball, football, and other sports get fans far too excited. And blue is a happy color, so everyone should wear it for their mental health.
Exaggeration? Right now, yes. But just 10 years ago an adult in New York was more free than today. And 30 years ago more than that.
Why think about this on an entertainment blog? Because in a climate of ever reducing freedoms, the choice of what you can or cannot entertain yourself with will be the last freedom to go. Otherwise you might notice what's happening.
You may disagree, but keep an eye open. Because if I'm not wrong...
Monday, January 11, 2010
"Negro dialect"
Those are part of the words that Sen. Harry Reid used to describe President Obama during the 2008 Presidential campaign. "Negro dialect". It just keeps running through my mind.
What is "negro dialect" Senator Reid? How exactly are African Americans supposed to speak? Is it somehow different than himself, or Hillary Clinton, or even Rush Limbaugh? Is there some kind of class required to learn this language?
Let's take this from the beginning. Negro, a term used before and through the 1960's to describe African Americans. It replaced the N-word, which was a step forward indeed. But EVERY conotation of the word was intended to denote a second-class of citizenship, a substandard way of life, and inferiority. It is a term embedded with racial disparity and prejudice. And it is a term no longer used because of those very reasons.
In using these words, combined with the backhanded compliment of how light the skin of President Obama is, an image is made. It's an image no different that the one I would have if the words were said by a person in a white hood made them. And there is nothing that makes that statement better.
Reid has run for the hills, with Democrats of all types covering his tracks. He is proclaiming his record of acheivements absolve him of the thought process that made those words enter and escape his mouth. He is trying to project his liberal image, as a defense to his racial verbage.
But why, in 2008, would ANYONE of whatever political background use such terminology? What is it that makes this ok for some? [Notably the "Black leaders" - who themselves share the same political ideology]
Shallow minds might point to rap music as the cause of the statement. But think about that. Slang words have been used by every generation of Americans since before there was an America. Those in the South, the West Coast, even in various cities in the same region, all have slang. Yet I have never heard anyone speak of a politicians "White dialect", let alone praise them for it (or the lack thereof).
Who promotes the slang used in rap music? Not the entertainers. They are merely the tool used to market it. They don't control the production of CD's, the production of music videos and television commercials. That's all done by the music industry executives. The very same people that decide that this style of clothing will sell, or that gospel should be emphasized in the South, and country music in the mid-west.
Yes it's music executives that promote the rap slang. And they sell it to White youth that are all too willing to buy the records, dress in the clothes, and emulate the style in a music video like a child might emulate the family puppy because it's funny.
But that's all business. That has nothing to do with the educations of the entertainers, or their fans. It has nothing to do with their ability to speak or think. It has nothing to do with the shades of color (or lack) of their skin. All that has to do with is money.
So I really want to understand what "negro dialect" Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada is talking about. Is it the way I speak? Is it the way that my father spoke? Or the way Rev. Jesse jackson speaks? What is it exactly?
In my life I have heard some with doctorates that have thick Southern drawls, business owners with the quick tempos of New York City speech. I have heard people with perfect diction that are winos, and others who mumble that are multi-millionaires. I even recall a stock brokerage owner who you would swear sounds just like Mickey Mouse. Do any of those styles of speech make these people smarter, richer, better? Would revealing the skin color of those same people elevate their intelligence and abilities?
Sen. Reid wants to point out all the things he's done to better race relations in America. As if that alters his apparent thought that African Americans need to be fixed. That somehow the color of my skin impedes my mental abilities in some manner.
Was Dr. Martin Luther King any less intelligent because he had skin darker than mine? Was Malcolm X an less of a man because he could speak jive, like many New Yorkers? Is Jay-Z any less of a success because he can rap on an album that music executives want to promote? Is Michael Jordan, or Muhammad Ali, or Tiger Woods any less talented because of their skin or how they speak?
Sen. Harry Reid slipped when he uttered these comments. He spoke his true mind, and not the polispeak spin of a politician when in front of a crowd or camera. In the past when celebrities and politicians have done this there was an outcry to have those people removed. Think of Don Imus, Dogg the bounty hunter, and so many more. How is what Reid said any differnt?
Better yet, to understand if this was really racial bias and wrong let's change the color of the statement. If it's insulting when any other group is used, then it's insulting. And if any other group would be outraged, Harry Reid should be removed from his political position.
If the statement was 'Jewish dialect' or 'Chinese dialect', or 'Hispanic dialect', does it sound any better? What if he had said 'that's a lght-skinned Arab' or 'light-skinned Italian' does it sound just as supposedly innocent?
'XX should be President because they are a dark-skinned Caucassian... who can speak without a Christian dialect if they want to.'
Does any of that sound fair, or simple? Does it sound innocent, or does it hint as if the speaker is saying something less than positive? That somehow the person being referred to is less than what they are being touted as?
I say that in each case, substituting whomever you wish, the statement is an insult. Which means that, if we are consistent, Harry Reid should lose his position (and hopefully be voted out of office). Because if Rush Limbaugh, or Kanye West, or Bill O'Reilly said it, Liberals and Democrats, and all the "Black leaders" rushing to the defense of Harry Reid would surely demand their scalp.
What is "negro dialect" Senator Reid? How exactly are African Americans supposed to speak? Is it somehow different than himself, or Hillary Clinton, or even Rush Limbaugh? Is there some kind of class required to learn this language?
Let's take this from the beginning. Negro, a term used before and through the 1960's to describe African Americans. It replaced the N-word, which was a step forward indeed. But EVERY conotation of the word was intended to denote a second-class of citizenship, a substandard way of life, and inferiority. It is a term embedded with racial disparity and prejudice. And it is a term no longer used because of those very reasons.
In using these words, combined with the backhanded compliment of how light the skin of President Obama is, an image is made. It's an image no different that the one I would have if the words were said by a person in a white hood made them. And there is nothing that makes that statement better.
Reid has run for the hills, with Democrats of all types covering his tracks. He is proclaiming his record of acheivements absolve him of the thought process that made those words enter and escape his mouth. He is trying to project his liberal image, as a defense to his racial verbage.
But why, in 2008, would ANYONE of whatever political background use such terminology? What is it that makes this ok for some? [Notably the "Black leaders" - who themselves share the same political ideology]
Shallow minds might point to rap music as the cause of the statement. But think about that. Slang words have been used by every generation of Americans since before there was an America. Those in the South, the West Coast, even in various cities in the same region, all have slang. Yet I have never heard anyone speak of a politicians "White dialect", let alone praise them for it (or the lack thereof).
Who promotes the slang used in rap music? Not the entertainers. They are merely the tool used to market it. They don't control the production of CD's, the production of music videos and television commercials. That's all done by the music industry executives. The very same people that decide that this style of clothing will sell, or that gospel should be emphasized in the South, and country music in the mid-west.
Yes it's music executives that promote the rap slang. And they sell it to White youth that are all too willing to buy the records, dress in the clothes, and emulate the style in a music video like a child might emulate the family puppy because it's funny.
But that's all business. That has nothing to do with the educations of the entertainers, or their fans. It has nothing to do with their ability to speak or think. It has nothing to do with the shades of color (or lack) of their skin. All that has to do with is money.
So I really want to understand what "negro dialect" Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada is talking about. Is it the way I speak? Is it the way that my father spoke? Or the way Rev. Jesse jackson speaks? What is it exactly?
In my life I have heard some with doctorates that have thick Southern drawls, business owners with the quick tempos of New York City speech. I have heard people with perfect diction that are winos, and others who mumble that are multi-millionaires. I even recall a stock brokerage owner who you would swear sounds just like Mickey Mouse. Do any of those styles of speech make these people smarter, richer, better? Would revealing the skin color of those same people elevate their intelligence and abilities?
Sen. Reid wants to point out all the things he's done to better race relations in America. As if that alters his apparent thought that African Americans need to be fixed. That somehow the color of my skin impedes my mental abilities in some manner.
Was Dr. Martin Luther King any less intelligent because he had skin darker than mine? Was Malcolm X an less of a man because he could speak jive, like many New Yorkers? Is Jay-Z any less of a success because he can rap on an album that music executives want to promote? Is Michael Jordan, or Muhammad Ali, or Tiger Woods any less talented because of their skin or how they speak?
Sen. Harry Reid slipped when he uttered these comments. He spoke his true mind, and not the polispeak spin of a politician when in front of a crowd or camera. In the past when celebrities and politicians have done this there was an outcry to have those people removed. Think of Don Imus, Dogg the bounty hunter, and so many more. How is what Reid said any differnt?
Better yet, to understand if this was really racial bias and wrong let's change the color of the statement. If it's insulting when any other group is used, then it's insulting. And if any other group would be outraged, Harry Reid should be removed from his political position.
If the statement was 'Jewish dialect' or 'Chinese dialect', or 'Hispanic dialect', does it sound any better? What if he had said 'that's a lght-skinned Arab' or 'light-skinned Italian' does it sound just as supposedly innocent?
'XX should be President because they are a dark-skinned Caucassian... who can speak without a Christian dialect if they want to.'
Does any of that sound fair, or simple? Does it sound innocent, or does it hint as if the speaker is saying something less than positive? That somehow the person being referred to is less than what they are being touted as?
I say that in each case, substituting whomever you wish, the statement is an insult. Which means that, if we are consistent, Harry Reid should lose his position (and hopefully be voted out of office). Because if Rush Limbaugh, or Kanye West, or Bill O'Reilly said it, Liberals and Democrats, and all the "Black leaders" rushing to the defense of Harry Reid would surely demand their scalp.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
My favorite Mission Impossible episode
For no particular reason, I want to share an episode of Mission Impossible that was a favorite of mine. This is from the original series and was on television first on November 21, 1970. The episode is called Hunted.
This episode starts off with the rescue of a religious leader of an African nation that is ruled by Apartheid (namely South Africa). The goal of the IMF team is to get him out of the nation so he can start the process of revolution and end the racist laws that hold down the majority of people in the nation.
It only took another 16 years before America seriously looked at South Africa and joined with the world in denouncing Apartheid. It took a total of 24 years from this episode before Apartheid ended. The episode was well ahead of it's time, and sadly it failed to inspire our nation or Government.
It's also one of the few episodes (or television shows) where African Americans are featured and not merely background thugs. Even when you compare it to 90% of the shows on television today.
The episode stars: Greg Morris, Sam Elliott, Leonard Nimoy, Peter Graves, Lesley Ann Warren, and Ta-Tanisha (who I think did a great job of being deaf and mute in this role).
[The video is not a production or edit by M V Consulting, Inc.]
I've long remembered this episode. It was quite good.
As a side note, does anyone else think that Ta-Tanisha looks incerdibly like Nana Hill (another beautiful woman) from A Good Day To Be Black & Sexy and Star Trek (the 2009 remake) fame?
This episode starts off with the rescue of a religious leader of an African nation that is ruled by Apartheid (namely South Africa). The goal of the IMF team is to get him out of the nation so he can start the process of revolution and end the racist laws that hold down the majority of people in the nation.
It only took another 16 years before America seriously looked at South Africa and joined with the world in denouncing Apartheid. It took a total of 24 years from this episode before Apartheid ended. The episode was well ahead of it's time, and sadly it failed to inspire our nation or Government.
It's also one of the few episodes (or television shows) where African Americans are featured and not merely background thugs. Even when you compare it to 90% of the shows on television today.
The episode stars: Greg Morris, Sam Elliott, Leonard Nimoy, Peter Graves, Lesley Ann Warren, and Ta-Tanisha (who I think did a great job of being deaf and mute in this role).
[The video is not a production or edit by M V Consulting, Inc.]
I've long remembered this episode. It was quite good.
As a side note, does anyone else think that Ta-Tanisha looks incerdibly like Nana Hill (another beautiful woman) from A Good Day To Be Black & Sexy and Star Trek (the 2009 remake) fame?
I wonder if this is an equal pay job?
I'm not sure what to call this. A stride forward in the equality of the sexes? The next step in feminism? A step backward from the male-centric power base?
Whatever you might want to call it, it is the first in the United States. In Nevada, home of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the first male prostitution service has been authorized.
Yes, now women can travel outside of Las Vegas (60 miles to be exact) to take their hard earned cash and purchase time with a man, obstensibly for sex. It may be the ultimate form of male objectification, but so far all comments about the new option seem to be about if it will work.
The Shady Lady, in Nye County, is the location of this new enterprise. It's an experiment thought up by the wife and co-owner of Shady Lady, Bobbi Davis. Other brothels in Nevada worry that the potential of male - male services might cause a backlash that could cause all prostitution in the State to be revoked. But according to the owners, if the demand for the male workers is only from other males they will end the experiment. Plus they state that all workers have the right to deny any service of any patron.
Now my query is simple. Would a woman want to actually pay for this service? Do they actually need to? In all honesty, a woman can simply go to a bar and gain this service for free I imagine.
Then again there is no shortage of men (including porn stars) willing to take on this new job opportunity. I'm not sure that it's because of the economy, the prestige (if such can be attributed to this job title), or the nature of the work. I am sure that any male worker would be a great friend of the local pharmacist (stock up on that Viagra).
I also wonder if this new job can be attributed to the Obama Stimulus, or receive money from it? Now that would be priceless; to hear Sen. Harry Reid boasting about the "success" of the Obama Stimulus in creating jobs with this as the shining acheivement for his home State.
Whatever you might want to call it, it is the first in the United States. In Nevada, home of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the first male prostitution service has been authorized.
Yes, now women can travel outside of Las Vegas (60 miles to be exact) to take their hard earned cash and purchase time with a man, obstensibly for sex. It may be the ultimate form of male objectification, but so far all comments about the new option seem to be about if it will work.
The Shady Lady, in Nye County, is the location of this new enterprise. It's an experiment thought up by the wife and co-owner of Shady Lady, Bobbi Davis. Other brothels in Nevada worry that the potential of male - male services might cause a backlash that could cause all prostitution in the State to be revoked. But according to the owners, if the demand for the male workers is only from other males they will end the experiment. Plus they state that all workers have the right to deny any service of any patron.
Now my query is simple. Would a woman want to actually pay for this service? Do they actually need to? In all honesty, a woman can simply go to a bar and gain this service for free I imagine.
Then again there is no shortage of men (including porn stars) willing to take on this new job opportunity. I'm not sure that it's because of the economy, the prestige (if such can be attributed to this job title), or the nature of the work. I am sure that any male worker would be a great friend of the local pharmacist (stock up on that Viagra).
I also wonder if this new job can be attributed to the Obama Stimulus, or receive money from it? Now that would be priceless; to hear Sen. Harry Reid boasting about the "success" of the Obama Stimulus in creating jobs with this as the shining acheivement for his home State.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Post-racial America? Are you sure about that
Do you remember that once President Obama was elected how every major news media source was proclaiming, or at least inferring, that America had become post-racial. That the election proved America had moved beyond race and was now the fruition of the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King.
For me such lunacy ended on January 1st of 2009 when 2 young Black men were murdered by police while unarmed without provocation, and another was severely wounded. But for much of the nation the media ads of "change" ruled the airwaves and internet. I recall fanciful commercials on BET portraying Dr. King looking up to President Obama and smiling amid a crowd of mixed Americans. Obviously Harry Reid was not in that crowd.
The AP has found, and Sen. Harry Reid has apologized for, comments made about then-candidate and Senator Obama. They seemed to be meant as a positive much in the way VP Biden (then a Senator as well) described President Obama as "clean". Sen. Reid said
Wow.
It brings up a memory from roughly the same time of a joke that was made by Chris Rock. It was about former General Colin Powell, who at the time was considered a potential candidate, and went along the lines of
It would seem that Senate Majoity Leader Harry Reid did in fact expect then-Senator Obama to be something like the joke from Rock. Which makes me wonder who else in Nevada might share that thought. Who else in Congress shares those thoughts. Who eles in the Democrat Party and leadership shares those views.
I look at this from a systemic viewpoint because the 2010 census also reverberates that theme to an extent. Question 9 on the census, when asking for the racial background of the public includes the description "Black, African Am., or Negro".
Negro? A term only slightly less repugnant than the N-word. A term firmly isolated to the 1950's pre-Civil Rights Movement view of Blacks as seperate, inferior, second-class citizens. A term that only 50,000 people used in the 2000 census and will be considered for removal in the 2020 census.
When I look at the reality of the situation, things like the murder of Sean Bell, the murder of Oscar Grant, the kidnapping and torture of Megan Williams, the persecution of Mauricia Grant by NASCAR, and then add the census and Senator Harry Reid, I don't get post-racial. When I listen to President Carter and President Clinton (with his famous dream comments and denial to recognize then-Senator Obama), along with other prominent Democrats, flinging around the term racist on ANYONE that disagrees with them - I don't see post-racial.
If we are to be honest, America is no more in a post-racial phase of it's existence than it is in an economic boom. Some can see improvement on the horizon, but for far too many people that horizon is too far away to matter. It's a concept most of us want to believe, to live. But reality reminds us that right now it is still only a concept.
I have long disagreed with Democrats and Liberals on policy and economics. But I had hoped that at least on the concept of equality, respect, and recognition there was some degree of common ground. Sen. Harry Reid, among so many others, seems intent on dashing even that thought. Not that a slew of Republicans are much better.
So is America post-racial? Has President Obama ushered in a new era, filled with the fulfillment of Dr. King's dream? I didn't think so in 2007. I said it wasn't in Novemebr 2008. And it seems that I am being proven correct in 2010.
I really wished I was going to be proven wrong. I really did.
For me such lunacy ended on January 1st of 2009 when 2 young Black men were murdered by police while unarmed without provocation, and another was severely wounded. But for much of the nation the media ads of "change" ruled the airwaves and internet. I recall fanciful commercials on BET portraying Dr. King looking up to President Obama and smiling amid a crowd of mixed Americans. Obviously Harry Reid was not in that crowd.
The AP has found, and Sen. Harry Reid has apologized for, comments made about then-candidate and Senator Obama. They seemed to be meant as a positive much in the way VP Biden (then a Senator as well) described President Obama as "clean". Sen. Reid said
"light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
Wow.
It brings up a memory from roughly the same time of a joke that was made by Chris Rock. It was about former General Colin Powell, who at the time was considered a potential candidate, and went along the lines of
It would seem that Senate Majoity Leader Harry Reid did in fact expect then-Senator Obama to be something like the joke from Rock. Which makes me wonder who else in Nevada might share that thought. Who else in Congress shares those thoughts. Who eles in the Democrat Party and leadership shares those views.
I look at this from a systemic viewpoint because the 2010 census also reverberates that theme to an extent. Question 9 on the census, when asking for the racial background of the public includes the description "Black, African Am., or Negro".
Negro? A term only slightly less repugnant than the N-word. A term firmly isolated to the 1950's pre-Civil Rights Movement view of Blacks as seperate, inferior, second-class citizens. A term that only 50,000 people used in the 2000 census and will be considered for removal in the 2020 census.
When I look at the reality of the situation, things like the murder of Sean Bell, the murder of Oscar Grant, the kidnapping and torture of Megan Williams, the persecution of Mauricia Grant by NASCAR, and then add the census and Senator Harry Reid, I don't get post-racial. When I listen to President Carter and President Clinton (with his famous dream comments and denial to recognize then-Senator Obama), along with other prominent Democrats, flinging around the term racist on ANYONE that disagrees with them - I don't see post-racial.
If we are to be honest, America is no more in a post-racial phase of it's existence than it is in an economic boom. Some can see improvement on the horizon, but for far too many people that horizon is too far away to matter. It's a concept most of us want to believe, to live. But reality reminds us that right now it is still only a concept.
I have long disagreed with Democrats and Liberals on policy and economics. But I had hoped that at least on the concept of equality, respect, and recognition there was some degree of common ground. Sen. Harry Reid, among so many others, seems intent on dashing even that thought. Not that a slew of Republicans are much better.
So is America post-racial? Has President Obama ushered in a new era, filled with the fulfillment of Dr. King's dream? I didn't think so in 2007. I said it wasn't in Novemebr 2008. And it seems that I am being proven correct in 2010.
I really wished I was going to be proven wrong. I really did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)