Spider-Man 4: The Backroom Shenanigans of a Film Project

If you haven't heard, Spider-Man 4 is dead. Sam Raimi was returning as director, along with Toby Maguire and Kirsten Dunst to complete another film in the very successful series, set to be released next summer. It was to be a triumphant return to what made the film series so great, and was to have shamed the "ok" Spider-Man 3. But now it is dead and the studio, Sony, has decided to go reboot and start over with a new director and a new cast.

The inception, development, and death or life of film projects is fascinating stuff to me. As anybody in the film business will tell you, a film's journey from concept to completion is a long, hard fought, road that nine times out of ten will kill a project before it even goes in front of a camera. The thing that is so unusual in this Spider-Man 4 scenario is that usually when a property is rebooted it's because the series has gone stale. Rebooting is a great way to take an old property and to infuse it with new blood and talent to bring something fresh to the table.

Batman is probably the most well known successful rebooting of a series. There were four Batman films, which over the 8 years it was active, slowly became worse and worse. At the end of the run with the release of Batman and Robin, it had devolved into a loud, obnoxious, soul-less farce. Then along came Batman Begins which simultaneously told a story that hadn't been seen before, but also dramatically altered the tone of the series and lifted Batman out of the cinematic dumps. The release of the Dark Knight proved that the concept of rebooting was a viable solution to "fix" a series. More recently, Star Trek was rebooted with a new cast in a fresh take by J.J. Abrams.

But why is Spider-Man deemed to be primed for a reboot? The series is one of the most successful and much-loved comic-book film adaptations ever made. It baffles me that this material needs to be told again. The first Spider-Man was an excellent example of an origin story. Am I going to have to watch Peter Parker learn his spidey senses AGAIN?! WHY?! It was done so well the first time. It isn't like this series was made 40 years ago, it was only 8 years ago!

It is very clear to me why this happened, even though I think it is a bonehead move on Sony's part. I'm going to explain what I think the perspectives are from all parties and try to and analyze the fallout.

CAST:
The cast, it can be assumed, were locked down for a three-picture deal. Meaning, that for the 4th film, they were probably asking for a lot of money. And they are right to do so. They make up a huge chunk of what makes the films so successful. They were more or less obligated to make the others, and the fourth would have been them basically doing a favor to the property. The cast's return to the fourth outing, was also probably dependent on having Sam Raimi return as director. They know that in order for the newest film to be successful, with their involvement, they need the man who made the previous incarnations so good.

DIRECTOR:
Sam Raimi, the director on all the Spider-Man films, wanted absolute control on this new Spider-Man. He learned a very important lesson with Spider-Man 3, on how much negative influence a domineering studio can have on a property. Spider-Man 3 had too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. The film is all over the place, chock filled with tons of plot points, villains, and emotional crossroads. Unfortunately they barely gelled together to form a cohesive film. Raimi wanted to come back again, to right the wrong done on Spider-Man 3. He wanted to deliver a great Spider-Man film once again (like he did with the amazing Spider-Man 2). In order for him to do that, he'd have to butt heads with the studio again as he did on 3. But this time, he wouldn't give in so easily, and he would fight harder to make the film he wanted to make.

STUDIO:
Sony has a lucrative franchise with Spider-Man. The public loves all things Spidey. Another movie simply HAS to be made, they'd be idiots NOT to make another film. A fourth film in the current series seems the most obvious choice. They have a cast that wants to return and a director that wants to create the best film he can make. But here's the rub: The cast want a significant increase in pay, and the director has a very clear vision, which doesn't always line up with what the studio wants. Raimi wanted the Vulture as the villain, even going so far as to nearly cast John Malkovich in the role. The studio doesn't want an obscure villain like the Vulture, they want a villain more popular, that will appeal to the widest audience possible. It's understandable, they want to stack the deck in their favor; to make as much money as they can. But with a director that is now sticking to his guns, it makes it difficult for there to be any agreement between the two. Add to all this conflict, Sony will lose the rights to Spider-Man if they aren't actively making films. The rights would revert back to Marvel, now owned by Walt Disney.

So what will Sony decide? The best choice for them is to can Raimi, in doing so, losing the cast thus making any continuance of the current storyline impossible. Their answer: to reboot and start over from scratch. They save money on the cast because now they can negotiate new contracts with new talent, and they don't have to worry about a headstrong director. It is the smartest move from a fiscal perspective, but from a film-goer and fan's perspective, it is utterly baffling.

Spider-Man 4 would have been a guaranteed hit regardless of who the villain was. And although it would have cost them more money in the end to make THAT film, it still would have been a sound investment. But now, with a presumed lower budget, they'll be able to have larger returns, which in the end is the bottom line for a large studio like Sony.

I hope that this new path they are starting down, will end in failure. Not for Spider-Man, and certainly not for whoever moves in to try and direct it (good luck to them in following Raimi's footsteps). I want it to fail so that the rights can revert back to Marvel. I want Spider-Man to go home to its owners so they may use him in the Marvel universe films that they are currently cobbling together. Who knows, maybe Disney will fork over some of their cash to buy Spidey back. I have a feeling that the longer Spider-Man remains in Sony's hands, the worse off we will be.

The one bit of good news to come from this debacle is that Raimi will now be able to focus 100% on his next announced project: a live action Warcraft movie.

For the Horde!

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

In Defense of Video Games

Here at work we are restricted as to where we can go on the Internet. Obviously the military doesn't want us looking up pornography, wasting time on YouTube, visiting extremist sites, or looking at pages on how to build pipe bombs. All of these things are blocked. You couldn't get to them if you wanted, not that I would want to anyway. But another item is thrown into this banned list, and it has me really frustrated. Any site that has any relation to the word "Games," is forbidden. I'm not talking just flash game sites (which I find to be perfectly acceptable as being banned), I'm talking about ANYTHING that has the slightest thing to do with the moniker "Games."

News sites, review sites, developer sites, forums, etc. All Blocked. An argument could be made that it is a time waster at a place that you shouldn't be wasting time with. And if you want to start down that path, I could list thousands of sites that I have no problem getting to that are as big if not bigger time wasters than anything related to games. News Sites like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, none are blocked. Movie news sites such as Variety, Hollywood reporter, Coming soon, Ain't it cool, none are blocked. The list continues: Celebrity Gossip sites, Facebook, Tech review sites, blog sites, recipe databases, etc. What is the whole of the Internet if not an enormous black hole of a time waste? So then why the specific hatred towards Gaming? I could detail my frustrations with this work computer restriction, but I think there is a larger issue present that needs to be explored.

Generally, in our culture, video games are looked down upon. They are kid's toys. That's why when a Mature rated game, a game designed and intended for Adults, gets so much press when an enraged parent finds out what their kid is really playing. That's why you have politicians (who do not really understand and appreciate gaming due to their inexperience), who try to pass restrictive laws regarding the distribution of games. The responsibilities of censoring children's entertainment intake, rests solely with the parent. But that is another post.

It could be simplified by saying that people just don't understand Video Games. The over 40 crowd, for the most part, don't understand the appeal, or why somebody would want to "rot their mind" on worthless video games. Older generations never had the technology at the age younger generations have it now. So it is natural that people don't understand it. But I really don't get why they receive so much hate from so many people. I believe many people are greatly misinformed. There is much to be said about the expanding and maturing industry of game design. So let me geek out a bit about this young, exciting field of entertainment.

Interactive storytelling. It's one thing to read a book and create images in your head. It's another experience to go and watch somebody's vision of a story. It is an entirely different experience to interact with characters, and write your own story in a world people have crafted specifically for your enjoyment. The level of detail that goes into some of these games is staggering. The gorgeous visuals that today's machines can create is simply stunning. I always enjoy taking a step into interactive worlds, exploring and having fun.

And a funny thing is beginning to happen within the game industry. The technology has gotten so great and so powerful, that developers are forced to throw more assets towards creating a game. More art, more textures, more code writing, more, more, more. Subsequently, costs are rising. A triple-A game released today costs quadruple it would have cost to produce a similar game 10 years ago. So what is happening? Since publishers and developer are throwing more money at the games they are releasing, the financial risk of failure becomes much more important. So what you are seeing in the games that are released is an extraordinary amount of time is being put into getting the game right. Getting a solid story, introducing great mechanics (how the game is played), ironing out all bugs, to deliver a satisfying experience and to ultimately craft a strong release that will earn money.

Video games have gotten so good in the past few years, that soon they will surpass film and television in their quality and level of polish. There are already games out now that I think are better experiences than a lot of movies I've seen. Some stories have genuinely touched me and have transcended the boundary that exists between the content and human emotion. Developers are constantly pushing the bounds of storytelling and emotion. There are several guys out there who are trying to get to the holy grail of gaming, making the gamer cry. It sounds silly to say, but it is a real goal for many developers to be able to create that game that impacts the player to the degree of physical emotional response. The games out now are slowly inching to that level, it is only a matter of time.

I hate the Wii. But it is hard not to admire what the Wii has been doing. People who don't play games are picking it up. There are stories of parents fighting the kids for play time, of nursing homes buying systems because they are so popular with the crowd. Finally, people are enjoying games in a much wider market. So many are experiencing them for the first time and really enjoying themselves that it is has become a very exciting time. Who would have thought that a simple innovation in controller design would be the feature that bridges the gap. It's a true phenomenon. But I'm still irritated with it. Mostly because I love good graphics and diverse stories. The Wii doesn't provide much of either. The games are all targeted to one audience, and the system is essentially a rebuild of a last generation system. But it is doing good, and I see it. I just hope those new to gaming through the Wii, will expand to better consoles and titles.

The full cultural penetration of gaming across all demographics, it is something that will take time. I foresee gaming will one day be looked at like any other entertainment medium. People will fondly reminisce about the "classics." I am sure that games will one day take their place amongst great pieces of art and film. But it still has a way to go for that to happen. I'm just so excited about being here at the beginning. The feeling I get when I think about the prospects of the future of gaming is similar to how I imagine some cinema goers felt in the 20s when films started taking off. And they still had Gone with the Wind, Citizen Kane, and The Godfather yet to be made. Imagine for a moment, the possibilities of where this field can go.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

100th Post!!! So why am I here?

This post marks the 100th post to the ole Observer! Yay!! Fireworks!! Explosions!! People flying through the Air!! YAY!!

So what's the point? Why am I here? I started this thing because my sister chided me into it. Pure and simple. The reason I keep coming back is because I enjoy writing. I love the idea of creation. I love to create something from nothing. Using only my head, a few fingers, and more than a little hard work and persistence, this site and my posts have lingered.

But the real reason I am here is not for the reader. I'm sorry to say that I don't write these things for you. I know how often I get visitors to my site, and I know they mostly come from the St. Louis Area, Connecticut, and Memphis. It's no secret that I don't have hundreds of readers, and that's ok. Like I said, I'm not here for you, I'm here for me.

You see, before this site came along, I would write very sporadically and often nothing meaningful. The little writing part of my brain just sat, unused. I worked on stories or scripts at various times, but never for any longer than a few hours every other week or so (if I was lucky). Now that I have this form of outlet and expression, that little writing corner of my brain has flourished. And it's made me realize that I love to write. I enjoy getting on here and putting thoughts to paper (or ones and zeros). It has been a great way to think about subjects that are close to my heart, and some that are nowhere near that personal.

I think you'll agree I hit a wide variety of topics. Things have been random. Things have been heated (even amongst myself) and things have been fun and a bit crazy. I've debated everything from girl scouts to absurd drive thru windows. I always try to be fair to my thoughts. I've done a bit of environmental hippie bashing and turned around and supported the current healthcare agenda. My topics range from one end of the spectrum to the other, and I love it.

And then there is my ongoing series, Classic Movie Monday. If there isn't anything going on, or if nothing is sparking my interest, there is always a classic movie to watch. This has been one of the real highlights for me in doing this whole web site thing. I've always had a love for film, but never really been thrilled with thought of watching the classics. I know there are hundreds if not thousands of important films to watch, and slowly I'm going to get to them all. As of this post, I have watched and reviewed 31 classic movies. Some I surprisingly hated, and others I found to be amazing. But every one is a film that I might never have watched otherwise, and I am better for it.

But the thing that makes doing this so great, is the moments like this. It makes me proud when I look back and see how much I've done in 10 months. I don't normally stroke myself, that's not my style, but I am very happy with the progress I've made. So now I pat myself on the back, *pat* *pat* and move on.

See you again after the next hundred!

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Healthcare change. Scary?

I've been avoiding writing about this topic (other than the occasional post here or there). This is such a hot topic in both today's political arena and in town halls across the nation that it deserves closer examination. Violence has erupted because people are afraid of the government having too much control.

The stories that are being slung around are a little unsettling. In the future the government will decide when grandma and grandpa will die. Our rights will dissolve before our eyes. The initial steps our government takes now to help its citizens will ultimately lead to a supremacist, socialist government that will stop at nothing to rule its citizens with an iron fist.

People really don't understand America do they?

It sounds grim doesn't it? It sounds very extreme, and frankly I don't want that for my country. But the fact is that those are all gross misinterpretations and fear mongering by a very tiny minority. But it's working. The health care reform has a serious hurdle to overcome in the approval of the nation. I for one cannot think of a better time to push this bill through.

Never in our history has a president had so much support and backing from day one. President Obama is a charismatic leader, he inspires so many to do so much. I am not one of those people mind you. In virtually everything he does, I disagree nearly all of the time. But health care? He's got my attention. And I genuinely feel that if this President, this very influential figure, if he cannot push health care reform now while his numbers are high, then I feel it will never come.

What is the problem with our system? Why does it need change? I know many people who are perfectly happy with the system as is. Find yourself a good paying job, with a full benefit package, and you're golden. The system is set up to take care of you. You get sick, you go to the doctor of your choice and get medical help, most of the time. If you need corrective surgery, your insurance can help foot the bill. If you're in an accident and put on life support for several days or weeks, you are covered. It sounds great doesn't it? That's how it is supposed to function. You buy into it at a certain price, and they'll give you coverage, to a certain price.

What if your job doesn't provide health care? Then you go out and buy it yourself. No problem. What if you can't afford to buy it? What if you've never had insurance? You could argue that people are lazy, they sit on their ass and collect welfare. And now they'll be getting free health care. You may cry foul. You may say that health care is not a basic human right. I would disagree.

A country is only as strong as it's weakest citizen. If our weakest citizen is a homeless, crack-addicted, down-on-his-luck Joe without a thought of health care, than we have serious problems, most of which don't even begin at insurance. Drugs, homelessness, those are other posts waiting to be written. Today is health care.

I feel the problem to be that our health care is founded on a profit-based system. Yes we do live in a capitalist nation, but I don't hear the police knocking on my door asking for money before they'll protect me. Or fireman will stop putting out the fire in my house because I didn't pay my latest bill. There are certain things that should be set outside of the traditional capitalist mentality. There are things that must be provided for the benefit of people. Basic health care coverage should be one of them. We need to be a healthy nation if we are to survive long term.

There are stories, REAL stories of people dealing with the horrors of the health insurance companies. I find it very ironic that people talk of government "Death Panels," when insurance companies have been in the "Death Panel" business for years. You think that insurance companies have never turned down somebody who needed medicine to survive, simply because of a pre-existing condition, or they didn't meet the requirements for coverage. The truth is that insurance companies turn people down all the time, every day. They'll turn down care to people who REALLY need it. To save a buck? To protect the bottom line? Because they don't meet the requirements?

It is absolutely sickening that a business can rule over our very health the way insurance companies do. Opponents of the new health care bill would say that it scares them that the government could lord over our health too, but I think people are frightened too easily. An interesting statistic to think about: We are one of two developed nations in the world that DO NOT have government provided health care. The other is Mexico, whom I can think of better company to be in.

The point is that virtually every important nation on the EARTH does this, why is it so difficult for us to implement it too. Are we too ingrained into our insurance based system to not see it is a broken way of thinking? Are we so afraid of the idea that malevolent government could take advantage of it's citizens?

It all boils down to one simple idea. One that has halted many projects, bills, and ideas. Change. As you can clearly see in town halls nationwide, people are afraid of change. Most are afraid of what the government could do given too much power. But do you really think that a government wants to hurt its citizens? Do you really think it is in our country's best interests to harm people?

This is my final point:

I'm more afraid of a faceless business that is in it purely for monetary gain and not my personal health, than a government who has every intention of keeping its citizens healthy and happy. What the hell is there to lose?

We aren't talking about 1930s Germany here (although I do find the picture below, kind of funny). We aren't talking about the beginnings of socialism here (at least not in health care reform). We are America. The greatest thing about this country is the fact that people can voice their opinions and be heard. We are not in danger of loosing any rights, merely gaining a few. The right to live healthy with free healthcare is something I want from my country. So let's make it happen.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

The Limitations of Cost

I was watching From the Earth to the Moon a few months ago and it got me thinking about an interesting idea. What if there were no cost, no concept of money? Everybody worked for the benefit for each other, or were forced to work and develop due to outside influences? You may ask what does this have to do with From the Earth to the Moon?

From the Earth to the Moon is a miniseries that chronicles the space program from the moment Kennedy declared, "We choose to go to the moon," all the way through the Apollo program to the end of the Moon missions. As I was watching it, I began to think about how incredibly resourceful humans can be.

When Kennedy made that demand to put a man on the moon before the decade was out, our space program was a laughable joke. The Russians had just launched their Sputnik to much worldwide rejoicing and plenty of Washington headaches. It looked as though the Russians were going to beat us into outer space. This was something that the United States, in all its glorious, competitive spirit, could not allow. You can bet that when NASA got the news, they were a little bit overwhelmed. But you know what? They did it.

NASA pulled themselves together, set up a very ambitious plan and went about to make history. With plenty of setbacks and cost overruns they accomplished what was unaccomplishable: put a man on the moon. It is an amazing story about how it all came together, defying odds and inspiring a nation and the world. I recommend watching the series if you haven't seen it before.

But the thing that I realized was that NASA had, for the most part, a blank check. They were on a mission, mandated by a president that the country loved and missed, and nothing would stand in their way. So it got me thinking, what could we accomplish today if NASA was given similar circumstances? Those circumstances being an unlimited budget, rival international pressure, and a determined president's order. Now add our technology and knowledge of today, and you have a dangerous combination. We could build a Death Star!

But once I thought about this set of unusual circumstances, I began to apply it to every problem in our wold today. Everything is limited by cost and time. What if the expense were taken out of the equation? What if we had no concept of money, everybody working for the betterment of mankind? The only problem would then be time. So put a little pressure of an impending war, or ongoing war. Look at all the things to come out of two world wars. It is a fair argument to say that life would be very different today if Arch Duke Ferdinand wasn't assassinated, thus bringing about WWI and then WWII. Our lives today would be very different.

So what would this look like? What would a society that had no monetary value and a little bit of competition look like? I don't think it'd be all that great to be honest. The concept almost sounds like communism. But I see it more like a perfectly functioning utopia, everybody works for each other and for the betterment of man. Wow, that does sound communist.

In short I find that it would never work. Money or trade is a necessary part of society and culture. I simply find it fascinating to think of the possibilities if you simply took away a cost.

Think about the medical field. No longer limited by budgets and grants, they could throw all their resources into the hat to find cures and advance medicine. Or what about our infrastructure? How about those fuel economic cars? Think of the advances we could make if people weren't holding back.

And I return to space. If NASA had no budget limitations, we could be building that ship to go to Mars. We could be building that elevator to ferry equipment out of the atmosphere. The ideas are there. The science is there. All that is missing is oodles and oodles of cash, or an organization that doesn't need it.

It may sound a little dark, but I almost feel that a large scale war is needed to jump-start our ailing system. If the need were present and pushing, we could accomplish anything. All we have to do is put forth the effort, and put aside the cost.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Lingering in Misery

Everybody's seen this guy already. He opened fire in a fitness center, killed 4 people, including himself. If you're not in the know, go here, here, or here.

Very sad. But, he kept a small online diary. This has been all over the news, so I'm not going into details. Instead I wanted to get some thoughts out about why this guy did this.

I just finished reading the entire diary. Yeah, I was a little curious. I think this is an excellent opportunity to try and understand the motivations behind wanting to hurt and kill people. My initial impression after pouring through the few entries, is one of sadness, and almost sympathy. I know the guy has done something very hateful and completely uncaring, but his words suggest a very tortured soul. A soul who has just never had things line up for him.

He goes on to describe what the media had labeled "a hatred for women." I don't think that's very accurate. He clearly states at several points that he has longed for a companion, that he has not wanted to be alone. But throughout his life he has not been successful. He states that he had dated and been with women, but for whatever reason or another it never worked out.

Unfortunately it is incredibly difficult to get an exact view on this guy's situation. We don't know why people never seemed to get along with him. He does state at several points that people think of him as a "nice guy." But you also get the impression that his burden of childhood is clearly shown on his face. Someone made the comment if he had liked high school, they, thinking he had been bullied around. So obviously people have been able to see his torment, but why nobody ever stepped across that line to help him is a mystery. Who's to say he didn't ward them off somehow?

The thing I am trying to get at is this man lived and wallowed in his own misery. He seemed to embrace it as the way things HAD to be. He felt that he HAD to go into that gym and fire shots into a crowd, and take his own life. People can take a very valuable (and costly) lesson from this. I know I will be taking a lesson from this.

The reason why I said before that I almost felt sympathy with the man, is that I can understand his position. I can understand his frustration with social interactions. I can understand his broken childhood. I can understand the idea of being a "nice guy" that gets nothing and goes nowhere. For those reasons I feel bad for the guy. But the thing I can't understand is obviously why he felt he had to go and kill. And that's going to be the thing people will debate endlessly.

I get his turmoil. I don't get the need to murder. But the lesson to take is to keep an eye out for your fellow man. Be mindful of people, and not in a paranoid tattle-tell way. People could use the most help before they act. Because like in this case, there might not be another chance.

And the other thing to take away is about the dangers of stewing in your own misery. I've been guilty of being happy in misery. It sounds weird and contradictory, but it is a genuine feeling. Life is filled with highs and lows. Both are vital parts of a human life. They are what makes us unique and world wise. But it is important to not dwell in the lows, lingering in misery. Get help. Seek interaction. Even if you don't feel the need, meet people, have friends. Don't dwell?

Here's the link to his site.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Absurdity of Smoking Laws

In case you didn't know, there has been a movement developing in Hollywood for the past several years. About two years ago, Studios feeling pressure from anti smoking groups, decided to start limiting the amount of characters who smoke in movies. Well there is a group that is calling on the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to begin instituting a mandatory R rating to any movie that contains smoking.

Is this really a problem?!?!

So basically, the act of smoking is tantamount to saying "F**K!" or seeing bodies blown apart by incoming mortar fire. A character smoking would equal two people having a sex scene. The problem I find in this thinking is that once you make smoking equivalent of these things, what's going to happen to public codes about smoking. Now you can't just go outside the restaurant or theater, but now you have to go in a little dark booth that says: "Adults only." It would be akin to going to a porn store.

Does this not sound ridiculous. Well, leave it to the zany Californians to lead the fight for a smoke free nation. They passed a law several years ago that all public buildings would be smoke free. This means Restaurants, Stores, and other things such as BARS!!! I remember one time on liberty in Sand Diego, me and a few friends from work went to downtown Coronado to a local bar. This was after I had just turned 21, so I was new to the bar scene. Earlier in the evening I had bought a delicious cigar to smoke (smoke em once every 2 years). When I got to the bar I was turned around because I had a cigar. I was flabbergasted. I thought it was and I still think it is the dumbest law.

I hate second hand smoke, but I think people should have the right to put up the laws in their own establishments. If I own a bar, and I want to allow smoking I should be able to. It is absolute bull that this is a law. And If they even so much as start imposing a mandatory R rating on movies with smoking, I will get really peeved.

I get that G rated films shouldn't have smoking. That's fine. I don't think you'll find many Pixar movies with smoking at all (if any). I can understand PG films maybe having a smoking character, but he should be reflected as a villain or some such. The only place that I would find it to be absurd is in a PG-13 film. So what would happen if Optimus Prime gets a little fire on him during a battle, and afterwards he starts smoking?

I guess our President is R-rated too.

Smoking = R-rated = Load of B.S.

Let's try and put the focus on some real issues... like blowing up Kim Jong-il.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

*sigh* People, it's a monkey.

The "missing link," really? So says this article.

But I'm not so sure about that. Here's a photo I found online of a modern day primate...

And here is another...

So whose to say that the thing in the top photo isn't an equivalent of a monkey midget? Sorry, but I'm not buying this "missing link" hubhub. But I bet you next month it'll be on the cover of the National Geographic (at least it will be a good photo). *sigh*

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Politically Correct Racism

Disclaimer: In the following post, I use words that could be construed as offensive. However, it is my intent only to explore why these words rile so many people up.

Something I realized the other day was our over-use of a term known as African-American. I have been so well trained in my upbringing to not use the term Black, but instead use the Politically Correct, African-American.

I'm not one to be PC, in fact I try not to. But I realized that this term is not a very good one to use. Mainly because it doesn't translate across our borders. Go north to Canada, you wouldn't call a Black man, African-American. You'd get a funny look and a Pro-Canadian spiel (and nobody wants that, trust me). So what do you use when referring to somebody outside our country who is of darker skin?

Again I go back to Black. People aren't really very black. It's more of a brown. We could go around calling people brownies, but something tells me we'd have a new N-word, only it would be called the B-word. Back in the day, people would call black people Negros. And this wasn't considered derogatory at all. In fact Black people embraced this term. It was used to identify a whole culture of people. Organizations were named using Negro in the title. But we don't use it hardly anymore. Why?

Simply put, I really think Negro is just too close to Nigger. And if I referred to a black man as Negro, he'd probably have some choice words to say to me. As he should, If I offend anyone, they should tell me. If I call a fellow white man a cracker and he draws offense, I should hear about it. However most crackers -er, white people wouldn't care.

So what's the deal? You're probably asking, "What's he going on about?" I am talking about the absurdity of the idea of offense and right. As well as a little P.C. B.S. And yes, being politically correct is some mad bullshit.

Our society has had a troubled past, in terms of race. We are finally getting over years of angst and turmoil. The black community has been unjustly treated in our past. And not our distant past Our relative recent history is littered with examples of black hatred. I use the term littered, however it is generally a few southern states that are the primary source of the problems.

The ancestry of of a Southern rebel is a bitch of a thing to cast aside. There was some great hurt in the south when they lost the civil war. According to them they were in the right. History and our society now views them as wrong, but at the time they were in the know and in the green. As far as they were concerned, the south needed slaves.

When they lost, they took all that hatred and resentment and had to put it somewhere, so it landed on the newly freed slaves. Thus the beginnings of the deeply divided racial lines in the American south. I'm not defending bigots, just trying to explore the origins of this stuff in modern day America.

OK, so then the Black community begins to speak up. They stop buses, hold marches, give dreamy speeches. They begin to say "No More!" And the rest of the country listened. It took a while, but eventually our society turned itself into one that was so fearful of hurting anybody's feelings that the notion of being politically correct began to emerge.

What is politically correct? Let's go to good ole webster:

Conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.

Hmmm. So basically, don't offend ANYONE. In this day and age, I find that impossible, but ok we'll go with it.

So you essentially have an entire race of people that have just gotten over their long history of abuse and hatred, add that to an overly sensitive nation of lightweights, and you get: a whole lot of absolute wasted energy at being polite, i.e. B.S.

So we get back to it. What exactly do we call the African-originating people of America. African-American sounds good, right? Sure, i suppose. I'd find it a little insulting if I were a black man. I'm sure there are more than a few people out there who resent the term. To me African-American is just wrong.

It is a term that categorizes an entire history of people into one thing. I would personally hate being pigeonholed into one category. In fact I do. I don' think of myself as white. Nor do I even consider myself and English American. I am simply, an American. Why does a term exist, in my opinion, to bring down a whole group of people to being African. It just doesn't make sense to me. Why would you want that?

I suppose if I were a betting man, that African-Americans like the term because it shows a unity of their race of people. That we are all deriving from Africa, the mother Continent. Add to it the fact that African American lineage is so muddied by years of slavery in the south, and you have no choice but to group everybody in the same category. I however find it to be a little dumb...

But I'm beginning to realize something even greater. The whole notion of black and white, is in itself racist. We should all just be people. We are Americans, or we are Canadians, or Europeans. Hell, we are Earthlings!!! Oh God, can you imagine the chaos in our non-offending, politically correct way of talking when the Vogons from the planet Vogsphere enter our society. And we wouldn't want to EVER offend them, because of course if we did, they could blow our whole planet away to make room for a new hyperspace expressway. (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference to the uninitiated)

Bottom line that I've been trying to get to in this all too long post is this: Drop the tip-toey non-offending speak, and look at people not as black/white/brown/purple but as people. Because that's what we are, and that is the ultimate solution to racism.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

LOST: The eternal struggle between Good and Evil

After watching the Season 5 finale of LOST, I realize that I have never been so excited as to where to show is going next. I am going to attempt to try and explain what the hell is going on in my own words. If you haven't seen the finale yet, do not read any further until you watch it. If you don't care either way, go elsewhere, because your LOST indifference appalls me. Just kidding, go watch from the beginning and let me know when you're caught up.

Here we go...

I've been watching LOST, solid, for the past 4 years. It is always an interesting show, with impeccable writing and storytelling. Add the lush jungle setting and the myriad armada of fascinating characters with deep backgrounds, and I find it the single greatest television show ever made.

A big part of the show over the course of its telling, since the very first episode, is the idea of black and white, Good and Evil if you will. For seasons we have been tempted with the sources of power behind the mysterious island. There is the enigmatic and omnipotent, but never seen Jacob. Also there's a powerful smoke being, i.e. monster, that somehow conjures the deceased and judges the living (who do you think that is? Hmmm).

Finally at the conclusion of Season 5 we know who the players are in this what seems like an eternal struggle for superiority. Well sort of...

I am seeing Jacob as God. And his enemy is the Devil, smoke monster/resurrected dead people (Locke, Eko's brother, etc.). The devil manipulates the living trying to destroy God. The battle field is the island. The pawns are the unfortunate (or fortunate however you look at it) people inhabiting the island. God does what he can, but as you'll find out in the episode, the devil finally gets his victory (or so we think). Using a "mortal" Ben as the final stab to Jacob.

When the show started, it was mysterious and it was a journey. Discovering who the people were on the plane took up the better part of the first two seasons. Who the other people are on the island took about a season and a half. Setting up the mythology of the island technically started in the first episode, however it hasn't really kicked off until the past season and a half.

The underlying mythology of the show is what has me so fascinated. The mysteries that the writers have woven into the fabric of the show, are incredibly intriguing, yet all together frustrating. I hate watching an episodic story unfold on week at a time. And now we'll have to wait another 9 months for another new episode.

Now that we know the players and the battlefield, it is going to be one hell of a ride next season. Will Evil/darkness triumph? Will our survivors be able to put a stop to the new baddie in ghost Locke? Only time will tell in the final Season next year.

These are my bets:

-the change that Jack thought he was going to do by detonating the bomb, will not occur. Faraday had it right, "you can't change the past."

-Not only did everybody survive the atomic explosion, i.e. Jack, Kate, Sawyer, etc. but they will be sent back into present time, to meet up/showdown with the now rampaging Locke. And sorry, but Juliet is dead. So sad.

-Sayid isn't dead, at least not yet. He'll either last a few episodes into season 6 and then die, or he'll heal and remain on the show. My bets on him dying shortly.

-Jacob is NOT dead. Remember the God/Devil Analogy? I wouldn't be surprised if the almighty Jacob pulls a Jesus on us. Also at the beginning of the show, the guy in the black shirt(smokey/bad Locke) or Jacob mentioned that the cycle will continue regardless.

-Rose and Bernard are our Adam and Eve in the caves from Season 1.

-Sawyer is going to go crazy on Jack and everybody who came back for screwing up his Dharma life, thus killing Juliet. He won't be getting with Kate. Sorry.

-oh and Alpert is from the crew of the Black Rock. Boom!

I love this show. The simultaneous double whammy of character and mythology is something you don't get to see too often in TV. I'm working through the complete X-Files, and while I think the shows are similar in terms of an over arching mythology, I find that LOST does it better. Firstly there is the enormous cast. LOST has at least 20 regulars.

Also LOST will have the benefit of knowing when it will end. X-files dragged on too long and meandered towards the end. I have no doubt that the questions we have about LOST will be mostly answered next year. And I can't wait to see it all, but with a bit of sadness: I don;t want it to end. I'm almost hoping that somehow years from now, somebody will decide to make a spin off or something. New characters but same mythology, probably a different time.

Nah. It's good as is. Let's just hope the final season won't disappoint.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

"Pull forward please." What? Why?

Here's the deal, go to a fast food drive through. Order some grub. Pull up to the window. Pay your money, get your drink. Attendant asks you to pull forward, "We'll bring your stuff out."

This happens because they don't want to hold up the people behind you, and they don't want their counters to say somebody was at the window for 5 minutes while your french fries are cooking. I am sometimes happy about this, cause I get some nice hot fries. But lately it has come to my attention that this whole pull forward business is a bit ridiculous.

First off the drive thru is designed and built to be all about speed. If your fries aren't ready then that's a problem with the kitchen. They need to have some fries ready to go. Everything needs to be ready to go, so that all you do is throw it into a bag and wallah. This is the reason they have a counter inside, so that they are accountable for how many cars can get through the line during lunch.

Secondly if there is something slow in the kitchen, odds are the person behind me is going to have to wait too. So what are we solving here by moving somebody forward? So they can get another order in the system so that it can clog up even more?! That sounds ridiculous.

And lastly you're slowing things down even further when your attendants have to run ten orders out to the cars piled up in the lot. They are taking time to do run around, as opposed to simply waiting and handing things out that nice, little, bullet-proof window. Again, drive thru is designed to use that little window.

The point of the counter is to demonstrate to management how efficient their drive thru's are. By making you pull forward they are cheating their timers. They are cheating their jobs, making it look like they had a run of people go though 30 secs a piece when in actuality you had five very irritated people waiting in the parking lot for their food. That is not representing the effieciency of the drive thru at all. It is cheating. Pure out and out cheating, and the customer never knows it is happening.

This whole thing started a few weeks ago in San Diego. We went to Wendy's, three orders of spicy chicken sandwiches. We paid, got our drinks and were asked to pull forward. Pulled thru the drive, and because of the design of the drive thru, no car that was behind me could get out unless I pulled out of the drive thru. So I pulled out and was going to park, only this Wendy's sat in the middle of a huge shopping center. There wasn't a single parking spot, and about 15 cars trying to find one. So I pulled around and parked behind the handicapped spot, cause I figured they would be quick.

The guy who was behind me in the line of cars, came out of the thru shortly after I did, and he had been asked the same thing. So he circled around and parked behind me. At this point I am beginning to think this whole idea of pulling forward is a bit flawed. And the three of us were getting very irate. Then the handicapped people came out of the Wendy's and wanted to leave, so I had to move back, causing the guy behind me to move back as well, causing a traffic jam in the parking lot.

Finally, after what seemed like ten minutes, and after the handicapped party had left, our food came out. But I had to signal the attendant as to where I was parked (God forbid they should keep track of me and my order, again, what a drive thru is designed for). She came over and I told her what we ordered and she handed us the sack of Wendy's goodness.

The funny thing is, not a single car came out of the drive thru after the guy behind me did. So what on Earth is the point of this whole thing? Nobody got out of there any earlier than I did, because everybody was waiting for the same thing. So this whole idea of pulling forward to keep the line moving is a bit retarded in my opinion.

And then to top off this whole story, we were again getting food at a Wendy's this past weekend. And you know what, they asked me to pull forward. Here's the hysterical part, there was nobody behind me. And as I pulled forward and waited for them to bring out my food, nobody EVER came in line behind me. WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS?!?!?! ARRRGHHH!!!

Maybe it's just Wendy's. Jack in the box does this also, but at least they have parking spots reserved for drive thru. I think next time somebody asks me to pull forward, I will just say "No thanks, I can wait here." I will let their counters get screwed up, because it will accurately show that they are lacking at service.

And if you want it to get any scarier, apparently this an arrestable offense in Florida. An elderly lady refused to pull forward and the cops arrested her. Read it here.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

I am concerned.

What I am seeing more and more is a type of attack on people that sickens me. It is something that I find incredibly frustrating and I think it is something that people need to recognize.

There are a few hot button issues for me that are floating around now. Two big ones are gay marriage and global warming. I have written about them both many times before on this site. I don't think I need to state why I feel the way I do. But the thing I am concerned about is the escalation of attacks against people who are opposed to these issues. 20 years ago if you said you were against gays getting married, you would have a debate on your hands. Sides would be discussed. It may get heated, but in the end, opinions were respected.

Today in our environment of blogs, twitters, and general expansion of public whining on the Internet, it has ceased to be an opinion and become bigoted. There are people who will call me names for what I believe. Miss California is currently being chastised across the Internet for her belief on marriage. People are basically holding her to this image of an ignorant racist.

Why can't people respect other people's opinions. I respect what other people have to say about hot button issues. I will listen to their views and I will still hold my opinion. Why can't we receive the same treatment. Oh that's right, it's unconstitutional and I am ashamed. Well, I disagree.

But my point is not what has been said or what people are currently saying. My point is why is it that because I have a different opinion I have become this monster that is going to end the world. Because I have faith in our planet to heal itself, to correct it's problems, and because I find that the human race is a pretty insignificant dot on the size of our planet, I am suddenly thrust aside by my own government. My own president is saying now is not the time for debate, it is the time for action. Well hooray to him, but there is always room for debate. There is always room to decide what we are going to do before we simply plunge head first into that rock that sits just below the surface of the water.

My concern is that today we are jumping to conclusions, we are mowing over people's beliefs because a few loud celebrities and bloggers do not respect other people's opinions. Not only do they not respect others, they don't even acknowledge them.

If I ever hear somebody tell me to shut up because I have a difference of opinion, stand by.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

YEAH!!! 50th post!! Now for something completely different...

In this celebration of my 50th post here at the 'ole Observer I am going to do something very different, and perhaps a little strange. I am not going to rant, or rave, or even offer a "skewed perspective." Nay. Today, I will praise and celebrate Aquafina water, and their simple, wide-mouth 1-liter bottles.

Let me first point out that I think the idea of bottled water is good only from a convenience standpoint. I am not a foofoo person who thinks that drinking water, bottled in Fiji, is good or tastes any different than any other. I am also not a very particular person who must have lime, lemon, cherry, or all of the above flavors injected into my frosty H2O. I simply see bottled water as what it is; a nice, cold, healthier option to the many other options at your local 7-11s. I have no problem drinking the water from my tap at home, but when I am out and about and want water, I have no problem forking over $1.50 for a liter of aqua-awesomeness.

You may ask, what is it about Aquafina specifically that I find so "amazing?" Simply put, it is their wide-mouthed 1-liter bottle. When I am thirsty and craving water, I don't want to be slurping at a bottle top the size of my pinkie, nor do I need a so-called "sport bottle" cap that is SO small, I have to crush the bottle to get any flow. I want a large, man-sized opening, something I can chug easily and effortlessly. The little openings, I end up squeezing hard to get the same quantity, only I must stop part way to let the air back in. With Aquafina's wide mouth I can just chug and chug with no problems or interruptions, save for a breath of air.

Secondly, Aquafina is everywhere. If you can find a Pepsi, Mt. Dew, or daresay a Slice, Aquafina is a few slots over. I never have to worry about being in a different state with a different spring water company. It is found nationwide, and in some cases internationally, and it is just as good in California as it is in New York.

Also I have found that some waters actually dry my mouth and make me thirstier. Dasani is the worst that I know of. Every single bottle of Aquafina is exactly the same everywhere I go. No dryness, a big mouth, ice cold, and generally the cheapest option. I have no reason to buy anything else, especially since we all know that they all come from the tap, (even Fiji, I am afraid).

I don't care if it comes from the tap, a spring, melted from a mountain glacier, from the islands of Fiji, or where ever. It could have cascaded down the succulent bare butt of the Greek God Aphrodite herself, it ain't worth more than $1.50. You can dress it up in a cool bottle all you want, it is still water. Water is water and water is water. No matter how you slice it, it is the same in every bottle. I just prefer Aquafina because it is cheap, found everywhere, and has that very nice wide opening.

Now if you'll excuse me I have a cold liter of Aquafina to drink.

Pepsi, you can make that check out to Matthew Todhunter.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Documentaries: Truth? or Entertainment?

Watch a documentary. Doesn't matter what kind. It could be a 10 minute web series. A 30 minute special on History Channel. It could even be an epic, award-winning 10-hour miniseries on the BBC. But in every single one you have what are called "subject matter experts." These are people who are either in suits, or lab coats, who will spout off information for the camera and in turn the documentary.

I have been increasingly watching more and more documentaries of late. I think I am just curious about the world outside my own, and documentaries take me there. And That is the power of a good documentary, to be able to transport the viewer as well as informing them of things unknown. Documentaries can be very powerful, but just as easily be very damaging.

So, just because they are wearing the clothes of truth, with their so-called "experts," does that not mean they are true? I don't think so.

In the past few months I have been watching this show on DVD called Penn & Teller's Bullshit. The point of the show is to take something that is deemed to be fact, or believed by a group of people, and then to show you why it is complete bullshit. A quick example would be recycling. You think it's good? You think it's helping the environment? You think it's doing more good than harm? Well you'd be wrong, or so the show says.

Bullshit is a great show. Some of their points I disagree with, but overall I find it a fascinating watch. Every show I learn something I never knew before. But can I trust it?

I don't know.

A documentary can be skewed any which way the makers want it to be. Look at Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." Complete B.S. right? What about something with a bit more (hot) air, let's say An Inconvenient Truth. I recently watched a fascinating doc named "Man on Wire." It won this year's Oscar for best doc and was about the man who walked a wire between the twin towers in the 70s. It was fantastic. You must check it out. Very good story.

I maintain the opinion that these are entertainments. Yes they are fascinating, yes they may show you some numbers or some statistics, but I don't think it is to be trusted. You can find an "expert" for anything. If you want to interview an expert on Pet Psychology, you can find one. If you want to find an expert on the latest appearances of Elvis in Vegas, you can.

There are nut heads everywhere. The planet is crawling with weridos, creeps, and plain idiots. But you know what? I could sit them down in a chair, put a nice light on them, ask them questions, and with a little creative editing I could get them to spin anything anyway I want. They could spout off information that would make your head spin, and I could sell it. Granted a certain amount of credibility must be achieved, i.e. PHDs, professors, and the like.

This is what I want to talk about. So often we see these interviews, these so called experts in these documentary style shows or movies. They will spell out the doom and gloom. Point to a couple of studies and wallah, documentary subject matter expert!!But are they right? Just because they have a doctorate hanging on the wall and wear a lab coat means we should be trusting them right?

I think differently, and I'll tell you why...

It all boils down to a source. Information comes from somewhere. The majority of us trust others to provide the information we don't know. We scour the web, googling or looking things up on Wikipedia. All of human knowledge is available, only a web search away. But where does this information come from. Where do these opinions form?

You could say research. But what exactly are you researching? Books? Tapes? Other people's opinions. You are researching the truth? But how do you know the truth? Unless you are the scientist in the lab, injecting that hormone into the rat, you don't know. Unless you are the Pharaoh of Egypt himself, and not some archaeologist interpreting remains at a site, you don't know. And you may never know.

The point is this, and it is very simple... Don't be quick to jump on a cause. Don't be hasty in making a judgement. And don't bandwagon on other people's ideas simply because somebody said it was true. Look at the data yourself. Judge from your own eyes, not what others put before you.

And if your watching that documentary, enjoy it for what it is; entertainment. Albeit, a good documentary can open up your eyes to things you weren't aware of. But it shouldn't convince you of anything.

I was watching a documentary on Wal mart over the weekend called : "Wal-Mart: the High Cost of Low Price." It was about several issues including the poor employment conditions, putting Mom&Pop's out of business, and outsourcing labor in Asia. It was very interesting. It made me aware of some things I had never though of before. But is it making me picket on the street corner? No. Is it making me boycott them and their abysmal employment standards? No.

Why?

Because I allow for the possibility that it isn't fact. I allow that it isn't the be-all, end-all source information source on Wal mart. And in truth, I have begun doing a bit of research into what exactly they are doing over in Wally-World, because it certainly peaked my curiosity. That is the most important thing a documentary can achieve; challenging it's viewers to ask questions, and search for answers.

I implore every reader of this to go out and watch or listen to these documentaries. They are an important part of television, film, and radio. But I urge you, don't be so quick to rage or to jump on the bandwagon. Because when your only source is a piece of enlightening fluff, you haven't really learned anything, have you.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Polar bear crisis. What crisis?

I am sick and tired of people touting the imminent danger of polar bear extinction due to the ecological terror known as "Global Warming."

I was watching the documentary series Planet Earth (highly recommend) and during a bit on polar bears, the narrator was going on and on about the disappearance of the ice and how the polar bear needs it in order to survive and hunt. Then they showed footage of a bear swimming in the water, saying "if he doesn't find land soon, he'll drown."

Please...

"Oh the poor bear, he wasn't given those massive paws and hundreds of pounds of fat to swim around in. He needs our help. Oh no!"

There's also a commercial playing on TV now urging people to donate to the "cause" (not sure which cause it is, probably the look-at-this-poor-skinny-bear-swimming-and-give-us-money kind of cause). There almost like those feed the hungry kid TV commercials, where they go into a destitute town show a few sad faces and bloated bellies and the money will flow. The difference is that one is an animal doing what it normally does, hunting and eating, it's a survivor. The other are people who are persecuted by war, famine, and shitty luck. You choose which needs your money.

But you know, even if the planet was warming, which if you actually do a little research and look into, you find that there is no conclusive evidence saying such, you'll discover that in fact polar bear numbers are on the rise. What?! What?! What?! "Polar bear numbers are on the rise? How can that be? Their habitat is melting right? That's what Noah Wyle says in the commercial. It has to be true!!"

But it isn't.

Polar bears swim, they are pretty damn good at it. All that fat and fur, makes for a great water insulator as well as having massive paws for paddles (God knew what he was doing here). The bears hunt on land AND in the water. It is a part of their yearly activity to swim regularly in the ocean for food. Polar bears have been documented 60 miles away from land, hunting. But somehow environmentalist fearmongers spin it to meet their own selfish needs.

This is an image that has been used by environmental groups to help promote their ideological and political agendas...

Did you know that the above was taken in the middle of summer, where it isn't at all uncommon to see bears doing just this, taking a float on a piece of ice. They actually will ambush seals laying on these mini icebergs. As well as jump into the water after fish and beluga whales.

If you think I am just ranting on about something I don't know about. Here's some of what experts think about this...

"Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present. It is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria."

-Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist

Or how about this opinion...

“Polar bears, for example, survived several episodes of much warmer climate over the last 10,000 years than exists today. There is no evidence to suggest that the polar bear or its food supply is in danger of disappearing entirely with increased Arctic warming, regardless of the dire fairy-tale scenarios predicted by computer models.”

-Dr. Susan Crockford, Evolutionary Biologist and Paleozoologist at University of Victoria

Here's what somebody thinks of the political reasons to make the polar bear a threatened species...

"The bottom line is that the attempt to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act is not based on any evidence that the polar bear populations are declining or in trouble. It is based on computer climate models fraught with uncertainties. The truth is that we clearly do not know enough about most of the polar bear populations to make the argument for listing. And frankly, listing the polar bear isn't about the bear either. It is about trying to bring about climate change regulations using the most powerful development-stopping law in the land, the Endangered Species Act. Polar bears are being used to achieve long sought left-wing environmental regulatory policies."

-Sen. James Inhofe, OK

Summary:
Arctic ice is receding every year. Many are attributing it to "global warming," however temperatures everywhere else are actually declining. The polar bear is being heralded as the posterboy for the global warming campaign, however, they are not diminshing in number, they are in fact flourishing.

All of this boils down to, is people lying to us, and telling the uninformed, faulty information. Do your research people, don't listen to these fabrications just because they play some sad music and show you a bear enjoying a leisurely swim. It is complete B.S.

I can't stand people scare mongering (looking at you Al Gore) just to accomplish their personal agendas.

OK ranting over, resume your normal life.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Ratings exist for a reason, use them!

In television, film, video games and music, systems exist to inform parents of nature of the content. In broadcast television, you see the little block pop up every 30 minutes telling you what sort of content is being played. Movies have the MPAA, which rates released films G, PG, PG13, R, or NC17. Video Games have the ESRB, which rates games E, T, M, AO etc. Music merely puts an explicit label on a disc if it contains profanity.

So why do parents bring their kids to a film, like Watchmen (which let me tell you was very violent and the rating said so), and then complain about the violence of the film all across the Internet? Why do parents allow their kids to play video games, clearly labeled Mature, then go and yell at the stores for selling them in the first place?

If you don't mind your kid playing Mature rated video games, or mind them seeing R rated films, then good on you. Take some initiative and explore what you feel to be appropriate for your little sponge. But stop blaming a system that works just because you decided not to take an active interest in what your child watches or plays.

These same parents cry out that the system is broken. I have no idea how. stores won't sell m rated games to kids and Theaters won't sell tickets to r rated movies to anyone under age unless a parent or guardian is present. When I worked at the theater, our managers made a game of catching the little rapscallions when they tried to sneak into r rated movies. They would stand in the back of the theater, and when a couple of kids came in, they challenged them for their ticket stubs. Virtually 95% of them were sent away. It was awesome.

So what is the problem here? I say it's the parents. If you don't want to let your kids see a film because its r rated that's your choice. If you don't mind them seeing it than fine. My only stipulation would be that you can't blame anybody but yourself when you walk into a movie like SAW and then complain it was too violent.

Parenting is a parents job, not Target's, not Wal-mart's, not cinemark, not showcase, not any theater, not any store. They enforce the rules (or pay a steep fine if they break them). Only blame yourself for not being informed. The next step is to then get informed, and know what your kids are doing. It's your job.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Please, don't make it political. Is that possible?

Last night were the Oscars: the annual ceremony to honor the best films of the year and the people who made them. I love to watch the show. I have seen every one for well over a decade and a half now, and this year's was very good. Not only was the show entertaining, but virtually every one of my expected winners did win (I knew Kate Winslet would pull it off). And as anticipated, Slumdog Millionaire took just about every award it was nominated for including the coveted Best Picture. The only exception (and indeed disappointment) of the night for me, was Sean Penn getting Best Actor for Milk.

Now, I will admit, I did not see Milk, so I won't discuss my disappointment here. Because who knows? I may have really enjoyed it. But what I do want to talk about is the grandstanding people do when at the podium. And more particularly, I want to discuss Sean Penn's comments about how I am shamed for voting yes to prop 8. Here we go...

Inevitably, every year at the Oscars, somebody has to speak out about something politically oriented. Over the past few years it has primarily been against the war or talking about the "urgency" of "global warming." I think the funniest one ever was the year that Michael Moore won best documentary for Bowling for Columbine. He got up there and started shaming on President Bush for starting a fictitious war. But what was funny is it happened at the height of Bush's approval ratings, so Michael Moore was booed from the stage.

Cut to 6 years later, and he is deemed a liberal hero. He would be cheered for making the same statement, perhaps cheered on even more if he added extra venom to his words (and they were already pretty venomous, Fahrenheit 9/11 anyone?). I think that example shows how easily swooned the sheep crowd is; how everybody is so easily manipulated. Look at how everybody is blaming everything on President Bush, when in reality the recession wasn't his doing. People love to jump on the current bandwagon and ride it till we are told to ride another. But I'm not getting into that right now, that is another long post in the making

I don't want to talk my politics or my beliefs or downplay those of others. I have respect for the beliefs of others. I will trash somebody for making a spirited, uninformed, stupid remark, but I won't trash their beliefs. I respect my fellow Americans. I respect that people think differently than I do. So why can't others? I really want to talk about why people do this? Why do people stand up on the podium after winning an award for a performance in a movie, and feel they have to tell the world how it should be? The Oscars are about films. They are about the art of making movies. It isn't about promoting a person's agenda. The Academy Awards are not political!! Leave your preaching for some other, far more appropriate venue, such as a rally, a parade, or daresay a city hall meeting where change can be really enacted.

So is it silly to think that an Oscar Telecast can be politically free? I think that it is an impossibility. Especially when a liberal pompous hothead like Sean Penn gets on his pulpit and tells the majority of Californians they should be ashamed for voting on their morals. I'm sorry, but the Country was founded on those morals and to spit in my eye for voting on what I believe to be right, is in itself shameful.

OK, we knew I wasn't going to be able to make it to the end before that came out. *sigh* OK, that's that.

OK, so Celebs do it. We see it all the time. Now why do they do it? I think firstly there is the aspect of being in front of a crowd, and you have something to say. Another part of it is that as a celebrity you have more influence than the average person. Lastly I think most celebrities carry an air of "better than you." So when people in the country disagree with them, they feel the need to speak out wherever they can.

The latest items on the Celebrity Agenda: Gay Marriage, Darfur, Global Warming, Tibet, on and on and on. And it will go on and on, until people say "Enough!!" It bothers me greatly to hear snobby speeches made about how I am doing wrong, especially to hear them at a ceremony that isn't focused on the issue at all. Granted, I will give you that Sean Penn was remarking about the plight of homosexuals, and his movie that he won for was about Harvey Milk, the first gay man elected to office. So one could then argue that he was talking about a relevant subject. But the tone, the words, and the attitude he employed was disdainful and filled with vitriol (yes, I actually know that word). My point is: he could have said it better, without stomping on so many Americans.

These are speeches that are spoken in the name of the betterment of humanity, but point of fact it is really somebody riding a high horse. My plea to the Academy, and to smug celebs, please, come down off your horses, and maybe we can actually celebrate something as wonderful as film, and not bloat your self-righteous ego any more. Let's leave the Oscars to the films, not your agendas.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content