Take Me to the Other Side

     Many kinds of spiritual writings or spiritual interventions have been practiced through the history of humankind. In antiquity, the Chinese used a form of spirit writing to contact the dead. This trend was also carried out in places such as Europe and India. Since the late 19^th century, the Ouija Board was being sold to the public as nothing more than a board game or a parlour trick. Single planchettes for spiritual writings were also being sold to the public. The real question is: why do people still believe they are tools to contact the dead?

     Many people remember using the Ouija Board at a party, or when you were a child hanging out with your friends on a stormy night. You would place your hands gently on the board with others, and watch the planchette move and spell words through the power of the spirits. To everyone’s amazement, the planchette would eerily move on its own. Everyone would also claim they were not the one moving it to each letter. Was this an ancient form of spiritual intervention, or simply a parlour trick explained by science?

     It is the latter. The most well known explanation of the Ouija Board is the ideomotor effect. In short, this is a characteristic of the agent who is moving an object unconsciously, and attributing it to another force; in this case, it is a supernatural force. This what many people do not know about the Ouija Board and how it functions.

     Simple tests can be done to prove the inaccuracy and falsity of the Ouija Board. One simple test is to have two people use a Ouija Board, while another watches and records the data. The trick here is to blindfold the two people using it. What happens after this test? It produces pure jibberish. The same can be done with a keyboard or a pad of paper when trying to open this inter-dimensional portal. 

     There are many other outstanding issues with the Ouija Board and its supposed function and stages of use. Why does a spirit need wood and plastic to open a spiritual doorway? Why do your eyes need to be open for it to work? Why can the spirit “possess” your body, and only spell words (as opposed to actually moving the rest of your body around, or talking)? Why can’t the spirit move the planchette itself? There are other questions that arise when scrutinizing the Ouija Board, and only add to the debunking of it.

     Ouija Boards are a simply a game. The do not act as inter-dimensional doorways. They do not use spirits to spell words. However, they do rely on humans to physically move them. Does this mean ghosts/spirits/spectres do not exist? Well, no. The evidence is stacked against them, but all this means is that the Ouija Board is a sham.

     People seem to want to believe that it contacts ghosts, or their dead relatives. Many people want to believe there is something after this life. Other people may want some form of closure after their loved ones have passed on, and this board may give them that. It may seem unfair to take that way from them, but I can only assume that knowing the truth would be better in these cases.

Hide that Poker Face

     As an avid watcher of professional sports, I tune into TSN, Sporstnet, and The Score on a daily basis. What I never expected to see on these sports networks was gambling. Why on Gaia’s green earth am I seeing gambling on these stations?

     Within the last decade or so, gambling (Texas Hold’em in particular) has seeped in through the cracks and is now littering these stations on a weekly basis with their programs. Why? I have no idea. Poker is not a sport. It never has been, and it never will be. A simple comparison of the two clearly indicates the difference between gambling and a professional sport.

     Success in professional sports takes years of training, hard work, dedication, cognitive ability, and the constant practice during the year and during the off season. These professional athletes are paid millions for their skill and devotion to the sport. Some may argue they are paid too much, but it is clear that they work through blood, sweat, and tears to play the sport, as well as keep their jobs.

     What does it take to win at gambling/poker? The ratio is about ¼ knowledge of the game, and about ¾ chance or luck (whatever you choose to call it). Gambling is all about the luck of the draw. Some may argue it does indeed take skill to judge opponents, and make faces; in a sense, this is correct. It does take some skill in using proper judgment when dealing with large sums of money, and making faces like Jim Carey to throw people off. Does this mean gambling deserves to be on sports networks, or that the gamblers deserve the money they win? No. Gambling is also not deserving of having announcers that tell the audience that the gamblers actually have control of the game, or have any say in the final outcome. These announcers insinuate that the gamblers have vast amounts of skill when it comes to a game of chance. This could not be further from the truth. In comparison, this is the same as claiming that craps and roulette actually take skill to win. That is just ludicrous.

     I can understand and tolerate seeing billiards or darts on a sports network, as these games take immense amounts of practice and skill to the get the level of these professionals. These players do indeed use skill and finesse in order to win. Gambling does not tend to use either.

     In closing, gambling is essentially a game of chance. It takes very little skill to win. When playing Texas Hold’em, you can put a ten year veteran against someone who has never played the game once (but is informed of the rules). What would the outcome be? No one knows, because it is a game of chance and could go either way. They have a fifty-fifty chance to win. That being said, if you place a ten year hockey veteran against someone who has never played hockey (but knows the rules), the outcome is quite simple; the ten year veteran takes the rookie to school.

     Gambling does not deserve any place on sports networks, or any of the praise that it receives for using vast amounts of skill to win. We can only hope that these networks see the bad hand they have, and decide to push gambling back into its humble home…the casino.

Paranormal Skills, or Cheap Childhood Thrills?

     Ever since the rise of the notorious and nefarious Blair Witch Project, paranormal films have taken a different filmmaking approach for the big screen. This technique involves the use of a pseudo-documentary take while presenting the shots on screen. One question that arises from this technique is: are these films scary by themselves, or do they rely solely on their presentation? – yes, that may seem like two questions, but it is not.

     As stated previously, the Blair Witch Project was instrumental in the construction of the technique used in some modern paranormal films. The use of a handheld camera giving a pseudo-documentary feel to the film seems to produce a more “realistic” view of the characters and the situations they are involved with. On the other hand, the use of this film technique appears to come off as a cheap scare tactic on par with what children do. That may seem a little harsh, but it is a fair observation.

     Recent films such as the Paranormal Activity franchise, The Fourth Kind, and the newly released The Devil Inside make use of this technique. These films appear to utilize this technique to frighten audiences (on some occasions); however, it is beginning to come across as more of a crutch to lean on in order to scare people. The fact that they display the films as “real” is what ends up giving it the ability to scare people. Some of the scares these films produce consist of nothing more than an individual walking around with a handheld camera, panning to the left, and having a ghostly image appear and disturb the previously silent scene. This is similar to the way you would scare people as a child. You would wait around the corner, and then pop out and say “Boo!” This just comes across as scary because it is with a handheld and appears “real”. They also rely on leaving a handheld camera behind, and watching a series of spooky events unfold while no one is around. Had someone been watching this film if it was produced the way other films were, they may not feel as frightened as they would while watching a handheld camera. Think of some of the scariest films you have seen, and ask why you thought they were so scary. Those films did not try to pretend they were real by just using a cheap scare tactic. They were able to scare you without it.

     This amateur and predictable technique is becoming very cumbersome to put up with. It has served its purpose in the past, but has now worn out its welcome. It is clear that these scripts, actors, and movies in general cannot compete with other films on a level playing field, so they need to take a different filmmaking approach. This is not by any means saying that trying new techniques is bad, however, it is just saying that these films are not up to par with other films, so they need to find workarounds to get on that level. Keep this in mind when watching these films in the future. Try not to let the pseudo-documentary approach catch you off guard and trick you into believing that what you are watching is real.  

A + B = A Song

   During the 20^th century and continuing into the 21^st century, there has been a quasi-mathematical formula followed in the majority of musical songs. This formula has served as somewhat of a guideline in regards to the way a song should sound and be structured. That being said, this should not be considered as a universal law. Many musicians who don’t follow this structure still produce material that is similar in terms of sound, emotion, and its reception. Let’s take a quick look into the formulaic nature of music.

     I must first point out that this structure is primarily used for any sort of “rock” sound (notice the quotations). This “rock” sound that I speak of encompasses some of the following genres: rock, pop rock, hard rock, slow rock, hardcore, metalcore, metal, punk, ska, country, jazz, pop etc. This list would tend to not include genres such as rap, hip-hop, r&b, dance etc. as they consist mainly of looping beats (often one looping beat). However, as I stated before, this formula is not needed to produce a song.

     In terms of the structure, most songs start off with a form of an “intro”. These intros are commonly stand alone riffs that end up leading into the verse (and may be repeated later; it is seldom though). On occasion, these intro riffs will indeed be a chorus riff that gets played again later; the intro riff may also be the verse riff right away. The primary function of the intro riff is to serve as a device to get the song started and usually set the tone for the rest of the song. It is definitely subject to change at times, but that is its usual function.

     After the intro riff, and assuming it is still a stand alone intro, the verse will kick in. There is no format for how the verse should sound after the intro; however, many times it tends to slow down after a fast intro, and proceeds to build up to a chorus. Other times there may be a faster verse with a slower chorus. On average, I would say the verse will be somewhat slower, or at least on par with the chorus in terms of speed. The first verse is also somewhat shorter than the second, as the second occasionally gets an extension before the chorus.

     In regards to the chorus, it usually comes after the verse and will tend to be heavier, faster, or more “powerful” than the verse was. The first chorus in a song may not always be as long as the second chorus, which may add another part, or simply repeat itself to extend length. Once the chorus ends, it will fade back into the verse.

     The second verse is more susceptible to alterations than the first is. It may start with a drum fill, or just drums and bass before the guitar(s) kick back in to its normal speed/sound. After these small alterations, if any, it continues back to the chorus, but may have a small bridge between the two for a build up.

     The second chorus does not change a whole lot from the first. As stated before, it may add a part that wasn’t included in the first, or it will just extend itself from repetition. After the chorus finishes, it usually chooses one of two paths to continue on.

     After the second chorus, a guitar solo or other filler riffs are brought in. The solo is one of the most common to put in after the chorus, although there is usually a build up of some sort before going into it. For groups that do not use a solo, they generally come up with a riff or two and play that before heading back into the chorus. Call it a bridge, interlude, or filler, it is usually what follows. As for some of the hardcore/metalcore bands, they tend to fill this part, as well as other small parts, with a breakdown.

     Once one or many of the above are completed, the song usually jumps back into the chorus. This chorus is similar in length and alterations to the second one. Some songs end on the chorus (or an extended version of it), while others will come up with another riff to end on after finishing the chorus. Some examples that are common tend to be the intro riff being played again, a solo-outro, or a brand new riff to finish with.

     Now, keep in mind that what I have said here is not a universal rule by any means, and I am more than certain you will find bands/songs to refute what I just said. Actually, let me do it for you: Underoath, August Burns Red, and Shotgun Rules. These are three hardcore/metalcore/emo bands that come to mind when I talk of breaking down the common musical structure. They are all incredibly successful in their respected genres, and do not tend to use this formulaic approach to making music.

     Just to reiterate, let us go over this common structure again: intro, verse, chorus, verse (altered), chorus (altered/extended), bridge/interlude/breakdown/solo, bridge, chorus (altered/extended), outro (chorus/solo/riff). Keep this in mind the next time you are listening to music. I can guarantee that you will notice this structure on a number of occasions. On the other hand, you may not notice this trend at all; or you may find variations of what I have described above. Now go turn on the radio.

Dunder Mifflin: Out of Business

   The Emmy award winning TV show, The Office, just moved on to their eighth season last year. With the departure of the beloved Michael Scott (Steve Carell) in season seven, many wondered what fate would befall the hit TV show, and who would be the new Regional Manager.

     For the past seven seasons, the Scranton branch of the Dunder Mifflin paper company was run by Michael Scott. Michael was the charismatic, unorthodox, unpredictable, and lovable Regional Manager of the company for all seven seasons. Without question, Michael was the protagonist of the multi-character show, and arguably the all-time fan favourite. Many would not question the shows integrity before his departure in season seven; however, during the season eight run, the ratings have declined during Michael’s absence. Season eight ended up having an episode in which the show had the lowest rating for an episode since season one. Is this simply explained away by the current void that Michael’s pivotal role filled? Or does the blame fall elsewhere?

     It’s no question that Steve Carell fulfilled his contract and possibly exceeded what the viewers and members of the show expected from him. With the best or worst material given to him, he took it and soared. However, The Office never tended to have any bad writing (which I, and the other viewers, appear quite thankful for). That being said, does the slow deterioration of the show fall on Steve’s presence as an actor and character? Not quite. The majority of the blame seems to fall on the writers of the show. Many TV viewers know how fast a shows integrity and worth can be compromised by the longevity of the show (e.g. South Park, Family Guy, and most notably, The Simpsons). The writers of The Office seem to have written themselves out of TV worthy material at season eight, or quite possibly at the end of season seven. It has been quite clear that there has been a struggle to maintain the shows originality after one hundred and fifty two episodes (from season one to seven).

       Previously, The Office was considered a comedy. I would say it was two-thirds comedy, and one-third drama. During season eight, it has had an entire paradigm shift, where it is now centered around the dramatic aspects of the show; primarily around the pathos element. For those not aware of pathos, it is usually accompanied by logos and ethos. Ethos is an ethical/moral appeal; logos refers to the logical aspect of a subject; and pathos is the emotional side of it. Season eight has been concerned with the emotional aspect of the show and characters. No longer are there hilarious and original pranks on Dwight. The show is far more concerned with Jim’s obvious love for Pam, Andy’s constant self-consciousness about being the Regional Manager, and the overt “morals” of each story they tell. On the subject of Regional Manager, Andy is clearly not the type that the show needs to progress. While he was a hilarious, ill tempered, and problematic salesman at the start of season three, he changed into a mild mannered, cautious, and love struck salesman near the end of season three. Why was he chosen to become the new Regional Manager? I have no answer. Andy’s promotion also leaves no room for the classic repartee and gags between Michael and Dwight, or Michael and Ryan, or Michael and Jan...or Michael and anyone really. Even the brief stints on the show by Will Ferrell and James Spader cannot make up for Michael’s absence, and the poor unimaginative writing in season eight.

     I feel as if I could go on and on about the problematic season eight, but I must bring this to a close. It seems quite evident that the writers relied far too much on Steve’s character and his roots in the other characters lives; in turn, they did not spend enough time having the audience invest in other characters. It is also obvious now that they have written themselves out of the original material that made The Office the unique Emmy award winning TV show. The dedicated audience (me!!!) tend to not care to watch Andy try to win everyone’s approval in predictable ways, or to watch Jim make Pam smile (as he has for the last few seasons). It is somewhat unfortunate that Michael was the seed of life in this show, where all other relations branched out from. In retrospect, I am certain that the audience and writers did not see this as a catch twenty two. To sum up, I give the cast and writers the biggest Dundie in the world for their efforts from season one to seven; however, I give them the biggest cane around the neck and a yank off stage for season eight. Please…just make it stop.

    

"Hi. I'm a President" "And I'm a model"

President: I am the President of the United States for the next four years.

Model: I walk down small runways.

P: I deal with signing bills, foreign relations, military strategies, and the economy.

M: I walk down small runways in post modern abstract clothing.

P: I was a Senator before this.

M: I was a waitress.

P: I make roughly four hundred thousand dollars a year.

M: I just made forty five million last year. Both our salaries have the number four in it. That means they’re close in amount.

P: …..

     I know, I know. That was a cheap shot. In my defence though, they deserve it. Does that amend what I said? I didn’t think so. The heart of this issue here is simply scrutinizing the salary of these models and attempting to find out if what they are being paid is justified in any way.

     In my humble and possibly biased opinion, the above example is a pretty clear indicator of how the people who actually contribute to a society are compensated much less (in terms of salary). Moreover, the individuals who do what requires the least amount of talent or skill are in turn rewarded with a plethora of money and incentives (on certain occasions). The prime example here is the model; the runway or clothing model in particular. According to Forbes list of the top models in 2010-2011, their top three models from the past year range in salary from forty five million to nine million. A common question is, or should be, how does a man who runs the United States of America, make far less than a model who does nothing more than toss on clothing they may never wear off the runway?

     One of the most common answers to this question is that they are indeed deserving of the money, as the fashion line would not sell the vast quantities of merchandise had it not been for that model and their physical appearance. Therefore, a model may make less if the line of fashion their endorsing and modelling for does not sell well. This may be acceptable, but then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What is beautiful to some, is pure kitsch to others. The same view goes for the models dressed in their abnormal attire.

     Another example of the model vs. the real profession is the marriage between Patriots Quarter Back Tom Brady, and model Gisele Bündchen. How about we do a quick comparison of the two, in terms of professions. What does Brady need to be a QB in the NFL? Here's a list: leadership, athleticism, cognitive ability (especially on the field), mental/physical toughness, discipline, and constant hard work. What about Gisele? Here’s a list of what she needs as a model: a nice physical appearance to some people. That’s the end of the list. That’s the extent of it. Brady worked for his career and where he is today through blood, sweat, and tears. Gisele on the other hand, did literally nothing at all (aside from find a modelling agency at a young age). Granted, I have some outstanding quarrels about the salaries of professional athletes, but at least they make it clear that they work for what they’re getting.

     In this day and age, it appears that some the world is far more concerned with vanity. Well, that’s at least what’s portrayed in the twisted mind of the fashion industry. The engineers, physicists, doctors, and presidents must feel short changed when seeing the salary of these models. I feel it has gotten to the point where I should be telling young children: don’t try to go to university; try to be beautiful. But alas, I cannot do it. Despite the fact that professions utilizing the use of the brain make less money than some professions that require no brains, I will still continue to crusade for professions of substance and skill. These are the professions of talent and worth that society will always need. We need presidents to lead a nation. We need doctors to tend and heal the sick. We need physicists to explain and explore our world. We need engineers to construct the marvels of our society. In turn, we need models to make us feel good about what we do.  

Twatter and its Twits

     The rise of dolled up social networking sites has also given rise to the immensely popular “Status Update”. Essentially, the status update is nothing more than a brief tidbit of irrelevant information that is only pertinent to the individual who posted it. Some examples of these useless updates include the following: ONLY 10 MORE DAYS TILL STANTON WARRIORS!! so I shuffle on my heels, and I bounce on my toes. I’m CRAZAY (as u know) But its all GOOD I suppose!!!!! <3<3<3; Christmas tree is officially down… so sad L; Just playing on my iphone…You know…Making an iphone picture. Those three examples of status updates were taken from my Facebook page today. The irrelevance of the updates is mind boggling, and somewhat disheartening. What really depresses me is the fact that Facebook calls this the “News Feed”…none of this is considered news at all. I have heard the argument that these feeds serve to benefit certain individuals, bands, or organizations in dispensing information about themselves. However, this is why those groups or individuals already have their own websites to begin with. Twatter and Facebook are not warranted by any means.

     In terms of the social networking sites, Myspace, from 2003, was enough. It served to let people communicate and bring forth information about themselves or their group. Facebook followed suit a year after and sparked an online revolution in how information was dispensed. Twatters inception was in 2006, and rapidly began growing shortly after. To be quite honest, Myspace and Facebook (alongside others) are nothing more than e-mail services that prinked themselves up with status updates, online games, and pictures. The majority of “information” on these sites serves no purpose to anyone, anywhere.

     Twatter is especially saddening to someone like myself, as it uses the “follow” feature. This means you follow that person or organization on Twatter, and read the nonsensical posts. These followers have now reached numbers in the millions. In essence, millions of people have no lives, so they decide to follow the lives of others online. It also means that others who join these sites are convinced that people will, or want to, follow their lives.

     In 2010, some of the most followed people on Twatter were the following: Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, and Britney Spears. In short: nobody of substance or value. I am also concerned with the fact that President Obama has an account (despite similar info on his account can be found in the news or on the White House website). Here are a few twits from these celebrities: Watched Moulin Rouge again, such an incredible film! A remarkable & romantic love story with a beautiful soundtrack; I’m starting to think that Jesus does love football; Romney said during last night's debate that he wants to give relief to the middle class. But his tax plan wouldn't. Now sure, you would be inclined to think I “cherry picked” my data for this. In some ways, you are right. However, I basically just picked a recent post from some celebrities that they put up within the last few days. Unfortunately, many of their posts follow that same derivative path (which is posting useless tidbits of info).

     The problem here is that these sites are promoting the personal and irrelevant lives of celebrities or organizations, and in some cases, the people you call “Friends” on Facebook.

     If someone wants to share the news of wedding, or a baby on the way, that seems acceptable (as they just want their friends and family to be aware). Granted, they could just send an e-mail, but a message on Facebook or Twatter is acceptable. However, the downside is when Ashton Kutcher posts that he thinks Jesus loves football. Does that really have any effect on anyone’s life? No. It is inconsequential. Twatter could be forcing the newspapers and magazines to go the way of the Dodo. It appears that no one wants to sit down read an article anymore. People prefer to have small pieces of information spoon fed to them and swallowed in a single bite. They want a quick fix. They want a one hour photo.

     In closing, I am indeed asking people to stop using Twatter or Facebook, and to stop following other people. Nobody likes the person who just follows everyone else. We have enough sheep in the world, and we sure do not need humans acting like them.

Nunchucks: Cool, but, Useless?

     We have all seen them in the cartoons, the movies, and in the demonstrations of various martial arts weaponry, but how reliable and effective is the nunchuck as a weapon? Is it cool, but useless?
     The nunchaku, or nunchuck, is said to have its origins based in China, and then carried over to the Okinawa Islands in Japan. Some claim it started out as a rice flail for farming, while others claim that that it was a concealed weapon used by farmers (and others) who were forbidden from laying hands on common weaponry. There really is not a definitive origin available to us now. However, what we do know is that the popularity of nunchucks took off in the martial arts film world, and a lot of that is owed to Bruce Lee. His poetic, yet clearly choreographed, use of this ancient two section staff made it quite popular in film, and may have influenced its further use in film and martial arts dojos.
   My only quarrel with this weapon is its counterintuitive nature that doesn't appear to be shown on the silver screen. When choreographed properly, this weapon appears to have no setbacks. In contrast, when someone who is not well versed in nunchucks picks up a pair and begins to flail them around, a revelation takes place. This revelation usually sets in when they are rolled up on the ground in a fetal position grabbing a very sensitive area. Very few weapons have the ability to swing back on you while wielding them. A sword does not do a 360 spin against your will and slice your nose off. A staff does not go limp in the middle and backlash against your knee cap.
   This weapon appears to be similar to the fighting style known as Capoeira. It looks quite beautiful when utilized properly, but turns out to be useless in a fight. Could this be the reason why Michelangelo of the Ninja Turtles was given this weapon? He was the slacker wiss-ass with the smallest brain; however, he was also the only one in there for comic relief. The Turtles would have no humour if he died in combat. Did Splinter realize that comic relief does not win battles, and so he gave Michelangelo a weapon which is used to deter enemies before a fight, without actually having to use it? If I saw an experienced individual wielding the nunchucks, I would back off (no matter how low their IQ).
     Unfortunately for the ancient weapon, the cat may be out of the bag. It would appear that nunchucks do not serve any real purpose in a fight, unless they're being wielded by Bruce Lee. If people had a choice between a a pair of swords, a staff, a pair of sai, or a pair of nunchucks, I bet my bottom dollar that the only people who pick the nunchucks are the small group of "special" individuals like Michelangelo.

Tebow Time to Cease in 3...2...

     Tebow Time? Or TiVo time? I for one would choose the latter, as Tebow hardly seems to be worth watching live...but that's just me.
     Withing a few games (and under a full season), Tim Tebow took off in the NFL and became a household name when he replaced Broncos starting Quarter Back Kyle Orton (who in a somewhat ironic/hollywood fashion beat Tebow and the Broncos laterin the season). I thought Tebow's popularity was because of his impressive game stats and quality as a QB...to say I was wrong would be an understatement. Tim Tebow, is indeed, the worst QB in the NFL today (stat wise).
     This begs the question: why such a large fan base? Is it because of his personality? Well, he doesn't really have one. Is it because of his attitude? It's positive and wholesome, but that doesn't win games. Is it from his antics on the field? Well, he doesn't have any, as he doesn't showboat (for obvious reasons). Is it because of his stats? Well, obviously not. So why is this QB so popular?
     Here is a brief summary of his stats this year: 1,729 passing yards, 46.5 completion %, 12 TDs, 6 INTs, 6 FUM, and a 72.9 passer rating. It doesn't get much worse than that. In contrast, here are Aaron Rodgers stats this year: 4,643 passing yards, 45 TDs, 6 INTs, 0 FUM, and 122.5 passer rating. How can Tm Tebow, who's arguably the worst QB in the league, be so immensely popular?
     I am nonplussed by this fanbase of his. It would appear that people just started jumping on the bandwagon after the Broncos won a few games at the last minute while Tebow was at the helm. This would mean the QB is interchangable. As for the Broncos winning, was that actually Tebow's doing? No. Granted, Tebow isn't a throwing QB though. He's a running QB, similar to ones such as Michael Vick (but with morals/ethics). He runs the ball fairly well; or at least as well as peoples expections are for him. No one expected him to get passing TDs. In further regard to his poor stats, there is also the issue of the Broncos coddling Tebow in his game, as opposed to him acclimating to the Broncos system, which every other rookie/veteran QB has to do. Are his feeble stats a result of the Broncos coaching staff? Is that also the reason for their winning streak? That disgression isn't necessarily relevant to my original question though: why is the worst QB in the league so popular? One could make the argument that their winning streak and fanbase is from the investment in Tebow by the players. We know how instrumental the confidence in the QB by other players can be. Case in point, Peyton Manning. However, why would professional players stand behind one of the worst players in the league?
     I still don't have an answer for many of those questions, in terms of his popularity. Aside from fans jumping on the bandwagon of an interchangable QB (that is about to come to a hault), there is no logical reason as to why Tebow is so popular. One can only kneel down and begin "Tebowing", that this unwarranted fad will soon cease.
   

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of "Senselessness"

     The second installment to the 21st century Sherlock Holmes film series is on par with the previous film, and nothing more. The film is far from deserving of the positive reviews and reception it has gotten thus far. Currently, it has made $250million world wide *roughly*. Why? Well, I don't have an answer for you. However, I am inclined to believe it's from the fact that children see it, or parents feel that it is a wholesome film to take the family to. In reality, it doesn't have anything that makes it a film worthy of grossing $250million.
     On a positive note, the film begins and stays true to Holmes' infamous use of disguises; however, this is as good as it gets. From here on in, the film becomes an action film with mediocre comedic elements. Sherlock Holmes is no longer a detective in this film. He fully becomes Jackie Chan fused with Neo from the Matrix. This is evident by the elongated action sequences that always seem to begin with Holmes imagining one, and only one, scenario on how the fight will go and what he will do. Oddly enough, it always seems to go that way. This constant, albeit unique for one-time use, film technique is played out throughout the film and becomes incredibly predictable.
     In terms of Sherlock Holmes the character, Robert Downy Jr. plays the insane version of Holmes that may be appealing to some, but a nuisance to many others. The problem with his portrayal is that it leaves the audience longing for some type of emotion from Holmes to prove that he is indeed human. Rarely does this side of him come out. This leaves a lack of audience investment in the character.
     As mentioned previously, this is strictly a mindless action film with no detective elements. The only time we see any legendary detective techniques from Holmes is when we are given quick shots of a room, leaving Holmes to put together the pieces instantaniously and solve the puzzle. In turn, this requires no participation from the audience at any time to follow the plot...or think. However, there is one instance where the film makes an excellent use of foreshadowing, but then takes it too far and botches it in the end.
     This hollywood action film is also littered with useless slow motion, which begins to take away from the severity and pace of the current action sequence. The film also leaves the resolutions to be carried out by Holmes simply claiming: "I knew this. So I did this to stop you", while never showing any of this on screen previously. Essentially, Holmes could have done anything to solve the case, and they wouldn't have had to show it to the audience (as they could just sum it up in the end with one quick sentence and flashback).
     All in all, Hollywoods outlandish take on the legendary Holmes is just what you would expect. Some will love the mindless action and fight sequences, while Holmes fans will long for Jeremy Brett and the intellectual aspect of the original Sherlock Holmes stories. 2/5 Stars

Green Lantern: In dullest day, in mediocre night…

I would like to make an announcement to people who are on the verge of reading this: I am a cynical and judgmental ass when it comes to comic book movies.

Aside from my bias against Reynolds as Hal Jordan, there is much more in the way of why I was unfavourable towards this flick. I am one of the biggest Green Lanterns fans around (although I prefer Kyle as opposed to Hal - sacrilegous?). Side note: this involves spoilers to those who have not seen it.

The movie starts off rather slow with the backstory of the Guardians and Lanterns; however, it has omissions/revisions that serve no purpose (like altering Parallax’s story). The protagonist (Hal) is then introduced as a rebellious and comedic test pilot, while simultaneously displaying his fear of the past and present. Fear: noun. the opposite of what it takes to be a Green Lantern. This theme of Hal being afraid of past and present experiences is constant throughout and perplexes the viewer as to why he was given a ring. The introduction of Carol Farris (Blake Lively) is also carried out during the opening of the film, although she serves no purpose aside from portraying a small shoulder of comfort for Hal and being a damsel in distress. Carol could have been replaced by Hal’s 90 year old grandfather to emulate the same effect. The movie also enjoys dispensing dry and romantic longueurs between Hal and Carol, which have constant repetition and add nothing to the plot. Hal also comes across as quite temperate: despite being the first human to have contact with ET life. This builds up to nothing more than Hal attempting to understand the ring and lantern through comedic means, as opposed to any substantial additions to the plot or his character. His time on Oa consists of checking himself out in the mirror, a  two minute training session, and then retreating to Earth after fear gets the best of him (yet again). Sinestro (Mark Strong) finally gets some decent screen time on Oa, however, he offers nothing aside from giving speeches about impending dooms that never come. Back on Earth, where most of this takes place, Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard) develops as a human turned psychic/telekinetic mutant that somehow attracts Parallax’s attention. Hector also serves as the third member in a pointless love triangle. However, his new gifts soon lead to some collusion between Hector and Parallax. Parallax as a character is quite flawed, as he is given petty human emotions that drive him to Earth (as opposed to Oa), and in turn lead to his demise. While trying to deal with Parallax, Sinestro magically convinces the immortal Guardians of the Universe to create a yellow ring of power for him to use in order to defeat Parallax. Oddly enough, it was already explained early in the story that the yellow power corrupted a previous Guardian (who is now Parallax), which led them to this debacle in the first place. If you’re nonplussed by why they agreed to make a ring, you’re not the only one (as the convoluted script is the biggest issue). Lastly, Hal’s battle with Parallax is mediocre at best. It’s fairly slow, predictable, and cliché. Parallax, the giant rain cloud, crawls across screen while Hal decides to play hero after no training what so ever. Hal constructs simplistic objects through his will (which come about from prior experiences), to deter Parallax from destroying Earth as opposed to Oa. Hal appears to take Parallax through space and towards the asteroid belt (which isn’t portrayed as it is in reality), where they end up in front of the Sun without explanation. Hal then uses brains over brawns to defeat Parallax. Hal uses all his will to not get sucked into the Sun, but has Parallax get sucked in instead. You may ask how an ex-immortal Guardian of the universe is outsmarted by an ape…but you will receive no answer. The disorientation continues after this battle, as Hal seems to pass out within kilometres from the Sun, yet he does not get sucked in or lose his shield. Hal just seems to linger without burning to a crisp despite fighting for his life earlier. I know it is sci-fi, but changing physics and astronomy is not cool. Shortly after, Hal is rescued by Sinestro and his gang (the gang that couldn’t defeat Parallax with their small army, yet Hal could do it alone, full of fear, and after being a Green Lantern for maybe less than a week). In short, the movie comes across as a B-rated sci-fi flick, created last year, by three writers who didn’t meet until post production. There is no real leitmotif or theme throughout the entire movie. There is about as much creativity on the writer’s part, as there is in Hal’s constructs (which equates to none). Unfortunately, the best part of the movie is the “easter egg” halfway through the end credits; the rest of the movie serves as a 200million dollar trailer. No character has any real depth or progression, so it’s hard to invest in them. For example, Hal just has fear and fearless. This simple dichotomy doesn’t add much of anything for the movie, so you don’t feel for him or his outlandish accomplishment in the end. Oh, and there are no 3D elements. This begs the questions: why did they make us pay for it?

Special thanks to Branvan3000 (per our discussion).

Welcome Agent Mulder

Agent Mulder: Thank you. Who is this?
Blog: I'm the blog. The voice in the back of your head that wants to come out.
AM: I thought I got rid of you?
B: No. However, the drinking did help for a brief period of time.
AM: Interesting...
B: Not really. I'm just here to welcome you to blogger and your first blog.
AM: This isn't a blog though. This is a dialogue.
B:..I think you're being a little pragmatic here...
AM: You're a blog. You don't think.
B: Well then I take back my welcome to you.
AM: I don't care. But, thank you.