Cheerleading Squads: Eye Candy, or Something More?

     It’s not news to anyone that cheerleading has long been a part of amateur and professional sports. From its humble beginnings in the early 20^th century, to its modern competitive nature, cheerleading has seemingly gone hand in hand with sporting events. In my opinion, there seems to be nothing wrong with that, but one has to wonder: does cheerleading do anything?

     Unfortunately, it seems quite obvious that cheerleading adds nothing to sporting events, save for some eye candy for men (and sometimes for women). That being said, I understand its original purpose, and I support the idea behind it, but it’s essentially useless these days. Let’s look at the National Football League and its use of cheerleaders. The original purpose of these cheerleading squads was to give some form of moral support to the players, while simultaneously getting the audience involved (or More Involved) with the game. There seems to be nothing wrong with that – save for the fact the women are scantily clad, but that’s it. I have no real qualms with the original ideology behind cheerleading, but has it really helped any team? Are there stats that show NFL teams with cheerleading squads perform better? No. There aren’t. Why? Because they don’t add anything. No NFL team heard the cheerleading squad cheer “D-Fense! D-Fense!” and thought “Hey. They’re right. We need to play Defense to win!” That’s not how it works. The players get motivated by their coaches, their team-mates, their fans, and their love for the sport. Women shaking pom-poms (pom-pons) unfortunately doesn’t motivate the players in any way. I know that seems harsh, but it’s the truth. I also find it somewhat degrading to the women on the cheerleading squads. How does the hiring process go for that?

     “Well Miss X, you’ll be dancing around during the game, but nobody will be watching you, as they’ll be watching the game...since that’s what they paid for; however, some of the men may look at you when there’s a break in the game, but that’s primarily because you’re pretty, and because you’re not wearing a lot of clothes. Is that ok?”

     Maybe I’m being too cynical, but truthfully, I can’t find a real purpose for cheerleading at sporting event these days. The fans come to watch the game and players, and are excited from the game and the players – not from the cheerleaders.

     However, it should be noted that there are some cheerleaders and cheerleading squads that I DO have respect for. If you’re wondering whom I’m referring to, it’s the cheerleading squads that compete on a competitive level. These squads actually consist of very athletic individuals that train and compete in competitions across North America (and I assume in other parts of the world). That being said, I wouldn’t want these cheerleading squads replacing the NLF squads, as I can only speculate that they would distract fans from the game, as they actually have something to showcase.

    

MMA: Gladiatorial Combat, or Professional Sport?

     The world of Mixed Martial Arts has been subject to various debates since its inception. One of the leading controversies surrounding it is whether or not it’s a legitimate Sport, or simply a barbaric form of entertainment. Let’s take a quick look at the various aspects of it, and try to figure it out.

     If my memory of classical studies is accurate, the first, and original, form of MMA dates back thousands of years to the ancient Greeks. They had various forms of combat, such gladiatorial combat, wrestling, and what was known as the “pankration”. The pankration included kicking, punching, and wrestling. The matches usually ended by the opponent signalling defeat to the other. The pankration was essentially the archaic predecessor to the modern MMA fighting we know. Centuries later, various forms of lowkey MMA came about in the 19^th century. Skipping ahead to the 20^th century, MMA started to expand throughout Europe and in the Orient. From here, we can trace its evolution to Dana White, and his promotion of the UFC in the early 1990’s. Now that our history lesson is over, we can delve into the matter at hand: is MMA an actual sport?

      When I think of the term “sport”, I tend to think of two individuals or two separate teams, using various and essential skills, in order to defeat the opposing individual or team. Based on what MMA is, I can understand the majority of people stating that MMA is indeed a sport. That being said, I still have outstanding issues with MMA being classified as a sport, as to me, it comes across as more of a barbaric form of entertainment. Let me elaborate with a mock interview:

Journalist: What do you do for a living?

Hockey Player: I play professional hockey.

J: What does that consist of? How do you play?

HP: Well, first off, you have to learn to skate. Then, you learn how to use a hockey stick. Then you learn how to handle the puck with your stick. After that, you learn to pass the puck, and shoot the puck in various forms (slap shot, wrist shot, back hand etc). You also learn how to coordinate yourself wit your team members, as you practice playing offense and defense with them. The goal is to put the puck in the opposing teams net, in order to earn goal/point. The team with the most goals wins.

J: Is there fighting?

HP: Yes. There are occasional scraps/fights. They’re short    lived, but they do happen. The people involved are penalized     after the fight. It’s a part of hockey, but it’s far from the    goal in hockey.

Journalist: What do you do for a living?

MMA Fighter: I’m an MMA fighter, in the UFC.

J: What does that consist of? How does it work?

MMAF: Well, I do vigorous training for a month or two, and then I step in the octagon with another man for our bout.

J: What happens? How is a winner decided?

MMAF: Well, You can win by various means. You can knock the man unconscious, by striking him with your first, elbow, knee or foot, as hard you can, directly in the face. You can also put your opponent in a grappling hold, in an attempt to cut off the circulation to their brain, so that they pass out. Or, you can manoeuvre yourself into a position where you put your opponent in a submission hold, where you then apply large amounts of pressure, and when the excruciating amount of pain is too much to bear, the opponent submits, or “taps out”.

J: I see...and the UFC pays you to do this to other people?

MMAF: That is correct.

     I know this example may seem slightly one sided, but it’s really not far from the truth. For myself, this is the outstanding reason why I don’t consider MMA to be a sporting event. Watching two individuals try to knock each other unconscious, doesn’t seem very sportsmanlike to me. Then again, that’s just my opinion. And at the risk of sounding hypocritical, I actually consider boxing, in some ways, to be a sport. I guess I always found subtle elements of elegance, sophistication, and professionalism in boxing, despite the fact the two individuals are trying to knock each other out. Granted, they can only use their fists, and they have thicker gloves, but I still consider it a “sport”...despite its MMA similarities...

     Just to conclude, in my opinion, MMA fighting is not an actual sport. However, it consists of some of the most athletic individuals I have ever seen, and in turn, it gives me a great amount of respect for them, and the vigorous training exercises they engage in. I just wish they had more humane ways of displaying their athletic prowess.

The Dark Knight Attempts to Rise

*spoilers ahead*

     2012 was the year of the third and final Batman film in Nolan’s Batman trilogy. Many moviegoers and comic book fans (such as myself) were expecting an epic triumph to conclude the series...we were slightly disappointed...

     The two previous Batman films did an excellent job of establishing Batman, the antagonists, and the fictional world they created. The events that took place were believable, and down to earth – in terms of the comic book world in which they existed. However, The Dark Knight Rises decided to raise the bar and see what they could get away with, in terms of far fetched ideas and action sequences.

     The film starts with a slightly “outlandish” action sequence, in which the new antagonist of the film, Bane, is introduced and rescued. Who is Bane? Bane is a man who combines brains and brawns. It sounds pretty compelling, and appears to be a hefty foe for Batman...but then he speaks. Listening to Bane is almost identical to listening to Sean Connery casually speak, while occasionally transitioning into a German accent every now and again – not to mention that he was unintelligible a quarter of the time. Remember when you saw Mike Tyson? You thought “Wow. What a badass.” Then he spoke, and you didn’t actually believe that was his voice. This is what the audience had to deal with for roughly three hours. The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul spoke like you would expect. The Joker and Two Face spoke like you would expect. Bane spoke like no one would expect, and left for a jarring performance throughout the film.

     TDKR also came across as feeling very rushed; not just the story (which jumped ahead weeks at a time), but the production behind the film. The first half of the film had some of the worst editing I have ever seen. A scene would abruptly end, and cut away to the next scene a split second after someone finished speaking. The audio was also unfinished and under-produced. On a few occasions, especially at the climax, every piece of audio was mashed together for an incoherent mess. The sound producers decided to blast the dialogue, the sound effects, and the music all at the same volume, all at the same time. The story itself was also less personal and meaningful than the previous two films. TDKR simply made up random scenarios with no explanations for them (e.g. Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s character magically concludes that Bruce Wayne is Batman...based off absolutely nothing; the Gotham PD send in all their forces without a second thought; the military is apparently powerless to whole situation and can’t intervene). It may have been because this was more of a “global” threat than the previous two, but it made it feel as if the film was out of its element, and it wasn’t a film about Batman and a villain. However, one of the biggest issues in the film was its ending. TDKR made outstanding use of foreshadowing in the film. They had Alfred state what he wanted for Bruce, they had Lucius talk about the new aircraft, and then hint to the audience that there was an indeed an autopilot on the craft, and Bruce used it. This foreshadowing is then given the icing on the cake when Alfred is shown at the end of the film, looking across the patio, and smiling. This is beautiful filmmaking. Unfortunately, TDKR decides to negate all of that, and simply show the audience “Here’s Bruce, and here’s Selina. They’re alive and well. Ignore the foreshadowing, since we didn’t think you’d pick up on it”. I lost a lot of respect for Nolan after watching that sequence.

     Other various issues in the film revolved around some secondary characters. Selina Kyle (Catwoman), played by Anne Hathaway, gave a great performance...if she didn’t have to do any action sequences. Watching this 110lbs. woman take down foes twice her size was cheesy to say the least. This isn’t a sexist comment either. I would always roll my eyes when reading Batman comics, as I watched teenaged Robin lay waste to full grown men.

     Essentially, TDKR is a Rocky-style film, where the protagonist is suiting up for one last fight which he ultimately wins. Unfortunately for the TDKR, the effect of triumph over the villain is lost, as Batman doesn’t give that final blow after all his hard work; Catwoman strolls in and shoots Bane. Yes. It is that simple. There are some pros to TDKR, but it pales in comparison to its predecessors. When you look at it as a stand alone film, it serves fairly well as a comic book film. However, it cannot match the performances, the plot, or the realistic/believable setting that The Dark Knight delivered.

     I’m a DC man myself, but even I enjoyed the Avengers ride more than The Dark Knight Rises.

7.5/10

Django Overrated

     As a long time fan of western films, I thought it was my duty to check out “Django Unchained”. I wasn’t entirely sure what to expect, seeing as Tarantino made it, but I did anticipate a “modernized-western” film…and that is what I got…

            When I watch a western film, I want to see a western film. I don’t want to see a slave trade/racism film, disguised a western. Django Unchained is essentially a film dealing with the African American slave trade in the United States, while adding subtle western aspects. If you're expecting to see Butch Cassidy and the SUndance Kid, Tombstone, or The Magnificent Seven, you must look elsewhere. The fact that this film dealt primarily with the slave trade/racism, led me to one of my biggest issues with the film: the most emotional scenes are the ones depicting racism from our historical record. What does that mean? It means that the writers and Tarantino didn’t actually come up with anything really compelling or emotional. They just slid in footage you would get in any given documentary on the slave trade. This could be interchangeable with other similar scenarios (the Holocaust, Egyptian slavery, women in the Middle East etc.). These graphic and emotional scenes undermine any emotion that the characters or plot now tries to provide. However, I can understand Tarantino using this tried and true method, because it works. All you need to show is a lower class individual being pushed around and treated poorly by a higher class, and then have the lower class unable to fight against them. Tugging at the heart strings 101. Easy as pie.

            Another other problematic area of the movie is the soundtrack. The film starts off with a gorgeous western guitar riff…but then hops into a more modern sound with someone singing about Django. I’ve never been fond of soundtracks that are singing about the characters you’re seeing on screen at that moment. I’ve also never been a fan of mixing modern music with a period piece film. For example, when one of the few western fight scenes breaks out, they opt to play rap, as opposed to creating a fitting western tune. These moments are pretty jarring, and take the viewer out of the movie, while almost negating the situation and time they’ve said the film is taking place in.

            The film has a few other flaws as well: after one hour, they sum up the entire movie for you in a brief conversation about a German fairy tale; they make use of the classic (but gratuitous/lazy) damsel in distress; in Tarantino fashion, they exagerrate many action scenes, by adding mass bloodshed and overdramatic sound effects; they also build up their 1^st climax with an unimaginative and unbelievable character decision that acts a silly catalyst to the ending.

            My biggest issue with the film is the fact that the two protagonists could have avoided all the trouble, bloodshed, and death throughout the film, by making a simple alteration to their plan. *spoiler alert* In the film, Django and Schultz go to see Calvin Candy, and fabricate some story about who they are, why they’re here, and how they plan to get Django’s wife. Basically, Schultz could have done this mission solo. He didn’t need Django with him to pretend he’s an MMA expert. Schultz could have simply gone to Calvin, let him know he’s German, and that he’s heard Calvin has a German speaking slave. Schultz mentions how he would be delighted to purchase her. Afterwards, Schultz would use his own advice, and make Calvin an offer so ridiculous that he would be crazy to decline it. Calvin parts ways with a $300 slave for about $2000-5000, and Schultz returns her to Django. Done. Film over. Plot hole removed.

            Now, I have criticized this film for its many flaws, but I will give credit to Tarantino for coming up with an idea that isn’t entirely run of the mill, doing a great social commentary on the KKK Kowards, and for assembling a brilliant cast that was flawless. In an odd way, Django is actually very reminiscent of Inglorious Bastards, in that it ultimately deals with extracting revenge on bigoted racist groups.

6.5/10

The Hobbit: An Expected, Yet Unwarranted, Journey

          Following the success of the infamous Lord of the Rings trilogy, Newline Cinema decided to bring Tolkien’s original masterpiece, The Hobbit, to the silver screen as well. I guess this wasn’t completely unexpected, but it wasn’t necessarily needed. If anything, the Lord of the Rings films encouraged people to read the novelss, as well as Tolkien’s other work. Unfortunately for The Hobbit, it seems Newline was simply trying to milk Tolkien’s legacy and literature for all it’s worth.

            As novels, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is arguably some of the best literature ever written. As films, they stand as some of the best cinematic achievements of all time. As a novel, The Hobbit is arguably one of the best pieces of literature of all time. As a film, the first Hobbit film stands as one of the most mediocre films of all time. Why did this film flop? I shall elaborate.

            First and foremost, The Hobbit (as a novel) is actually smaller than each individual Lord of the Rings novel. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was one film, for one novel. The Hobbit is apparently three films, for one novel. Why? I haven’t the slightest. My only theory is that they want to have a Hobbit trilogy to accompany the Lord of the Rings trilogy…alongside making a few million dollars. That being said, stretching one novel into three films leaves a lot of needed filler, which The Hobbit film has. The slow pace is derived from the fact they’re trying to make three films out of a novel that could be done in three hours.      

            The Hobbit film also has the burden of trying to introduce 13 new characters to fans of the previous films (whereas fans of the novel already know these people). Now, some may not think that’s a big deal, as The Lord of the Rings introduced and diversified its 9 lead characters. Unfortunately, The Hobbit has a wizard (Gandalf), a Hobbit (Bilbo), and 13 Dwarves. The Lord of the Rings trilogy has a far more diverse set of characters. This left The Hobbit to unsuccessfully try and bring in 13 new characters, with similar names, and similar appearances. After watching the film, no moviegoer was able to distinguish which Dwarf was which. Essentially, this leaves room for Jackson and company to allow only two characters to develop, while the others just take up space.

            The other, and more prominent issue with the film, was its lack of maturity. The entire film comes across as a Harry Potter film, geared towards a much younger audience. It lacked the maturity, grit, and serious tone that The Lord of the Rings films gave. *spoiler alert* The Hobbit has action sequences where you watch Radagast (a wizard rarely mentioned in the literature) ride around on a sleigh, pulled by rabbits. Yup. That’s right. There are also far fetched action sequences that the film begs you to buy into, because you know it defies physics and couldn’t happen. The Lord of the Rings didn’t necessarily have that. The audience already bought into the world, and then they enjoyed the journey. The Hobbit tosses out numerous winks to the audience, in hopes they’ll accept the silly and outlandish action sequences.

            *A personal pet peeve I also had was that the film altered some aspects of the novel*

            Long story short, read the book. It’s one of the best pieces of literature you will read, and this first film can’t hold a candle to it.

6/10.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt to be Batman?

           As of late, rumours have been circulating the web, claiming that Joseph Gordon-Levitt will dawn the cape and cowl as Batman in the Justice League of America film.

           Now, while the reported Justice League film is months away from shooting, this hasn’t stopped internet bloggers who sniffed out some blood in the water. The root of the rumour may be traced back to an interview posted on hitfix.com, where Levitt stated that “if the script inspires me, and there’s a filmmaker that I respect and connect to” he would consider the role of Batman. That being said, his response simply comes across as a run-of-the-mill answer for any actor, when asked about playing a part in a film.

            However, to add some fuel to the Batman/Levitt fire is the fact that there have also been rumours (yes, more of them) that claim he will be given a cameo in the new Superman film Man of Steel, set to be released in 2013. At first glance, this may come across as nothing but hearsay, but that’s because there are some dots that need to be connected. They are as follows: Levitt had a role in The Dark Knight Rises; at the end of TDKR (spoiler alert), director Chris Nolan hinted at the fact that Levitt would take on the role of Robin (or Batman) in the Batman universe they created; Nolan is co-producing the Man of Steel film. Piecing together these tidbits of information, it seems possible that there may be a grain of truth to these rumours.

            Despite that Levitt has come a long way as an actor, from his humble beginnings on 3rd Rock from the Sun, is it possible that this 5’9, 150lbs. actor can suit up to play Batman? I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

The Yeti Lives?

            The Himalayan "cousin" of Bigfoot is making headlines again, and it’s about time. It's been over 50 years since the legendary Yeti made some real news in the North America, after Eric Shipton documented large footprints during his ascent up Mt. Everest in the early 1950’s. A few years later, Sir Edmund Hillary reported seeing similar footsteps during his climb up the mountain. Some skeptics argued that these may have been the tracks of a bear, misidentification due to thawing/unthawing of snow, or a simple hoax. However, believers and researchers took it as the possibility that something was indicating a presence in the mountain region.
            Since that time, there have been relatively few mentions of the Yeti in North America. Occasionally there would be a "Yeti scalp", a hoaxed "snow walker" video, or a footprint found on a popular television show (e.g. Destination Truth). That being said, it appears 2012 will have a new story about the Yeti.

            Dr. Igor Birtsev, a leading researcher on the Yeti, obtained the various hair samples, which he found in a cave during an expedition. Shortly after the discovery, Professor Valentin Sapunov, of the Russian State Hydrometeorological Institute, was testing the alleged hair samples with the Zoological Institute of Russian Academy of Science (ZIRAS). Hair samples can be tested for DNA (e.g. mitochondrial DNA), or for physical traits through hair morphology under a microscope. The more samples obtained, the more tests can be done. The quality of the hair also plays a part, since degradation/contamination prior to sample collection may eliminate any possible DNA to be recovered. If DNA is recovered, it can then be amplified with primers, copied, and compared to what’s in the database.

            According to Sapunov, the results of the DNA tests have indicated that the hair samples do not appear to be from a known animal, but an unknown species of primate, with relations closer to a monkey than a homosapien That being said, it should be noted that “unknown species”, simply means that it is a species that has not yet been found, tested, and placed in a DNA database – it doesn’t immediately equate to “Yeti”.

            Despite these recent events, there are still individuals who remain very skeptical on the subject, and for good reason. It wouldn’t be the first time that Cryptozoologists and scientists have been mislead or duped with DNA testing before (a particular episode of the History Channel’s “MonsterQuest” comes to mind). One scientist in particular, Oleg Pugachev, is questioning Sapunov on his bold claims. Pugachez is the Director of the ZIRAS, and wishes to verify the results, the testing methods, and bring to light the fact that Sapunov has already claimed he believes there is a viable population of around 200 Yeti’s in existence today.

            As of right now, it seems reasonable to consider these first tests a “preliminary round”, as these tests will soon be looked at by others, and then corroborated or refuted.

It’s uncertain as to how long it will take, but one can assume that the coming months will tell us if the test results were just wishful thinking of a scientist/enthusiast, or the physical remains of an unknown species of primate – whether that be a pint-sized monkey, or the lumbering and legendary Yeti.