In the summer of 2010 Adam Sandler got together a bunch of his friends from "Saturday Night Live" (plus Kevin James filling in for dead Chris Farley) and made a film called "Grown Ups."
Despite solid numbers at the box office, this film, as with most of Sandler's more recent films, was a critical failure.
I saw the film with my dad, and while it was by no means a good film, it wasn't as terrible as everyone wanted me to believe.
I'm a big believer that people should make up their own minds. They shouldn't believe something is good or bad just because someone else tells them it is. That is why I hesitate to recommend movies to people, because the merits I judge a movie on are most likely not the same things they will judge a movie on.
But I have one reason that this movie is better than most of Sandler's other recent efforts: This movie is much grounded in reality. It doesn't have a wacky premise that drives the plot forward, or an odd gimmick to try and draw people into seeing it. The movie is based on five friends getting together over a weekend with their families to honor their dead basketball coach. The film's climax is the equivalent of a pick-up game is someone's backyard. In this way, it is a much more modest film than some of Sandler's other films.
The movie includes the exaggerated moments and crude childish humor that have come to define Sandler's films, but they are placed in a more relatable context.
This movie is free of funny voices, fake gay fire fighters and magic remote controls. It also doesn't try and convince the viewer to take Sandler as a serious actor.
What it does, however, is recapture, in a small way, the magic chemistry that existed between Sandler and his fellow "SNL" cast mates in the early 90's.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Further Evidence I'm 12: WWE Editon
Last night I spent about an hour and a half watching the 2012 edition of WWE Summer Slam. I wish I could say this is the first time I had watched wrestling in a while, but that would be a lie.
I began watching wrestling in the third grade, which I think is about the same time most boys start watching it. I grew up watching stars like The Rock, Triple H, and Stone Cold Steve Austin, not to mention amazing tag teams like the Hardy Boys and Too Cool. It was also when WWE became available on network TV for the first time with the premiere of WWE Smackdown.
I watched for a few years because it was something my cousin and I enjoyed, and it was entertaining. The plot lines were easy to follow and the action was always exciting.
Then as I grew a little older, I became a little wiser. I started to see the phoniness and cheesiness that really defined each episode.
But in college my friend started to get me back into it a little. This was around the same time The Rock came back and began his feud with John Cena. I always liked The Rock, and I have a lot of respect for people, especially actors, who don't abandon their roots. The Rock coming back to the WWE is like George Clooney coming back during the final season of "ER." They don't need to come back. They have established careers beyond where they started out, but they show loyalty to the fans who made them who they are by coming back.
As I started watching again I began to set aside the pompous attitude I had towards wrestling: the idea that I was too good to be watching this kind of television. I see my watching wrestling in three stages:
1. I watched as a kid for the action and violence.
2. I stopped watching in middle school and high school because I thought it was childish and ridiculous.
3. I started watching again in college because I can acknowledge that yes, it is ridiculous, but that doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable.
What I discovered is, that while the stars had changed, and while I didn't watch wrestling the same way I did as a child, it can still be a lot of fun to watch.
The fights are blatantly staged, but I still never know the outcome. The surprise is still there; I never know when someone's entrance music might come on to signal someone is coming to disrupt the match.
Plus, like I said, I watch it now more because of how terrible/amazing it is. The line reading and pontificating are just as terrible as they ever were. The insults are grade school level at best, but the mock outrage that exists between two opponents is none the less fun to watch. And despite what anyone says, these guys are still athletes. They are flying around the ring and throwing each other in ways I just don't see in other sports.
Wrestling isn't on my regular viewing schedule. I don't go out of my way to watch it the way I do with other shows, but if there isn't anything else on, and I'm with a couple buddies, nothing really beats the theatricality of a good WWE match.
I began watching wrestling in the third grade, which I think is about the same time most boys start watching it. I grew up watching stars like The Rock, Triple H, and Stone Cold Steve Austin, not to mention amazing tag teams like the Hardy Boys and Too Cool. It was also when WWE became available on network TV for the first time with the premiere of WWE Smackdown.
I watched for a few years because it was something my cousin and I enjoyed, and it was entertaining. The plot lines were easy to follow and the action was always exciting.
Then as I grew a little older, I became a little wiser. I started to see the phoniness and cheesiness that really defined each episode.
But in college my friend started to get me back into it a little. This was around the same time The Rock came back and began his feud with John Cena. I always liked The Rock, and I have a lot of respect for people, especially actors, who don't abandon their roots. The Rock coming back to the WWE is like George Clooney coming back during the final season of "ER." They don't need to come back. They have established careers beyond where they started out, but they show loyalty to the fans who made them who they are by coming back.
As I started watching again I began to set aside the pompous attitude I had towards wrestling: the idea that I was too good to be watching this kind of television. I see my watching wrestling in three stages:
1. I watched as a kid for the action and violence.
2. I stopped watching in middle school and high school because I thought it was childish and ridiculous.
3. I started watching again in college because I can acknowledge that yes, it is ridiculous, but that doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable.
What I discovered is, that while the stars had changed, and while I didn't watch wrestling the same way I did as a child, it can still be a lot of fun to watch.
The fights are blatantly staged, but I still never know the outcome. The surprise is still there; I never know when someone's entrance music might come on to signal someone is coming to disrupt the match.
Plus, like I said, I watch it now more because of how terrible/amazing it is. The line reading and pontificating are just as terrible as they ever were. The insults are grade school level at best, but the mock outrage that exists between two opponents is none the less fun to watch. And despite what anyone says, these guys are still athletes. They are flying around the ring and throwing each other in ways I just don't see in other sports.
Wrestling isn't on my regular viewing schedule. I don't go out of my way to watch it the way I do with other shows, but if there isn't anything else on, and I'm with a couple buddies, nothing really beats the theatricality of a good WWE match.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Taking the Scenic Route
Last year I posted about my plans to hike the Appalachian Trail from Maine to Georgia after I graduated college. Now, this was more of a back-up plan, and one that ultimately did not come to fruition.
I have this odd fascination with driving (or hiking) the entirety of a road. During one spring break in high school two of my friends and I drove from my house across the state on Highway 60 just to say we did it. There are plenty of faster ways to get across the state of Wisconsin, but most of the routes are dull. Sure, many of them allow you to go more than 55 mph, but the scenery just doesn't compare.
If we had taken major freeways or an interstate on that adventure we never would have driven through creepy, seemingly abandoned towns, stopped at any historical markers, eaten a Rumble Burger, or driven through the town where they were filming "Public Enemies."
In college, I almost always took I-43 from Green Bay back to my house, but on occasion I would take Highway 57. I got to travel through small Wisconsin towns and not have to worry about pushing my car to keep up with traffic.
I enjoy driving, and if I am going to be in my car for a couple hours, I figure I might as well make the most of it. If I'm driving for six hours, is one more going to make that much of a difference? No, because I'm already spending a good portion of my waking hours driving anyway.
It was this philosophy I took with me when my friend and I drove back from Minneapolis two weeks ago. Sure we could have just taken I-94 most of the way, but I've done that drive before. It's boring.
Back roads make you pay attention to your driving too. You never know when you might stumble upon a town, go from two lanes down to one or find the speed limit drop from 55 to 25 in the blink of an eye.
We got off of I-94 just outside of St. Paul and took Highway 61 all the way down to La Crosse. It was a beautiful drive filled with amazing scenery of the Mississippi River, which we followed most of the way. Then at La Crosse we took Highway 33 all the way back across the state.
This part of the drive was much more challenging as the first two hours consisted of nothing but windy single-lane roads with wildly varying speed limits. There was a lot of corn, but unlike driving through Indiana, this corn was planted on rolling hills. Plus, we saw six Amish (I'm guessing) buggies. When was the last time you saw six buggies in one trip?
The back roads are nice break from typical long hauls on interstates, offering more interesting scenery and a more engaging drive.
I have this odd fascination with driving (or hiking) the entirety of a road. During one spring break in high school two of my friends and I drove from my house across the state on Highway 60 just to say we did it. There are plenty of faster ways to get across the state of Wisconsin, but most of the routes are dull. Sure, many of them allow you to go more than 55 mph, but the scenery just doesn't compare.
If we had taken major freeways or an interstate on that adventure we never would have driven through creepy, seemingly abandoned towns, stopped at any historical markers, eaten a Rumble Burger, or driven through the town where they were filming "Public Enemies."
In college, I almost always took I-43 from Green Bay back to my house, but on occasion I would take Highway 57. I got to travel through small Wisconsin towns and not have to worry about pushing my car to keep up with traffic.
I enjoy driving, and if I am going to be in my car for a couple hours, I figure I might as well make the most of it. If I'm driving for six hours, is one more going to make that much of a difference? No, because I'm already spending a good portion of my waking hours driving anyway.
It was this philosophy I took with me when my friend and I drove back from Minneapolis two weeks ago. Sure we could have just taken I-94 most of the way, but I've done that drive before. It's boring.
Back roads make you pay attention to your driving too. You never know when you might stumble upon a town, go from two lanes down to one or find the speed limit drop from 55 to 25 in the blink of an eye.
We got off of I-94 just outside of St. Paul and took Highway 61 all the way down to La Crosse. It was a beautiful drive filled with amazing scenery of the Mississippi River, which we followed most of the way. Then at La Crosse we took Highway 33 all the way back across the state.
This part of the drive was much more challenging as the first two hours consisted of nothing but windy single-lane roads with wildly varying speed limits. There was a lot of corn, but unlike driving through Indiana, this corn was planted on rolling hills. Plus, we saw six Amish (I'm guessing) buggies. When was the last time you saw six buggies in one trip?
The back roads are nice break from typical long hauls on interstates, offering more interesting scenery and a more engaging drive.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Top 3: Ways to Know You're Famous
In my mind, everyone wants to be famous. I don't mean everyone wants to be a movie star, I just mean everyone wants recognition for what they do. Not just a pat on the back from their boss either, they want full fledged hey-everyone-look-and-admire-me-for-the-great-things-I-do fame.
This is actually becoming easier to do than it was ten or twelve (because I will always think of ten years ago as being 2000) years ago. The internet, social media, YouTube and reality television have made becoming famous more of a reality for the average Joe than ever before. We are quickly coming to the day when every occupation in America is represented with its own reality television program. Remember when fishing was something hidden away on early Sunday morning television? Now people wait eagerly for each new season of "Deadliest Catch." Through blogs, Twitter feeds and YouTube channels we have become a generation of self starters who express our talents on the internet instead of the high school talent show.
However, to become truly famous there are three things person must do (can be completed in any order):
1. Guest-voice on "The Simpsons"
All of the items on this list are related to American media institutions. "The Simpsons" has been on the air for about as log as I have been alive, and there is no end in sight. In fact, as someone elsewhere on the internet pointed out yesterday, there is currently a race going on to see if the world will end before "The Simpsons" gets cancelled. Another common factor about this list is that none of these media institutions solely target music, movie, television or athletic stars. "The Simpsons" has had a wide array of guest voices during its 23-season run from business men to politicians to scientists and authors. A person who is able to make their mark on the world in some capacity has a good chance of being able to say a few lines in an episode. Plus, even if "The Simpsons" does get cancelled eventually the show will forever in syndication, and in turn, all those who have lent their voices in episodes.
2. Host "Saturday Night Live"
This is where the list gets a little more exclusive. "SNL" has produced over 700 episodes, but when you take into account many celebrities have hosted more than once, the number of actual hosts is smaller than that. That's less than 700 people out of 6 billion. That is a very exclusive club to belong to, and unlike "The Simpsons," "SNL" is a timely show. If someone only has 15 minutes of fame, part of that fifteen minutes can be hosting "SNL." Like "The Simpsons," "SNL" has had a wide variety of hosts, from prominent politicians to people who have had affairs with prominent politicians. they even held a contest one year with the grand prize being for an average American to come on and host the show. That contest is no longer held making the honor of hosting all that more hard to achieve.
3. Be on the cover of "Rolling Stone"
"Rolling Stone" magazine covers the music scene but sometimes a pop-culture event or icon comes along that is just too big to ignore. The magazine is an American media staple. It has in depth cover stories and often features surprisingly insightful political commentary. Being on the cover of any magazine is a feat in and of itself, but Rolling Stone carries a certain respect of finally "making it" when people appear on the cover. People who aren't part of the music scene that make it on the cover convey the message that what they are doing right now is more important than anything that is going on in the music world at that time.
Consolation Top Three:
1. Be mentioned on an episode of "The Simpsons."
2. Cameo on "SNL" either on a Weekend Update segment, Digital Short, or in some capacity in the opening monologue.
3. Appear somewhere inside an issue of Rolling Stone.
Bonus International Fame Item:
So you accomplish all three milestones set out above. You have achieved fame in America. But you aren't satisfied. No America isn't enough, you want the world. Luckily there is only one program that you need to appear on, unluckily it might be the most difficult one to get a spot on. "Top Gear," the car show that is produced by the BBC claims to reach an audience of 350 million viewers worldwide. That is a sizable audience. However, the show only produces six to twelve episodes per year. On top of that the show is produced by the BBC meaning guests are almost always British, and when they aren't, they are big name American stars like Tom Cruise and Mark Wahlberg. Making it on "Top Gear" means that regardless of your knowledge of cars, your name is big enough to draw an audience.
This is actually becoming easier to do than it was ten or twelve (because I will always think of ten years ago as being 2000) years ago. The internet, social media, YouTube and reality television have made becoming famous more of a reality for the average Joe than ever before. We are quickly coming to the day when every occupation in America is represented with its own reality television program. Remember when fishing was something hidden away on early Sunday morning television? Now people wait eagerly for each new season of "Deadliest Catch." Through blogs, Twitter feeds and YouTube channels we have become a generation of self starters who express our talents on the internet instead of the high school talent show.
However, to become truly famous there are three things person must do (can be completed in any order):
1. Guest-voice on "The Simpsons"
All of the items on this list are related to American media institutions. "The Simpsons" has been on the air for about as log as I have been alive, and there is no end in sight. In fact, as someone elsewhere on the internet pointed out yesterday, there is currently a race going on to see if the world will end before "The Simpsons" gets cancelled. Another common factor about this list is that none of these media institutions solely target music, movie, television or athletic stars. "The Simpsons" has had a wide array of guest voices during its 23-season run from business men to politicians to scientists and authors. A person who is able to make their mark on the world in some capacity has a good chance of being able to say a few lines in an episode. Plus, even if "The Simpsons" does get cancelled eventually the show will forever in syndication, and in turn, all those who have lent their voices in episodes.
2. Host "Saturday Night Live"
This is where the list gets a little more exclusive. "SNL" has produced over 700 episodes, but when you take into account many celebrities have hosted more than once, the number of actual hosts is smaller than that. That's less than 700 people out of 6 billion. That is a very exclusive club to belong to, and unlike "The Simpsons," "SNL" is a timely show. If someone only has 15 minutes of fame, part of that fifteen minutes can be hosting "SNL." Like "The Simpsons," "SNL" has had a wide variety of hosts, from prominent politicians to people who have had affairs with prominent politicians. they even held a contest one year with the grand prize being for an average American to come on and host the show. That contest is no longer held making the honor of hosting all that more hard to achieve.
3. Be on the cover of "Rolling Stone"
"Rolling Stone" magazine covers the music scene but sometimes a pop-culture event or icon comes along that is just too big to ignore. The magazine is an American media staple. It has in depth cover stories and often features surprisingly insightful political commentary. Being on the cover of any magazine is a feat in and of itself, but Rolling Stone carries a certain respect of finally "making it" when people appear on the cover. People who aren't part of the music scene that make it on the cover convey the message that what they are doing right now is more important than anything that is going on in the music world at that time.
Consolation Top Three:
1. Be mentioned on an episode of "The Simpsons."
2. Cameo on "SNL" either on a Weekend Update segment, Digital Short, or in some capacity in the opening monologue.
3. Appear somewhere inside an issue of Rolling Stone.
Bonus International Fame Item:
So you accomplish all three milestones set out above. You have achieved fame in America. But you aren't satisfied. No America isn't enough, you want the world. Luckily there is only one program that you need to appear on, unluckily it might be the most difficult one to get a spot on. "Top Gear," the car show that is produced by the BBC claims to reach an audience of 350 million viewers worldwide. That is a sizable audience. However, the show only produces six to twelve episodes per year. On top of that the show is produced by the BBC meaning guests are almost always British, and when they aren't, they are big name American stars like Tom Cruise and Mark Wahlberg. Making it on "Top Gear" means that regardless of your knowledge of cars, your name is big enough to draw an audience.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Dedication Dilemmas
When trying to write a book in 26 days it is often difficult not to get ahead of yourself. Often I find myself leaping to the finished product, and I am not even to the part of the book that tells me I can start writing my own book yet.
My cross country coach used to tell me to "run in the present."
To me, that's good advice for living life in general. It doesn't pay to dwell in the past or to think too far in advance. Playing the what-if game is dangerous, time consuming, and (often) unproductive. The idea with living in the present is to assess what is going well and what can be improved. Determine how to continue doing the good things and focus on improving the things that aren't going well.
This a difficult philosophy to adhere to when writing because there needs to be an end game. In order to achieve that end game, there might be adjustments that need to be made in what has already been written. It is hard to simply keep plowing ahead, especially when problems are clearly evident.
But there are other things related to the end game that are hard not to think about as well, like the book as a whole. In addition to the story, there is a cover, a dedication page and sometimes a few pages acknowledging the people who helped the book come to fruition in the back of the book.
I have often thought about who I would dedicate my first book to, and that led me to thinking about what that process might entail.
Do I ask the person if it is ok to dedicate my book to them? What if they say no? I imagine this has to have happened to someone at some point in history. Out there somewhere is a bad writer, a nice person, but a bad writer, who for some reason or another feels compelled to dedicate their book to someone who really does not want their name associated with this person's writing.
That must be one of the more awkward conversation people can have:
Author: I just finished my book and it's going to be published!
Person: Congratulations! I'm so happy for you!
Author: Thanks for all your encouragement.
Person: My pleasure.
Author: I'd like to show my appreciation by dedicating the book to you.
Person:....Oh...noooo, that's ok. Thank you, but...nooooo
To avoid this, I think I will only dedicate my books to dead people. Dead people aren't going to care if my book is any good or not, and I can avoid shaming anyone who otherwise might not want to be associated with my writing.
Follow @cswiets
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Let's See How This Goes
I have wanted to be a writer ever since the eighth grade. That was when I first attempted to a novel. I filled up an entire notebook before writing myself into a corner and letting the project fall by the wayside. I have made many attempts since. I have what I believe to be many strong beginnings, but I lack any complete stories.
I took one class in high school and three in college focused on creative writing. The writing I did in those classes was valuable experience, but I was never able to write anything more than ten or fifteen double spaced pages. This does not a novel make.
The other day my mother came home with this book:
Typically, I scoff when I come across these kind of books in the bookstore. I have a hard time believing there is any secret formula to writing a novel. Either you have the ideas and drive to do to write, or you do not.
But I have an idea for a story that I think could be promising, and I don't want it to slip away. That, accompanied with the fact I just finished the book I was reading for fun, have driven me to pick this up and see what happens.
I began reading it last night; just the first couple of pages to get a feel for what direction it headed in. Here is what I have garnered so far:
I took one class in high school and three in college focused on creative writing. The writing I did in those classes was valuable experience, but I was never able to write anything more than ten or fifteen double spaced pages. This does not a novel make.
The other day my mother came home with this book:
 |
| First picture in a while, how exciting! |
But I have an idea for a story that I think could be promising, and I don't want it to slip away. That, accompanied with the fact I just finished the book I was reading for fun, have driven me to pick this up and see what happens.
I began reading it last night; just the first couple of pages to get a feel for what direction it headed in. Here is what I have garnered so far:
- The biggest piece of advice Melander has given so far is: Writers write. (Fair enough, I say)
- The book is written to give advice to people seeking to write both fiction and non-fiction. (For the record I am writing fiction)
- While I do not agree with all here theories and pieces of advice about writing, there are some very good inspirational quotes from established writers. (My favorite so far: You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club. —Jack London)
- The book is written in a way that is trying to mimic a marathon training guide (hence the title). I am curious to see how long before that becomes an annoyance.
- Also annoying, the author's insistence on implanting a character named "Molly McAuthor," a stand-in to represent any author.
- The title of the book is a little deceiving. While the cover would have you believe that a book can be written in 26 days, Melander does not include the two weeks to a month training period.
My plan is to earnestly follow whatever this book tells me to do and see how it goes. This blog won't be turning into me writing about writing, but I will give periodic updates (if I feel like it).
Good hunting.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Covering the Comedy: Paul Ryan Edition (Vol. 1)
Over the weekend there was an exciting announcement. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin congressman, would be Mitt Romney's running mate for the upcoming election.
I wasn't excited about the fact that a politician from Wisconsin had the opportunity to become Vice-President of the United States (ok, maybe a little, I love anything that will boost Wisco recognition). I wasn't excited because I'm a huge fan of Paul Ryan's (I don't know enough about politics to have those kind of opinions), and I wasn't excited because I felt he could help (or hurt) Romeny's chances of winning the election.
No, I was excited because there was a new player that had just been thrown into the political comedy game. A new target with a history that was ripe for picking through. That's what I like most about the election season, the comedy that comes out of it. My immediate question when Ryan was announced wasn't: Why he had been chosen? It was: Who is going to impersonate him on Saturday Night Live this season?
That's where my priorities are. Politics is such a circus between the media coverage and the attack ads, that it's good to see the candidates be bought down to earth a little by comedians. However, since SNL won't start its new season until September, I was looking forward to new episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.
Before I dive into that I feel obligated to mention that there is another source of political comedy (there are actually many, but this is the only one I am going to mention) that takes politicians to task: late-night comedy talk shows. The difference between late-night talk shows and the other three shows I mentioned though, is that the late-night talk show hosts rely on singular jokes told in their monologues. It's pretty standard fair with a setup and a punchline. But that's the problem, it's a one off.
The Daily Show and The Colbert Report allow for a longer running commentary on what is going on in the world of politics. It's a more focused and critical approach. That's why I was excited to see what John Stewart, Stephen Colbert and their staff of writers had come up with to analyze the new VP pick.
The issue was that both shows had other obligations that distracted from being able to fully dive into Paul Ryan. The Daily Show focused more on the fact they had Robert Pattinson's first television interview since Kristen Stewart admitted to cheating on him. The Colbert Report on the other hand had to contend with its own weeklong musical festival, so it couldn't commit more than five minutes to Ryan. This was admittedly disappointing. Both seemed directionless and half-hearted in their attempts to find comedy in Ryan, but I think I know why.
The longer I watched last night the more I began to determine the difficulty they were running into, and it came down to one factor. Nothing had happened yet. Sure Ryan had been chosen, but there wasn't anything inherently funny about choosing a nominee, especially one like Ryan. And, while he has conservative views, simply pointing them out isn't enough material to do a show on without coming across as overly liberal (which they do most of the time anyway, but the point I am trying to make is that they just couldn't come out and call the guy crazy). The comedians were trying to familiarize themselves with Ryan just like the rest of the country was.
Stewart had a pretty good bit in the second half of his show deconstructing why the things that conservatives believed made Ryan a strong pick were the exact same things the liberals believed made him an awful one. The best part of this was the fact he was able to move away from Twilight jokes and get into some of the absurdity that was going to come out of this pick.
Colbert was able to have a little more fun with the pick since he plays off the conservative bent, but as a I mentioned, he was hindered by the time he needed to devote to the music being featured on his show.
Both shows will benefit from the passing of time as Ryan really begins to campaign and interview. I call this post Vol. 1 because there will certainly be more to come, specifically when SNL starts up again, if not sooner.
Until then, I'll keep watching, because now that all the players are in place, the fun really begins.
I wasn't excited about the fact that a politician from Wisconsin had the opportunity to become Vice-President of the United States (ok, maybe a little, I love anything that will boost Wisco recognition). I wasn't excited because I'm a huge fan of Paul Ryan's (I don't know enough about politics to have those kind of opinions), and I wasn't excited because I felt he could help (or hurt) Romeny's chances of winning the election.
No, I was excited because there was a new player that had just been thrown into the political comedy game. A new target with a history that was ripe for picking through. That's what I like most about the election season, the comedy that comes out of it. My immediate question when Ryan was announced wasn't: Why he had been chosen? It was: Who is going to impersonate him on Saturday Night Live this season?
That's where my priorities are. Politics is such a circus between the media coverage and the attack ads, that it's good to see the candidates be bought down to earth a little by comedians. However, since SNL won't start its new season until September, I was looking forward to new episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.
Before I dive into that I feel obligated to mention that there is another source of political comedy (there are actually many, but this is the only one I am going to mention) that takes politicians to task: late-night comedy talk shows. The difference between late-night talk shows and the other three shows I mentioned though, is that the late-night talk show hosts rely on singular jokes told in their monologues. It's pretty standard fair with a setup and a punchline. But that's the problem, it's a one off.
The Daily Show and The Colbert Report allow for a longer running commentary on what is going on in the world of politics. It's a more focused and critical approach. That's why I was excited to see what John Stewart, Stephen Colbert and their staff of writers had come up with to analyze the new VP pick.
The issue was that both shows had other obligations that distracted from being able to fully dive into Paul Ryan. The Daily Show focused more on the fact they had Robert Pattinson's first television interview since Kristen Stewart admitted to cheating on him. The Colbert Report on the other hand had to contend with its own weeklong musical festival, so it couldn't commit more than five minutes to Ryan. This was admittedly disappointing. Both seemed directionless and half-hearted in their attempts to find comedy in Ryan, but I think I know why.
The longer I watched last night the more I began to determine the difficulty they were running into, and it came down to one factor. Nothing had happened yet. Sure Ryan had been chosen, but there wasn't anything inherently funny about choosing a nominee, especially one like Ryan. And, while he has conservative views, simply pointing them out isn't enough material to do a show on without coming across as overly liberal (which they do most of the time anyway, but the point I am trying to make is that they just couldn't come out and call the guy crazy). The comedians were trying to familiarize themselves with Ryan just like the rest of the country was.
Stewart had a pretty good bit in the second half of his show deconstructing why the things that conservatives believed made Ryan a strong pick were the exact same things the liberals believed made him an awful one. The best part of this was the fact he was able to move away from Twilight jokes and get into some of the absurdity that was going to come out of this pick.
Colbert was able to have a little more fun with the pick since he plays off the conservative bent, but as a I mentioned, he was hindered by the time he needed to devote to the music being featured on his show.
Both shows will benefit from the passing of time as Ryan really begins to campaign and interview. I call this post Vol. 1 because there will certainly be more to come, specifically when SNL starts up again, if not sooner.
Until then, I'll keep watching, because now that all the players are in place, the fun really begins.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Further Evidence That I'm Actually 12
This past Halloween I ran into a problem.
It is, I would venture to say, the most common problem a person can face around Halloween. The question of what costume to wear. This past Halloween fell on a Monday, meaning there was as at least two days of celebrating to be had over the weekend, which in turn meant I might need to have two costumes.
I have one pretty good standby costume. I dress up as "Hawkeye" Pierce from M.A.S.H. I believe in simplicity when it comes to Halloween costumes, so if I can assemble a good costume by only purchasing a new shirt, that's what I'm going to do. So, while I had one costume ready to go, there were still two problems. First, I had used that costume the year before. Second, I was going out more than one night. Therefore, I needed, another costume.
I had a solid back-up in place, one I had been waiting to implement since my freshman year of college. I was going to go as Charlie Conway from my all-time favorite childhood movie, "The Mighty Ducks." The ultimate underdog story of kid's underdog sports stories, this was the movie that inspired me to play hockey as a child.
But Chris, you ask, aren't hockey jerseys expensive? Yes, yes they are, which is why I found a website that sells Mighty Duck shirts that look like jerseys. Name and number on the back and everything. Perfect, right? Right, except...
Before I went out on the second night, my friend and I were heading out to see a hockey game, which may or may not be ironic, and walked past some girls, all dressed in the exact same shirt I had purchased. This was a problem since I had no idea who these girls were, but knew they were heading out to the bars much as I was that evening. With so few bars at my college, I knew I was bound to run into them. In an effort not to seem like a creepers, I decided I had about 3 hours to come up with a back-up plan.
My idea was to stick with simple, so after the hockey game my friend and I went to Wal-Mart. I bought a shirt with a Superman logo and went as Clark Kent. (Fun fact: I actually wear glasses!)
Now, I don't normally buy superhero-themed graphic tees. I went through a little phase in high school, but then, who didn't? The point of this post is also not to discuss my past Halloween, but to discuss this shirt.
Wearing that shirt for the first time had an unexpected side-effect that is hard to describe. The reason it's hard to describe is that the feeling I got is stupid for a 22-year-old to have when he puts on a Superman shirt from Wal-Mart. I don't want to say I felt more confident, or invincible or stronger, but I did feel more at ease.
I'm a it of a high-strung person, and, again, I won't say it made me less high strung, but I did feel more relaxed.
I've watched Superman cartoons since I was a child. He is perhaps one of the most recognizable pop-culture icons. When I put on that shirt and saw I was the one wearing the shield, I felt different. I don't even like Superman that much. Ask any comic nerd and they will tell you the concept of Superman is boring. The invincible man who can fly and shoot lasers isn't very interesting at its root. But that root is exactly what is tied to that shield Superman wears on his chest, and when I put it on I couldn't help but connect that strength with myself.
It's not a very mature thought, and probably highlights some issues within my psyche, but try it sometime, and let me know if those feelings don't crop up in some small form or another.
It is, I would venture to say, the most common problem a person can face around Halloween. The question of what costume to wear. This past Halloween fell on a Monday, meaning there was as at least two days of celebrating to be had over the weekend, which in turn meant I might need to have two costumes.
I have one pretty good standby costume. I dress up as "Hawkeye" Pierce from M.A.S.H. I believe in simplicity when it comes to Halloween costumes, so if I can assemble a good costume by only purchasing a new shirt, that's what I'm going to do. So, while I had one costume ready to go, there were still two problems. First, I had used that costume the year before. Second, I was going out more than one night. Therefore, I needed, another costume.
I had a solid back-up in place, one I had been waiting to implement since my freshman year of college. I was going to go as Charlie Conway from my all-time favorite childhood movie, "The Mighty Ducks." The ultimate underdog story of kid's underdog sports stories, this was the movie that inspired me to play hockey as a child.
But Chris, you ask, aren't hockey jerseys expensive? Yes, yes they are, which is why I found a website that sells Mighty Duck shirts that look like jerseys. Name and number on the back and everything. Perfect, right? Right, except...
Before I went out on the second night, my friend and I were heading out to see a hockey game, which may or may not be ironic, and walked past some girls, all dressed in the exact same shirt I had purchased. This was a problem since I had no idea who these girls were, but knew they were heading out to the bars much as I was that evening. With so few bars at my college, I knew I was bound to run into them. In an effort not to seem like a creepers, I decided I had about 3 hours to come up with a back-up plan.
My idea was to stick with simple, so after the hockey game my friend and I went to Wal-Mart. I bought a shirt with a Superman logo and went as Clark Kent. (Fun fact: I actually wear glasses!)
Now, I don't normally buy superhero-themed graphic tees. I went through a little phase in high school, but then, who didn't? The point of this post is also not to discuss my past Halloween, but to discuss this shirt.
Wearing that shirt for the first time had an unexpected side-effect that is hard to describe. The reason it's hard to describe is that the feeling I got is stupid for a 22-year-old to have when he puts on a Superman shirt from Wal-Mart. I don't want to say I felt more confident, or invincible or stronger, but I did feel more at ease.
I'm a it of a high-strung person, and, again, I won't say it made me less high strung, but I did feel more relaxed.
I've watched Superman cartoons since I was a child. He is perhaps one of the most recognizable pop-culture icons. When I put on that shirt and saw I was the one wearing the shield, I felt different. I don't even like Superman that much. Ask any comic nerd and they will tell you the concept of Superman is boring. The invincible man who can fly and shoot lasers isn't very interesting at its root. But that root is exactly what is tied to that shield Superman wears on his chest, and when I put it on I couldn't help but connect that strength with myself.
It's not a very mature thought, and probably highlights some issues within my psyche, but try it sometime, and let me know if those feelings don't crop up in some small form or another.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Man Love: Matthew Perry Edition
Yesterday, I posted about my irritation over the excessive promotion of Matthew Perry's new NBC sitcom.
Last night, due to some coincidental channel surfing, I watched the sneak preview that aired at the end of day's the Olympic coverage.
As I said in yesterday's post, I like Matthew Perry. Chandler was my favorite character on Friends, and while Perry is a bit of a one note actor (in that he relies heavily on sarcasm for his laughs), I don't have a problem with that. I like that character and each new show or movie he finds himself in breathes new life into his tropes.
So is the case with his new series Go On. The show revolves around Perry's character, a sports radio host, looking to return to work a month after his wife's death. However, his boss believes it's too soon and will only allow him back after he completes 10 hours of group grief therapy.
Now, I read a few reviews of this show before watching it, and there have been some justified comparisons to another NBC show with a witty male lead, Community. However, Community, from the beginning, was able to spread the comedy around to most of the cast, even though the central story was focused on Joel McHale's Jeff Winger. The comedy here is resting heavily on Perry's shoulder. Not that this is a bad thing. In fact it's a rather smart strategy.
NBC is advertising this as a Matthew Perry show, so it would make sense that, especially in the first episode, most of the story and comedy is focused on him. The show will flesh out the rest of the characters as it moves forward.
The other characters are where the Community comparisons seem to come in. The show is split between three main settings. Matthew Perry's home, his work and his group therapy sessions. The group therapy sessions are home to a cast of oddball characters that, so far only seem to be there for Perry to mock and bounce witticisms off of, and that is really what the show is missing. There is no one on the show to give it back to him as good as he is giving it out. They just kind of stand there and play along with him.
But that doesn't really matter as long as it's funny right?
Right.
Despite it's flaws (and many TV pilots have them) the show is still engaging and still made me laugh for most of the half hour. On top of that, it managed to find some real emotion without getting preachy.
One of the flaws with Community is its South Park-esque reliance on preachy speeches to sum up what was learned in the episode. But the biggest rule in story telling that is often left on the wayside is: Show, don't tell. Go On succeeds because it shows how its characters are taking steps to heal their grief rather than having Matthew Perry explain it to the audience.
(Again, I would like to reiterate I like both of these shows)
This is Perry's third attempt at trying to find success on television post-Friends, and I'm hoping this one sticks. Studio 60 was overpowered by the influence of Aaron Sorkin, and while I enjoyed Mr. Sunshine, it just couldn't get past having a slightly cartoonish feel to it.
Go On feels like it takes place in a real environment with real (albeit slightly eccentric) people. They are dealing with some heavy issues, but the balance is keen and as long as the show is able to maintain that balance of heart and comedy, it could easily grow into one of the best new shows of the season.
Watch the premiere below:
Last night, due to some coincidental channel surfing, I watched the sneak preview that aired at the end of day's the Olympic coverage.
As I said in yesterday's post, I like Matthew Perry. Chandler was my favorite character on Friends, and while Perry is a bit of a one note actor (in that he relies heavily on sarcasm for his laughs), I don't have a problem with that. I like that character and each new show or movie he finds himself in breathes new life into his tropes.
So is the case with his new series Go On. The show revolves around Perry's character, a sports radio host, looking to return to work a month after his wife's death. However, his boss believes it's too soon and will only allow him back after he completes 10 hours of group grief therapy.
Now, I read a few reviews of this show before watching it, and there have been some justified comparisons to another NBC show with a witty male lead, Community. However, Community, from the beginning, was able to spread the comedy around to most of the cast, even though the central story was focused on Joel McHale's Jeff Winger. The comedy here is resting heavily on Perry's shoulder. Not that this is a bad thing. In fact it's a rather smart strategy.
NBC is advertising this as a Matthew Perry show, so it would make sense that, especially in the first episode, most of the story and comedy is focused on him. The show will flesh out the rest of the characters as it moves forward.
The other characters are where the Community comparisons seem to come in. The show is split between three main settings. Matthew Perry's home, his work and his group therapy sessions. The group therapy sessions are home to a cast of oddball characters that, so far only seem to be there for Perry to mock and bounce witticisms off of, and that is really what the show is missing. There is no one on the show to give it back to him as good as he is giving it out. They just kind of stand there and play along with him.
But that doesn't really matter as long as it's funny right?
Right.
Despite it's flaws (and many TV pilots have them) the show is still engaging and still made me laugh for most of the half hour. On top of that, it managed to find some real emotion without getting preachy.
One of the flaws with Community is its South Park-esque reliance on preachy speeches to sum up what was learned in the episode. But the biggest rule in story telling that is often left on the wayside is: Show, don't tell. Go On succeeds because it shows how its characters are taking steps to heal their grief rather than having Matthew Perry explain it to the audience.
(Again, I would like to reiterate I like both of these shows)
This is Perry's third attempt at trying to find success on television post-Friends, and I'm hoping this one sticks. Studio 60 was overpowered by the influence of Aaron Sorkin, and while I enjoyed Mr. Sunshine, it just couldn't get past having a slightly cartoonish feel to it.
Go On feels like it takes place in a real environment with real (albeit slightly eccentric) people. They are dealing with some heavy issues, but the balance is keen and as long as the show is able to maintain that balance of heart and comedy, it could easily grow into one of the best new shows of the season.
Watch the premiere below:
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
An Open Letter to NBC
Dear NBC,
You have a problem.
Scratch that. You have many problems, but I am only going to focus on two of them. One problem has only cropped up recently, while the other has been plaguing you since Friends went off the air.
The first is your Olympic coverage; the second is your dismal prime-time ratings during the regular season.
I don't mean to heap on the criticism of the Olympics, because I have been enjoying them thoroughly. Time delayed broadcasts aside, I have loved every live event I have watched. Not to mention the genius choice of having Doc Emrick commentate the U.S water polo matches.
However, that enjoyment is hindered every time I see a promo for Matthew Perry's new sitcom during every commercial break. Same thing with The Voice. Same thing with Revolution. Same thing with Animal Doctor or whatever you are deciding to call it.
Don't get me wrong I love Matthew Perry, and I'm game for any new high concept sci-fi show looking to fill the Lost hole in my viewing schedule. And yes, I understand the strategy of trying to promote your new shows while the entire country is tuned into your network. No one will fault you for that. That's a solid marketing strategy.
What I don't understand is why you are only promoting your new shows, and the only show you air that is already a ratings hit.
Now I don't watch The Voice, and I most likely never will. Showing a promo of four judges leaping on a button isn't any more likely to encourage me to tune in.
You have some shows that are seriously struggling to garner a viewership. Good shows like Parks and Recreation and Community. Shows that could really benefit from some exposure during the Olympics. Where are the promos with the premiere dates for these shows? Where are clever, Olympic related ads featuring their cast members?
These shows deserve a chance to prosper from the Olympics as much as the new shows. Your chief complaint is that some of your shows aren't broad enough to reach a large audience. Well, nothing is broader than the Olympics. It's a staple in almost every possible realm: sports, pop-culture, business, advertising, patriotism, etc.
Everyone is glued to NBC right now, and with a couple of weeks to fill between the end of the Olympics and the beginning of the fall TV season, viewers might take the opportunity to catch up with a series on Netflix or Hulu before a new season premieres. I mean, just look at what that strategy did for Mad Men. It's fifth season returned to its highest ratings ever after a prolonged absence. But what happened during that absence? All four seasons became available on Netflix.
Coincidence? I think not.
Believe in yourself NBC. You can't bring back the 90's, but you can try and improve the 10's.
Sincerely,
The Narrator
You have a problem.
Scratch that. You have many problems, but I am only going to focus on two of them. One problem has only cropped up recently, while the other has been plaguing you since Friends went off the air.
The first is your Olympic coverage; the second is your dismal prime-time ratings during the regular season.
I don't mean to heap on the criticism of the Olympics, because I have been enjoying them thoroughly. Time delayed broadcasts aside, I have loved every live event I have watched. Not to mention the genius choice of having Doc Emrick commentate the U.S water polo matches.
However, that enjoyment is hindered every time I see a promo for Matthew Perry's new sitcom during every commercial break. Same thing with The Voice. Same thing with Revolution. Same thing with Animal Doctor or whatever you are deciding to call it.
Don't get me wrong I love Matthew Perry, and I'm game for any new high concept sci-fi show looking to fill the Lost hole in my viewing schedule. And yes, I understand the strategy of trying to promote your new shows while the entire country is tuned into your network. No one will fault you for that. That's a solid marketing strategy.
What I don't understand is why you are only promoting your new shows, and the only show you air that is already a ratings hit.
Now I don't watch The Voice, and I most likely never will. Showing a promo of four judges leaping on a button isn't any more likely to encourage me to tune in.
You have some shows that are seriously struggling to garner a viewership. Good shows like Parks and Recreation and Community. Shows that could really benefit from some exposure during the Olympics. Where are the promos with the premiere dates for these shows? Where are clever, Olympic related ads featuring their cast members?
These shows deserve a chance to prosper from the Olympics as much as the new shows. Your chief complaint is that some of your shows aren't broad enough to reach a large audience. Well, nothing is broader than the Olympics. It's a staple in almost every possible realm: sports, pop-culture, business, advertising, patriotism, etc.
Everyone is glued to NBC right now, and with a couple of weeks to fill between the end of the Olympics and the beginning of the fall TV season, viewers might take the opportunity to catch up with a series on Netflix or Hulu before a new season premieres. I mean, just look at what that strategy did for Mad Men. It's fifth season returned to its highest ratings ever after a prolonged absence. But what happened during that absence? All four seasons became available on Netflix.
Coincidence? I think not.
Believe in yourself NBC. You can't bring back the 90's, but you can try and improve the 10's.
Sincerely,
The Narrator
Monday, August 6, 2012
I just don't get it
Yesterday, I spent most of my afternoon watching the live coverage of the tragedy in Oak Creek. I have to admit I'm lost right now.
I can't figure it out.
I posted after the shootings in Colorado, about how being a movie lover that hit close to home for me. This literally hit close to home for me. Being from the Milwaukee area, I know there is violence in this city, but I don't think anyone anywhere in America expects to being sitting at home on a Sunday and be interrupted with the news that a madman had gone and shot up a temple while people were preparing to worship.
I started watching the coverage almost as soon as I got home from 11 o'clock mass at my local church.
It's weird that while many Americans practice a wide variety of faiths, many of them hold services on Sunday. It goes back to the shootings in Aurora too, where that could have been any movie at any theater in America. This situation isn't that different. This could have very easily been any place of worship in America.
But it's hard when it's people who are part of a local community you identify with, participating in services you identify with.
Why do people keep ruining the safe places? Are there any left? How do we make these places safe again? Is that even possible?
These are the kinds of questions that run through my head when things like this happen. These are ways I try and make sense of it. Often there aren't any answers. At least not ones that are readily available.
The other thing I don't understand. The media's over emphasis of the fact that Sikhs are not Muslims. I was watching the news last night and one of the members of the temple (who admittedly had been put through a day I could never imagine going through) becoming very upset and shouting at the reporter (who was not making any claims to this idea) that the Sikhs were not Muslim.
My question: Who cares? Would we all be going "Oh, well the guy shot a bunch of Muslims, so that's ok"?
Hell no.
This is America, damnit. People are free to practice their religion, and they should be free to do so without having to fear some nut is going to come in and start shooting the place up.
From that though, I know this issue will raise more questions about gun control. I believe people have the right to buy and own guns. I really believe that owning and operating a gun can be done responsibly. I think people who say we should simply outlaw guns are looking for an easy answer to a complex problem that goes beyond whether or not Americans should own guns.
(Sorry, don't like to get too political, but sometimes things need to be said.)
One thing I will agree on though is that this was a senseless act, and as we seem to be finding this summer, those are often the worst.
I can't figure it out.
I posted after the shootings in Colorado, about how being a movie lover that hit close to home for me. This literally hit close to home for me. Being from the Milwaukee area, I know there is violence in this city, but I don't think anyone anywhere in America expects to being sitting at home on a Sunday and be interrupted with the news that a madman had gone and shot up a temple while people were preparing to worship.
I started watching the coverage almost as soon as I got home from 11 o'clock mass at my local church.
It's weird that while many Americans practice a wide variety of faiths, many of them hold services on Sunday. It goes back to the shootings in Aurora too, where that could have been any movie at any theater in America. This situation isn't that different. This could have very easily been any place of worship in America.
But it's hard when it's people who are part of a local community you identify with, participating in services you identify with.
Why do people keep ruining the safe places? Are there any left? How do we make these places safe again? Is that even possible?
These are the kinds of questions that run through my head when things like this happen. These are ways I try and make sense of it. Often there aren't any answers. At least not ones that are readily available.
The other thing I don't understand. The media's over emphasis of the fact that Sikhs are not Muslims. I was watching the news last night and one of the members of the temple (who admittedly had been put through a day I could never imagine going through) becoming very upset and shouting at the reporter (who was not making any claims to this idea) that the Sikhs were not Muslim.
My question: Who cares? Would we all be going "Oh, well the guy shot a bunch of Muslims, so that's ok"?
Hell no.
This is America, damnit. People are free to practice their religion, and they should be free to do so without having to fear some nut is going to come in and start shooting the place up.
From that though, I know this issue will raise more questions about gun control. I believe people have the right to buy and own guns. I really believe that owning and operating a gun can be done responsibly. I think people who say we should simply outlaw guns are looking for an easy answer to a complex problem that goes beyond whether or not Americans should own guns.
(Sorry, don't like to get too political, but sometimes things need to be said.)
One thing I will agree on though is that this was a senseless act, and as we seem to be finding this summer, those are often the worst.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Of Jesters and Holy Men
As a born, raised and semi-practicing Catholic, I have, on occasion considered becoming a priest.
As a born, raised and practicing pop-culture addict, I have, on occasion considered becoming a stand-up comedian.
There are a lot of similarities between these two professions. Sure, a priest will tell the occasional joke during his homily, and a comedian will occasionally hit on religious topics, but the similarities go beyond that.
It comes down to the function of the job itself. Here are some ways being a priest and a comedian are alike:
It's always interesting to me to find the connections between things that don't really seem to go together, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say there are some overarching similarities between these two professions.
Favorite joke ever told by a priest:
A guy is fishing on Loch Ness when al of the sudden his boat is thrown into the air. He looks down and sees the open jaws of the Loch Ness Monster beneath him. He cries out, "Oh Lord, please save me!"
The man's boat freezes in midair and a voice from the heavens asks, "Why should I save you? You've never believed in me before?"
The man says, "Well, yeah, but a few seconds ago I never believed in the Loch Ness Monster either."
Church humor!
As a born, raised and practicing pop-culture addict, I have, on occasion considered becoming a stand-up comedian.
There are a lot of similarities between these two professions. Sure, a priest will tell the occasional joke during his homily, and a comedian will occasionally hit on religious topics, but the similarities go beyond that.
It comes down to the function of the job itself. Here are some ways being a priest and a comedian are alike:
- Both professions rely on a singular person communicating to a large group of people
- Both rely on coming up with new material to keep their audiences interested
- Both provide a greater understanding of the world around them
The first point is fairly self explanatory, a comedian takes the stage and a priest stands on the altar. They speak to their respective audiences and in the priest's case during a homily, neither expect to have the audience respond to what they are saying.
The second point also speaks to the homily. Priests need to come up with material on a pretty regular basis, even more so than comedians. Priests are coming up with new homilies on a weekly to daily basis to provide new insight into the gospels. Comedians need to create new material because they can't make a career out of telling the same jokes over and over.
The last point may be hard to understand, but I'll do my best to explain. A good priest will make sure the homily connects to what is going on in the world the parishioners live in. I'm not talking about general themes of evil existing in the world, I'm talking about pulling specific examples to directly parallel what is happening in a gospel of reading to connect with the modern world. Comedians do the same thing. It's called observational humor. Jerry Seinfeld is a master of it. A comedian takes an everyday occurrence and points out the absurdity in it. For example, recently I was listening to some stand-up from a comedian named John Mulaney (if you don't know him, look him up) who made a joke about how pirates never seem to bring the right size chest when they collect their treasure.
All we ever see is chests overflowing with treasure. It's just something we accept because that's how it has always been presented. But an outsider can point out how that doesn't really make any sense.
It's always interesting to me to find the connections between things that don't really seem to go together, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say there are some overarching similarities between these two professions.
Favorite joke ever told by a priest:
A guy is fishing on Loch Ness when al of the sudden his boat is thrown into the air. He looks down and sees the open jaws of the Loch Ness Monster beneath him. He cries out, "Oh Lord, please save me!"
The man's boat freezes in midair and a voice from the heavens asks, "Why should I save you? You've never believed in me before?"
The man says, "Well, yeah, but a few seconds ago I never believed in the Loch Ness Monster either."
Church humor!
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Pets vs Humans
Here's a controversial statement that really shouldn't be controversial: I don't like pets.
I was never raised on pets. I never had a dog, cat or fish growing up, nor did I ever desire one.
This doesn't mean I hate pets, animals, or people who have pets. Everyone is entitled to whatever makes them most happy in their life, and if that means taking care of animal, God bless.
What it does mean, however, is that those same things do not appeal to me. I do not want to take care of animal. I do not want to walk it, clean it, feed it or pay its veterinary bills.
For reasons I didn't understand though, people always have negative reactions when I tell them this. A while ago, I was talking about this with some girls who had pets. They said some girls connect guys who don't like pets with guys who don't like kids. Which I think is ridiculous, but it leads me to a second story.
I heard someone say their boyfriend said they would rather pay for a kid than pay for a pet. The girlfriend didn't understand that; I understood perfectly.
I might not like pets, but I love kids. I would like to have a few one day, and I would much rather pay for a human being than an animal. I would much rather take on the expenses of a human being that will contribute and benefit from a society, than I would like to pick up some dog poop in a plastic bag.
I've had experiences with pets. I've had friends with dogs and cats, and I'e helped families in my neighborhood with their animals while they go on vacation. None of these experiences have made me warm to the idea of having a pet of my own.
Often I feel like I'm in the minority, and I very well could be. I like animals in the wild, but I don't like domestic ones. My distaste for pets doesn't make me a terrible person. My actions make me a terrible person. That's how we should judge people, on their actions.
So that's where I stand, humans over pets, every time.
I was never raised on pets. I never had a dog, cat or fish growing up, nor did I ever desire one.
This doesn't mean I hate pets, animals, or people who have pets. Everyone is entitled to whatever makes them most happy in their life, and if that means taking care of animal, God bless.
What it does mean, however, is that those same things do not appeal to me. I do not want to take care of animal. I do not want to walk it, clean it, feed it or pay its veterinary bills.
For reasons I didn't understand though, people always have negative reactions when I tell them this. A while ago, I was talking about this with some girls who had pets. They said some girls connect guys who don't like pets with guys who don't like kids. Which I think is ridiculous, but it leads me to a second story.
I heard someone say their boyfriend said they would rather pay for a kid than pay for a pet. The girlfriend didn't understand that; I understood perfectly.
I might not like pets, but I love kids. I would like to have a few one day, and I would much rather pay for a human being than an animal. I would much rather take on the expenses of a human being that will contribute and benefit from a society, than I would like to pick up some dog poop in a plastic bag.
I've had experiences with pets. I've had friends with dogs and cats, and I'e helped families in my neighborhood with their animals while they go on vacation. None of these experiences have made me warm to the idea of having a pet of my own.
Often I feel like I'm in the minority, and I very well could be. I like animals in the wild, but I don't like domestic ones. My distaste for pets doesn't make me a terrible person. My actions make me a terrible person. That's how we should judge people, on their actions.
So that's where I stand, humans over pets, every time.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Marriage
This past weekend a friend of mine from high school got married. He wasn't the first guy from our class to get married, but he was the first guy who I actually spent time with in high school. Others guys who had gotten married were simply passing acquaintances, people I knew existed but didn't really interact with. This was the first guy I knew who was my age that I interacted with on regular basis. We weren't super close friends, I've only seen him once or twice after we graduated. But when I saw his wedding photos pop up on Facebook this week, I realized something.
I'm still very young.
When I was a kid (and by kid I mean pretty much my entire life before entering college) I thought I had a good life plan. Go to college, find a girl I would marry, get out of college with a job, and marry her soon after. Upon entering college, I quickly realized life doesn't really work like that.
You know what else life doesn't work like? Television. I watch a lot of it. Television would lead me to believe that people typically get together in May, get engaged the following May, and then get married the May after that. Again, a little age has shown me that this isn't really a typical scenario for most people, nor should it be.
Right now I am a 22 (almost 23) year old who stills feels like a 16 year old, and when I was 16, I still felt like I was 12 (I'll let you do the math to calculate how old that makes me).
What I'm trying to say is that getting married now, or in the next year or two is something I cannot even fathom right now.
I'm going to attribute that to the overall general lack of direction in my life.
I'm still very young.
When I was a kid (and by kid I mean pretty much my entire life before entering college) I thought I had a good life plan. Go to college, find a girl I would marry, get out of college with a job, and marry her soon after. Upon entering college, I quickly realized life doesn't really work like that.
You know what else life doesn't work like? Television. I watch a lot of it. Television would lead me to believe that people typically get together in May, get engaged the following May, and then get married the May after that. Again, a little age has shown me that this isn't really a typical scenario for most people, nor should it be.
Right now I am a 22 (almost 23) year old who stills feels like a 16 year old, and when I was 16, I still felt like I was 12 (I'll let you do the math to calculate how old that makes me).
What I'm trying to say is that getting married now, or in the next year or two is something I cannot even fathom right now.
I'm going to attribute that to the overall general lack of direction in my life.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
The State of Summer Films So Far
It is now August, and while I originally intended to keep this blog firmly planted in the realm of pop-culture, it has diverged somewhat. So to get things back on track, here are list of movies I have seen in the theaters this summer and what I thought of them.
The Avengers
I will start on a controversial note by saying I do not believe this movie was a good as everyone says it was. That being said, it was a very good movie.
In theory making an Avengers movie sounds pretty easy. Just make a bunch of solo films, then throw them in a blender like its no big deal. But when you take a step back and look at what Marvel was able to accomplish, it is truly astounding. Just imagine what would have happened if one or more of these films had failed at the box office or with critics. Their whole house of cards would have come crashing down. If one of these actors hadn't met the fans expectations of how the character should be portrayed or if one of the director's had failed to do the Marvel world justice, who knows how this could have turned out.
Instead, we got an amazing rollicking popcorn flick that threw the summer into high gear and made us wonder how DC could possibly ever pull off a Justice League movie as well as Marvel did The Avengers. There are a lot of factors that went into the successful culmination of five films, but who knew the most successful and heart wrenching piece of the puzzle was Clark Gregg. This guy took a small, seemingly insignificant role and filled it with charm and charisma that quickly turned Agent Coulson into a fan favorite. (SPOILER) His death was one the most emotional experiences I have had watching a film since I thought the little girl got shot in Crash. Joss Whedon's ability to use his death to not just as a gimmick but as a plot device push the characters towards the film's climax was one of the most brilliant pieces of storytelling I have ever seen (END SPOILER). Overall a stunning achievement.
In theory making an Avengers movie sounds pretty easy. Just make a bunch of solo films, then throw them in a blender like its no big deal. But when you take a step back and look at what Marvel was able to accomplish, it is truly astounding. Just imagine what would have happened if one or more of these films had failed at the box office or with critics. Their whole house of cards would have come crashing down. If one of these actors hadn't met the fans expectations of how the character should be portrayed or if one of the director's had failed to do the Marvel world justice, who knows how this could have turned out.
Instead, we got an amazing rollicking popcorn flick that threw the summer into high gear and made us wonder how DC could possibly ever pull off a Justice League movie as well as Marvel did The Avengers. There are a lot of factors that went into the successful culmination of five films, but who knew the most successful and heart wrenching piece of the puzzle was Clark Gregg. This guy took a small, seemingly insignificant role and filled it with charm and charisma that quickly turned Agent Coulson into a fan favorite. (SPOILER) His death was one the most emotional experiences I have had watching a film since I thought the little girl got shot in Crash. Joss Whedon's ability to use his death to not just as a gimmick but as a plot device push the characters towards the film's climax was one of the most brilliant pieces of storytelling I have ever seen (END SPOILER). Overall a stunning achievement.
Impressed or Unimpressed: IMPRESSED
Moonrise Kingdom
You can take all the superhero movies and big blockbusters you want, this was the movie I was most excited for during the summer of 2012. We get new superhero movies every year and people like Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell are putting close to two movies a year. Wes Anderson, though, takes about three years between films. He takes a lot of time compiling his cast, perfecting his script and
picking the right music for his films. What made me even more eager for this film was the fact that it was his first live action film since 2007. It was also his first film to primarily focus on the adventures of children and be set in a time other than the present.
That being said, the fear with any film maker like Anderson is that they become too self-aware of their own style and rely to heavily on those tropes, sacrificing storytelling in the process. However, Anderson delivered again, telling a superb coming of age tale where the kids act like adults, and adults act like kids. Everything falls into place and the care Anderson takes in his film shines through. He is able to capture the confusion of being a kid during a time when the only thing you seem to want is to find a kindred spirit who understands what you're going through.
Impressed or Unimpressed: Impressed
Seeking a Friend for the End of the World
This movie seemed very promising. The unlikely pairing of two likable actors (Steve Carrell and Keira Knightley) in an offbeat premise (trying to find the one that got away before the world ends) sounds like a movie that would be right up my alley. Until, that is, it gets completely mucked up.
In fairness, it was never very clear how exactly the events of this film were going to play out. The trailers gave the basic details as I have laid them out above, but what it didn't give you was the sense that this movie was made up as it went along. No, that only came across when I actually sat down to sit through it.
I went and saw this movie with my sister and couldn't believe it was only a 90 minute film. This thing dragged like no another and I thought for sure we were there for well over two hours. The main flaw with this movie is that it couldn't seem to decide on the tone. Was it a dark comedy? A light comedy? A romantic-comedy? Or, just a movie that spends the first 30 minutes making the audience share in Steve Carrell's misery? There are funny parts but not enough to salvage the poor decisions made with the plot.
Impressed or Unimpressed: Thoroughly UNIMPRESSED
That's My Boy
This is the most embarrassing film on my list, so I feel I should explain why it is on here at all. My dad and I usually pick one or two movies each summer to go and see together. It's some solid father-son bonding, but it usually boils down to seeing two types on film. One action picture and one comedy. We've seen Wedding Crashers, The Hangover, and the A-Team to name a few. He also raised me on Adam Sandler comedies like Happy Gilmore and Big Daddy (thankfully we didn't spend too much time with Billy Madison). So when this film rolled around with none other than Andy Samberg playing his son, I was thinking this would be a slam dunk. Plus, the premise didn't sound half bad especially if Sandler could keep the story grounded.
Another thing I should mention is that I have pretty much given up on movie reviews. I like reading how many stars or what grade a film has earned, but I don't really get into the details of how the critics came to their verdicts. I really believe people should form their own opinions about films and they should trust the opinions of respected entertainment critics, not aggregator websites.
So when I saw Sandler had decided to do the entire movie in a funny voice and the reviews were miserable, I was undeterred. I could care less about Sandler, but I really want Sandberg to become a movie star. After seeing this movie, he has some work to do. Not that the failure of this film can be placed on Sandberg. No, that blame pretty much belongs to Sandler and his brand of comedy, which overtakes this film and suffocates any sophistication that might be trying to survive.
That isn't to say this movie doesn't have funny parts, but those are few and far between. Although, I will give credit to Vanilla Ice for a solid performance. He does the best with what's given to him.
Impressed or Unimpressed: UNIMPRESSED with the film, super IMPRESSED with Vanilla Ice
Men in Black III (3?)
This was another film that seemed to have all the pieces to make a pretty good summer film. Recognizable franchise returning from a decent hiatus in theaters? Check. Big-name star who's been absent from the big screen for a few years? Check. Strong supporting cast? Check.
I mean you had the original stars that made the franchise great, plus Josh Brolin as a young Tommy Lee Jones. Not to mention Jermaine Clement as the villain and Bill Hader as Andy Warhol. What could go wrong?
Time travel. Rule of thumb, time-travel ruins everything. See examples: Harry Potter, Heroes, and others that I am sure exist. The first ten minutes of the film are incredibly promising. A lunar jail break that perfectly matches the tones of the first film, gets things off to a good start, but its all downhill from there.
Impressed or Unimpressed: UNIMPRESSED
The Amazing Spider-man
I know many people were skeptical of rebooting Spider-man so soon after the Sam Raimi trilogy ended, but I was not one of them. While I liked the first two films of Raimi's take (I will continue to ignore the existence of the third film) there were certain beats that he got plain wrong that could be amended with a fresh start. The other thing to consider was that Raimi's Spider-man was only the second modern superhero film after X-Men. The superhero film has evolved a great deal since them, so a second go around could do Spidey some good. Namely having anyone other than Tobey Maguire in the title role.
However, to steal from a recent AVClub review of Total Recall, the film still needed to justify it's existence. What I mean by that is, what Marc Webb needed to do was bring something new to the character, and while he did that in bits in pieces, that's all he did. It was as if there were two check lists he had: one that marked off all the important points of Spidey mythology, and a second that marked off all the ways his film would be would be different. The problem with that is those changes are obvious to the naked eye, but he needed to make the entire film feel different, and I just don't think the movie succeeded at doing that.
Impressed or Unimpressed: UNIMPRESSED
The Dark Knight Rises
I want to keep what I say about this film brief, because I think we can all agree it is good. I would argue The Dark Knight is the best film of the trilogy, but that in no way is meant to lessen the greatness of this film. Where Nolan should really be applauded is the number of characters he is able to juggle effectively. There is a lot going on in this film and Nolan is able to accomplish it without sacrificing the pacing of the film.
The film is the conclusion I would argue most audiences did not realize the series was building towards. While it is sad to see these films come to an end, it is nice to be able to say goodbye. The thing I realized Nolan had done was create a vulnerable superhero in a realistic setting. Take for instance the one unfortunate thing about this film, which was that its climax mirrored the climax of the other big superhero film of the summer. The difference was that (SPOILER) I never for a second doubted Tony Stark was going to fall back to earth and live to tell the tale. On the other hand, when Bruce Wayne made off with that makeshift bomb, I believed Nolan would have the balls to kill him off if he wanted to (END SPOILER).
What Nolan accomplished was creating a superhero film where the superhero had a very real chance of losing, and that in turn kept the audience on the edge of their seats until the very end.
Impressed or Unimpressed: IMPRESSED
What I've Missed
There are three films missing from this list that I would have liked to see, but simply have not had the chance to yet: Ted, The Watch and Safety Not Guaranteed. I've heard nothing but good things about Ted, and despite negative reviews, I want to make up my own mind about The Watch. I left Prometheus off the list because I'm really not that interested in seeing it (although I'm sure I will eventually).
What's to come
August is ripe for potential. As it sits now I have more movies in the loss column than the win column and I want this summer to be a winner. So I look forward to Nitro Circus 3-D, Expendables 2, The Bourne Legacy, and Premium Rush.
What are your favorite films of the summer?
That being said, the fear with any film maker like Anderson is that they become too self-aware of their own style and rely to heavily on those tropes, sacrificing storytelling in the process. However, Anderson delivered again, telling a superb coming of age tale where the kids act like adults, and adults act like kids. Everything falls into place and the care Anderson takes in his film shines through. He is able to capture the confusion of being a kid during a time when the only thing you seem to want is to find a kindred spirit who understands what you're going through.
Impressed or Unimpressed: Impressed
Seeking a Friend for the End of the World
This movie seemed very promising. The unlikely pairing of two likable actors (Steve Carrell and Keira Knightley) in an offbeat premise (trying to find the one that got away before the world ends) sounds like a movie that would be right up my alley. Until, that is, it gets completely mucked up.
In fairness, it was never very clear how exactly the events of this film were going to play out. The trailers gave the basic details as I have laid them out above, but what it didn't give you was the sense that this movie was made up as it went along. No, that only came across when I actually sat down to sit through it.
I went and saw this movie with my sister and couldn't believe it was only a 90 minute film. This thing dragged like no another and I thought for sure we were there for well over two hours. The main flaw with this movie is that it couldn't seem to decide on the tone. Was it a dark comedy? A light comedy? A romantic-comedy? Or, just a movie that spends the first 30 minutes making the audience share in Steve Carrell's misery? There are funny parts but not enough to salvage the poor decisions made with the plot.
Impressed or Unimpressed: Thoroughly UNIMPRESSED
That's My Boy
This is the most embarrassing film on my list, so I feel I should explain why it is on here at all. My dad and I usually pick one or two movies each summer to go and see together. It's some solid father-son bonding, but it usually boils down to seeing two types on film. One action picture and one comedy. We've seen Wedding Crashers, The Hangover, and the A-Team to name a few. He also raised me on Adam Sandler comedies like Happy Gilmore and Big Daddy (thankfully we didn't spend too much time with Billy Madison). So when this film rolled around with none other than Andy Samberg playing his son, I was thinking this would be a slam dunk. Plus, the premise didn't sound half bad especially if Sandler could keep the story grounded.
Another thing I should mention is that I have pretty much given up on movie reviews. I like reading how many stars or what grade a film has earned, but I don't really get into the details of how the critics came to their verdicts. I really believe people should form their own opinions about films and they should trust the opinions of respected entertainment critics, not aggregator websites.
So when I saw Sandler had decided to do the entire movie in a funny voice and the reviews were miserable, I was undeterred. I could care less about Sandler, but I really want Sandberg to become a movie star. After seeing this movie, he has some work to do. Not that the failure of this film can be placed on Sandberg. No, that blame pretty much belongs to Sandler and his brand of comedy, which overtakes this film and suffocates any sophistication that might be trying to survive.
That isn't to say this movie doesn't have funny parts, but those are few and far between. Although, I will give credit to Vanilla Ice for a solid performance. He does the best with what's given to him.
Impressed or Unimpressed: UNIMPRESSED with the film, super IMPRESSED with Vanilla Ice
Men in Black III (3?)
This was another film that seemed to have all the pieces to make a pretty good summer film. Recognizable franchise returning from a decent hiatus in theaters? Check. Big-name star who's been absent from the big screen for a few years? Check. Strong supporting cast? Check.
I mean you had the original stars that made the franchise great, plus Josh Brolin as a young Tommy Lee Jones. Not to mention Jermaine Clement as the villain and Bill Hader as Andy Warhol. What could go wrong?
Time travel. Rule of thumb, time-travel ruins everything. See examples: Harry Potter, Heroes, and others that I am sure exist. The first ten minutes of the film are incredibly promising. A lunar jail break that perfectly matches the tones of the first film, gets things off to a good start, but its all downhill from there.
Impressed or Unimpressed: UNIMPRESSED
The Amazing Spider-man
I know many people were skeptical of rebooting Spider-man so soon after the Sam Raimi trilogy ended, but I was not one of them. While I liked the first two films of Raimi's take (I will continue to ignore the existence of the third film) there were certain beats that he got plain wrong that could be amended with a fresh start. The other thing to consider was that Raimi's Spider-man was only the second modern superhero film after X-Men. The superhero film has evolved a great deal since them, so a second go around could do Spidey some good. Namely having anyone other than Tobey Maguire in the title role.
However, to steal from a recent AVClub review of Total Recall, the film still needed to justify it's existence. What I mean by that is, what Marc Webb needed to do was bring something new to the character, and while he did that in bits in pieces, that's all he did. It was as if there were two check lists he had: one that marked off all the important points of Spidey mythology, and a second that marked off all the ways his film would be would be different. The problem with that is those changes are obvious to the naked eye, but he needed to make the entire film feel different, and I just don't think the movie succeeded at doing that.
Impressed or Unimpressed: UNIMPRESSED
The Dark Knight Rises
I want to keep what I say about this film brief, because I think we can all agree it is good. I would argue The Dark Knight is the best film of the trilogy, but that in no way is meant to lessen the greatness of this film. Where Nolan should really be applauded is the number of characters he is able to juggle effectively. There is a lot going on in this film and Nolan is able to accomplish it without sacrificing the pacing of the film.
The film is the conclusion I would argue most audiences did not realize the series was building towards. While it is sad to see these films come to an end, it is nice to be able to say goodbye. The thing I realized Nolan had done was create a vulnerable superhero in a realistic setting. Take for instance the one unfortunate thing about this film, which was that its climax mirrored the climax of the other big superhero film of the summer. The difference was that (SPOILER) I never for a second doubted Tony Stark was going to fall back to earth and live to tell the tale. On the other hand, when Bruce Wayne made off with that makeshift bomb, I believed Nolan would have the balls to kill him off if he wanted to (END SPOILER).
What Nolan accomplished was creating a superhero film where the superhero had a very real chance of losing, and that in turn kept the audience on the edge of their seats until the very end.
Impressed or Unimpressed: IMPRESSED
What I've Missed
There are three films missing from this list that I would have liked to see, but simply have not had the chance to yet: Ted, The Watch and Safety Not Guaranteed. I've heard nothing but good things about Ted, and despite negative reviews, I want to make up my own mind about The Watch. I left Prometheus off the list because I'm really not that interested in seeing it (although I'm sure I will eventually).
What's to come
August is ripe for potential. As it sits now I have more movies in the loss column than the win column and I want this summer to be a winner. So I look forward to Nitro Circus 3-D, Expendables 2, The Bourne Legacy, and Premium Rush.
What are your favorite films of the summer?
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
I'm just going to blog a lot about nothing from now on...
I'm going to brush the dust off this blog and give it another go. Mostly because it is good to get things out of my head and onto a page whether real or digital. Also, because the state of my life right now is, how do I put this, not as positive as I would have hoped it to be in August of 2012 back in May of 2012, I'm hoping this will give me a little direction.
Let's begin with what happened to me earlier today. I was watching the Olympics (I've been doing so since I got home on Monday at 10:30 a.m.). Specifically, I was watching women's water polo. Now I love all the Olympic events, but what I love best is the sports I really only get to see televised every four years. That's why I became super addicted to curling during the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver.
This year I was planning on following the shooting competitions (skeet, rifle, archery, etc.) and posting it on my other blog. (What? This guy has two blogs? Yeah, it's about as sad as it sounds.) The problem though was figuring out how to watch these events. Everything is available on NBC.com, but I need my computer to help find a job, so that wasn't going to cut it.
Instead I've been switching between NBC, NBC Sports Network, and MSNBC for my Olympic daytime coverage. Now the nice thing about NBC holding off on the swimming and gymnastic coverage until primetime is that 1) I can avoid watching those events, and 2) I get to see all of the obscure sports covered live.
Behind the shooting events I really wanted to watch badminton. Doubles Olympic badminton is the craziest thing I have ever seen. I had to watch it on Telemundo during the Beijing Olympics in 2008, and while no American team seems to be even remotely competitive on the global level, it is nonetheless mesmerizing to watch. However, despite catching a few brief moments in a bar/restaurant called Pine Isle in the Three Lakes area of northern Wisconsin on Saturday, I have been unable to find the coverage.
What I have found over the past three days though has been fantastic. It's a little tricky in the morning, but after about 10:30 a.m. - 11 a.m. stuff gets good. Number one on my list is water polo. Water polo rocks, although it will never be as big in the U.S. as it is in, say, Romania.
Why's that you ask? Don't worry I'll tell you.
America's three most popular sports are let's say: football, basketball, and baseball. (NASCAR could probably be up there too, but I don't count the South, and neither should you.) One of the things that makes these sports popular is the physical nature inherent in each of these sports. Football has guys diving for catches and smashing into each other. Basketball has guys soaring through the air for dunks. And baseball is a suspense filled guessing game of waiting to see whether or not something interesting will happen.
Water polo on the other hand has the distinct disadvantage of being played in a pool where 3/4's of the players bodies are submerged. It's a simply a mess of bodies that are impossible to distinguish from one another. They keep talking about this one U.S. woman player who scores a lot, but I can never figure out which one she is because they only wear numbers on their swimming caps. Do you know how small those numbers are? Crazy small.
But here's why I love it. As much as Americans hate soccer, the one thing that sport gets right is a running clock. The running clock is more or less utilized in a similar way in water polo with penalties taken on the fly without stopping play completely. Also, unlike soccer, there is a fair amount of scoring, but with a goalie in place the game play becomes more comparable to hockey. It's fast paced, aggressive and Americans are doing pretty well in it, despite most of the U.S. population not really caring.
(Olympic question posed by my friend Jon: Are water polo players bigger bro's than LAX players? Things to consider.)
I also watched field hockey for the first time ever, and in all honesty didn't really enjoy it. I'll stick to watching it on the ice rather than on a damp blue turf field framed in bubblegum, thank you. That being said, the U.S. women are doing pretty well and I will continue to support them.
Other U.S. women teams doing well: soccer, indoor volleyball and basketball. The U.S. women's soccer team has been amazing to watch. They actually make the game enjoyable. Indoor volleyball has also been surprisingly entertaining. Did you know the U.S. women's indoor volleyball team is ranked
number one in the world? I didn't, but they are certainly showing me why they are. The men are right there with them taking on some good teams and pulling out the wins.
Oh, and as expected, basketball (men and women) are dominating, cause we're the BEST! AROUND!
But back to what I was originally intending for this post to be about.
While watching the U.S. women's water polo take on Spain toda,y I saw Spain go on a breakaway and score. A breakaway. In water polo. In a pool. Swimming. I never even thought that could happen. So I posted a tweet (follow me @cswiets) about my astonishment, because that's one of the things you tweet about when you're unemployed and watching water polo on a Wednesday afternoon.
My friend Jordan (follow him at @jnip11, but don;t you dare start reading his blog) pointed out that Water Polo Break Away (TM) would be a good band name. I agreed and have now trademarked it making me the sole owner of said name.
I think of good band names a lot, but the sad thing is I will never be a band. I have pretty much zero musical talent with any instrument and my vocals are mediocre at best (although in today's music industry that might be good enough - ZING!). I think the best thing to do with a good band name is fictionalize them in a story, get that story published and make sure people read it. Then some kid who has a crappy garage band will read the book and steal the name. Therefore allowing me to have my cake, and eat it too.
Let's begin with what happened to me earlier today. I was watching the Olympics (I've been doing so since I got home on Monday at 10:30 a.m.). Specifically, I was watching women's water polo. Now I love all the Olympic events, but what I love best is the sports I really only get to see televised every four years. That's why I became super addicted to curling during the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver.
This year I was planning on following the shooting competitions (skeet, rifle, archery, etc.) and posting it on my other blog. (What? This guy has two blogs? Yeah, it's about as sad as it sounds.) The problem though was figuring out how to watch these events. Everything is available on NBC.com, but I need my computer to help find a job, so that wasn't going to cut it.
Instead I've been switching between NBC, NBC Sports Network, and MSNBC for my Olympic daytime coverage. Now the nice thing about NBC holding off on the swimming and gymnastic coverage until primetime is that 1) I can avoid watching those events, and 2) I get to see all of the obscure sports covered live.
Behind the shooting events I really wanted to watch badminton. Doubles Olympic badminton is the craziest thing I have ever seen. I had to watch it on Telemundo during the Beijing Olympics in 2008, and while no American team seems to be even remotely competitive on the global level, it is nonetheless mesmerizing to watch. However, despite catching a few brief moments in a bar/restaurant called Pine Isle in the Three Lakes area of northern Wisconsin on Saturday, I have been unable to find the coverage.
What I have found over the past three days though has been fantastic. It's a little tricky in the morning, but after about 10:30 a.m. - 11 a.m. stuff gets good. Number one on my list is water polo. Water polo rocks, although it will never be as big in the U.S. as it is in, say, Romania.
Why's that you ask? Don't worry I'll tell you.
America's three most popular sports are let's say: football, basketball, and baseball. (NASCAR could probably be up there too, but I don't count the South, and neither should you.) One of the things that makes these sports popular is the physical nature inherent in each of these sports. Football has guys diving for catches and smashing into each other. Basketball has guys soaring through the air for dunks. And baseball is a suspense filled guessing game of waiting to see whether or not something interesting will happen.
Water polo on the other hand has the distinct disadvantage of being played in a pool where 3/4's of the players bodies are submerged. It's a simply a mess of bodies that are impossible to distinguish from one another. They keep talking about this one U.S. woman player who scores a lot, but I can never figure out which one she is because they only wear numbers on their swimming caps. Do you know how small those numbers are? Crazy small.
But here's why I love it. As much as Americans hate soccer, the one thing that sport gets right is a running clock. The running clock is more or less utilized in a similar way in water polo with penalties taken on the fly without stopping play completely. Also, unlike soccer, there is a fair amount of scoring, but with a goalie in place the game play becomes more comparable to hockey. It's fast paced, aggressive and Americans are doing pretty well in it, despite most of the U.S. population not really caring.
(Olympic question posed by my friend Jon: Are water polo players bigger bro's than LAX players? Things to consider.)
I also watched field hockey for the first time ever, and in all honesty didn't really enjoy it. I'll stick to watching it on the ice rather than on a damp blue turf field framed in bubblegum, thank you. That being said, the U.S. women are doing pretty well and I will continue to support them.
Other U.S. women teams doing well: soccer, indoor volleyball and basketball. The U.S. women's soccer team has been amazing to watch. They actually make the game enjoyable. Indoor volleyball has also been surprisingly entertaining. Did you know the U.S. women's indoor volleyball team is ranked
number one in the world? I didn't, but they are certainly showing me why they are. The men are right there with them taking on some good teams and pulling out the wins.
Oh, and as expected, basketball (men and women) are dominating, cause we're the BEST! AROUND!
But back to what I was originally intending for this post to be about.
While watching the U.S. women's water polo take on Spain toda,y I saw Spain go on a breakaway and score. A breakaway. In water polo. In a pool. Swimming. I never even thought that could happen. So I posted a tweet (follow me @cswiets) about my astonishment, because that's one of the things you tweet about when you're unemployed and watching water polo on a Wednesday afternoon.
My friend Jordan (follow him at @jnip11, but don;t you dare start reading his blog) pointed out that Water Polo Break Away (TM) would be a good band name. I agreed and have now trademarked it making me the sole owner of said name.
I think of good band names a lot, but the sad thing is I will never be a band. I have pretty much zero musical talent with any instrument and my vocals are mediocre at best (although in today's music industry that might be good enough - ZING!). I think the best thing to do with a good band name is fictionalize them in a story, get that story published and make sure people read it. Then some kid who has a crappy garage band will read the book and steal the name. Therefore allowing me to have my cake, and eat it too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)