Concert Gouging

Aight, I'm a huge fan of classic rock-but some of these bands are charging way too much for concerts these days...

Bands like the Stones, Rush, Aerosmith are charging $80-$100+ a piece for tickets! Just today I hear about a Skynrd concert for $60 a copy! Sixty dollars to see Lynrd Skynrd?! Thats insane! You know, I liked "Sweet Home Alabama" the first 5000 times I heard it. Now when I hear that song I want to bang my head against the wall. The sad part is, its a great song. It's just so overplayed that its value has gone down to zero. Now they want me to pay $60 to see maybe one or two original members struggle through "Give Me Three Steps". GTF-outta here!

As much as I love these bands I think they've been around long enough and played to enough people that tickets should be $5 a copy! And Skynrd...they should be giving those tickets away for free. Plus why do I want to hang out with a bunch of 50yr old drunk biker's smokin' skunk weed throwin' up the devil horns while AC DC plays in the background. I can go down to 6th street and see that for free!

I have much respect for the greatness that came out of classic rock-but I'm not willing to pay $80 a copy to see Gene Simmons squeeze into an outfit from 30 years ago.

The Godfather vs. Scarface

I don't want my Godfather being a Scarface!

This will be short...

Maybe its because I'm of Italian heritage or maybe because I don't like actors playing too many specific roles. At any rate, I have to say I've never seen Scarface for the simple reason that I don't want my Godfather being a Scarface!

First off, I love Al Pacino as my Godfather. I accept Al Pacino as my Godfather. Like any good Italian, I respect my Godfather. I accept his position as rightful heir to the Corleone Family (besides the fact that Sonny's dead and Fredo is a jadrool). What I don't respect is a traditore. Obviously not in a literal sense but I have to admit after seeing "The Godfather" at a young age and then (years later) learning of this "Scarface" flick, I felt betrayed! How could an actor play a character so close to his roots (as an Italian) then flip flop and play a dirty Cuban gangster-marona me!

Obviously, I'm not sincerely angry about this transition but I've never seen "Scarface" and I refuse to see "Scarface." That's because in my head Al Pacino is my Godfather! Maybe it's selfish, maybe it's childish, but at least "The Godfather" was shot on something other than an 8mm camera. Plus the story line is much more complex and thought out than "Scarface." The only appeal to "Scarface" was the drugs and guns. Plus I'd take Connie over Gina any day.

Now, I realize I'm nobody and the genius that is Al Pacino is to be recognized. He's a great actor and has conquered so many roles including one of my favorites being Satan in "The Devil's Advocate." I in no way mean to dismiss his great talent. I'm just saying that it's odd that actors get cast in so many different roles and chose to play them. I mean, when Al was first approached to play "Scarface," a Cuban immigrant, did he ever think about the effect on his previous role as and Italian mafia don? Or what his loyal fans of that iconic character might think!? I guess a paycheck with a certain number of zero's on it might sway your decision a bit.

Definitely!

The word "definitely" is being used too much and in the wrong context.

My irritation with the word "definitely" began when I was forced to watch reality t.v. with my girlfriend. Now, for the most part, I don't watch reality t.v. I'm more of a documentary/history channel/sports kind of guy. However I do on occasion get hooked into reality t.v. During these moments of weakness I've found that one thing which irritates me more than the bad behavior and the general uselessness of reality-is the use of the word "definitely."

Watch any reality show and I'll guarantee you hear the word "definitely" at least 10 times. And thats being liberal. A large percentage of these celebutards on reality t.v uses this word too often and usually in the wrong context.

A few words that describe definitely are: unequivocal, positively and unambiguously. However, when watching reality t.v, you may hear some dumb broad or metrosexual himbo say something like:

"I definitely think that she might be the girl I'm looking for."

"I definitely think that because of this experience I might finally be on the right path."

"I definitely think that this plastic surgery will probably help me become comfortable with myself."

If you think about it, nearly all of these statements are basically double negatives. Actually, you don't have to think about it-they are. What does that say about the people on these shows and the time spent on them? It comes down to people being intrigued by bad behavior and stupid people. Or, at least people who we perceive to be stupider than us, right? I mean, isn't that the appeal of reality t.v? To watch people make the decisions you wouldn't make. To see people backstab their best friend for a large sum of money. How definite are these people? How definite would you be in their shoes?

Remakes and Casting

Okay peeps, here's my take on recent remakes and the casting of some of these remakes:

Now, I realize that as new and younger directors and writers come onto the scene in Hollywood that many of these people are our (or my) age. So I understand the fascination and influx of 80's cartoons, sitcoms and movie remakes emerging due to the fact that these newbies share the same childhood classics as we (or I) did. However, I do have some heat on the deal.

First, I don't find any problem remaking some types of films. For example, horror films. I can understand horror films being remade because the CGI and "idea" of what is scary these days is radically different than 20-30 years ago. It takes a lot more to scare audiences today. We need physical evidence of whatever's creeping up that scantily clad girls leg underneath the covers.

In the 50's/60's the costumes and effects were so bad that the films were not even scary. Or at least not scary enough for audiences these days. In the 70's, it seems that filming everything in the dark equaled scary. Actually, when I think of nearly any movie from the 70's I think of low lighting and shadows-come to think of it, I hate movies from the 70's for that reason. What was up with that? Anyway the 80's brought us more in depth costumes and gore, but the acting was so incredibly cheesy that it couldn't be taken seriously. I mean c'mon, was anyone really scared of Creepshow?

What am I getting at? I'm getting sick of classic movies being remade that have the same story line. Albeit they know how to play on the originals and poke a little fun but there's some movies that just don't need to be remade.

My antagonist in this blog is the new Karate Kid. In my opinion, this is not a movie that needs to be remade. Why? Because there's no reason for it. Boy moves to new city (country), is different and doesn't fit in, tries to fit in but can't, finds mentor and learns to build confidence, proves that he can stand up for himself, wins respect.

Now, obviously there's a thousand movies (refer to book: "Save the Cat" that explains that theres a limited, I think 4, types of movies) with the same concept. For example, The Godfather and The Bad News Bears are basically the same movie. Obviously with this new Karate Kid there will be some subtle differences and jokes or knocks on the original, but in the end, the story is the same. Do we really need to redo the film for a new generation? Why not just show them the original? There's no special effects that today's CGI can add that will improve the film. There's no new angle that's going to put a whole new spin on the outcome. Okay, maybe the flying crane will be replaced by a rear naked choke. Other than that, I just don't see a reason to remake the film.

On the "actors in roles" tip, I'm frankly tired of seeing the same actors playing star roles in numerous films. I want my hero to be someone I don't know. Even if they are a well known actor, I don't want them in numerous main character roles.

Example one, this Liam Neeson. This dude had been in tons of films (even one of my fav's Excalibur '81. And who cares about Darkman?) but when he showed up as Qui-Gon Jinn, I thought, okay-I can handle that-Liam's a good actor, aged and wise. Good casting for a Jedi Master. Then, he shows up as Henri Ducard in Batman Begins. Which, don't get me started on the anger I feel for that film not being a period piece. So that was like-ok, fine, whatever. Then he's Zeus in the Clash of the Titans remake. Now he's Hannibal in the A-Team! I can't take this guy anymore!

Example two, this Christian Bale. Dude was great in American Pshycho. I thought he was a descent Batman. Actually, I like him as Batman because it's Batman in his early stages where he's not sure what route he's going. I think he did a good job. But then, he's cast as John Connor in another Terminator film. I don't want my Batman being John Connor! Get a new actor! Get someone you don't have to pay $8,000,0000! Give someone else a chance! If this jerk gets cast as He-Man in a Masters of the Universe remake I'm gonna bang my head against the wall.

And don't get me started on Al Pacino being The Godfather and Scarface! Actually, that's worth another whole blog. Stay tuned kids......

Global Warming...

This is not as detailed as I would go in an actual conversation-this is just a fischer-price version on the deal...

Now, I agree the idea of global warming leaves a lot to consider. I mean to say, the Earth is pretty frickin' big and has been around for a long time. It has obviously seen its share of climate change throughout it's lifetime. Clearly the Earth has a way of making up for, and dealing with, extreme weather conditions. However, every addition we make to the earth be it through cities, buildings, vehicles or even humans themselves-takes up space and creates heat. Not too many of man's technological advances focus on or produce cooler temperatures. So the idea that humanity's additions upon the Earth has zero influence on the Earth's atmosphere, no matter how large or small, and no matter how the Earth compensates for it, seems a little harder to grasp-in my opinion.

I know there's been new evidence showing that scientists and researchers who work in the global warming field have fudged their results-it's not a big surprise. Theres a lot of money to be made in the name of global warming. You know, I'd like to think Al Gore meant well, but c'mon, he's a politician-you think he didn't get paid for "An Inconvenient Truth"? Although there are probably a lot of scientists and researchers who actually care about the Earth, I bet there's a shit ton more who get paid by companies (and lobbyists) that gain from global warming.

Global Warming = Big Business.

Companies who project an image that cares about recycling and claims to be "doing their part for a cleaner tomorrow" can add millions of dollars in revenue and profit by appealing to climate conscience consumers. All it takes is adding the familiar (three arrowed) recycling logo to a plastic water bottle, health bar or toilet paper package to lead a consumer to believe that they themselves are doing their part to help the Earth simply by buying that product. Before you know it, the same consumer tells Stacy down the street, Janice at the gym and Cindy at the church about the product they've found that is "Earth friendly," which is exactly the idea. So a company that spends an extra $.1 to acquire the rights to plaster the international logo for recycling on their product (and added $.3 to the price) has added revenue and profit (over 200% for the recycling logo alone) on top of the mark up that it cost to manufacture the product in the first place. Not to mention the company only has to recycle 1/32 of the waste it produces to be considered "eco-friendly."

Global Warming + Politics

This is simple. Global warming should not be a consideration when it comes to deciding on who to vote for. To tell you the truth, I don't think it really is (right now) to most people. Global warming is not a stance or a belief that should determine which candidate is right for the job, it's a non-issue. Global warming (whether one thinks it's happening or not) should be something humans work on. It's not a moral, or character issue.

So What Should We Do...?

I think we should give a shit. I mean, whether global warming is happening or not, shouldn't we as humans care about what we are doing to the only planet (for now) that we have to live on!? I mean, should it really matter if green house gasses exist? Shouldn't we say "hey, umm, burning these fossil fuels is kinda polluting our atmosphere and slowly poisoning all of us. Let's not do that anymore." And (yes I started a sentence with "and") to anyone that says that fossil fuels hasn't been proven to damage the atmosphere or humans-look at a picture of Houston, LA, or Mexico City from the suburbs. Still not convinced? Put your lips around the tail pipe of a car and breathe in, let me know how it feels. It only takes some common sense to realize that even if burning fossil fuels isn't adding to the overall temperature of the Earth-it's still not a good thing to be breathing in. With so many clean alternative ways to produce fuel and electricity, doesn't it seem like common sense to be incorporating these technologies into our lives?

That's what it comes down to. You either give a shit or you don't. You either care about what kind of Earth you leave behind or you don't. Most likely you or I won't be around when humans colonize another planet-but the people after us who do, may not colonize another planet because of amazing technological advances, but because the generations that came before them trashed their home planet so badly, that they had no choice.

Stay on Land

I don't understand all these people swimming in the ocean. There's freakin' scary sea creatures out there that can bite you in half man! What is so hard about stay-on-land!