Because of my Walking Dead reviews, I feel like I should start Breaking Bad. I'll probably get on that in the next couple of weeks when I run out of ideas for blogs.
Breaking Bad was about the only thing I heard being talked about in the hallways of school for years. This show is apparently different from others. It has very few unlikeable characters, deep and compelling dialogue, and the greatest sense of suspense is created with this program.
However, I'm very skeptical of all the praise it receives. Because I've heard this before with Sons of Anarchy, and man that turned out to be a biker soap opera. I'll give it credit for it's first season, especially it's first episode which blew me out of the water. Unlike the pilot episode of The Walking Dead, which was fairly boring, and full of laughably shallow plot devices. However, The Walking Dead has received an increased budget. Which I believe saved the show from Cancelation. These two shows are "critically acclaimed" but have had a lot of low points.
So I'm just curious if there is were parts of Breaking Bad that were not enjoyable, or made you face palm over and over again.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Walking Dead, It's Starting to get Better
I'm now in the third season, and my oh my is there a stark contrast in the quality of season three, and the first two. Sure the special effect still pretty much suck, and the guns don't have any recoil. Plus the zombie blood is still pretty obviously fake, but these are just minor details in the grand scheme of things. Thank the lord that Shane is gone and that Lori is too. That love triangle was terrible. It only served to make Carl a weaker character because his main purpose was to create tension between Shane and Lori. Which culminated to Shane being killed by Rick, which was fairly lackluster. Then this had to be followed by an enormous swarm of "walkers" conveniently making them vacate their current domicile. Where will they now you ask? Where else but a prison.
The prison seemed to be safe, but clearly wasn't. If there are gates that keeps the zombies out, logically speaking wouldn't that keep them in. And good lord there were a lot of those zombies being kept in. When that drama of that wore off they found some prisoners to drive the plot forward. Don't get me wrong clearing those tunnels would be the freakiest dang thing ever. I can't imagine legitimately doing that. The wow factor of those dark, dank, cramped tunnels was off put by two of the prisoners. After being locked up in a pantry for 10 months those men would have become puppy dogs and kissed anyone's ass who had just saved them. Plus I have to say it, how is anyone keeping up a well defined muscular build? Where is anyone getting their protein? This only made sense when our lovable gang of misfits were on the farm consuming eggs, and beef. But those prisoners lived off of bread crumbs, and other non-perishable food stuffs. In order to preserve there stock of food, they wouldn't have been working out either. So how did they come out with perfect builds? Sorry, that, and the lack of any realism in the guns just rubs me the wrong way. In light of all my knit picking I really enjoyed season three. Season two was just, oh lord... That still gives me nightmares, oh the horrible everything...
I enjoyed a lot of season three, but I had some complaints. With a bigger budget this show was truly able to flourish to a higher standard. This allowed them to make a large set, purchase plenty of firearms, hire more actors, buy newer and more expensive vehicles, and have a larger production value over all. However, the two bit comic villain with a dang eye patch slayed me. He's some wacko that stares at severed heads, and has a creepy relationship with his imprisoned zombiefied daughter. When he got that eye patch, lord have mercy. I lost the ability top take a sadistic, and highly deranged villain seriously. An eye patch, Honestly? Then there was his plus one. The horribly gullible Andrea who was riding her high horse with a stick up her butt. Her taste in men has left the audience collectively shaking their heads. Because this show has an extreme aversion to letting any of it's so called protagonists being seen as bad, she'll redeem herself a minute or so before she dies.
The prison seemed to be safe, but clearly wasn't. If there are gates that keeps the zombies out, logically speaking wouldn't that keep them in. And good lord there were a lot of those zombies being kept in. When that drama of that wore off they found some prisoners to drive the plot forward. Don't get me wrong clearing those tunnels would be the freakiest dang thing ever. I can't imagine legitimately doing that. The wow factor of those dark, dank, cramped tunnels was off put by two of the prisoners. After being locked up in a pantry for 10 months those men would have become puppy dogs and kissed anyone's ass who had just saved them. Plus I have to say it, how is anyone keeping up a well defined muscular build? Where is anyone getting their protein? This only made sense when our lovable gang of misfits were on the farm consuming eggs, and beef. But those prisoners lived off of bread crumbs, and other non-perishable food stuffs. In order to preserve there stock of food, they wouldn't have been working out either. So how did they come out with perfect builds? Sorry, that, and the lack of any realism in the guns just rubs me the wrong way. In light of all my knit picking I really enjoyed season three. Season two was just, oh lord... That still gives me nightmares, oh the horrible everything...
I enjoyed a lot of season three, but I had some complaints. With a bigger budget this show was truly able to flourish to a higher standard. This allowed them to make a large set, purchase plenty of firearms, hire more actors, buy newer and more expensive vehicles, and have a larger production value over all. However, the two bit comic villain with a dang eye patch slayed me. He's some wacko that stares at severed heads, and has a creepy relationship with his imprisoned zombiefied daughter. When he got that eye patch, lord have mercy. I lost the ability top take a sadistic, and highly deranged villain seriously. An eye patch, Honestly? Then there was his plus one. The horribly gullible Andrea who was riding her high horse with a stick up her butt. Her taste in men has left the audience collectively shaking their heads. Because this show has an extreme aversion to letting any of it's so called protagonists being seen as bad, she'll redeem herself a minute or so before she dies.
Typical show stereotypes, The Walking Dead
All shows go through some similar plotlines, or episodes that are copied in verbatim. Such as with any cartoon comedy sketch show has to go through a doppelgänger episode, time travel, new kid at school, switched consciousness with friends and family, etc... Now the more serious "critically" acclaimed shows must fair better in terms of original story ideas, eh they are carbon copies with a different color. Which is fine considering that it is almost impossible to think up new plot lines. However, the real problem with shows anymore is the heavy prevalence of stereotypes in most shows, especially the Walking Dead.
Every new plot twist is placed on the back of an obvious stereotype. I'll be honest I'm not a fan of trying to be politically correct, or saying everything is racist, and sexist. But, when there is blatant b.s. going on to propel the plot it gets old really fast. First and foremost is one that is almost pop culture in nature. The black guy always dying first (in a horror movie). Or only having one or two black people on the show at any one point in time. The record so far is three. But most of the time one has to be killed off first in order for another to appear. Which is always a shame because they tend to be one of the best characters at that point in time. So I try to enjoy their character for the short shelf life that they have. The worst offender of this would have to be the showing of women.
The Walking Dead treats it's female characters like a 1950's stereotype. In this show women aren't shown to be useful, at least not in any area that wouldn't be seen as "women's work". In the beginning of the Atlanta group we are shown that the women are the only ones doing laundry or washing anything. This continues throughout the program. Of course these women are also lorded over by abusive or possessive male characters. Which I obviously feel great about how my gender is being represented so well. This is then followed by a female character whose only job is to be purposefully annoying. Such as Lori being mad at Rick unreasonably, and for some reason being a terrible mom. The only reason for that is somehow she is completely unable to watch her son. Which is 70% of the plot in season two. This is then followed by Andrea. Whom appears to lack any sense of good judgment. First being a pain over her gun, then acting like she was too good to be doing any chores. Then the wonderful string of good judgment known as the governor. She continues to be the main focus of the current anti-heroine.
Every new plot twist is placed on the back of an obvious stereotype. I'll be honest I'm not a fan of trying to be politically correct, or saying everything is racist, and sexist. But, when there is blatant b.s. going on to propel the plot it gets old really fast. First and foremost is one that is almost pop culture in nature. The black guy always dying first (in a horror movie). Or only having one or two black people on the show at any one point in time. The record so far is three. But most of the time one has to be killed off first in order for another to appear. Which is always a shame because they tend to be one of the best characters at that point in time. So I try to enjoy their character for the short shelf life that they have. The worst offender of this would have to be the showing of women.
The Walking Dead treats it's female characters like a 1950's stereotype. In this show women aren't shown to be useful, at least not in any area that wouldn't be seen as "women's work". In the beginning of the Atlanta group we are shown that the women are the only ones doing laundry or washing anything. This continues throughout the program. Of course these women are also lorded over by abusive or possessive male characters. Which I obviously feel great about how my gender is being represented so well. This is then followed by a female character whose only job is to be purposefully annoying. Such as Lori being mad at Rick unreasonably, and for some reason being a terrible mom. The only reason for that is somehow she is completely unable to watch her son. Which is 70% of the plot in season two. This is then followed by Andrea. Whom appears to lack any sense of good judgment. First being a pain over her gun, then acting like she was too good to be doing any chores. Then the wonderful string of good judgment known as the governor. She continues to be the main focus of the current anti-heroine.
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Really Walking Dead, Really?
Well this show has some seriously shallow plot devices, and important points that are left unaddressed.
Walking Deads' plot is full of more holes than Swiss cheese. He would have a gnarly infection from his gunshot wound, which would have killed him before he even woke up. Mr. Deputy Sheriff also didn't receive any physical therapy, and we can assume was without medical care for quite some time. Which begs the question as to how wasn't he suffering from dehydration, or dead from it. So even if he wasn't killed by any number of medical issues, it would be unlikely that he would recover. He then gets hit in the face with a shovel, the impact would have broken his nose. My favorite would be how he found a horse and knocked the dust off the old riding skills in a couple a seconds. Another example of some simple action attempting to push forward the plot would be the dropped key down the exhaust pipe of the building. Are you kidding me? That should be something I see out of a crappy kids show. Not a so called "critically acclaimed" series, that so far is one of the worst shows I've seen in a while. Maybe it gets better with a larger budget, but dang it will have to work hard in order to impress me after its' sorry start.
Walking Deads' plot is full of more holes than Swiss cheese. He would have a gnarly infection from his gunshot wound, which would have killed him before he even woke up. Mr. Deputy Sheriff also didn't receive any physical therapy, and we can assume was without medical care for quite some time. Which begs the question as to how wasn't he suffering from dehydration, or dead from it. So even if he wasn't killed by any number of medical issues, it would be unlikely that he would recover. He then gets hit in the face with a shovel, the impact would have broken his nose. My favorite would be how he found a horse and knocked the dust off the old riding skills in a couple a seconds. Another example of some simple action attempting to push forward the plot would be the dropped key down the exhaust pipe of the building. Are you kidding me? That should be something I see out of a crappy kids show. Not a so called "critically acclaimed" series, that so far is one of the worst shows I've seen in a while. Maybe it gets better with a larger budget, but dang it will have to work hard in order to impress me after its' sorry start.
Starting the Walking Dead, First Impressions.
Well I finally gave in. I'm starting to watch "The Walking Dead", I've been extremely unmotivated to start this program. Now why is that you ask? Because this is just another one of the cookie cutter drama shows that I couldn't care less about. An uninspired show full of thirty-five minutes of fluff, with maybe a shot of quality heart-felt dialogue or action. This may be sufficient for most people who get their standards of what is entertaining from Twitter. But, I demand a higher quality product. Which is why I typically stick to Japanese anime. They are able to put out a much higher quality of a show because they often have only twelve to around thirty episodes (granted some great ones are around 40-65 episodes). Also, seeing as how the program has ran it's course I have heard quite a few bits of information about the show that now make it seem less special, the same goes for Breaking Bad. People never stopped talking about that show until they found the new "Best show I've ever seen!". So here we go, first Impressions of a show I have watched two episodes of.
Walking Deads' first two episodes were slow to start and very uninspiring. Enter a cop, burned out vehicles everywhere, then shoots a little girl whom has had her face chewed off. This is followed by a rant by a seemingly stupid deputy of the main character. This mainly monologue filled with sexist remarks from some dumb hick seemed tired but purposeful. My first thought with that was "Oh, he is the bad guy that treats women bad. So he was put there for the female audience to get mad about, and then become excited when he gets killed a third of the way through the series..." turns out I wasn't actually all that wrong. Which is pretty self-evident when he is clearly raping the main characters wife, whom he was supposed to be friends with. Real classy Walking Dead, way to support the idea that all shows must have sex in them. And that the only purpose of the female characters is to be raped to create drama for the viewer, or make problems for the male characters to solve. Like when the female pointed the gun at the Sheriffs head and she didn't know the safety was on. Of course, there also had to be the gruff racist southerner or this show couldn't be complete. He will die soon after a heartfelt friendship forms with people of color, and he'll die saving them, probably. A pretty good part of the first episode was the Black guy and his son meeting our beloved sheriff, after knocking him out. The high point was when the black father couldn't shoot his wife. This was a great scene for many reasons. It made the audience ask itself "Could I do it? Would I have the guts to shoot my significant other?", it also allowed his character to show realistic emotion that truly spoke to the viewer.
I'm not overly impressed, but I'll attempt to keep watching.
Mobile Phone Gaming, Don't Get Involved
(*Disclaimer: The following paragraph is pretty much a rant fueled by my phone being frozen for fifteen minutes after trying to open a game on my phone.)
Oh lord, mobile gaming is just garbage. Everything about this new platform is lazy and almost pathetic. The games themselves are extremely unimaginative and suck so much battery from your phone you are left with a crucial decision, play the game, or be able to actually use your phone for more than an hour. Plus, it is very possible to get a virus from these games because of advertisements, or shady games. I received an almost phone breaking virus from Boom Beach which randomly shut off my phone. The virus stayed on my phone for a couple of weeks after un-installment of the app. That being said I don't know how the app came from Boom Beach, and I have nothing against that game. The sad part being I really enjoyed that game. Now my experience may not be so common. Why is that? Well I am part of a minority of teens that do not care about getting a new phone. The problem with staying with my old Galaxy s3 is that I haven't received a software update in around two years. Leaving my phone hopelessly behind the curve, and prone to malfunctioning. So using my phone on a daily basis is a pain because of constant freezing, and lagging. (*Rant Over, Thanks for Listening)
Back to the topic at hand mobile gaming on your phone is good for app designers, but very bad for consumers. Now that seems like a silly statement doesn't it folks? However, when you stop to think about it what are you really getting out of your games? Sure, a small amount of fun. But what does that fun cost you? Most games allow you to pay for free. Except those "free" games still put on ads that put your phone at risk for malware, or other nasty stuff. The problem with not paying physical currency in exchange for in-game money, leaves the user to spend hours grinding away to get meager amounts of so called "loot" (Experience Points, gold/money/gems/coins). So you end up paying with your time, not the cash in your wallet. This leaves a majority of sane people (myself included) who refuse to pay one cent to some stupid game that will give a couple weeks of entertainment, which leaves us spending way too much time playing. The time spent with that could have been used for much more productive things such as homework, seeing friends (real ones, not your clan buddies from thirty-seven countries), and being more social when around other people. This problem isn't just for teenagers mid you, it spans over most age groups. Mobile gaming has become an epidemic for wasting time because the games are no longer limited to your home, or don't come in the form of an expensive mobile gaming platform.
The problem with Mobile Gaming is it's accessibility, which leads to overuse. In around thirty seconds a person can open up their favorite game and start playing. Any chance people get they open up a game and get immersed in it. This is especially true at school. I can't tell you how any times I see people wasting their time on a stupid game instead of paying attention. Phone gaming has allowed people an inconspicuous way to play, and not get caught. The reason my classmates easily become addicted to their games is because of how easy they are to access. This wasn't a problem when games were limited to households, and arcades. It's important to note that consumers have been able to do this with hand held gaming devices but these are much more cumbersome and are hard to hide under a desk. Those gaming systems are also quite costly. While most games are now technically "free". Phone gaming has allowed people an inconspicuous way to play, and not get caught.
Oh lord, mobile gaming is just garbage. Everything about this new platform is lazy and almost pathetic. The games themselves are extremely unimaginative and suck so much battery from your phone you are left with a crucial decision, play the game, or be able to actually use your phone for more than an hour. Plus, it is very possible to get a virus from these games because of advertisements, or shady games. I received an almost phone breaking virus from Boom Beach which randomly shut off my phone. The virus stayed on my phone for a couple of weeks after un-installment of the app. That being said I don't know how the app came from Boom Beach, and I have nothing against that game. The sad part being I really enjoyed that game. Now my experience may not be so common. Why is that? Well I am part of a minority of teens that do not care about getting a new phone. The problem with staying with my old Galaxy s3 is that I haven't received a software update in around two years. Leaving my phone hopelessly behind the curve, and prone to malfunctioning. So using my phone on a daily basis is a pain because of constant freezing, and lagging. (*Rant Over, Thanks for Listening)
Back to the topic at hand mobile gaming on your phone is good for app designers, but very bad for consumers. Now that seems like a silly statement doesn't it folks? However, when you stop to think about it what are you really getting out of your games? Sure, a small amount of fun. But what does that fun cost you? Most games allow you to pay for free. Except those "free" games still put on ads that put your phone at risk for malware, or other nasty stuff. The problem with not paying physical currency in exchange for in-game money, leaves the user to spend hours grinding away to get meager amounts of so called "loot" (Experience Points, gold/money/gems/coins). So you end up paying with your time, not the cash in your wallet. This leaves a majority of sane people (myself included) who refuse to pay one cent to some stupid game that will give a couple weeks of entertainment, which leaves us spending way too much time playing. The time spent with that could have been used for much more productive things such as homework, seeing friends (real ones, not your clan buddies from thirty-seven countries), and being more social when around other people. This problem isn't just for teenagers mid you, it spans over most age groups. Mobile gaming has become an epidemic for wasting time because the games are no longer limited to your home, or don't come in the form of an expensive mobile gaming platform.
The problem with Mobile Gaming is it's accessibility, which leads to overuse. In around thirty seconds a person can open up their favorite game and start playing. Any chance people get they open up a game and get immersed in it. This is especially true at school. I can't tell you how any times I see people wasting their time on a stupid game instead of paying attention. Phone gaming has allowed people an inconspicuous way to play, and not get caught. The reason my classmates easily become addicted to their games is because of how easy they are to access. This wasn't a problem when games were limited to households, and arcades. It's important to note that consumers have been able to do this with hand held gaming devices but these are much more cumbersome and are hard to hide under a desk. Those gaming systems are also quite costly. While most games are now technically "free". Phone gaming has allowed people an inconspicuous way to play, and not get caught.
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Celiac Woes
Going out to a restaurant, a time that's supposed to be full of good times and good food, but having a food allergy drastically changes the experience. Before we dive into this I'd like to say that a food allergy is such a pain, it seems like a small matter but it rears it's ugly head everywhere you look. I have celiac disease, better known as being "Gluten-Free". No I'm not one of those cliche trend surfing hipster idiots that take it upon themselves to be as fake as Hillary Clinton. Alright enough of the rant, I'm better than that. On to the main obstacle of this disease, finding food at restaurants and home that won't bore oneself to tears.
It's challenging to find food that I'm truly excited about when out to eat. In the beginning of having this disease it was honestly pretty depressing. Being in middle school and having to watch all the other kids be able to eat whatever they wanted and I hate to bring a stupid lunchbox. I ended up having to put my lunch meat on chips because gluten free bread was still in it's infancy and man was it bad. But over time the gluten free movement gained a lot of ground and many substitutes started to pop up.
My hometown has been a major help for gluten free options. Being a more modern town, my hometown has evolved into more of a midwestern Seattle in recent years. A hipster Mecca if you will. With the building of a market area downtown, and multiple other old locations being destroyed and turned into health food markets many more options are being opened up to me. Alos, several gluten free options are opening up. Where a lot of growth in the gluten free sector is would be major chain restaurants. Whether it be Culver's/Red Robin and their addition of gluten free buns,or all the major fast food pizza/ pizza delivery places offering gluten free crusts, gluten free foods have truly become more prevalent in our society. Also, many new products have become to stock the shelves of the organic/health food sections of the local super markets. All these little additions add up to mean the world to me.
Sports
Sports, easily one of the most divisive source of entertainment today. People get crazy over what team is better. Rivalries are very bitter between fans of certain teams. And if you're in Europe watch out for those crazy football fans, they'll kill people sometimes after a disappointing loss. Which is totally acceptable behavior, or maybe not. Also the majority of people who enjoy sports are predominantly male and women typically don't enjoy watching sports for hours. By contrast males would rather die than watch a Say Yes to the Dress marathon. Therefore unless they are conditioned, women don't love watching sweaty guys run around and play with a ball for hours, especially if the sport is American Football. It's so much more exciting if you have played the sport in the past. This makes you understand the game so much more and brings you into an understanding with other players on the proper way to act during the game. These are things that totally escape me seeing as how I have only played baseball and even though I was good I didn't find it fulfilling. So I feel horribly bored when any type of sports come on. Mainly because I usually feel like the odd one out, and that any comment I make is seen as annoying or unnecessary. So I sit down and try to be one with the others as much as possible. But if you aren't part of that group it becomes difficult to try and find the right moments to say something and what to say.
There are so many sports to choose from that anyone can find one they enjoy. Of course the world wide favorite would have to be soccer but different countries may find pleasure in other activities depending on the wealth and climate of the country. Such as the northern countries focus on winter sports, which makes sense seeing as how their climate may make other sports hard to play and practice for, making hockey, skiing, snowboarding, and other winter Olympic sports very popular. Countries around the equator wouldn’t be able to focus on such sports because their country would not be able to have their own team, making it impossible for the country to have true national pride for a team they support since it wouldn't be their own. Now rich countries like America is a true jack of all trades when it comes to sports. America has both the infrastructure and national pride to propel them forward in almost every sport. Never is this more prevalent than in America's dominance in basketball. We here in America really love us some basketball, most players start from a very young age watching NBA and dreaming to becoming like them. Sports are heavily tied in with the American dream and that's why we do so well with them.Boredom Identity
I can't remember the last time I was excited to go to the movies, or listen to the radio. Because it seems like I just watched or heard the same thing last week. My word I get tired of the formulas used to create today's so called "entertainment". I just wait for it to come to DVD to be marginally impressed. Or turn off the radio after hearing the seven or eight songs that will be on it for the next month. Now don't mistake my demeanour for pessimism, I just have low expectations for most things. Which apparently makes me a happier person according to a recent issue of Time magazine, because then I'm never disappointed. Sure I feel a little left out of the monotonous conversation about the new _________ man movie or the title which goes as follows, adjective followed by noun. My only problem with the level of quality is that I'm always left wanting more. Pretty much like eating at the same restaurant day in and day out because your friends have no standards and everything is always "the best". Which makes the chance of getting something different almost like the next hit of meth (I know, a bit morbid), an insatiable want. I yearn for another Silence of the Lambs, Saving Private Ryan, and Green Mile. Sure for the hipsters any hint of artistic flavor makes it an instant classic, well I'm tired of Art House crap. Give me some grit with legitimate substance, suspense that doesn't stick to a rigid plot line which makes the outcome so obvious it's almost pathetic. Now it's not like I'm oblivious, I know a lot of focus is on people in tights because that's what sells. I'm just saying that I'm over the trend. "Hulk Smash!" doesn't do it for me, tell me hulk why DO YOU SMASH? Did you have a sad home life, not many friends as a child, got your lunch money taken? I'm aware that there have been background movies, but they seriously lack depth. It's as though those movies have the attention span of their targeted audience "Ugh, why do I care about Bruce Wayne's parents I wanna see Batman". Kinda want to tell them to go sit in the corner and calm down. But, I know that i have to take a step back and realize what the whole purpose of these movies are. To make as much money as humanly possible through the movie itself, and all other merchandise including video games,clothes and the soundtrack. So yeah, of course these movies won’t be reflected upon in the future as some great achievement, more like super cheesy. Because by then their special effects will eclipse the capabilities of our own.
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Star Wars 7, the first good Star Wars?
In the era of "Hmm I'm out of ideas what movies can we redo that no one cares about" looking at you "Pan", it was interesting to see that an enormous blockbuster was coming back, Star Wars. However its not as though Star Wars ever went dormant. The film has been represented in many different forms such as a gaggle of toys/promotional items, video games to animated spin offs, and a ridiculous amount of content in the expanded universe novels.
The giant is back, and I feel and though this will be the first well done Star Wars. Pardon my French fan boys, but these films were just cash cows. Little effort was put towards the acting or lines, especially in the three more recent ones. Leaving only the special effects for any source of possible entertainment. Needless to say I wasn't impressed by the time I was 8. If you can't stimulate an eight year old then that is a little sad. Except now the special effects look so beautiful that it'll put Avatar to shame (The Blue Pocahontas hair fetish one). Finally Star Wars is huge, it looks big, bad, and oh so cool. Of course the previous ones seemed like that to the audiences of their time, and I respect the amount of work that went into the films. But hey I'm picky and I want to be amazed.
By golly the teaser trailers looked amazing, but I'm much more curious about the personality behind those curvaceous lines of code. This is by far the most nerve racking part of seeing a revival of a successful film. I was taught this sad and upsetting lesson with the new Lord of the Rings trilogy. Goodness me those were terrible, they stretched that plot out more than Kim K's pregnancy pants. It was one short book, not even close to enough content for over 9 hours of movie (this is a rant best saved for another post, ah... the anger). But honestly folks, a movie has to have moving and believable dialogue in order to truly be considered great.
I'm hoping for the best, what about you?
The giant is back, and I feel and though this will be the first well done Star Wars. Pardon my French fan boys, but these films were just cash cows. Little effort was put towards the acting or lines, especially in the three more recent ones. Leaving only the special effects for any source of possible entertainment. Needless to say I wasn't impressed by the time I was 8. If you can't stimulate an eight year old then that is a little sad. Except now the special effects look so beautiful that it'll put Avatar to shame (The Blue Pocahontas hair fetish one). Finally Star Wars is huge, it looks big, bad, and oh so cool. Of course the previous ones seemed like that to the audiences of their time, and I respect the amount of work that went into the films. But hey I'm picky and I want to be amazed.
By golly the teaser trailers looked amazing, but I'm much more curious about the personality behind those curvaceous lines of code. This is by far the most nerve racking part of seeing a revival of a successful film. I was taught this sad and upsetting lesson with the new Lord of the Rings trilogy. Goodness me those were terrible, they stretched that plot out more than Kim K's pregnancy pants. It was one short book, not even close to enough content for over 9 hours of movie (this is a rant best saved for another post, ah... the anger). But honestly folks, a movie has to have moving and believable dialogue in order to truly be considered great.
I'm hoping for the best, what about you?
Bechdel Test
Around seven months ago my better half brought up that there was a test to show whether or not a movie was sexist towards women. Now this was a strange concept to me being a male, but it really made sense to have such a thing due to the increasingly sexualized portrayal of females in movies. I ended up remembering the test because of another blogger who writes about problems that women face everyday (The link to her blog is right there ->http://cupoequality.blogspot.com/ ).The Bechdel test was popularized in 1985 with the comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For by Alison Bechdel whom the test is named for.
The test consist of two primary criteria. Are there two or more named female characters (this does not include blood relatives of the female character, and when they are alone do they talk about anything besides men. It seems as though this is a very simple test to pass, however most directors forgot to study.
This is the key problem for why women don't get as many movies that pertain to their needs. Women don't care to hear about what a fictional woman has to say about a fictional man. They are looking for a complicated and stimulating plot that empowers them. Now I am no expert when it comes to these types of movies, I always find them to be cliché since their message typically passes right over my head. However, I'm sure many people including myself would like nothing more than to be more informed on the subject.
A lack of attention is why this problem remains rather unheard of. I have only known of this for a few months and have heard about it only twice. Which seems odd considering how many revolutions of the social kind we have been experiencing in this progressive decade. This test is only to see if a movie is sexist on the surface, just because it passes doesn't mean that it is full of female empowerment.
The Comic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test
The test consist of two primary criteria. Are there two or more named female characters (this does not include blood relatives of the female character, and when they are alone do they talk about anything besides men. It seems as though this is a very simple test to pass, however most directors forgot to study.
This is the key problem for why women don't get as many movies that pertain to their needs. Women don't care to hear about what a fictional woman has to say about a fictional man. They are looking for a complicated and stimulating plot that empowers them. Now I am no expert when it comes to these types of movies, I always find them to be cliché since their message typically passes right over my head. However, I'm sure many people including myself would like nothing more than to be more informed on the subject.
A lack of attention is why this problem remains rather unheard of. I have only known of this for a few months and have heard about it only twice. Which seems odd considering how many revolutions of the social kind we have been experiencing in this progressive decade. This test is only to see if a movie is sexist on the surface, just because it passes doesn't mean that it is full of female empowerment.
The Comic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test
"Chick Flicks vs. Micheal Bay inspired Explosion Inc. movies"
What makes a movie become a so called a chick flick? Well what usually comes to mind is some sort of trap or lure to get the girlfriend or wife to say these famous words "But babe it isn't a chick flick, it has military stuff in it" or something along those lines. Now don't get me wrong I have absolutely nothing against movies that women enjoy, because there are movies that are just like this for males. Such as any type of movie made by Michael Bay, which would seem stupid or silly to a majority of female viewers. Which is also true of males when they see a movie that is geared towards women.
Women deserve to have movies that relate to their everyday lives, which begs the question as to why aren't many made. The problem is, men and women are fundamentally different. Dan Goleman Ph.D. explains this fundamental difference
"Here's where women differ form men. If the other person is upset, or the emotions are disturbing, women's brains tend to stay with those feelings. But men's brains do something else: they sense the feelings for a moment, then tune out of the emotions and switch to other brain areas that try to solve the problem that's creating the disturbance.
Thus women's complaint that men are tuned out emotionally, and men's that women are too emotional - it's a brain difference." (1) Which makes the long scenes of emotions being portrayed is very hard for males to enjoy, because we are already over the gripping scene and ready for the next one. But since we have already checked out of the emotional state required to understand and enjoy the film we get bored, while the significant other is having the time of her life. As to where a girl understands what an explosion is she just doesn't find it stimulating. This is what creates a lack of not only quantity of emotional female movies, but also the quality. Leaving women to have to find enjoyment out of dreaded Hallmark and Lifetime t.v. movies (Oh the horror). Being that around half of consumers are males, and typically when they bring a female with them the male is more inclined to pay due to social pressure. This means that it is more likely that a more action heavy movie will be attended.
However, the counter part of the previous genre the action movie is in abundant supply, and tend to be fairly successful. Why may this be? It is fairly simple, action movies are simple themselves. They easily connect with anyone who has ever had the fantasy of flying, being admired, being the hero, saving the day, or what have you. While emotional movies are complex, with many different levels of understanding. Which makes the audience that can understand and enjoy the material much smaller than the audience watching superman throw heavy stuff. This in turn puts more funds towards the creation of faster, bigger, and crazier action films. As well as less attention for emotional movies because there is less money to be made. Making any films that show even a tiny bit of emotional complexity less frequent and of lower quality. Which is a shame, I haven't seen a film in quite a while that gave me the chills and thrills that the likes of "Shawshank Redemption", "Saving Private Ryan", "The Green Mile", and others of that caliber. Of course there have been a few films that showed great promise like "American Sniper" because I had a cousin in the marines and that was a very frightening time. So that movie was very relatable to myself, and many others with relatives in the service. The problem is that there appears to be a trend in having movies be more hollow, and have less substance.
I'll try to delve deeper into this subject after getting thoughts and views from the fairer sex (My girlfriend), and try to put a more feminine touch on this article since I feel as though I butchered this one.
1.)https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-brain-and-emotional-intelligence/201104/are-women-more-emotionally-intelligent-men
Women deserve to have movies that relate to their everyday lives, which begs the question as to why aren't many made. The problem is, men and women are fundamentally different. Dan Goleman Ph.D. explains this fundamental difference
"Here's where women differ form men. If the other person is upset, or the emotions are disturbing, women's brains tend to stay with those feelings. But men's brains do something else: they sense the feelings for a moment, then tune out of the emotions and switch to other brain areas that try to solve the problem that's creating the disturbance.
Thus women's complaint that men are tuned out emotionally, and men's that women are too emotional - it's a brain difference." (1) Which makes the long scenes of emotions being portrayed is very hard for males to enjoy, because we are already over the gripping scene and ready for the next one. But since we have already checked out of the emotional state required to understand and enjoy the film we get bored, while the significant other is having the time of her life. As to where a girl understands what an explosion is she just doesn't find it stimulating. This is what creates a lack of not only quantity of emotional female movies, but also the quality. Leaving women to have to find enjoyment out of dreaded Hallmark and Lifetime t.v. movies (Oh the horror). Being that around half of consumers are males, and typically when they bring a female with them the male is more inclined to pay due to social pressure. This means that it is more likely that a more action heavy movie will be attended.
However, the counter part of the previous genre the action movie is in abundant supply, and tend to be fairly successful. Why may this be? It is fairly simple, action movies are simple themselves. They easily connect with anyone who has ever had the fantasy of flying, being admired, being the hero, saving the day, or what have you. While emotional movies are complex, with many different levels of understanding. Which makes the audience that can understand and enjoy the material much smaller than the audience watching superman throw heavy stuff. This in turn puts more funds towards the creation of faster, bigger, and crazier action films. As well as less attention for emotional movies because there is less money to be made. Making any films that show even a tiny bit of emotional complexity less frequent and of lower quality. Which is a shame, I haven't seen a film in quite a while that gave me the chills and thrills that the likes of "Shawshank Redemption", "Saving Private Ryan", "The Green Mile", and others of that caliber. Of course there have been a few films that showed great promise like "American Sniper" because I had a cousin in the marines and that was a very frightening time. So that movie was very relatable to myself, and many others with relatives in the service. The problem is that there appears to be a trend in having movies be more hollow, and have less substance.
I'll try to delve deeper into this subject after getting thoughts and views from the fairer sex (My girlfriend), and try to put a more feminine touch on this article since I feel as though I butchered this one.
1.)https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-brain-and-emotional-intelligence/201104/are-women-more-emotionally-intelligent-men
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)