I simply don’t get it. A game is on TV, or you’re at the game, but your focus isn’t on the game exclusively, but on your computer or phone so you can see what other people have to say about the game. In-game chats are on the rise, as are Twitter tweets about the game (or any event, like the Oscars).
So what’s going on is, people’s attention isn’t focused 100% on the game – it can’t be. While the people doing this are people I know, colleagues, and former colleagues, I’ll never be on board with chatting about a game on a computer while the game is in progress.
I’ll admit that occasionally, something of significance or interest is released through these mediums. For instance, if someone notices something that few others did, telling others who may not have seen it can be informative (like if a player doesn’t return for a period due to injury, or a milestone stat is reached). But that rarely happens. Instead, the vast majority of what we get are simple comments about the game/event as it unfolds, 99% of which anyone would know if they’re focused on the TV and not the computer!
While writing for CapitalsOutsider.com, I sorta have to do it, just in case. I need to keep an eye on what others are saying, just in case.
Now only if I can get ’em to stick to the necessary messages. But I’m one of the few making this argument so I lose.
A Gutsy Amazon Review
I did something I didn’t think I’d ever do – I wrote a review on Amazon.com for a movie. Typically there are far too many reviewers for movies that overshadow others, but I finally felt strong enough about a movie – and noticed a huge gap in the reviews – to justify it. At the same time, due to the controversy of the review, I knew I’d take a beating.
I saw a stop-motion animated film called “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” with the voices of George Clooney and Meryl Streep. It was nominated for Best Animated Film and Best Original Score at this year’s Oscars.
And it was the worst animated movie I’ve ever seen.
Yet, everywhere I look, I see nothing but praise, and there were almost no negative reviews on Amazon. So I wrote one, outlining why it is bad.
- The story was predictable.
- The voice actors were bland (unlike, say, Shrek).
- The characters aren’t memorable (and there are no toys – which animated films bank on).
- Stop-motion animation is creepy and parts of this film looked like a bad Saturday morning cartoon.
- There were no original songs… just The Beach Boys (for a movie about foxes stealing chickens)
One last thing ace in the hole for my argument: The film flopped at the box office, which almost NEVER happens for GOOD animated films these days. GOOD animated films make HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS without fail.
I was the only one to give it one star on Amazon.
Almost instantly, the boo-birds came to me, marking my review as ‘not helpful.’ One guy told me to go watch Transformers again and leave this ‘intellectual’ film alone. Another argued with me that it wasn’t ‘animated’ though the term ‘animated’ can refer to stop-motion as well as drawn.
While I’ll never say someone is wrong for liking the film, I feel I gave good reasons as to why many won’t like it. Regardless, when you trash a film that several like, you’re opening yourself up to criticism, and that’s just what I did. Unfortunately, in this day and age, any moron has a platform for opinions and criticism, and poorly-written articles and baseless criticism is given the same megaphone as anyone else.
Phoenix
I spent some time in Phoenix last week,visiting my uncle and aunt. I also took a trip to the Grand Canyon, thanks to my mother and grandmother. For the Grand Canyon trip, we flew from Sedona in a 10-man plane to the canyon, then took a chopper down into the canyon. Then we took a boat ride on the river. It was remarkable. I’ll have many photos and videos to post when I get back.
In Phoenix, we went to a zoo, a mystery house, and the Renaissance Festival. I must admit that the Phoenix RenFest was better than Maryland’s overall.
Now I’m in Seattle visiting my other uncle, but I’ll write more about that later.
Gimli – The Worst Lord of the Rings Character
There are many major characters in the Lord of the Rings, but after careful analysis of the films, I’ve realized that removing Gimli would have very little impact on the story. This isn’t to say Gimli is useless, or isn’t entertaining, but there is nothing of great consequence that ties his character to the script. Let’s break this down. Here are Gimli the dwarf’s qualities:
- He’s a great warrior
- He’s funny
- He drinks
Also, kudos to John Rhys-Davies, who does a remarkable job playing this character.
Gimli proves himself as a great fighter in Fellowship of the Ring, though he doesn’t trust his battle companion, Legolas, because he is an elf (the book explores this a bit more but the result is the same). After the fellowship sets out for Mordor, Gimli suggests to Gandalf the Grey that they take a shortcut through the Mines of Moria. Gandalf declines. Soon after, they have no choice but to use the Mines of Moria, so Gimli’s suggestion happens regardless. When Gimli finds that his kin in the mines had been massacred, it doesn’t seem to change his determination or choices, and he doesn’t mention it again. It’s also shown that he has a crush on Galadriel, which is odd considering that she is also an elf.
In The Two Towers, Gimli holds up Legolas and Aragorn as they travel because he’s too slow for them. During battles, Gimli and Legolas try to top each other in orc body count. Fun stuff, but nothing hugely important happens with his character.
In Return of the King, Gimli continues the follow-the-leader role, killing orcs and making silly comments. Near the end, he and Legolas vow to die side by side as friends in the final battle for Middle Earth. There you have it… Gimli’s character arc. He learns to trust an elf. It took three movies and more than nine hours of film for that to happen.
So, am I saying that Lord of the Rings would be better without Gimli? Certainly not. However, it’s clear that his character has no impact on the plot, though the opportunities were there. The books explore his character more than the films, but nothing important.
But instead of hating on Gimli, let’s just enjoy him for what he was: An angry drunken dwarf.
The Worst Part of The Godfather
The Godfather is considered one of the best movies of all time, if not the best depending on who you ask. So even suggesting that there is anything bad in the film is grounds for a bullet to the head. But I’ll put my life on the line anyway and break omertà.
There is a part in the movie – a half of a second – that is terribly fake, and there was no excuse for director Francis Ford Coppola to allow it. While all films have goof-ups, this one was front and center, not something out of focus or seen by only the ultra-conscious. It’s the fourth punch that Sonny (James Caan) delivers to Carlo (Gianni Russo). It doesn’t even come close to striking, yet Carlo’s head reacts as if it had. We all saw it, even discussed it, but no one put it on a pedestal and labeled it “Worst Split Second of Film History.”
Watch:
Now let’s slow this down. The first punch, a right uppercut, lands squarely in the gut.
The second punch, a left uppercut, lands squarely in the gut.
Using his left hand again, Sonny throws a third punch, a roundhouse to Carlo’s face. If this were Batman, we’d see ‘POWWWWW!’
The fourth, a right roundhouse, doesn’t come close to hitting Carlo, but Carlo’s head jerks back as if he had been hit. And there’s no way Sonny would realistically miss that badly from so close.
Just to be clear, there is nothing in Mario Puzo’s book about Sonny swinging and missing. However, there is something in the book that is absolutely uncalled for and adds nothing to the story. Fortunately, Francis Ford Coppola kept this out of the movie, but it should be removed from the book, as well.
That part is about Lucy Mancini, the bridesmaid who Sonny is sleeping with. You see, Lucy has a physical issue that only Sonny can satisfy. Sonny is well hung (which is alluded to in the movie), and Lucy, in the book, is… unusually wide down there. So that’s the real attraction between Sonny and Lucy – the hot dog fits the bun.
But that’s not the point. The problem is, late in the book, long after Sonny is killed, Lucy makes another appearance, as she’s sent to Las Vegas to keep an eye on Fredo. But she’s lonely, and soon begins dating a blacklisted abortion doctor. Anyway, in very graphic detail, the doctor fixes Lucy’s ‘problem,’ all for our reading pleasure (be glad I don’t give a photo breakdown of THAT).
What does this have to do with the story, you ask? No one has ever provided a logical answer. I believe Mario Puzo was just a pervert, and really wanted to write about a colporrhaphy and perineorrhaphy, so he works it into his most famous novel. He could’ve written it into another book that actually fit the plot, or he could’ve made a short story out of it for Readers Digest. But instead, he tainted his own classic story. That would be like Leonardo da Vinci painting the tip of Mona Lisa’s dick on the canvas. I’d rather trade places with Luca Brasi’s kid than read that part of the book again.
If you haven’t read the book, read it (though I’ve already spoiled it for you), and if you have any idea why Puzo put this in the book, indulge me. Or, put a bullet in my head, leave the gun and take the Cannoli.