Sequels and Trilogies

Once upon a time, there was a movie. It was released and people went to see it. If it was well received the studio might greenlight a sequel (which a director would use to raise money to work on something that they REALLY wanted to do). I think Spielberg did Jaws 2 so he could make money to do ET, or something like that.

Then along came an insane man by the name of George Lucas who completely screwed everything up. He made the trilogy popular. Accidentally, I think. Sure he may have had this grand sweeping 6 film epic in mind, but I'm sure 20th Century Fox said "You get to make one." So he did.

And it was popular. So he went back to the studio and they agreed to let him do a sequel.

And so we have Empire Strikes Back.

As I too young to have seen the movie in the theaters and always had the luxury of being able to watch Return of the Jedi immediately afterwards, I never knew the sense of betrayal one feels when a movie just sort of ends without resolving anything, forcing you to wait a year or two to see how it turns out.

I never knew that sense of betrayal until 4:00 this morning. When the 1:15am showing of Pirates of the Caribbean just sort of...stopped.

Honestly, it was something of a relief after two and a half hours.

I was not expecting epic. Nor was I expecting to have needed to see the first movie. And to have paid attention. Because that wasn't what the first movie was about! It was a mindless romp in the world of pirates. That's what I wanted in a sequel. Even more mindless.

Instead, they squeezed as much as they could from the first movie and spent two hours rebuilding exposition only to leave me unfulfilled at the end. I recall thinking "this movie has no idea where it is going." I think I was right, after all, they can worry about that in the sequel...of the sequel.

So here this Hollywood: Not all films are "Star Wars" or "Lord of the Ring"s. Not all movies are sequel worthy, let alone trilogy worthy! Everything comes in threes now, even though it shouldn't. Let the trilogy be a novelty. And if you want to build a franchise, make them self contained. Because I don't want to sit through another 2.5 hours of exposition again before seeing the "stunning conclusion." Especially if the stunning conclusion, well, sucks.

Sound Bytes - Week of July 2

"Couldn't have happened to a better person. If only it would have happened before he messed up 6000 peoples' lives."

-On the Death of Ken Lay. Former CEO of Enron

"Son of a bitch!"

-On finding out that Ken Lay died in the lap of luxury in Aspen

"I didn't care in 1996. Why should I all of a sudden care now?"

-On the death of Patsy Ramsey

"Any bets on the 'Infamous Person' death trifecta?"

-After realizing famous people always die in threes

"CNN Studio Tour sounds good right about now."

-To a fellow stranger in the rain at Centennial Park, which is overlooked by CNN

"There're a lot of sexual terms that we use here [at work]. Packages, Batch, Unit, Blue Balls, Cume (spelled 'Cum'), massaging the data, load, touchpoints. Human Resources would have a field day."

-Thursday, when I didn't have all that much to do.

"At last! The weekend is here... Now what?"

-Upon arriving home from work on Friday.

The Ladies Guide To Talking To Guys About Cars

Having recently purchased a new car, and having several friends that are in the market for new cars, I have noticed a distrubing trend in how women talk about cars. You may not know it, but your innocent comments about a man's car can significantly affect that man's self-esteem. As such, I present to you a few rules to avoid misunderstandings and hurt feelings:

1. A man's car is an extention of his masculinity.
   When a man buys a car, he is buying an important extention of himself. In some cases, the car may not only be an extention, but compensation for a self-percieved short coming. In either case, it is important that you do not belittle this extention because when you belittle a man's car, you belittle the man.
   
   

   The man who owns this car is clearly not compensating for anything. But you don't want to give him a reason to think that he should be

   
   
   

   There is a good chance this man may be compensating for some shortcoming. He may have no reason to, but any insult to this vehicle could be disasterous to his self-esteem.

   
   
   
2. Never ever call a man's car "Cute"
   Men do not drive cute cars. In fact, a man doesn't even think about it when he is selecting his vehicle. The man sees accelleration, horsepower, compression ratios, handling, shocks, top speeds and other manly technical things. As such, he would never see his car as "cute." Having his car called "cute" brings all of the reasons he bought the car into question. Did he make the right choice?
   
   Basically, if a car were a woman, a man would sleep with it because of the things mentioned above and not its appearance. To put it simply, more men would sleep with an Aston Martin Vanquish than they would a VW Beetle. Sure, the Beetle is "cute," but the Aston Martin fulfills a man's needs more.
   
   

   Hot!

   
   
   

   Not...

   
   
   Other things not to call a car: Pretty, Lovely, Bonny, Adorable, Darling
   
   
3. Speed and Agility versus Torque and Horsepower
   Some men prefer a car with a lot of torque and horsepower. These would be muscle cars. They have power and balls. They are manly cars. Other men prefer cars with speed and agility. It is important to know that these reasons stem from the same need: The need for speed. Muscle cars can go really fast...in a straight line. Then there are the sports cars that can go really fast and handle well. They may or may not be able to go as fast as the muscle cars, but they can handle turns at speed really well.
   
   

   Power/Weight Ratio: 0.082¹

   
   
   

   Power/Weight Ratio: 0.068

   
   
   As such, don't assume that the car is not manly. And worse, don't assume that the owner thinks this. You could be quite surprised.
   

These are just a few simple rules. The first is the most important. As long as you keep that in mind when talking about a man's car you should be safe.

Fortunately for you ladies, if you do happen to insult your man's car (and therefore your man), keep in mind that your man will not resort to any revenge tactics such as "withholding sex.²" Chances are they will instead do something to reinforce the manliness your thoughtless comment robbed from them: be it buying a new car, getting a gym membership, or banging a supermodel³.



¹I would have bought a Mustang GT convertible, but my family has a bad track record of Mustang Survival: My father has totaled two of them.
²Unless they own an Aston Martin. Then you may be out of luck.
³They may settle for banging you. If they do, it is just to prove their virility. Remember, you did just insult them on an extremely personal level.

We Don't Need Another Hero?

Hold the phone, Tina Turner! I think we do!

It seems that more and more attention is being put on the decay of society and the loss of our "moral fabric." Although many theories exist as to why this is (Corrupt politicians, sex on TV, drugs in schools, etc) I'm here to tell you that they are all wrong. No, the reason that society is this way is because we simply don't have any heroes.

Look at who we have as "hero figures" in sports today:

• Barry Bonds: Alleged steriod use. Whether that is good or bad doesn't matter, but it does mean he's an "enhanced hero" and not a genuine hero. Kind of like Popeye or the Six Million Dollar Man.
  
  
• Lance Armstong: Sure, the man walked on the moon but now his only claim to fame is biking in France and starting a Global Pandemic of rubber bracelets!
  
  
• Dale Earnhart Jr: The man is a poster child for subliminal Darwinism! He's driving a car at high speeds with Budweiser written all over it. Think about it!

No, we need to look back at a real sports hero. Someone like Babe Ruth.

A real man isn't afraid to be a little chunky

Babe Ruth has hero written all over him. Number One in Baseball's 100 Greatest Players. Not only that, but Yankee Stadium is known as "the House that Ruth Built." They don't mean Dr. Ruth. And they aren't speaking metaphorically, either. Babe Ruth built Yankee Stadium all by himself with his bare hands¹.

And he was the proto-role model athlete! Drinking profusely, chasing women while married, excessive profanity, reckless driving! That's like having Steve McNair, Kobe Bryant, Mike Ditka, and Ben Roethlisberger all rolled into one! If only Babe Ruth would have been visionary enough to take a bite out of Joe DiMaggio's ear, then we could throw Mike Tyson in there as well. Needless to say, the man set the bar.

But what many don't know is that one year after being inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, Babe Ruth perished in the Hindenburg disaster of 1937. Babe Ruth took death on and won, coming back to life two weeks later. The challenge left him riddled with cancer, which claimed his life a decade later.

Babe Ruth-R: 3 H: 5 E: 0 Death-R:2 H: 7 E: 1

So, we don't have any good sports heroes. But what about the movies? Surely we have some heroes there!

• Keanu Reeves: Sadly, not in this summer's Superman film. Which is a pity because while he would have not made the best Superman, the role does have quite the impact on the lives of Reeves who have played him².
  
  
• Jack Black: Um, he can't really be called a hero, since he never really is anything other than Jack Black.
  
  
• Brad Pitt: Whipped by Angelina Jolie. Admittedly, a formidable opponent, but still.

Again, we look to our history for a true hero: John "The Duke" Wayne!!

"I never trust a man that doesn't drink."

Yes sir. The Duke. What can be said about John Wayne that hasn't been said before? Well, there are some things that you don't know about John Wayne. Sure, the big thing these days is how bad Chuck Norris is. When Chuck Norris has nightmares, they're about John Wayne:

1. Actually gouged out his own eye for the role of Rooster Cogburn in True Grit. It grew back and had to be regouged out when he reprised the role six years later.
   
2. Would have been deployed to Vietnam in a decisive move that would have won the war for the US except that his use would have violated the Geneva Convention³.
   
3. Would relax with fellow actor Gary Cooper by shooting each other in the chest.
   
4. Maureen O'Hara enjoyed getting spanked with the shovel at the hands of John Wayne in McLintock! so much she was unable to become aroused after the film without viewing that scene.
   
5. Underwent surgery for an enlarged prostate in 1976. That prostate went on to become Colin Farrell⁴.
   
6. John Wayne is not dead. He's biding his time.
   

As you can see, they don't get more heroic than the Duke. So, compared to these two giants, where do our current heroes stand? In the shadows crying for their mommies, that's where.

So, Tina Turner, we are finally beyond Thunderdome, and yes, we do need another hero!

¹Technically, only one hand. He would whip himself with his right hand to get himself to work faster.
²George Reeves: Superman in 1950s TV series (suicide) Christopher Reeves: Superman in 1980s films (hurt riding horsey)^5
3There also would have been no way of stopping him from taking China and the Soviet Union as well.
⁴And not much has changed.
⁵I'm going the extra mile in the name of bad taste.

Senate Subcommittees on Video Games?

Must be an election year...

Why is it that, like so many other things, violence in video games only seems to be a problem when there are elections? It's not like there is anything the government can do about it, really. Actually, let me rephrase that. It should read:

It's not like there is anything the government can should do about it.

I know what you are thinking: Dan, are you saying you approve of violence in video games? Well, in short: yes. Why?

BECAUSE OF A LITTLE THING CALLED THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Yes, the first amendment. The very amendment that is the cornerstone of our way of life. The amendment that lets me type this. The amendment that allows for multiple pointless 24 hour news channels. The amendment that allows the "news magazines" on these channels to point out the menace of violence in video games. And, last but not least, it allows game developers to put whatever they want in these games.

Of course, video games are already prone to a passive form of censorship. That would be the ratings system. For one, the ratings guides can influence a game developer to remove certain content to achieve a lower rating and become more marketable. The second thing that it is designed to do is alert PARENTS to the CONTENT in the GAME BEFORE they BUY it for their spoiled unruly BROOD.

Not only do these games carry ratings, (which unlike the cryptic ratings system used for movies ACTUALLY SPELLS OUT THE AGES the game is appropriate for) but they also explain WHAT EXACTLY THE CONTENT IS that earned the rating.

If you are a parent. Not only a parent. Let's say you are a concerned, over-protective, helicopter parent who is afraid that your child will at some point be exposed to something horrific that will scar them for life unless you do something about it. Let's say your that kind of parent. Here's the scenario: Your little brat is whining for a new game. Since you give them everything they want you decided to:

Option 1.) Go to the store and buy the game with them. The game they want is rated "M for Mature 17+." Now then, your precocious little Steven is "quite mature for an eight year old." At least, that's what everyone says (because they couldn't care less). Still, you investigate further and find that the game his is interested in has "Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Nudity, Strong Language, Sexual Themes." Hmmm, maybe Steven isn't that mature. So you get Stevey the game that is rated "E for Everyone" because it only contains "Comic Mischief."¹

Option 2.) Give Steven the money and send him on his way because you had a tough day at work and the last thing you want to do is go with him to the store and buy him a stupid game. He's mature enough to handle himself and you've taught him how to make the right decisions (when you talk to him at dinner and occasionally on weekends).


You see, Option 1 is what a good, responsible parent would do. Option 2 is reserved for bad parents. And of course, as with everything, these people CAN NOT see themselves as bad parents, so there must be something else to blame. After all, they are dual income, affluent middle class, church-going Republicans. They can't possibly be bad parents. So as they sit and watch little Steven shoot up innocents they can't help but think "where did the system fail?"

So they complain to their congressman, Congress sees it as a great election year topic. They gripe about it, and before you know it, I'm getting carded at Target the next time I buy a game.

The other thing that sucks is you have a generation was too old to enjoy video games from the start, trying to protect a younger generation with no appreciation for the history of video games by complaining to a generation that is to old to even know that having played "Pong" doesn't make you cool. The generation that grew up with modern video games is COMPLETELY UNREPRESENTED. And it is this generation that the current games under fire are being marketed to. These games that have grown with the gamers. And it is this generation that will once again suffer at the hands of those who came before us.

Thanks again, old people.

¹Ironically enough, the game I was playing this weekend was rated E because of comic mischief. I think this might be another example where, much like the movie industry, lower ratings do better and have a greater audience. Still, it all boils down to widespread bad parenting.

June 22:

A Date That Will Live In Mediocrity...

Yes, June 22 is a boring day in history. Sure, Joe Lewis won the title from Jim Braddock on this date in 1937, but ever since seeing Cinderella Man, I made a promise to myself never to speak of Jim Braddock's short comings. Not because of the inspirational nature of the story, but because he was married to a woman like Renée Zellweger. Honestly, that man must have taken one to many blows to the head if he settled for that.

But, enough unfounded attacks on Renée Zellweger. Russell Crowe probably threw a phone or two at her anyway...

So, aside from that, not a whole lot happened.

FDR signed the GI Bill in 1944. If I recall, this lead to the successful BM legislature of 1945.

Germany launched Operation Barbarossa in 1941, thus invading Russia. There is a film adaptation of this historic event that was released in 1968 starring Jane Fonda. The story passed through the hands of a number or writers, each taking their own liberties with the historic account. In the end the title had changed to Barbarella and was less about Germans marching into Russia and more about a woman taking sex into space. But, it did give us Duran Duran!

"Girls on Film!"

Lets see, what else. 1864: General Lee strikes back at Petersburg. While this is turning out to be a bad day for Russia, it's good to see the "Good Ol' Boys" were doing their part to fight communism!

HUAC File Photo

1934: Porsche builds a prototype automobile. Although, this Porsche would ultimately become a Volkswagon. Talk about depreciation!

And finally, in 1775, the Continental currency hits the streets. The first paper printed money in the US, backed by Spanish Dollar. More commonly known as the peso or (in buccaneer-lingo) the infamous "pieces of eight" (GYAR!). Surprisingly, this paper money was prone to counterfeiting and rapidly lost its value. Which is suprising since its value was backed by a peso. Even more interesting is that now, 231 years later, American businesses actually prefer to pay their workers in pesos, by relocating jobs to Mexico (most recently, Lego) and not dollars. This is the driving force behind moving jobs to Mexico, but not allowing Mexicans into America. It's the way the Founding Fathers wanted it to be!

Bloody Caesar (Minimum Octane Rating: 93)

Recently, an interesting product came to my attention: Mott's Clamato Energia. Behold its baffling glory:

Tomato Juice + Clam Juice + Energy...um...juice?

Yes! For all of you wondering "When will my cries for a beverage that combines the veggie goodness of tomato drippings with the fishy clamminess of clam squeezings with the kick of an energy drink be answered?" That time...is NOW!

Cadbury-Schweppes, makers of such delicious products as "Cadbury Cream Eggs" and "Schweppes Ginger Ale" not to mention "A&W Root Beer" and "Dr Pepper" have decided to break away from making things that are "tasty" and "delicious" and try to mix things that are "repulsive" and "vile."

But why would they do such a thing to us? The answer is closer than we think: Canada.

That's right, Canada's favorite drink is the Bloddy Caesar. Which is basically a Bloody Mary with clam juice. "Et tu, Brute, eh?"

That makes sense for the plain, non-energied Clamato, but the Energia? Why? Again, when I worked as a bartender, I made a mean Bloody Mary (Thanks Ric Foytik!), but the people that would generally order them were older. Sure, the college crowd would have one to chase a hangover, but it would be the older crowd that would order three or four.

So is this like the Chrysler Town and Country of alcoholic energy drinks? "Wait a minute, honey. We have kids so we really shouldn't do that Jägie Bomb. Let's have a Bloody Caesar instead!"

Hyperactive, drunk, old people. As if they weren't bad enough drivers to begin with.