tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358918672024-03-05T02:49:06.985-05:00popcannonStill here, but considering a new home.Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-64755571808673150192014-01-12T02:09:00.000-05:002014-09-04T14:24:38.563-04:00Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss: A Blogger's TaleFor those that remember, PopCannon began as a blog called "Things That Annoy Me" way back in 2003 - a place where I vented and mused about everything from movies to music to things as mundane as the ineptitude of my local retailer. After some time, I got the "bright" idea to morph the site into some sort of pseudo-entertainment news/opinions/review site. And you know what? It actually worked for a while.<br />
<br />
I gleefully embraced the role of sort-of news provider, sort-of reviewer, sort-of whatever. Back then, it seemed to work pretty well - to the point where I considered transforming the blog into a "brand" of sorts - so I changed the name to something catchier, something that would convey the entertainment/pop culture focus of the blog/brand - and "popcannon" was born.<br />
<br />
Again, this seemed to work for some time. Until, of course, it became apparent that my half-assed attempt at providing frequent and timely entertainment-related posts wasn't going to cut it. The times were changing, and other blogs were doing the same thing, and much better - mainly due to the full-time effort being put in by their respective owners and writers.<br />
<br />
The truth is, I wasn't as jazzed about writing daily. Don't get me wrong: I loved writing, but I just didn't have the urge to do so every day, and in a manner designed to supposedly provide timely entertainment news/opinions. Additionally, real-world events in my life resulted in fewer and fewer posts. Eventually, I realized there was no way this site was ready to be a "brand." That said, I still wanted an online outlet to share my views/thoughts/rants on movies, tv, music and whatever else struck a chord - and then it became obvious.<br />
<br />
I decided to take my site back to its roots: A simple blog. A blog where I could write whenever I wanted, as often as I wanted, and about whatever I wanted. Sure, I'd still probably write about pop culture most often, but I didn't want to be defined and restricted. I made the mistake of thinking I could jump willy-nilly into the world of daily entertainment blogging, and all that did was kill my desire to write. With that in mind, my blog will return to what it was, a place I wanted to write, not needed to.<br />
<br />
With this in mind, I've put the "PopCannon" name into a kind of hibernation. As I stated above, when I came up with the name, I was working under the assumption that it was going to become a "brand," and keeping that same identity for a personal blog just doesn't feel right for some reason: The "brand" stigma of PopCannon not only feels restrictive, but it also feels like a chapter that's passed for me - like "things that annoy me" before it. It's not retired or eliminated - it's simply taking a break comfortably on a beach somewhere until I need it again.<br />
<br />
With PopCannon in hibernation, I've decided to try blogging with a more "personal" name or names. Something fun, different and not intended to be a brand. Additionally, I'd like it to be something that's easily changeable: The focus of any non-branded blog should be the writing and personality of the writer, not the name or branding, per see. While diving into the deep end of Tumblr, the name "Hyperdrive Mechanic" suddenly came to me like a bolt of (somewhat silly) lightning, and it kind of stuck with me. <br />
<br />
Continuing with this need to change and reinvent my blogging identity, I'm currently considering new venues for my writing. Blogger has been very, very good to me, especially after my previously rough years on Blogdrive. That said, I feel I need to test the waters of fresh, new platforms specifically and simply designed for blogging: I feel a new venue may reinvigorate my desire to write, as well as open up new ways of reaching new audiences.<br />
<br />
Presently, I'm giving several new platforms a try. Some of you may be asking why I haven't tried Wordpress. Actually, I have indeed tried it behind the scenes, and I've found several stumbling blocks. First and foremost, the "free" version requires ads, and I'd like to avoid that: The only way to do so involves installing wordpress on my own paid hosting server. If I envisioned writing more often and/or maintaining a brand, I could justify that, but right now, it seems a bit much. Additionally, I'm not entirely fond of the authoring UI - though I know the tools are excellent as a CMS. What I DO like about Wordpress is the included themes. I'm still on the fence about this option.<br />
<br />
Wordpress isn't my only option, obviously. Medium.com is extremely nice, though it seems to sacrifice personal ownership/identity in favor of community readership - something I'm not too find of. Additionally, I don't like the fact that my entire identity there is tied to my Twitter account - though I understand the linkage. Tumblr is easy to use and, at times, fun. I realize it's not designed primarily for long-form blogs--though I know they can and do exist there. I'm finding myself most active there, possibly because it's so easy to get caught up in image posting and "reblogging" things that catch my fancy and speak to my identity. Postach.io is also a very intriguing option, as it seamlessly uses Evernote to publish and store my blog. I'm also investigating other options, as well. <br />
<br />
This does not mean I won't return to Blogger - quite the contrary. In fact, I'm currently in the process of renaming the blog and/or creating a new blogger presence with the new username. I just feel experimenting with new platforms could be fun and productive -and what better time to do it than now.<br />
<br />
Currently, I have new presences up and running, Tumblr being the most active:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://hyperdrivemechanic.tumblr.com/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWM8DsyRae_Yk9Re9HRbb31waXKV7hls5HOjSI75JoDO88HjiXut8mqqIwy-4o5tdzUvfDDwVXdfcNMDwE6CYbPnAfPoK1AY6uWaro5YSpqTCqNA-fAX1MKDhvzk43Z_gQp8KQ5w/s200/Tumblr_alt.png" height="60" width="60" /></a></div> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000; font-size: x-large;"><a href="http://hyperdrivemechanic.tumblr.com/">hyperdrivemechanic.tumblr.com</a></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnF8SxtIeDAtILD1BnkPsnQFJcNjEtBqVab3vWvvb4Y7K128QpUg0eos-eQdviO0h4_6XeuTii1DGM8ZdPpt6rS4rOGxofoqrwJfWhs-PgFDsnshw3bSunD59_awax9hZrXWCJrA/s1600/wordpress-logo-notext-rgb.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnF8SxtIeDAtILD1BnkPsnQFJcNjEtBqVab3vWvvb4Y7K128QpUg0eos-eQdviO0h4_6XeuTii1DGM8ZdPpt6rS4rOGxofoqrwJfWhs-PgFDsnshw3bSunD59_awax9hZrXWCJrA/s1600/wordpress-logo-notext-rgb.png" height="60" width="60" /></a></div> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000; font-size: x-large;"><a href="http://hyperdrivemechanic.wordpress.com/">hyperdrivemechanic.wordpress.com</a></span><br />
<br />
<!--
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/hyperdrivemechanic.postach.io" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikhPcCulZenjJvhcX6xpaYBijATFO1-52C6ZstyQJ7ziON1y9loQwdKf4pFB0BsuWVNV2ROGF3-O_9NkjddlVuqSOUofvYSEA7q3iy3XmcbBou7JAvw8q_2wPOMtC1zQdV0w0DSA/s1600/9963c838c2911b2894b02c2142f50f18.png" height="60" /></a></div><a href="http://hyperdrivemechanic.postach.io/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000; font-size: x-large;">hyperdrivemechanic.postach.io</span></a><br />
--><br />
<br />
<!--
And of course, there's the companion Twitter account:
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.twitter.com/imthatdoug" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHSsSzV9PLU_h8SgIkP-WwA2gpLnwchx2KMdCtRDVfAZAhMHZgUqOz4uQmn2mzbTLSLycZzqf6zL5Yp_iYT21B_PpthiFTXYaKo6YL-Buf3cI5do2rowQzV163mVQauxNlln-jkQ/s1600/Twitter_logo_blue.png" width="60" /></a></div><a href="http://twitter.com/imthatdoug"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #b45f06; font-size: x-large;">@ImThatDoug</span></a><br />
--><br />
<br />
If you're a follower from the old days (Many thanks) or a new visitor, feel free to head on over for new content. This is not a goodbye - just a potential new beginning!<br />
<br />
<br />
Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-79008466787285311312011-11-02T17:54:00.011-04:002023-04-29T16:38:05.490-04:00What Does the New Grand Theft Auto V Trailer Tell Us?<br />(This post was written 12 years ago and prior to the release of Grand Theft Auto V. As such, it was/is conjecture based on a trailer for the game released at that time.)<br /><div><br /></div><div>
Throughout pop culture history, few video games have had the honor and distinction of transcending the usual run-of-the-mill gamer audience and reaching mass, mainstream public consciousness. Unless you've been living under a rock for nigh on 2 decades, you know that Grand Theft Auto is one of those games. Like Pac Man, Mario Brothers, Tomb Raider and even Call of Duty, GTA has become much more than simply a game--it is a cultural phenomenon that has spawned city-wide advertising, national news coverage and--most importantly--millions of loyal fans. That said, it's no shock that the announcement of the next installment of the series--GTA V--has created a pop culture buzz the likes of which are rare, even by today's standards.<br />
<br />
Though most in the game community knew the release of GTA V was imminent, it wasn't until last week that Rockstar Games officially confirmed the game by announcing a debut trailer would premiere today. Cue the requisite blizzard of speculation: Where would the next GTA take place? Who would be the protagonist? How big would the map be? Would there be hookers to rob? Well, while many of those burning questions are still unanswered, the world finally got a first glimpse at the next incarnation of GTA this morning.<br />
<br />
What can be said about such a teaser of a trailer? Aside from sporting the usual style and panache we've come to expect from Rockstar, the biggest and most definitive reveal by far is the setting. Like GTA IV's return to Liberty City, GTA V brings us back to the fictionalized California locale of San Andreas. And, just like GTA IV, it does so rather beautifully: The meticulous attention to detail looks astounding, and though it likely pushes current console graphics to their limits, it appears to be--for lack of a better word-- stunning.<br />
<br />
Many claim GTA San Andreas was the best of the series (Though I think Vice City was), and those with that opinion won't be disappointed. Whereas GTA IV may have departed from the scope and tone of San Andreas, this trailer hints at the return of planes, jet skis, etc., mountain and water settings, and perhaps even nods to property ownership and gang activity.<br />
<br />
However, one of the biggest questions gamers had still remains unanswered: Who is the protagonist? Based on rumors circulating around the internet, there may be "more than one" playable character--which seems extremely exciting. That said, who is that mysterious man speaking in the trailer?<br />
<br />
As stated above, speculation on this point has been running rampant all day. The biggest (and most ridiculous) rumor was that the voice heard was that of Tommy Vercetti--the main character of GTA Vice City, voiced by Ray Liotta. However, even the most cursory film fan knew the voice sounded <i>NOTHING</i> like Mr. Liotta (it doesn't), and when his representation released that it was, in fact, not him, it came as no surprise to anyone with half a brain. However, there was valid reason for said confusion: Certain shots in the trailer show an older male bearing resemblance to Vercetti surveying what seems to be some sort of business empire. If the game does indeed include multiple playable characters, it's feasible Vercetti <i>COULD</i> be that man, but he's definitely not the one speaking in the trailer.<br />
<br />
The possible appearance of Vercetti in the trailer makes the question of a main protagonist more intriguing and complex, especially if one continues to look for visual clues in the trailer. For instance: many have conjectured they see CJ from GTA San Andreas in this trailer. IGN has postulated that the African American male being pursued by police towards the end of the trailer could be CJ. It's possible--but it's more likely that's someone else. When paused, the character in question bears little resemblance to CJ. But even so, there are indeed <i>other</i> characters in the trailer that could indeed be CJ, and the fact that Los Santos is a setting in the game does not rule out his inclusion.<br />
<br />
Another interesting image is that of a homeless man holding a sign that whom some believe to be an "older" Niko Bellic (The protagonist of GTA IV). When paused, the similarity might seem to be a stretch, but if we assume Mr. Bellic spent 4 years addicted to drugs and/or alcohol and gaining weight, it's not completely impossible. Again, his appearance--as well as CJ's and Vercetti's--are pure speculation, but this speculation opens a very interesting line of thinking when thinking about just who we will be playing as in GTA V.<br />
<br />
Consider this: Perhaps Tommy Vercetti has moved to San Andreas to extend an empire he began decades ago, only to find shady business practices have caused that empire to crumble around him (a Ponzi scheme would be timely fodder for Rockstar)--forcing him to "get his hands dirty again" and rebuild from the ground up. Maybe CJ left behind his gang banging days, only to be "pulled back in" to the life of a gangster because of a family death or economic crisis? And what of Niko Bellic? Has the American Dream crushed him, relegating his existence to a homeless man looking for any chance to start again?<br />
<br />
Let's indulge this multiple story arc further, and look at a scene later in the trailer -- a brief glimpse of the three characters leaving a pest control van armed and ready for action. Could that be an older CJ, Niko and an older Vercetti? Could the main character we play as--the man speaking in the teaser--be someone who draws all of them together for some sort of all-star "dream team" of criminals who come out of retirement to recapture some semblance of life they've lost? The narration clearly tells the tale of a man who's backstory bears quite a bit of similarity to each of these past protagonists' possible stories: The attempt to leave behind a life of crime, only to be pulled back in due to a unique series of events we will see unfold during the game's narrative.<br />
<br />
Again, with the rumor of multiple playable characters, this concept is both exciting and intriguing on many levels. But even if these reappearing characters aren't playable, the idea still seems very complex and well suited to Rockstar. I for one would welcome a "Crash" or "Magnolia" approach to GTA V-- where we see the lives of several key San Andreas inhabitants cross paths during a particularly turbulent series of days/ weeks. As a writer, this multi-arc story is fascinating, and seems to land squarely in the narrative wheelhouse Rockstar has been cultivating lately--an almost natural progression from GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption's tone and story depth.<br />
<br />
Of course, all of this is pure conjecture, but it's completely feasible, and it's more than fun to consider. Rockstar never fails to disappoint when it comes to an engaging tale, and one has to expect GTA V will be no exception. At the very least, this trailer has lit a fire of possible ideas and rumors that will smolder until the product hits shelves. Gamers and non-gamers alike will likely be talking about what they can expect in GTA V for months-- creating a word-of-mouth pre-release buzz that would rival any movie, television show or movie.<br />
<br />
After all, isn't that exactly what a teaser trailer is supposed to do?</div>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-55113942724039994052011-08-23T07:43:00.007-04:002013-01-23T01:27:18.737-05:00Four Reasons You Should Be Watching Burn Notice<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
I'll admit it: I dont watch as much "first-run" television as I used to. Many times, I will "discover" a show in syndication, years after it premiered, and--in some cases--after it's initial run has ended. It happened with "The Office" and "Futurama." heck, it even happened with "Seinfeld" - which I consider to be the best show ever produced. I wasn't always that way: When I was younger, you couldn't tear me away from a TV when a new "Miami Vice" aired. But, nowadays, the bulk of "new" programming I tune in to falls in the "sports" or "reality" arenas. Maybe it's the nature of today's programming? Maybe it's the flood of repeated showings/syndicated episodes of shows? maybe it's a bit of both? Nevertheless, it is what it is. However, every once in a while, an exception to that rule makes a welcome appearance.</div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Enter "Burn Notice." If you're not aware of the show, it chronicles the life and adventures of Michael Westen: A spy who, for reasons unknown to him, has been "burned" (aka "fired") by the US government at the peak of his career. He is summarily dumped in Miami and left to fend for himself. As a result, he reconnects with an ex-girlfriend (who also happens to be a gun-toting ex-operative), a former SEAL buddy, and, oddly enough, his own mother. Westen is relegated to taking occasional "jobs" that call for his specific talents to not only make a living, but to help further his primary goal: to find out who burned him and why.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
When it premiered in 2007, Burn Notice was a bit of a novelty. It was one of the few original <i>basic cable</i> programs on TV to become instantly AND massively successful, joining the ranks of "Monk," "The Shield," "Nip/Tuck," "Rescue Me," "Psych" and "BattleStar Galactica." Since then, it has consistently ranked as one of the highest rated television programs of it's kind and maintains a rather rabid fan base.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
But why should you be watching it?</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>1) The Cast</b> - One of the hallmarks of most of those aforementioned shows has been the talent involved in each. This is not to say they all enlist A-list actors; it simply means the actors involved are engaging, extremely talented, and perfectly suited to the roles they play. This is the case with Burn Notice. Jeffrey Donovan IS Michael Westen. He wears the skin of a savvy super spy as if it were his own. When he's on screen, all eyes are on him--and even when he's not visible, all ears are on him as well, as his running narration can't be missed. One could assume his connection with the role is due to his being a relative unknown before the premiere of the show, but I firmly believe it's due more to raw talent.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Joining Donovan is industry stalwart Brice Campbell, whose on-screen charm remains undeniable, and is pitch-perfect as the hard-drinking, easy living Sam Axe. Gabrielle Anwar (Michael's ex Fiona) switches gears between sex kitten and sniper faster than her blue sportscar, and Sharon Gless (Westen's mother) continues to be one of the most underrated television actresses of the past few decades. Rounding out the cast is new(er) addition Coby Bell - who breaks the hated, long-standing TV tradition of new cast members that all but destroy a show's chemistry. On the contrary, he;s a welcome addition.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>2) The Concept</b> - In the 1980's, TV was home to a bunch of what I like to call "hero for hire" shows: "The Equalizer," "The A-Team," "Knight Rider," "MacGyver,""Riptide," etc. Why so many? It's no secret that people love heroes, but even more so, people like heroes that help the average joe with believable issues: An abusive spouse, a custody battle, a wrongful termination, a stalker, an embezzler in their company, etc. For a while, this kind of show took a back seat to police procedurals (Law and Order), medical dramas (Er, House), high-concept dramas (Heroes, Lost) and hateful reality TV. Nowadays, the "hero for hire" concept is muddied by so-called "complex" characters who spend angst-ridden existences contemplating their navels in dour, 60 minute installments. For my money, I prefer heroes who stop whining, make a plan, pick up a .45 and get down to business. Perhaps it's time for the classic "hero for hire" to make a comeback, no?</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Burn Notice stands as a "hero for hire" show for a new generation. And while not TRULY "episodic"like it's 1980's forefathers (there is an serialized story arc that runs from season to season), viewers can still feasibly tune in after missing an episode and enjoy that particular episode in the same way we enjoyed those old 80's shows--only with better acting and writing... and no mohawks.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>3) The Style</b> - Sometimes, a show will burst on the scene attempting to seduce an audience with some flashy camerawork, nifty editing or unique narrative structure--and little else. Burn Notice has it's share of style--at times it oozes it--but its always merely a facilitator, and always secondary to the story. Cinematography is clean, colorful and vibrant--thanks in large part to the setting of Miami itself (Not since "Miami Vice" has a city made such a case as legitimate co-star). Editing is brisk but not dizzying. Action is all filmed so you can actually SEE it, and direction is crisp and fat-free.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Burn Notice creator Matt Nix' most effective stylistic choice is the inclusion of Michael Westen's "espionage for dummies" commentary and how-to videos. Not only do they serve the story, but they are both ingenious and fascinating. It may seem like a rather simple addition after seeing it in action, but it's nevertheless wildly compelling. I contend a show filled solely with Michael's tips on how to effectively bulletproof a minivan or how to steal data from a business while posing as an IT professional would be as good as any show on TV. Sure, maybe some of his tips are complete nonsense, but who cares? It sounds perfectly doable, and you actually feel informed. Simply put, Michael is the cooler, gun-toting little brother of McGyver, and little brother nails it.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>4) The Enjoyment Factor</b> - A bit nebulous, for sure, but this point is actually three. Too often, shows of this nature take themselves too seriously--even those that claim to be "comedy-dramas." Not once during an episode of Burn Notice will you feel that. The cast looks like they're having a ball almost all the time, and because they are, you start enjoying the ride by proxy. It's like watching the old rat pack shoot scenes for the original Ocean's Eleven, just without all the on-set alcohol and terrible dialogue.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Additionally, the individual stories are extremely satisfying, in an old-school, wrapped-in-a-bow kind of way. Whether it be a complex tale of exposing a corrupt attorney or an admittedly sappy and somewhat generic revenge plot against a deadbeat dad, even the most jaded viewer will undoubtedly be rooting for Michael Westen's team to "get the bad guy" by show's end. </div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Lastly, for an action show to be enjoyable, well, it has to have <i>enjoyable</i> action. And, as many a film aficionado will contend, the best action is action that's not completely lost in a polluted sea of A.D.D. editing and "I just saw a wachowski film" camera work. As mentioned above, the sequences here are well planned, easy to follow, and, most importantly, never excessive. Things don't blow up for the sake of blowing up. A fight scene isn't edited like Michael Bay on crack. Weapons aren't used unrealistically, and technology and tactics all seem to be grounded in some reality--even if it really isn't. As a result, the action in Burn Notice never feels jarring in tone, disjointed or sensational--instead, it's acceptable and engaging, and never halts the flow of each week's tale.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Now, of course, I could rattle off a a multitude of other reasons why Burn Notice works so well, but these four should do nicely in convincing you to give this basic cable gem a chance. As I mentioned, don't fret if you tune in and you're slightly our of the loop regarding the larger story arc: Stay with it until Westen's team has wrapped up a job and are sipping umbrella drinks on the beach. A taste might be all you need. Even if you're like me--a creature of habit that normally subsists on syndicated Law and Order and Seinfeld--you may find this is your one exception--and your one new addiction. After a few episodes, it will be hard to resist the charm of the cast, the brisk pacing of the stories and the jaunty vibe Burn Notice so deftly emanates.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Before long, you'll be craving a Mojito and pondering new ways to use your office's flourescent lighting system against potential attackers.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Who knows? The latter may actually save your life someday.</div>
</div>
</div>
Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-62679854069439199002011-08-23T05:45:00.001-04:002013-01-23T01:27:32.756-05:00The Comedy of PC Elitism<br />
Today, <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdeusex.com%2F&ei=E3NTTtaVKsGSgQeLs8wp&usg=AFQjCNG-2ZEVE3XEHvwZwxewz2rbb0R9rg">Deus Ex: Human Revolution</a> will be released for xbox 360, PS3 and PC. Currently, it's being heralded as a fantastic cyberpunk experience that combines elements of games like Mass Effect, Metal Gear and even a little Borderlands. And while this multi-platform release has resulted in popular praise, it has also once again illuminated an ugly side of gaming: PC elitism.<br />
<br />
For those of you who don't know what PC elitism is, it's basically a belief held by many gamers that games are ALWAYS better when played on the PC, and that consoles are weak platforms akin to "toys." The odd thing is that, even when a game <i>doesn't have</i> a PC version, PC elitists will contend a PC version would be better, regardless.<br />
<br />
Now, before anyone gets bent out of shape, there is, of course, some logic behind this line of thinking, not the least of which is the obvious advantage: PCs are customizable, allowing performance enhancements an out-of-the-box console does not allow. If his performance lags, a PC user can slap in a new processor any time he feels like it, but a console gamer must be satisfied with the processor his system shipped with. Such is the nature of consumer electronics.<br />
<br />
However, what PC elitists fail to realize is that, that inherent lack of modification is what makes consoles such a viable platform: When everyone is playing with the same hardware, it results in several advantages PC's don't always have: A standardized development environment, equal footing in online interaction between gamers, and accessible entertainment for people who cant afford the expense of gaming PCs/enhancement. Additionally--and to the dismay of gamers--piracy is a tad easier to prevent on consoles than among the PC community.<br />
<br />
That said, this is not about which platform is "better." The point here is that judging one platform against the other is, at best, an unfair and illogical battle. Game developers will develop their games for the audiences they want to reach, and the audience that will provide the most profit--that's simple business. Unfortunately, many PC elitists don't accept that fact, and continue to troll PS3 and Xbox forums daily telling the world why consoles "fail." GTA is better on PC because it can be "modded." Black Ops is better with a keyboard and mouse. Never mind that both of those games became the cultural icons they did based mostly on console sales.<br />
<br />
To be completely honest, when the PS3 and Xbox were released 5 years ago, PC elitists actually had a bit of a leg to stand on. Since these "next-gen"consoles were <i>actually</i> next-gen, the comparisons to contemporary technology held water. The problem is, half a decade later, PC elitists can't grasp that current comparisons only result in making them look desperate and stupid--like the ones currently existing in forums devoted to Deus Ex: Human Revolution these past weeks.<br />
<br />
The argument is, for lack of a better word, ridiculous now: <i>Of course</i> a PC you bought yesterday and had built to your specifications is going pack more of a wallop than hardware purchased 5 years ago that could never be modified, and that cost half the price. Would you compare a 2011 Lexus to a 2006 Camry with a permanently locked hood? Would you compare an iPhone to a 2005 LG flip-phone that was state of the art when it was released? Apparently, PC elitists would.<br />
<br />
There's no denying an Alienware powerhouse with 80gigs of RAM is going to be a technical beast next to an Xbox. The point is, who cares? The two are exclusive of each other. Does anyone really think game developers are competing with themselves? Are Eidos Montreal (The developers of Deus Ex) employees hanging around their water cooler mocking the Xbox? Of course not. They want to reach as many people as possible, and a game like Deus Ex is one of the rare titles that can appeal to every platform. Excluding one would be ridiculously bad for business. Judging the validity of one version against the other is<i> just</i> as ridiculous.<br />
<br />
The point of all this is that PC elitism is comical at this point. Consoles are not built to compete with the liquid PC marketplace. They can feasibly match the tech specs of the average PC the moment they roll of the assembly line, but within months, they'll be behind the curve. What PC elitists don't realize is is that that's the idea: Consoles are made for everyone. Not just for people who can successfully install a motherboard. Not just for people who can afford a $2,000 desktop. Not just for people who want to spend hours finding players with comparable hardware to play online with. Not just for people who want to download an unofficial mod that makes their cars shinier in GTA. Those people are welcome to enjoy the PC gaming world, and companies like Eidos Montreal will--and should-- happily cater to them. But they'll also cater to console gamers. PC elitists simply need to accept this fact and move on. Going into a Deus Ex Xbox forum and saying, "I guess those next gen consoles aren't so next-gen anymore" just makes you look stupid.<br />
<br />
One has to wonder... Maybe the PC elitists are just getting this all out of their systems before the advent of "cloud computing" - when we're all using standardized terminals instead of modded tower computers? When that day comes, they may have to go back to trolling Apple forums like the old days.<br />
<br />
<br />Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-58515960527918507272011-07-28T03:04:00.001-04:002013-01-23T01:27:47.809-05:00Battleship Trailer Gives Us That Sinking Feeling<a href="http://media.movies.ign.com/media/142/14236969/imgs_1.html">IGN has gotten their hands on the new poster and trailer</a> for the upcoming film, "<a href="http://media.movies.ign.com/media/142/14236969/imgs_1.html">Battleship</a>." In case you missed it, the film is supposedly based on the classic board game of the same name. Yes, you heard that right. Get back into your chair.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Ridiculous, you say? Ha! Perhaps! But what's more ridiculous than making a film based on a one-dimensional board game from 40 years ago? Making a film that seemingly only adapts said game <i>in name only</i>. But, to be fair--there's really not much source material to draw upon, which is what made the choice to make this film such a massive head-scratcher. It's not as if this is Halo or Dungeons and Dragons. Battleship has about as much depth as a game of Boggle... pun intended.<br />
<br />
However, "no story" didn't stop Hollywood from making 3 more Pirates of the Caribbean movies, right? So why not a film about plastic boats with pegs in them? The result of such forward thinking is a story for the ages: A rather extensive Naval exercise is rudely interrupted by--wait for it--water-born alien ships which begin attacking our vessels for unknown reasons. Our apparent hero? A brash, young officer who must prove himself while dodging the scorn of his girlfriend's protective father--who just so happens to be his commander.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
I don't know about you guys, but when I was playing Battleship as a kid, I know this is<i> exactly</i> what I was thinking. And if they'd been around at the time, I'm sure I would have envisioned Taylor Kitsch, Rihanna, Brooklyn Decker and an apparently desperate Liam Neeson manning the helm.<br />
<br />
In all seriousness, I can't for the life of me understand why this film is even being called Battleship, since the reference to this vintage toy can't possibly increase public awareness, right? In fact, I'd go as far as to say if they had chosen to name the film something else, it might actually have <i>more</i> credibility. As it stands now, the only connection to the game is a rather heavy-handed shot of "pegs" being shot into a ship in the trailer (yes, it's in there).<br />
<br />
Until the actual release, I'm going to keep telling myself this is some sort of April Fool's joke. If it's real, then I can only hope Hollywood green-lights that film adaptation of Gnip Gnop I've been clamoring for.<br />
<br />
"In a world where the fate of mankind rests on three magic spheres..."<br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://movies.ign.com/articles/118/1184521p1.html">See the trailer here</a></i>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-82940978869607829492009-10-02T05:10:00.005-04:002011-07-22T05:19:20.093-04:00Wait, What the Heck Happened?Ok, ok... don't get all freaked out.<br>
<br>
"Things That Annoy Me" hasn't gone anywhere. Well, not really.<br>
<br>
Truth is, I got tired of the old name/brand, and decided to shake things up a bit. Say hello to "Things That Annoy Me 2.0" - otherwise known as "popcannon." All the old tastiness of the original blog, with that new web 3.0 freshness!<br>
<br>
Anyhow, hopefully you all like the new branding. And if not, what can I tell ya? It took me this long to make THIS change, so don't expect another one for a while!<br>
<br>
Oh, and just a reminder: I still admit to rampant laziness, so you may find more activity on Twitter than here. Hey, at least I can own up to it!<br>
<br>
Back to your regular programming!<br>
<br>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-1635183636569494502009-08-10T01:07:00.006-04:002009-10-02T03:06:25.444-04:00We're Still Here!Just a quick note to say thanks to everyone who's been following "Things That Annoy Me" on Twitter! In all honesty, I've become hooked on it. But while there are time when I prefer the "micro-blogging" ease of Twitter, I assure you we will be back on track with new entries here on the main site.<br>
<br>
There's lots for us to catch up on here, so stay tuned, and keep following us on Twitter!<br>
<br>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-55299199005255146132008-06-25T23:54:00.011-04:002013-01-23T02:39:16.301-05:00Shawn Chacon: Neanderthal<a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-astros-chaconsuspended&prov=ap&type=lgns">The AP is reporting</a> that ineffective Astros pitcher Shawn Chacon will be suspended indefinitely for physically assualting Houston GM Ed Wade. Chacon says:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666;">“I sat down to eat and Ed Wade came to me and very sternly said, ‘You need to come with me to the office,”’ Chacon said. “I said ‘for what?’ I said ‘I don’t want to go to the office with you and Cooper.’ And I said, ‘You can tell me whatever you got to tell me right here.’ He’s like, ‘Oh, you want me to tell you right here?’ And I said, ‘yeah.’ I’m not yelling. I’m calm.”</span></i><br />
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666;"><br />
</span></i> <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666;">“He started yelling and cussing,” Chacon said of Wade, according to a story on the Chronicle’s Web site. “I’m sitting there and I said to him very calmly, ‘Ed, you need to stop yelling at me. Then I stood up and said, ‘You better stop yelling at me.’ I stood up. He continued and was basically yelling.”</span></i></blockquote>
<br />
Chacon said that after Wade told him he needed to “look in the mirror,” it got worse.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666;">“So at that point I lost my cool and I grabbed him by the neck and threw him to the ground. I jumped on top of him,” he said. “Words were exchanged.” </span></i></blockquote>
<i><br />
</i> <br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
Way to go, Shawn! Nice example you're setting for all the kids out there. When an older gentleman who happens to sign your checks acts like a jerk, the best way to deal with it is assault him. Forget the fact that you're supposedly an "adult," a "role model (by default)," or a multi-millionaire who should be thanking his lucky stars that he's still in the league. Just go with your baser instincts and grab the guy by the throat. While you're at it, why not kick the chef in the nuts if your stake was overcooked?<br />
<br />
Look, no one is condoning the actions of Wade: he is obviously a classless fool for allegedly acting the way he did. However, there are more mature ways of dealing with the situatuon. First of all, you don't say "no" to your boss when he wants to talk to you in private--he/she might be doing you a favor by saving you the awkwardness. Secondly, when he allegedly started spewing obscenities, be the bigger person: sit calmly and smile at how childish he is, and let him dig his own grave. Let him look like a baby in front of his peers--that is so much <i>more</i> effective than jumping up like a thug and attacking him physically--because that's all the witnesses will remember in the long run. Imagine how great you would have looked.<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong, I know there are certain insults that might make someone boil over--we've all experienced things like that--but <i>according to you</i>, it sounds like he was just "yelling." In addition, we don't know the backstory here: What if it comes to light that you had been insulting him and questioning his judgement as a GM for months in the clubhouse? What if he became aware that you were "dogging it" and doing your teammates a disservice? Heck, if that were true, I would probably throw a few four-letter words your way, too. <br />
<br />
And by the way, did it ever occur to you that he might be overdoing it to <i>provoke</i> you? Perhaps your sub-par performance this year caused the GM to want you off the team, but he couldn't find a timely excuse? Based on your reaction, it sounds to me like you might not have seen that far ahead. D'oh!<br />
<br />
Again, I'm by no means cheering Wade's alleged actions here, but come on, Shawn. Grow up. If you do, you might be remembered for your pitching, and not this silly, avoidable incident.<br />
<br />Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-70438322823619377812008-01-02T23:02:00.004-05:002013-01-23T02:39:34.828-05:00Tequila's Shot Lasts 29 Days<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
Well, if you needed more proof that reality TV--particularly MTV reality TV--is fake, pull up a chair. Yahoo News is reporting that <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080103/ap_en_tv/people_tila_tequila" target="0">There will be a second season of "A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila."</a> According to the report, first season "winner" Bobby Banhart is no longer dating the aforementioned star of the show, Tila Tequila. Ms. Tequila claims that Mr. Banhart "broke up with her" because he couldn't handle her "hectic" schedule. Banhart, on the other hand, said that, "she never called me after the last show and no one would give me her number."<br />
<br />
Guess who we believe?<br />
<br />
Any intelligent human knows that reality TV in general is a sign of the apocalypse, but it becomes exponentially worse when the "reality" is not only fake, it doesn't even BOTHER to hide the fact that its fake. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, considering that MTV seems to revel in the fact that one of their other hit shows, "The Hills," so blatantly dupes it's audience with such a "we-think-you're-idiots-but-you'll-stilll -watch" bravado not seen since ... well, since "The Hills." So it stands to reason that the network should be responsible for yet another slap in the face to it's audience that actually disgraces reality TV.<br />
<br />
This news isn't shocking for anyone who actually held their dinner down long enough to watch this show--it was about as far from "real" as you can get. But honestly, MTV, can't you at least TRY to make the experience SEEM real? How about maintaining the fake relationship for at least 2-3 months before breaking it off? Or even paying off the poor slob "winner" to keep his trap shut for a few months to give the illusion of dating? I mean, it IS your highest rated show--don;t you think you owe it to your viewers to string them along a tiny bit before setting the table for a new season?<br />
<br />
Apparently not, because not only did Tequila give Mr. Banhart the cold shoulder the minute the cameras started rolling, MTV was classy enough to circulate a casting call notice for a second season of the show BEFORE the finale! Nice one, guys. Why bother keeping up the facade of reality when you know millions of dolts will tune in to watch this diminutive no-talent freakazoid earn a buck by wearing no clothes and leering at prospective suitors.<br />
<br />
However, who can argue with success? The show is MTV's most watched since 2005 (a fact that conversely should illuminate how poor the programming has been in the last two years), so a second season was inevitable. The only gripe here is that the network should muster up the collecitve balls to admit the show (and others) is NOT real. Anyone with more than 3 brain cells knows this already, but it wouldn't hurt to enlighten the other 95% of the audience with an admission of fakeness. At least liken the show to something along the lines of the WWE: Something we all know isn't real, but still remains somewhat watchable... perhaps because the WWE doesn't assume we're stupid.<br />
<br />
Which brings us to another sure sign of the apocalypse: WWE programming becomes less insulting than MTV programming. I think I need a shower after writing that.<br />
<br />Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-39148054295522896422007-08-07T02:04:00.002-04:002013-01-23T01:33:33.549-05:00Drugless Duff Remains Oddly Popular<br />
In a celebrity world whirling with drugs and impropriety, it's refreshing to see a young, attractive pseudo-ingenue stay somewhat relevant without dabbling in weekend trips to their local rehab center (<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070806/ts_alt_afp/entertainmentusfilm_070806171057" target="0">This means you, Lindsay Lohan!</a>). But such is the case for "sorta pop star, sorta actress" Hilary Duff.<br />
<br />
Ms. Duff has foregone rabid alcoholism, dangerous automobile accidents and flipping the bird to paparazzi in favor of doing something rather (yawn) normal. Following in her horse-faced sister's footsteps, she's taken the plunge into the almost-seedy world of mass market men's magazines. Ms. Duff graces the cover of the <a href="http://www.maximonline.com/HilaryDuff/girls_of_maxim/3183/209.aspx" target="0">August issue of Maxim Magazine</a>, and struts her stuff for a photo layout inside. Honestly, she looks darn good--although she could use a sandwich or two. But more importantly, it's nice to see a <s>kind of memorable</s> popular starlet choosing conventional methods to stay that way--even if it means posing in a magazine designed for men who can't keep porn around the house and enjoy reading more ads than 1989 issues of Computer Shopper.<br />
<br />
All sarcasm aside, Hilary Duff should get a medal for choosing this venue for keeping her 15 minutes going. OK, so she's not quite as interesting to read about as Ms. Lohan (heck, <i>I</i> even like Lohan better--rehab or not), but she's continuing to improve her odds of not ending up buying weed in a low-end nightclub and/or being spit out the bottom of the porn industry when she's 40. Good job, Ms. Duff-- we really do mean it.Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-6431970907970286822007-08-07T01:18:00.004-04:002013-01-23T01:28:55.504-05:00Rory Sabbatini: Professional DickWe don't talk about golf too often on this site--possibly due to the fact that many of the readers here could care less about the PGA. That being said, yours truly DOES like golf, so tough luck. In all honestly, this post has little to do with golf itself and more to do with a professional athlete's propensity for being an ass.<br /><br /><a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/pga/news?slug=ap-golfcapsules&prov=ap&type=lgns">The Bridgestone Invitational</a> was held this past weekend at the Firestone Country Club in Akron, Ohio. During the event, South African Pro Rory Sabbatini was quoted as saying Tiger Woods looked "as beatable as ever," apparently smoking crack or some other pharmaceutical. Within hours of the final round, Woods effectively began destroying Sabbatini and the rest of the field with birdie after birdie on the rainy afternoon.<br /><br />Later during the round, a rather vocal member of the gallery following Sabbatini said, "does Tiger still look beatable?" As a response, the always classy Sabbatini whined to an official and had the man removed. To make matters worse, Mr. Sabbatini was later quoted as saying the aforementioned removed fan might have had "too many beers." <br /><br />Way to go, Rory! Nothing epitomizes a lackluster also-ran career in golfing like a three-step program of asshole perfection! First, make a point to bait the best athlete in your sport--a man you couldn't beat in a game of Golden Tee. Second, cry like an infant when someone confronts you with your own arrogant ramblings, and have the person removed for doing nothing illegal--even if it was annoying (sinking to another's level is always mature!). And lastly, don't forget to make comments that border on defamation of character by calling that person a drunk! Great job!<br /><br />Let's be honest: most people have no idea who Rory Sabbatini is, including most members of any random leaderboard in a major event. If Mr. Sabbatini wants attention, perhaps he should work on his game and begin winning some tough championships instead of spouting inane comments like a bush leaguer.<br /><br />On the other hand, maybe you and Sergio Garcia can team up to form some sort of "I wish I was a better golfer" club and go around spitting into golf holes. Neato!Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-11341883946001102942007-05-23T23:18:00.002-04:002013-01-23T01:33:16.064-05:00Jordin Sparks Wins 'American Idol'On Wednesday night, Glendale, AZ native Jordin Sparks became the youngest American Idol in the show's run. The bubbly big-voiced seventeen year old handily beat out her elder rival, Blake Lewis, for the coveted TV crown, ensuring the win with a rousing interpretation of the fan-picked song, "This is My Now" during the show's finale.<br />
<br />
As previously stated on this site, it was fairly obvious that Ms. Sparks would win. She was undoubtedly more talented than Mr. Lewis (even if she didn't prance around the stage), and, of the final 10 or so contestants, she was the best blend of photo-friendliness and talent. Will this translate into record sales and/or a career for the teen (or for any of the finalistst, for that matter)? Only time will tell. However, the odds seem pretty good that she'll amount to something: The last few seasons have produced a Jazz/Soul niche star (Fantasia), a pop/rock girl with a slight edge (Kelly Clarkson), a country superstar (Carrie Underwood), an adult contemporary soul singer (Taylor Hicks) and a straight-ahead (so-called "dark") rocker (Chris Daughtry). Maybe this is the right time for a younger, straight-ahead pop teen (Of course, that's what Diana DeGarmo thought, too, and it was an effort to even remember her NAME to include in this article). <br />
One final note: Yours truly would like to give himself a large, well-deserved pat on the back for knowing weeks ago--during her first audition--that Jordin Sparks would make it to the end of the show, if not win it altogether. True, this crop of contestants wasn't exactly a musician's dream team, so perhaps picking Jordin wasn't quite that difficult. Like I said before, Jordin had the best blend of all the qualities the producers--and America, apparently--wanted, which should have been obvious by the middle of the season. A great voice is key, but it helps to be particularly hot and have an ounce of personality. (Note to <s>Shrek</s> Melinda: You could have at least TRIED to have the latter) <br />
<br />
Anyhow. What a relief! Having predicted the winner, I can now return to my usual daily scorn of reality shows and how they've contributed to the downfall of our entertainment industry. Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-15310705733936508632007-05-22T01:50:00.002-04:002013-01-23T01:29:58.977-05:00Ads That Annoy: Kia Koncedes to Kickin'<table align="right" cellpadding="3" style="width: 200px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /><br />Watch TV much? Well, if you're like me, you watch too much--and probably at night. In addition, you probably "latch on" to a favorite group of channels for your daily TV fix--which means you undoubtedly see the same cache of commercials every night as well. True, this can be a good thing (if you really get an unhealthy kick out of those prolific Geico "caveman" ads.), but, in most cases, it sucks. However, suck or not, it does give you a rather unique perspective on TV ads, in as much as you have the advantage over most people when it comes to frequency of viewership. With that in mind, yours truly finds that, from time to time, certain commercials need to be investigated, dissected, mocked and--usually--throttled unmercifully. Welcome to "Ads That Annoy."<br />
This installment takes a look at the most recent offering from KIA Motors. First of all, let's begin by stating KIA makes a fine product and has much to offer the prospective buyer. This, however, apparently does not make the company immune to being really dumb (technical term). In their most recent commercials, we are presented with two rather youngish male office workers who are talking to eachother after the close of what seems to be an electrifying business meeting. Guy 2 has really knocked them dead, apparently:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #666666; font-size: 10px;"><i>
Guy 1: "Hey man, you were awesome! Have you been takin' Karate?!?"<br />
Guy 2: (smiling) "No!"<br />
Guy 2: (TO HIMSELF) "But I DID get a kick-ass deal at Kia recently!"<br />
</i></span></blockquote>
To be honest, I didn't really think there was anything all that bad with this exchange--even though I must admit I was shocked Kia went for the "ass," since they really aren't the epitome of "hip." Unfortunately, I must have been alone in that opinion, because Kia immediately pulled that exchange, and with days, it went something like this: <br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #666666; font-size: 10px;"><i>
Guy 1: "Hey man, you were awesome! Have you been eating more fiber?!?"<br />
Guy 2: (smiling) "No!"<br />
Guy 2: (TO HIMSELF) "But I DID get a great deal at Kia recently!"<br />
</i></span></blockquote>
Umm... ok! Apparently, Kia felt that ease of digestion is less offensive than "kicking ass." To each their own. Obviously some <s>tightass</s> responsible parent out there got all riled up and felt that a word they use in their household 175 times a day was too much to have in a car commercial. Admittedly, it's actually kind of funny--especially if no one has seen the original. But it doesn't end there, because within a few more days, the exchange was finally changed to:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #666666; font-size: 10px;"><i>
Guy 1: "Hey man, you were awesome! Have you been takin' karate?!?"<br />
Guy 2: (smiling) "No!"<br />
Guy 2: (TO HIMSELF) "But I DID get a kickin' at Kia recently!"<br />
</i></span></blockquote>
This means the advertising experts at Kia used the "fiber" version as a stopgap solution whilst they sat around deciding how to fix the marginally less funny "karate" option. Not only does this result in viewer confusion, but it also leaves us with a rather dull pun that rivals any given exhcange from a mid-90's "Full House" script. The first version was cool because it flouted society's conventions. The second was just plain mildly amusing. This version sucks. <br />
<br />
So what we have here is a company that should be chided on two fronts: First of all, they've kowtowed to pressure from self-proclaimed do-gooders. Secondly (and even more annoyingly), they've rectified the issue by making the commercial forgettable. News Flash: Commercials are supposed to make people REMEMBER the brand. <br />
<br />
Let's face it--car commercials are like water content in the human body: They basically make up 80-90% of commecials nowadays. You need any edge you can get to help your company stand out, and Kia just lost theirs. A good warranty and funky car names ("Sephia," "Sportage") can only get you so far. Better get those heads together at the next ad meeting, Kia: you don't want to end up like Buick. <br />
<br />
Yea, they still sell cars.Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-57053551332227957342007-04-12T23:10:00.003-04:002013-01-23T01:29:13.497-05:00Who DOESN'T Like 'Strong Brutal Violence Throughout?'<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
Ah, the lazy, gray, boring, transitional days of early Spring. Days filled with terrible weather, nauseating hockey playoffs, Sanjaya Malakar and--last but not least--bargain-bin movies that distributors remove from their trashcans and toss into theaters hoping the unsuspecting public might pay to see them. You know the movies we're talking about: those ones that couldn't POSSIBLY survive the holiday months of winter or the blockbuster-laden months of summer. The films with relatively blah plots, 3rd-tier actors, been-there-done-that hooks and an overall disregard for the filmmaking process altogether. Save for September, this is quite possibly the worst time of the year for movies--a fact made all too apparent by the flood of ads on TV for said forgettable, throwaway films. <br />
<br />
Enter the film "Pathfinder"-- a loud, violent, apparently historical action film supposedly based on a niche comic book property from Dark Horse Comics. If you haven't seen the trailer (and really, who has?), the movie chronicles the legend of a viking boy left behind in North America who is taken in by Native Americans. Upon reaching manhood (or a reasonable facsmilie thereof), he switches sides and becomes the defender of said Native Americans against his former Viking brethren. <br />
<br />
Yippee! This is definitely a plotline we've never seen before. Unfortunately, this confoundingly simple premise is never really mentioned in the sparse television ads for the film. Instead, the viewer is treated to the obligatory quick cuts of slashing, forests, manly grunting and really ham-fisted voiceovers: "Those who LIVE by the sword... (pause) DIE by the sword!" Wow! That's original! As if that wasn't enough, the entire film looks as if it was shot through some "I-wish-this-was-300-or-gladiator" filter the director picked up at Target. <br />
<br />
The best part, however, is saved until the closing seconds of the ad. Apparently, the producers--painfully aware that the film would struggle to sell 10 tickets--chose one of those "hail mary" desperation moves that many movie commercials use: I like to call it the MPAA highlighter tactic. <br />
<br />
As the ad ends, the narrator states, "Rated R for Strong Brutal Violence Throughout." Ah ha! Well that's definitely getting me into the theater! Apparently, the lack of interesting plot and cookie-cutter action won't be enough to garner interest, so why not EXPLICITLY state the reason the film has an "R" rating? I mean, it's obviously TRUE, so there's no chance of false advertising! And just in case anyone's confused as to what TYPE of voilence we're talking about, make no mistake: this is that "strong" and "brutal" violence--not that "watered-down" and "cutesy" violence of other films. And, you can bet your last dollar that it's happening "throughout" the film--not just for 20 minutes or something like that. You've got wall-to-wall R-rating justification, people, so shell out your 10 bucks!<br />
<br />
I mean, really. What the hell is this all about? I'll tell you what: DESPERATION. Only a film that has absolutely NOTHING to offer the viewer has to point the proverbial magnifying glass over the ratings box to get fannies in the seats. Honestly--have you ever seen a GOOD movie pulling this stunt? What about an AVERAGE movie? No. This tactic is saved for that select few cinematic masterpeices that cater to the lowest common denominator--most of which are actually too smart to fall for it. The recent flood of throwaway horror films is even employing this strategy: "rated R for disturbing imagery and frightening sequences." No shit? I thought I was paying to see a sequel to "March of the Penguins," you dumbass.<br />
<br />
It's about time we nip this desperate trend in the bud, before it goes too far. If we show that this concept results in the slightest success and/or additional revenue, how far are we from commercials for the next animated film that state, "rated G for extreme good humor and fun feelings throughout?" Take a stand against these producers/distributors by avoiding films like "Pathfinder" (something most intelligent people will do anyway). Before long, they might actually take the hint and realize that any film that needs to use it's rating to sell tickets belongs on the straight-to-video shelf, instead of taking valuable screens away from genuine attempts at filmmaking like "Wild Hogs."<br />
<br />
FYI, that last sentence contained sarcasm. It was strong. It was brutal. And it was throughout. Damn right.Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-12803925309601669042007-01-09T12:48:00.001-05:002013-01-23T01:30:24.901-05:00FLASH: Apple Introduces AppleTV, iPhone, Changes Company Name in Best Keynote in Years<table cellpadding="0" style="width: 800px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><i>Note: This is a "bare-bones" announcement; editorial comments/analysis to follow as needed</i><br />
<br />
One of the most anticipated MacWorld San Francisco events just concluded 10 minutes ago, and Steve Jobs certainly lived up to the hype. It was, in a word, the best Apple Keynote in years In brief, Apple Computer, Inc., made the following MAJOR product introductions/announcements (in order of appearance):<br />
<br />
<b>1) APPLE TV </b>- A previously hinted-at small set-top unit that can wirelessly stream media from any itunes-equipped computer in your home to your television. Ships in February. More info <a href="http://www.apple.com/" target="_blank">at the Apple site</a>. <br />
<br />
<b>2) APPLE iPHONE </b>- An UNBELIEVABLY REVOLUTIONARY All-in-one technology that fuses phone, media player and comunicator in one device that puts Blackberries to SHAME. Driven by a widescreen, touch-screen interface using the OSX experience, the unit syncs with all other technology, has a proximity/accelerometer sensor, visual voicemail, built-in integration with Google Search and Yahoo Mail, "knows where you are," has over 200 inclusive patents--and is a mere 11.6mm thick! The phone has a massive amount of additional innovations/features and can be seen <a href="http://www.apple.com/" target="_blank">here</a>. It's called the iPhone, and will apparently retail for $499 and $599 (for 4gb and 8gb respectively) be available in June through Cingular ONLY. YOU MUST SEE THIS TO BELIEVE IT. WOW. JUST F**KING WOW.<br />
<br />
<b>3) Company Name Change</b> - Due to the company's recent domination of the digital media world, and it's new entry into the communication world, Steve Jobs announces it will no longer be known as "Apple Computer, Inc." It will simply be called "Apple, Inc." This may seem minor, but it is anything but. <br />
<br />
These developments are nothing less than business-world shattering. Any doubts of that will be quickly silenced when one notes that, during the keynote, APPLE shares went up a staggering 8%, RIM shares plummeted 6.5% and Palm shares shed 2.5%. Enough said. <br />
<br />
Congratulations, Apple! The future is blindingly bright, and I'm happy to be a proud Apple user. More reports to follow.<br />
<br />
<!--
<table width=200 cellpadding=3 align=left>
<tr>
<td>
<img src="IMAGE GOES HERE" width=200 border=1>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<font face=arial color="#778899" style="font-size:9px"><i>CAPTION IS HERE</i></font>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
-->
<!--TYPE ARTICLE HERE-->
<br />
<hr noshadow="" size="1" />
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-5766302044429632362007-01-03T00:26:00.001-05:002013-01-23T01:30:13.410-05:00Xbox 360 Wins Holiday battle<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
According to <a href="http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/xbox-360/xbox-360-tops-holiday-console-sales-225353.php" target="0">Kotaku and NPD data</a>, it seems as though the Xbox 360 was the best-selling "next-gen" console this past holiday season. Figures show that the 360 sold approximately 2 million units, while the Nintendo Wii came in at number 2 with a solid 1.8 million units. The PS3 came in a distant third with 750,000 units.<br />
<br />
Now before all you fanboys spew RedBull all over your Sixaxis controllers, keep in mind the following: Obviously, a few more 360's were bought because people couldn't get their grubby little paws on PS3's and Wii's. And let's not forget that the 360 had a few days head start on the shopping season.<br />
<br />
Still, it's an interesting statistic, since the Wii experienced almost as many shortages as the PS3 this season. It gets more interesting when you couple it with the story just below this one regarding unsold PS3s. Of course, most experts expect the the PS3 to become the leading console when all is said and done--but don't get too comfy, Sony. Nintendo was writing the book on video game domination when you were still making Walkmen. <br />
<br />
Or perhaps you missed the fact that the Nintendo DS outsold everyone this past year? Food for thought.<br />
<br />
<i>Get the story at gamesindustry.biz <a href="http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=21958" target="0">here</a>.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-2929257801612791542007-01-03T00:05:00.004-05:002013-01-23T02:46:39.626-05:00Anyone Want a PS3? Anyone? Bueller?<a href="http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/ps3/plenty-o-ps3s-but-no-takers-225271.php" target="0">Gaming news authority Kotaku is reporting</a> that, just a few days after the holiday, stacks and stacks of brand new PS3s are going un-purchased at various Best Buy locations. Brian Crecente, editor of Kotaku states:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
"...the Best Buy near my house had 31 Playstation 3s sitting in a lovely wall o' consoles this morning when I swung by the store. Many, if not all of them, were the 60GB model."</blockquote>
<br />
Obviously, this could be partly due to the fact that most people do not have the adequate amount of disposable income to spend on a PS3 this soon after the holiday, but even with that in mind, it's a bit disturbing. Crecente observes that this type of development "doesn't look good" for Sony, and cites a related study that illustrates <a href="http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/ps3-grey-market/feature-the-decline-of-the-ps3-grey-market-224984.php" target="0">the quick decline of the PS3 on eBay</a>.<br />
<br />
Reason for panic at Sony's headquarters? Probably not. But it's still pretty interesting.<br />
<br />Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-8466560094122825002006-12-04T16:07:00.000-05:002006-12-04T16:34:22.076-05:00Family Guy Still Kicks Ass<table width=800 cellpadding=0>
<tr>
<td>
Being a Family Guy devotee, I find it hard to say theat there are ANY episodes that are bad, but, when I step back and take a look at the entire catalogue, there are indeed a few that are kinda... well, yawn. That being said, every time critics have a SLIGHT chance to take a shot at the show for losing it's edge, an episode comes along to renew your faith in just how awesome it is.<br>
<br>
I recently caught the episode titled, "Prick Up Your Ears" on Cartoon Network (yes, I know it originally aired on FOX 2 weeks ago--I was out), and I have to say it was chock full of quality. I'm not about to quote it line for line here, but damn if there aren't millions of quotables (the way Peter delivers the "crotch" line re: the smuckers Brian is eating is priceless if you've seen the entire show). Just Do yourself a favor and catch it when you can! There are a couple of fun clips from this episode on YouTube which I've posted below. Enjoy--and long live Family Guy!<br>
<br>
<i> NOTE: Watch the fourth clip all the way through for a great reference to KNIGHT RIDER! Just remember to pause it and give the clip an opportunity to load a bit before playing it (it's 4 mins).</i> <br>
<br>
<object width="300" height="275"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OzkMiQD4irU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OzkMiQD4irU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="300" height="275"></embed></object>
<object width="300" height="275"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nSwZuYpQVUs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nSwZuYpQVUs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="300" height="275"></embed></object>
<br>
<br>
<object width="300" height="275"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PUHKfEYN8Gs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PUHKfEYN8Gs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="300" height="275"></embed></object>
<object width="300" height="275"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RsUNwKPpIPE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RsUNwKPpIPE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="300" height="275"></embed></object>
<hr size=1 noshadow>
</td>
</tr>
</table>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-58098921245364167942006-12-04T15:48:00.000-05:002006-12-04T15:55:48.774-05:00Welcome From The Old Site!<table width=800 cellpadding=0>
<tr>
<td>
I just wanted to take this opportunity to welcome all the existing readers of "Things That Annoy Me" to this new location! Aside from a couple of reminders to change your links, there won't be anymore new posts at the previous location, so make a note of it!<br>
<br>
IMPORTANT INFORMATON:<br>
As of now, the new site (Blogger) does not send out email notifcations. Why? Because they assume people are using fancy-schmantzy RSS subscription methods. <br>
<br>
With that in mind, your intrepid editor has researched several ways to circumvent this problem. The result? I will be trying the services of FEEDBURNER as a go between. The only problem is that you <b>MUST RE-SUBSCRIBE TO THE BLOG</b> using the new subscription window in the lower area of the left sidebar of the site.<br>
<br>
<i>The only catch is this: For now, notifications are sent out ONLY in the early morning. This means that, if there's a new entry in the middle of the day, you won't hear about it 'till the following AM... unless you go to the site before then, of course.</i><br>
<br>
Suggestion number 2: Get on board the RSS bandwagon and subscribe to the site feed using your browser or news feed reader of choice! (See the links to the left)<br>
<br>
Anyhow... welcome (again), and thanks for coming! Now back to your regularly scheduled program.<br>
<br>
<hr size=1 noshadow>
</td>
</tr>
</table>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-70043612203827574692006-11-22T02:29:00.001-05:002011-07-26T00:32:57.328-04:00Joe Cowley, Resident Ass.For those who don't follow baseball, the end of the year MVP awards were handed out this week. Ryan Howard of the Phillies won for his performance in the National League, and, yesterday, Justin Morneau of the Twins edged out Derek Jeter for the American League honors. Many believe that Jeter should have won the award, due to his consistent leadership, the fact that he basically carried his team for the greater portion of the year, and his defense--for which he won a Gold Glove. Nevertheless, he lost--which is unfortunate, but acceptable considering the year Mr. Morneau logged. The awards are given based on the votes of various writers around the country who supposedly make educated decisions based on observation, stats and overall awareness of each MVP candidates' performance. In brief, each writer ranks several candidates 1-10 for the award, points are assigned to each ranking on their lists, and then these points are totalled to result in a winner.<br>
<br>
According to Yahoo! Sports, "Morneau received 15 first-place votes, eight seconds, three thirds and two fourths for 320 points in voting by a panel of the Baseball Writers' Association of America. Jeter got 12 firsts, 14 seconds, one fourth and one sixth for 306 points."<br>
<br>
Take one more look at that again. Notice anything bizarre? No, it's not the fact that Jeter lost--that's perfectly acceptable, even to Yankee fans (including yours truly). And no, it's not that Morneau won--that's also not wacky at all: the guy had a fantastic year. The red flag here is that one obviously mentally deficient writer gave Derek Jeter a SIXTH PLACE vote. That writer was the Chicago Sun-Times' White Sox beat reporter Joe Cowley.<br>
<br>
Let's begin by saying Cowley is obviously retarded and/or chemically dependant. There's no other explanantion for his actions. Whatever you may think of Jeter--hate him intensely or love him deeply--there is no realistic way he should receive a SIXTH PLACE vote. Maybe you think he wasn't as good as Morneau? That's fine! Perhaps you think he should be 2nd or 3rd place? Accceptable! But SIXTH? Jigga what?<br>
<br>
Anyone who follows baseball (Yankee fan or otherwise) knows that this year was perhaps Jeter's best year, and that he basically carried his team for an entire year--doing it all in a market 500 times more intense and demanding that any sports city in the world. Every marginally intelligent human being knows he should have at least been in the top 3 on ANY MVP list--even if you coudn't stand him. Apparently Mr. Cowley didn't get the memo when baseball knowledge was being handed out.<br>
<br>
Cowley was given the chance to explain his voting thought process on the nationally broadcast sports talk show, "MIke and the Mad Dog (Mike Francesa and Chris Russo)." His grating personality should have been instantly evident when he greeted the hosts with, "how you doin' bro?" (Nothing like sounding like an 18-year old frat boy to foster respect) But it gets worse: When asked why he gave Jeter a 6th place vote, Mr. Cowley revealed himself to be a buffoon with seemingly no baseball smarts whatsoever. <br>
<br>
He first claimed to have spoken to "guys around the American League" and asked "them" who "THEY" said they feared the most in the Yankee lineup, and he claimed they feared A-Rod more than Jeter. OK... No... Impossible. Cowley must have been talking to <s>A. J. Pierszinski</s> another lunatic like himself, because NO ONE in the AL feared A-Rod. No one. Sorry. Strike one, Joe<br>
<br>
Cowley then went on to say that most of his thought process is not based on numbers, but instead on what would happen to a team if the candidate in question were to be removed from that team. He claimed that if Jeter was removed from the 2006 Yankees, they would still be in the playoffs. (Which, in actuality is not necessarily true--they would have struggled to win 90 games). When presented with the same logic for David Ortiz--whom Cowley voted third--he began to fumble his words. Mike and Chris claimed that without Ortiz in 2006, the Red Sox would have won 10 less games and the result (no playoff appearace) would have been exactly the same. Cowley couldn't quite wrap his hed around this rather basic contradiction. Srike two, Joe.<br>
<br>
To make matters worse, Cowley attempted to justify Ortiz' ranking ahead of Jeter because he was "more clutch" on a "team in contention." Sorry, Joe--the Red Sox were NOT in contention after August 11. They were done, end of discussion. Cowley then oddly claimed that if a team had fans "coming to the ballpark," that meant they were "contenders." Huh? Since when does attendance=contention? Tell that to the Cubs! Strike three, Joe.<br>
<br>
The hosts then questioned Cowley's decision to put Frank Thomas ahead of Jeter. Cowley claimed that Thomas single-handedly carried his team for the last 6 weeks of the season into the playoffs. He then asked the hosts, "did Jeter do that?" Mike and Chris answered correctly: Yes. Jeter carried the Yankees the ENTIRE YEAR, not just in the last 6 weeks. However, since the Yankees wrapped up the division with a month to go, that's Jeter's fault in Cowley's eyes, and he apparently needed to be penalized for that. Translation: Carrying your team in the last 6 weeks is more imporatnt than carrying it the first 3 months and winning easy. Strike four, Joe.<br>
<br>
The most glaring display of stupidity was yet to come, however. Cowley mistakenly said the Yankees "pulled away during the last 7 weeks of the season," which was incorrect: They pulled away during the 5 game series with the Red Sox in early August--leaving Fenway with a 7.5 game lead in the division. After being informed of this (something he should have known), Cowly asked the hosts, "oh, and Jeter won that series for them?" The answer is YES--and the hosts asked if he knew what Jeter had done in that series. Joe didn't know--which is not that good for a "sports" writer. Strike five, Joe.<br>
<br>
But here's the best part: One of the hosts attempted to enlighten Joe as to Jeter's performance in that series by asking if he knew what Jeter did in the biggest game of the Yankees' season (the Friday night game in that series). Cowley laughed uncomfortably and quipped, "the most important game in the Yankee's season was when they lost in the playoffs." When asked if his MVP voting had anything to do with the post season, Joe said, "no." So why bring it up, Joe? Ummm... Because you're stupid and grasping at straws. Strike six, Joe.<br>
<br>
The hosts then asked Cowley AGAIN if he knew what Jeter did in the most important games in the Yankee's season (those 5 games in early August that ENDED Boston's season). Cowley again deflected the question, and even questioned Mike and Chris' integrity by childishly asking them "how many games do YOU guys make it out to," for which he was silenced, because the hosts go to many games during the year. Strike seven, Joe. <br>
<br>
Cowley was then asked AGAIN what Jeter had done in the second game of that 5-game series the ENTIRE SPORTS WORLD was watching in August. Finally, his answer was, "he probably had a good game." Yikes. He didn't even KNOW. That's a sports writer, folks. A sports writer. Strike eight, Joe.<br>
<br>
After revealing the fact that he didn't watch important games, the most entertaining part of the interview occurred: Mike and Chris then asked why Cowley voted Jermaine Dye SECOND ahead of Jeter. His answer? "Look at his numbers!" But--wait, Joe: You just told everyine numbers weren't your main deciding factor--Didn't you? Cowley answers, "Yes, the numbers AREN'T the main issue." Ummm, but you just told us to look at Dye's numbers as the main factor! Which is it Joe? Joe was caught in his own contradiction, and became defensive--he then insulted the hosts like a child: "Let me explain -- I'll talk real slow, because I know you guys like to yell and that's your radio show, and it makes you feel good." Wow... score one for your professionalism! Strike nine, Joe.<br>
<br>
Cowley then "slowly" explained that, while voting, the first thing he looks at are players on teams that are "contending for the playoffs" late in the year. The hosts then asked why, if contention was so important, was Ortiz higher than Jeter on his list--since the Red Sox were NOT IN CONTENTION after August 11th (2 months left to go in the season)? Joe answered by ignoring the facts and repeating that the Sox were indeed a "contender," stating that Ortiz did not have any lineup around him (someone tell Manny Ramirez--apparently he's chopped liver), and stating that Ortiz had "better numbers." When reminded that he previously stated that numbers weren't important, he beligerently explained that his order of importance is 1) is the player's team in contention 2) their numbers ON that contending team and 3) the numbers of a non-contending team player if they are "freakish numbers" (a la A-Rod's numbers with the Texas Rangers the year he won the MVP). <br>
<br>
Sounds reasonable, right? Chris Russo then addressed the 3 points one by one: He first asked (again) why Ortiz was voted higher since his team did not meet criteria number ONE (being in contention). Cowley then stated, "because like I said, if a guy puts up freakish numbers." After confusing the issue by saying this, Cowley contradicted himself by repeating his order of importance: 1) A team in contention and--now-- 2) "if a guy puts up freakish numbers if (his) team didn't make it." Wait--wasn't that condition number THREE, Joe? Strike ten, Joe.<br>
<br>
Finally, Joe was asked--AGAIN--if he felt the Red Sox were a contending team in 2006. He FINALLY answered yes, believing that they were "in contention until the last 6 weeks of the season" which is technically incorrect. Sorry Joe, no dice. You're out.<br>
<br>
In summary, Mr. Cowley's order of MVP contenders was patently inane: Jermaine Dye was ahead of Jeter because of his numbers on a team that collapsed. Frank Thomas was ahead of Jeter for 6 weeks of work at the end of the season. David Ortiz was ahead of Jeter for having little effect on a non-contending team and being injured for the better part of a month. Johan Santana was ahead of Jeter for a great year--but as a pitcher, who, as we all know, have their OWN awards, and don't win MVPs unless they channel Sandy Koufax.<br>
<br>
The point of this dissection of Cowley's stupidity is NOT to explain why Jeter should have won the award--far from it. No one here is saying Morneau didn't deserve the MVP. The problem here is that no alleged sports writer who had a vote could have logically placed Jeter SIXTH among these candidates. It's so strikingly unsubstanitated that one must assume either Mr. Cowley is--as stated above--some sort of mental deficient, or, more likely, a young, uninformed baseball writer who is a homer of the highest order and thinks that baseball begins and ends with the White Sox, and anything Yankee-related is evil and must be exterminated from the public purvue.<br>
<br>
The funniest part about all of this hubbub is that Jeter himself could care less who wins or loses awards like this--nor does he spend one second thinking about the various reporters and columnists who have a vendetta agasint him or his team. The people who DO care about these awards--the fans--are the real losers here: They enjoy seeing their hometown heroes get recognition so much more than the players do themselves. But, because a vote can basically be swayed by one subjective, "second city," jealous voter with an obvious agenda, they are effectively punished. <br>
<br>
Until Major League Baseball decides to start policing the votes a little better and/or defining the award itself a little more clearly, this is what we will all have to suffer through. Perhaps we can take solace in the fact that, years from now, when objective, educated writers and columnists have moved along in their careers and contributed to the tapestry of the American Pastime, Mr. Cowley will get his comeuppance and find himself subjugated to typing want ads for his local Pennysaver.<br>
<br>
If only justice were always so fitting.<br>
<br>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-2818338951851797692006-11-22T01:31:00.000-05:002013-01-23T01:34:41.375-05:00Turistas: Kill Them All!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
So I recently had the pleasure of spotting one of those grating commercials for the upcoming Fox release, "Turistas." After a mere 30 seconds, I was effectively sickened and annoyed. No, not because the marketing strangely confuses people into thinking the title is "Turistas Go Home"-- rather, I was annoyed by the intense level of hatred I had for it's characters and their predicament.<br />
<br />
For those who don't know, the movie can be summed up in one sentence: Several teens vacation in an exotic locale where their trip turns deadly at the hands of violent inhabitants. (Who says films lack originality today?) In the brief seconds advertising this film, I came to realize that I wanted every person on this trip dead--and quickly.<br />
<br />
Why? You have to ask? A bunch of whiney, smarmy teens leeching off daddy's money to vacation in a "cool" hipster exotic place--where they most likely act like self-important royalty from Ahhhmeeericaaaa--frolicking around and claiming that drinking and "blazin' 420" equals an "educational international experience?" Do the math.<br />
<br />
Take your pick in the commerical: The "nails on a chalkboard" wanna-be Ms. Fodor's girl saying, "you're such a tourist," the equally nauseating, "mind if I go topless" comment, or even the sickening "I want to go home!" at the end of the ad. Nothing in that 30 second makes me care one damn bit about these fools. When I saw the quick flash of the foreigners hitting one of them (right after the voiceover guy says, "they don't know their customs") I cracked a smile. When they start dying one by one, I got downright happy! My only gripe? Obviously one of those idiots undoubtedly survives.<br />
<br />
My version of the film? The group of teens get lost looking for pot and a suitable wifi spot to check their MySpace pages. When they wander too far, they are captured by the area's inhabitants and are ALL killed instantly with rather large metallic sharp objects. 5 minutes, tops. I guess we're talking about a short film, really. Or, a music video suitable for the proper audience.<br />
<br />
Oh, and by the way, don't play it off as if I'm getting old to "appreciate the genre"--I'd have wanted these dolts dead if I was 12. Who wouldn't?Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-65514575531538544672006-11-07T01:26:00.000-05:002013-01-23T01:34:57.129-05:00Flash: Carrying Cash Makes You Retarded<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Remember those completely inaccurate and annoying Visa ads from years ago that highlighted the many places that you NEEDED to go, but couldn't use American Express? For instance, the ads would mention a place in Boston that sold Clam Chowder or some crap like that, and they'd say, "if you want the Chowder, you'd better take your Visa card--because Bob's Bigass House of Clams doesn't take American Express!" Sure, they neglected to mention the 5,000 other resturaunts in the greater Boston area that sell Clam Chowder--some of which undoubtedly scored AT LEAST 10 points higher in Zagats. And let's not forget the one about how you coudn't buy MLB baseball tickets without a VISA card, which was basically a load of crap. Ah, the good ol' days of inane advertising. How we miss thee.<br />
<br />
Well, it seems like Visa is at it again! Now, instead of annoying you with warm and fuzzy tales of how you need a Visa card to shop at some obscure candy store in Maine, they're acting all "elitist" in their new advertisements for the Visa Check Card. In the new ads, customers whisk through some sort of food/smoothie shop, being served in a quick, efficient fashion. The customers recieve their food/drinks very quickly, move down the line, pay, and leave--all to the sound of a familiar golden-age cartoon era tune that stresses efficiency. The point? Everything is moving like a well-oiled machine here at this lucky establishement! And why? Because very single person is paying with their Visa Check Card! Yippee!<br />
<br />
Yep, you heard it. Apparently, in this alternate credit bizarro world, every single human uses the Visa Check Card, and we're all better off as a society. But, here's the zinger of the commercial: One poor, lost soul has the nerve to pay with *gasp* CASH! You can only imagine the hysteria that follows! The machinery breaks down, food is splattered everywhere, the line of customers comes to a halt, inventory is destroyed, the basic equilibrium of the universe is shattered, and everyone in the shop dies a little inside. To emphasize this bastard's ineptitude as a consumer, the rest of the customers stare at him disdainfully, thinking to themselves, "what a fool. Why hasn't he joined us. We are the new world order." The cashier reluctantly takes his cash, and delivers his change, all the while grimacing with a look that's half "I'm constipated" and half "I will kill your firstborn when I get off work later."<br />
<br />
Neato! Good job, Visa--you've done it again! It's one thing to stress the convenience of the check card, but to go so far over the top as to make paying with cash look like you've stumbled into your local McDonalds with a bunch of pre-victorian dubloons is just plain stupid. Will there be a day when cash is phased out? Maybe. Is it today? No. Is it 5 years from now? No. <br />
<br />
But, let's ignore all the nauseating self righteousness that oozes from this painful vision of our retail future for a second and concentrate on the more important issues here:<br />
<br />
First of all, no retailer in their right mind "dislikes" getting cash. It's just common sense. They don't have to wait for approval, checks, reimbursement, etc. Mom and pop stores (like the one in the ad) especially like getting cash. And yes, I know, "the Visa Check Card" is as good as cash. But it's not <i>really</i> cash now, is it?<br />
<br />
Secondly, and more interestingly, the commercial is a bit of a backhanded indictment of retail operations in general when you think about it: The advertisement is almost stating that this store's efficiency and customer service is SOLELY BASED on the customers' ability to pay with the Visa Check Card. It almost has nothing to do with good cooks, fair prices, great service and convencience. No. The store is a "food and drink utpoia" because each robot in there pays with a Check Card. Doesn't really say much for your average business owners' efforts out there, does it?<br />
<br />
Oh well. Chalk it up to Visa trying to trump their own stupidity. We can only hope this commercial fades into oblivion like that previously mentioned excersize in stupidity from several years ago. Now, if we can only find out what dope chose the winner for the new MasterCard "Priceless" ad.<br />
<br />Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-86777758761719702572006-10-18T01:09:00.001-04:002013-01-23T01:36:11.112-05:00Snipes Shows Fangs via Tax Fraud<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061017/en_nm/crime_snipes_dc;_ylt=AqqmM4Gtb8S0dK8DdZ4sAJVb.nQA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--" target="_blank">Reuters is reporting</a> that actor Wesley Snipes has been charged with tax fraud. According to the report, Mr. Snipes illegally claimed refunds of over $12 million. Apparently, Snipes was involved with two other men in a tax scheme where they conspired to claim said refunds under the guise of 2 for-profit commercial enterpises. As of Tuesday afternoon, Snipes' whereabouts were unknown.<br />
<br />
It never ceases to amaze me when SUCCESSFUL celebrites get all caught up in obviously inane and retarded lawbreaking schemes. Sure, I can understand it when some rather obscure director amuses himself by being a prostitute, or a former chart-topping singer gets pulled over for speeding and is caught with narcotics--but this guy is NOT a has been! It's not like we're talking about Topdd Bridges here--this is Wesley Snipes! For crying out loud, Wesley, what the hell were you thinking? You made $13 million for Blade 3 alone--what in God's name do you need to extort the U.S. Government of $12 over 6 years for?<br />
<br />
True, it's not like he got caught calling cops "sugartits," but this certainly comprimises his credibility. Ok, well maybe "Blade 3" did that already, but this definitely doesn't help matters. Why do I have the sinking feeling his next gig is going to be skin product infomercials and/or autograph events with Pete Rose?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-58601013315844736242006-10-17T01:35:00.001-04:002013-01-23T01:35:20.084-05:00Man Robs EB Games; Grabs 'Cheapo' 360The <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/101706dnmetgamestop.43fedc11.html" target="_blank">Dallas Morning News</a> is reporting that Dallas police are looking for a man who robbed an EB games at gunpoint. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>The man, who was the last remaining customer in the store, pointed a revolver at two employees and demanded money. He left with an undisclosed amount of cash, an X-Box game system and two games.</i>
</blockquote>
<br />
The sad part is that, according to <a href="http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/xbox/man-robs-gamestop-for-xbox-core-system-there-are-too-many-people-named-jeff-207946.php" target="_blank">Kotaku</a>, the guy made off with the dreaded CORE xbox 360 system. Burn! Dude. You really have to check the box before you walk out. I mean, really--now you'll have to go back to EB and get the hard drive, membership to Live, etc... talk about suckage.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
In this guy's defense, however, I have to think he's probably running on pure adrenaline, so decisive shopping is probably far down the to-do list. In fact, something tells me he probably grabbed a couple of Gamecube games by accident. Actually, when you think about it, how did he get the games anyway? They keep them behind the counter, right? Are you telling me that--after looting the register--this guy took the time to discuss what games to get for his system? God only knows how long that discussion lasted, since most register jokeys at EB can be charming fanboy know-it-alls. Honestly, I sometimes wish I had a gun when I was making a LEGAL purchase there.<br />
<br />
All we can say is thank goodness no one was hurt. The police are asking for tips, but let's be honest: when this guy gets home and figures out he grabbed the GREEN box, chances are he'll be down at Target or Software Etc. looking for a wireless controller and hard drive. Just look for the really ticked off guy trying to return "Lord of the Rings Battle For Middle Earth." "The guy at EB said it would rock!"Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35891867.post-49229505172801099122006-10-16T03:18:00.001-04:002013-01-23T01:38:26.305-05:00Wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube men!One of the best things about being on "hiatus" from blogging is that you get to wait out new technologies/web content until it's matured, so that you can reap the harvest of them for your own twisted purposes when you get back to blogging months later.<br />
<br />
Case in point: YouTube. When this blog was being updated often months ago, You Tube wasn't quite as saturated in the public consciousness. Months later, it is, and all we can say is, "yipeee!" OK, enough of that.<br />
<br />
Do you watch Family Guy? No? Then you're obviously on crack and/or a mental deficient. For the rest of you, here is one of the funniest clips you'll ever see. Enjoy!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/YtespeLin2c?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Don't forget to check out the "wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube men" page at ytmnd <a href="http://wacky.ytmnd.com/" target="_blank">here</a>, or this Al Harrington "advertisment" page <a href="http://www.wackywavinginflatablearmflailingtubeman.com/" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09854793085443504511noreply@blogger.com