Good news! Due to the fact I am on a reading kick, I felt I would present my blog with a double dose of "Excellent Reads" for the month of July. For readers like myself, we've had a lot to go through this month, the announcement of the closing of all Borders everywhere in particular. I feel that readers everywhere who enjoyed going to Borders, as they enjoy going to any bookstore, should get some mercy and what better way to give them mercy. The best way to kick it up a notch is by recommending an excellent read. That excellent read happens to be The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, which is the first of the Millennium Trilogy written by the late Swedish author Stieg Larsson. While this was supposed to be a series of ten books, Larsson died while working on the fourth novel. Nonetheless, this series starts out really well and kicks off a literary phenomenon.
Mikael Blomkvist is a journalist who reports for the Millennium magazine, who have been accused of libel involving industrialist Hans-Erik Wennerstrom. Blomkvist decides to take the prison sentence to avoid fighting the situation head-on, but Henrik Vanger wants to strike a deal. In exchange for some grimy information about Wennerstrom and a ton of money, Vanger wants Blomkvist to help him seek the truth about his niece, Harriet, and how she disappeared back in 1966. Blomkvist moves into the Vanger estate and learns more and more about the family. From who's who, what kind of personality they have, what role they play in the family, and most of all... do any of them have anything to do with the disappearance of Harriet Vanger???
Meanwhile, Lisbeth Salander is a computer hacker and a misfit. She has dyed black hair, many piercings, and many tattoos. The dragon tattoo happens to be on her shoulder blade. Her childhood, school days, and life up to this event continue to be a living hell. She is a rebel who ignores directions and isolates herself from social interaction. She's been arrested a few times before and is under guardianship. However, she frees herself with her most recent guardian who wants to use her for his personal pleasures. After hacking into Blomkvist's computer, he wants her to help him complete the case. The two of them enter an adventure that involves the Vanger dynasty and all of the details in between.
I really like Lisbeth Salander's role in the novel. She is a social misfit who is a genius when it comes to computers and completing her job. When she's doing what she's good at, it's a completely different life for her. Blomkvist believes that this is because she has Asperger's syndrome, which I could honestly agree could be a possibility. She could very well have many mental conditions, but Asperger's syndrome could very well be one of them. Social complications with an area of extreme intelligence usually equals Asperger's. I find it to be very interesting that this featured as a possibility in this novel for Salander and directly so (not high functioning autism or "a mental condition"). Simply put, Lisbeth Salander stands out as one of the most memorable characters in modern day literature.
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was originally called Men Who Hate Women when it was released in Sweden, as the novel revolved around several instances in which men would be committing harmful acts against women. Any kind of harmful act is frowned up in society, but men hurting women has really been frowned upon, which would in turn bring in the discussion of gender role. It doesn't really matter, because Salander takes many juicy opportunities to put some abusive men in their place. She has the last word in these circumstances. Keep that in mind when you're reading, because that's all I'm going to tell you. This is a ongoing theme.
I like this series already. It's not perfect, but like all great things in life, nothing is perfect. As far as I'm concerned, I was entertained, thus it was perfect enough for me. You have to take your time reading this novel, as important details can go right over your head. Just take your time, enjoy, and have a great experience. This is sure a landmark in this era of literature.
The entire Millennium trilogy has been filmed in Sweden and is now filming in America. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo will premiere in theaters on December 21st, starring Daniel Craig as Mikael Blomkvist, Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander, Christopher Plummer as Henrik Vanger, among many others. Daniel Craig and Christopher Plummer have already established themselves as great actors, but if Rooney Mara (who had a role in The Social Network last year) executes Lisbeth Salander well, she could very well become a household name and make Salander into a highlight staple in the cinema.
Completing the first novel, I can confirm a few things. I will be reading the next two novels (The Girl Who Played With Fire and The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest), I will be seeing the first film in theaters when it comes out on December 21st, I will suggest the series to those who ask about it, I will suggest the series to those even if they haven't asked about it, and most of all... The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is an excellent read!
Friday, July 29, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Fantastic Films: Inception
The movies have been a popular form of entertainment for an extremely long time and I felt they are deserving enough for their own monthly segment. The segment, "Fantastic Films," will be about all kinds of films, old and new, that I feel that you should check out and watch right after you finish reading this post. For the first segment, I was thinking about any current movies out in the theaters that I felt you should go check out. I have already discuss and analyzed my thoughts about the final film in the Harry Potter series and felt that I've talked enough about my take on it. The next time I will be talking about anything HP will be in my "Ten Best Books I Read In 2011" and "Movies I Watched From 2011" posts at the end of the year. As for a movie I feel you should go and watch right now, I will suggest that you relive the most excellent film from the summer of 2010, Inception. I reviewed it before on Facebook and I will review it again on Caponomics.
Christopher Nolan, the genius behind Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and the upcoming film, The Dark Knight Rises, decided to stray away from his Batman genius and create another masterful picture that we know as Inception. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Dom Cobb, whose job is to plant dreams into others, working with his partner Arthur (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt). He's one project away from being able to return home and see his children, which is to plant a dream into a subconscious mind, in an act called "inception," hence the name of the film. Each of these figures has an object that represents whether or not they are performing in the dream, Dom's happens to be a spinning top. Keep in mind that the spinning top plays a very important role in the film and that you should pay close attention to it... and that's all I'm going to say about that. Cobb's main hurdle is his dead wife, who often stands in the way of his efforts and interferes in the way of past memories.
The next thing you should pay attention to in the film is the flight, which is where the act of the creation of the dream begins. This way, you will know that this is the base to where the dream begins and that from here on out, this is a dream. However, the dream world is very confusing, especially when you are dreaming within a dream. When watching the film, I was on the edge of my seat, carefully following scene after scene after scene. If you don't look closely enough, it'll be just like a fast treadmill, you are going to fall right off.
I only watched this film once and I have yet to master the entire plot of the film, but watching the film once made me fall in love with the concept, the characters, the settings, the plot, and everything else in between. This film was a gem, something that you don't see while you're in theaters everyday. It's not one of those B-rate, action packed, 3D, comic book superhero films that are dominating the box office these days. This is a film that concentrates more on a goal and the concept of a dream within a dream, and casts Leonardo DiCaprio, a fine actor indeed, as its center character. I also felt that Ellen Page, who played the center character in Juno, did an excellent job as Ariadne, who was the architect of the dream. Page has to be one of my favorite actresses of this time period and I look forward to seeing her in more upcoming films. As for DiCaprio and his character, Dom Cobb, he has a character that you really feel for and for the pain that he struggles with from losing his wife.
I will absolutely have to take the opportunity to watch this film again. Maybe by doing this, I will become a student of the film and of the concept of a dream within a dream. While others may ultimately lose patience to this concept, the film has such beautiful scenery and a story of a genius of the craft of inception who is given this assignment and we see him at work. This is easily one of the two favorite films that I watched in 2010 (the other being The King's Speech) and I will most definitely take the opportunity to watch this film again if such an opportunity is granted. Maybe I should go get a top as well and watch it spin, though I doubt I can spin it as well as Cobb.
Christopher Nolan, the genius behind Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and the upcoming film, The Dark Knight Rises, decided to stray away from his Batman genius and create another masterful picture that we know as Inception. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Dom Cobb, whose job is to plant dreams into others, working with his partner Arthur (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt). He's one project away from being able to return home and see his children, which is to plant a dream into a subconscious mind, in an act called "inception," hence the name of the film. Each of these figures has an object that represents whether or not they are performing in the dream, Dom's happens to be a spinning top. Keep in mind that the spinning top plays a very important role in the film and that you should pay close attention to it... and that's all I'm going to say about that. Cobb's main hurdle is his dead wife, who often stands in the way of his efforts and interferes in the way of past memories.
The next thing you should pay attention to in the film is the flight, which is where the act of the creation of the dream begins. This way, you will know that this is the base to where the dream begins and that from here on out, this is a dream. However, the dream world is very confusing, especially when you are dreaming within a dream. When watching the film, I was on the edge of my seat, carefully following scene after scene after scene. If you don't look closely enough, it'll be just like a fast treadmill, you are going to fall right off.
I only watched this film once and I have yet to master the entire plot of the film, but watching the film once made me fall in love with the concept, the characters, the settings, the plot, and everything else in between. This film was a gem, something that you don't see while you're in theaters everyday. It's not one of those B-rate, action packed, 3D, comic book superhero films that are dominating the box office these days. This is a film that concentrates more on a goal and the concept of a dream within a dream, and casts Leonardo DiCaprio, a fine actor indeed, as its center character. I also felt that Ellen Page, who played the center character in Juno, did an excellent job as Ariadne, who was the architect of the dream. Page has to be one of my favorite actresses of this time period and I look forward to seeing her in more upcoming films. As for DiCaprio and his character, Dom Cobb, he has a character that you really feel for and for the pain that he struggles with from losing his wife.
I will absolutely have to take the opportunity to watch this film again. Maybe by doing this, I will become a student of the film and of the concept of a dream within a dream. While others may ultimately lose patience to this concept, the film has such beautiful scenery and a story of a genius of the craft of inception who is given this assignment and we see him at work. This is easily one of the two favorite films that I watched in 2010 (the other being The King's Speech) and I will most definitely take the opportunity to watch this film again if such an opportunity is granted. Maybe I should go get a top as well and watch it spin, though I doubt I can spin it as well as Cobb.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Top Notch Television: Big Brother 13
Okay, I will be breaking up my "Check This Out" segment into even more specific segments. These segments include "Fantastic Films" for films I recommend, "Check This Blog" for blogs I recommend, and "Top Notch Television," for television shows I recommend. This happens to be a recommendation for shows on TV (which I don't watch too much of with the exception of some prime time TV) that I enjoy watching and feel that you the reader would enjoy it as well. During the summer, the majority of shows that are on are repeats. The shows that are actually new are most likely reality and game shows. Since 2000, the TV show that has become a summer time phenomenon is "Big Brother." For those of you who enjoy three days of watching several house guests compete for power, use the power to set up an eviction of their fellow house guests, and one by one watching these house guests walk out the door, this would be your cup of tea.
"Big Brother" is filled with a boat load of drama and that's exactly what the intentions of the show are. This season is especially no different. The motto of this show is to "expect the unexpected." Starting with just eight contestants sure left these contestants wondering what kind of twist was in store. Asked to form into teams, the groups included Adam and Dominic, Keith and Porsche, Cassi and Shelly, and Lawon and Kalia. They were ultimately joined by Brendon and Rachel from last season, Jeff and Jordan from season eleven, and Dick and Daniele from season eight. While it would have been extremely interesting to see Dr. Will and Mike Boogie (Chilltown), Dan and Memphis (The Renegades), or any Brigade pairing (Hayden and Enzo being the strongest and most committed choice in the matter) join, these were some pretty interesting choices.
Here's my take on last season... I was a heavy Brigade fan and was anti-Brenchel. Sometimes I very well think that Rachel is there to simply stir up drama. The fact that she won HOH (Head Of Household) four out of five opportunities leaves me to wonder how strong the curtain to this show is. Then again, to argue the point, she was a chemistry student, and is a clear target for someone being underestimated. As for Brendon, he makes just the right significant for her. Last season, they were the prime target since week one, but it took until week five to successfully evict them. Now it seems like their current alliance, with veterans such as Jeff and Jordan, are beginning to shatter. Then we see the soap opera caused by something, anything, just anything that could possibly start drama. While I think their own TV show would defeat the purpose, and the fact that soap operas are becoming an endangered species on the way to extinction, the two of them have pretty much created their own show that would make for a good spinoff... that would ultimately be cancelled after a few episodes.
The house guest I'm most rooting for this season is Dominic. He seems to be the one who's doing most to play the game and knows how to compete. He's already a target on Jeff and Jordan's radar, but has gotten close to Daniele and is making moves to secure votes. He seems to be the only newbie who is fetching for himself at the moment. The others have relied on the veterans for support or are simply floaters who are doing a fine job at the moment just dodging the radar. When the teams start playing as individuals after this upcoming eviction (which is what it looks like is bound to happen), the game will really start to become extremely competitive. We know that Brendon and Rachel will remain an alliance, and if both remain into next week, Jeff and Jordan and probably Daniele and Dominic (which looks like a newly formed alliance) will remain intact. The others will either be floaters or form one or more alliances of their own.
I was bummed about the fact that Evel Dick's stay in the Big Brother house was shortened due to personal matters. He was forced to walk from the competition before the first veto competition was even played. During his short stay, he was very active in strengthening the veteran alliance to include newbies that would vote along with them. He wasn't given so much of an opportunity to stir controversy or demonstrate his brutal honesty. The only thing we could do is remember him for being the successful and likable antagonist he was from season eight. I could only remember how he stuck it to Jen, the drama queen of season eight, and how he told her off with his comments and his cigarettes. Losing Evel Dick immediately on "Big Brother 13" is one of the only disappointments that will not be able to seek a redemption of any kind.
I honestly have no idea what keeps me hooked to "Big Brother." It's simply a show filled with drama and is arranged to encourage this kind of drama. I have realized that the show is fairly predictable, as I have predicted the outcome of several competitions and decisions, but it's still an interesting watch. It takes a lot of commitment to watch this show, as it comes on three days a week (Sundays for nominations, Wednesdays for veto competitions, and Thursdays for live evictions and HOH competitions). The ones who will most enjoy this series are those who have nothing better to do than involve themselves with a summer show like this one. If you don't wish to get into some kind of addictive dramatic reality show, then I would suggest staying away from "Big Brother," because this show gets really addictive.
"Big Brother" is filled with a boat load of drama and that's exactly what the intentions of the show are. This season is especially no different. The motto of this show is to "expect the unexpected." Starting with just eight contestants sure left these contestants wondering what kind of twist was in store. Asked to form into teams, the groups included Adam and Dominic, Keith and Porsche, Cassi and Shelly, and Lawon and Kalia. They were ultimately joined by Brendon and Rachel from last season, Jeff and Jordan from season eleven, and Dick and Daniele from season eight. While it would have been extremely interesting to see Dr. Will and Mike Boogie (Chilltown), Dan and Memphis (The Renegades), or any Brigade pairing (Hayden and Enzo being the strongest and most committed choice in the matter) join, these were some pretty interesting choices.
Here's my take on last season... I was a heavy Brigade fan and was anti-Brenchel. Sometimes I very well think that Rachel is there to simply stir up drama. The fact that she won HOH (Head Of Household) four out of five opportunities leaves me to wonder how strong the curtain to this show is. Then again, to argue the point, she was a chemistry student, and is a clear target for someone being underestimated. As for Brendon, he makes just the right significant for her. Last season, they were the prime target since week one, but it took until week five to successfully evict them. Now it seems like their current alliance, with veterans such as Jeff and Jordan, are beginning to shatter. Then we see the soap opera caused by something, anything, just anything that could possibly start drama. While I think their own TV show would defeat the purpose, and the fact that soap operas are becoming an endangered species on the way to extinction, the two of them have pretty much created their own show that would make for a good spinoff... that would ultimately be cancelled after a few episodes.
The house guest I'm most rooting for this season is Dominic. He seems to be the one who's doing most to play the game and knows how to compete. He's already a target on Jeff and Jordan's radar, but has gotten close to Daniele and is making moves to secure votes. He seems to be the only newbie who is fetching for himself at the moment. The others have relied on the veterans for support or are simply floaters who are doing a fine job at the moment just dodging the radar. When the teams start playing as individuals after this upcoming eviction (which is what it looks like is bound to happen), the game will really start to become extremely competitive. We know that Brendon and Rachel will remain an alliance, and if both remain into next week, Jeff and Jordan and probably Daniele and Dominic (which looks like a newly formed alliance) will remain intact. The others will either be floaters or form one or more alliances of their own.
I was bummed about the fact that Evel Dick's stay in the Big Brother house was shortened due to personal matters. He was forced to walk from the competition before the first veto competition was even played. During his short stay, he was very active in strengthening the veteran alliance to include newbies that would vote along with them. He wasn't given so much of an opportunity to stir controversy or demonstrate his brutal honesty. The only thing we could do is remember him for being the successful and likable antagonist he was from season eight. I could only remember how he stuck it to Jen, the drama queen of season eight, and how he told her off with his comments and his cigarettes. Losing Evel Dick immediately on "Big Brother 13" is one of the only disappointments that will not be able to seek a redemption of any kind.
I honestly have no idea what keeps me hooked to "Big Brother." It's simply a show filled with drama and is arranged to encourage this kind of drama. I have realized that the show is fairly predictable, as I have predicted the outcome of several competitions and decisions, but it's still an interesting watch. It takes a lot of commitment to watch this show, as it comes on three days a week (Sundays for nominations, Wednesdays for veto competitions, and Thursdays for live evictions and HOH competitions). The ones who will most enjoy this series are those who have nothing better to do than involve themselves with a summer show like this one. If you don't wish to get into some kind of addictive dramatic reality show, then I would suggest staying away from "Big Brother," because this show gets really addictive.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
My Reaction To The Closing Of Borders
I love books. That means I love reading books, collecting books, turning a books pages, placing a book under my nose and flipping the pages so I am able to smell the fresh scent of a new book, and I especially love shopping for books. I love a nice trip to the bookstore, which to me is like a carnival for the young ones, and I just like to send myself into paradise as I skim through the shelves and look at all of the different authors and all of the different names. It's unfortunate that one of these heavyweight bookstores, Borders, is shutting all of its remaining stores down after failing to keep pace with the way book selling is like to this day. Once the biggest name, and then the only competitor of Barnes & Noble, the days of going to Borders has now come to an unfortunate end.
My closest experience thus far to witnessing and feeling what the tragedy of Borders shutting down is when I went to the Waldenbooks at my mall, which became a part of Borders. The only good thing to come out of this situation is that the clearance sales become bigger and bigger. When I went to Waldenbooks for the last time, I got all of my books for 50% off, which is a great deal for many of the books. It's a saddening sale, knowing that the store is only having this sale because it's shutting down its door after all is said and done, but it's fun while it lasts.
At this point, Barnes & Noble remains the lone big name bookstore that stands. Whether or not any bookstore will be able to come up along the ranks is tough to stay, but it's going to be very hard with the rise of electronic books. Barnes & Noble is doing well with its "nook," as Amazon.com is doing well with its "Kindle." Electronic books are becoming the thing of the generation. It seems like once you get the hang of it, you never want to return to reading a regular book again.
I don't have much of a personal experience with electronic books. I got one "Sharper Image" e-book for Christmas one year and haven't used it so much. There are a lot of strengths to having an electronic book, but there's something special about traditional books that makes reading worth the experience. There's something special about holding a book in your hands, touching it, feeling it, turning the pages, things that can't be done by pressing a button. I can believe that I will ultimately get the hang of using a "nook" or a "Kindle," but at this point, I like reading actual books.
Losing Borders is a big deal to the world of book shopping in general. That will leave Barnes & Noble as the only big name bookstore. While other stores sell books, the selection is limited. Besides Barnes & Noble, you would have to rely on flea markets, bargain book stores, and libraries to keep up with books. The era of physical books is beginning to fade and may very well keep fading and fading until we are left with a world of electronics. It's not at all a bad thing, but I still like holding a nice novel in my hands, and reading that.
My closest experience thus far to witnessing and feeling what the tragedy of Borders shutting down is when I went to the Waldenbooks at my mall, which became a part of Borders. The only good thing to come out of this situation is that the clearance sales become bigger and bigger. When I went to Waldenbooks for the last time, I got all of my books for 50% off, which is a great deal for many of the books. It's a saddening sale, knowing that the store is only having this sale because it's shutting down its door after all is said and done, but it's fun while it lasts.
At this point, Barnes & Noble remains the lone big name bookstore that stands. Whether or not any bookstore will be able to come up along the ranks is tough to stay, but it's going to be very hard with the rise of electronic books. Barnes & Noble is doing well with its "nook," as Amazon.com is doing well with its "Kindle." Electronic books are becoming the thing of the generation. It seems like once you get the hang of it, you never want to return to reading a regular book again.
I don't have much of a personal experience with electronic books. I got one "Sharper Image" e-book for Christmas one year and haven't used it so much. There are a lot of strengths to having an electronic book, but there's something special about traditional books that makes reading worth the experience. There's something special about holding a book in your hands, touching it, feeling it, turning the pages, things that can't be done by pressing a button. I can believe that I will ultimately get the hang of using a "nook" or a "Kindle," but at this point, I like reading actual books.
Losing Borders is a big deal to the world of book shopping in general. That will leave Barnes & Noble as the only big name bookstore. While other stores sell books, the selection is limited. Besides Barnes & Noble, you would have to rely on flea markets, bargain book stores, and libraries to keep up with books. The era of physical books is beginning to fade and may very well keep fading and fading until we are left with a world of electronics. It's not at all a bad thing, but I still like holding a nice novel in my hands, and reading that.
The State Of Today's Game Shows
I watched the premiere of the new game show "It's Worth What?" hosted by Cedric The Entertainer and featuring a team of two contestants banking money and given the opportunity to win as much as $1,000,000. The object of the game is to bank money by winning as many pricing games as possible. Whether or not the games are going to change episode by episode, I do not know. However, the games that they did have ranged from simply guessing which was worth more to guessing the outfit that was worth more to guessing which possession belonged to which celebrity (in this instance, it was JFK, Jackie O, and Marilyn Monroe). This is basically a version of "The Price Is Right," only tweaked up a little bit more to make it different. "The Price Is Right" has its excited and energetic audience members who compete for prizes. This game has a money ladder format and just money as a prize. The structure is a lot like the syndicated "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader," in which you bank money and have a final chance to multiply your winnings by ten. With this game, you first earn your money, then double, then multiply it by four, and then by ten. You lost most of your money if you miss and can walk away at any time in the final round.
Like many of the game shows of today, I feel that "It's Worth What?" is pretty much the same as any money ladder game show with a different concept. Another term that could be used is "The Price Is Right" with a money ladder. Another concept I'm not into is hearing about the lost opportunities. It's not like "Million Dollar Money Drop," in which the contestants start with $1,000,000 and then have to hold on to as much as possible for seven questions, but once they get one wrong on this game show, you know that the contestants can't win the million. Then again, "Deal Or No Deal" saw missed million-dollar opportunities on many of occasions, but that show did a good enough job concentrating on the contestants and who they were and what they hoped to do if they won big.
Another game show I recently saw was "101 Ways To Leave A Game Show," hosted by Jeff Sutphen. The object is to pick the correct answer to each question (usually from research studies) in order to remain. It starts off with three right answers, then two, and then ultimately one. If you happen to have the wrong answer, you leave the game in an interesting way, such as off a plane, on a moving semi-truck, or down a runway in a car. The final round is always on a drop of terror, where the losers are tied to a chord and dropped into water. The last person standing walks about with $50,000, which according to Sutphen, is "the way to leave a game show!" I felt this was one of those comedy game shows. It's an interesting concept and those interested in the concept will have a ball with it. It just isn't something that's on my schedule to shows I must watch.
Simply put, I'm looking for a game show that's worth looking forward to each and every night. At the moment, the only game show I look forward to each and every evening is "Jeopardy!" at 7 PM (eastern time). It has an excellent concept, an excellent and professional host in Alex Trebek, and game play that keeps your concentration to the game. I almost always play along and phrase my own answers in the form of a question. What excites me even more is when a great contestant comes along and starts winning consecutively and shutting down his competitors. When you get someone who wins multiple games, then the excitement starts driving in. Ken Jennings is the biggest winner, followed by Dave Madden when it comes to days (Brad Rutter is up along with Ken Jennings when it comes to money, due to his tournament wins), but this season has produced several many-day champions. Jeopardy! is the intellectuals game show of this time, and it's great to see that kind of classic format doing well.
It would be great to see a game show wave like that from 1999 to 2001. During that time, you had "21," "Greed," and "The Weakest Link," which were shows that had excellent concepts, but unfortunately didn't last too long. Then, you had what I felt was the great game show of the decade (with the original format of course), "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" with Regis Philbin. This was the game show that ultimately brought the quiz show concept back on track. It was just so exciting to see millionaires be made and the ladder was so intense and kept you on your toes. Unlike many current game shows, where they made making the million far more complicated than it needed to be, all questions simply got harder, but you got to keep your lifelines no matter what. The show started airing more and more, and quickly began an unfortunate slide in the ratings. The syndicated version started like the original, but then began to change its format time and time again. At the moment, the game is extremely different from the original.
Simply put, I'm looking for another rebound of intellectual, big money, big opportunity game shows that give people the opportunity to win big amounts and contend for records of being the highest game show winners. It's great to see big names like Ken Jennings, Brad Rutter, John Carpenter, Dr. Kevin Olmstead, Ed Toutant, Dave Leglar, Curtis Warren, and many others rise to the ranks and win big. Some of the biggest names competed in a sixteen-player elimination tournament on GSN called "Grand Slam," which was exciting in itself, something that would have made it even bigger on a heavy network. I highly believe that a few more names in the exclusive club of game show heavyweights won't hurt at all and I highly believe that game shows with big money opportunities wouldn't hurt either.
Like many of the game shows of today, I feel that "It's Worth What?" is pretty much the same as any money ladder game show with a different concept. Another term that could be used is "The Price Is Right" with a money ladder. Another concept I'm not into is hearing about the lost opportunities. It's not like "Million Dollar Money Drop," in which the contestants start with $1,000,000 and then have to hold on to as much as possible for seven questions, but once they get one wrong on this game show, you know that the contestants can't win the million. Then again, "Deal Or No Deal" saw missed million-dollar opportunities on many of occasions, but that show did a good enough job concentrating on the contestants and who they were and what they hoped to do if they won big.
Another game show I recently saw was "101 Ways To Leave A Game Show," hosted by Jeff Sutphen. The object is to pick the correct answer to each question (usually from research studies) in order to remain. It starts off with three right answers, then two, and then ultimately one. If you happen to have the wrong answer, you leave the game in an interesting way, such as off a plane, on a moving semi-truck, or down a runway in a car. The final round is always on a drop of terror, where the losers are tied to a chord and dropped into water. The last person standing walks about with $50,000, which according to Sutphen, is "the way to leave a game show!" I felt this was one of those comedy game shows. It's an interesting concept and those interested in the concept will have a ball with it. It just isn't something that's on my schedule to shows I must watch.
Simply put, I'm looking for a game show that's worth looking forward to each and every night. At the moment, the only game show I look forward to each and every evening is "Jeopardy!" at 7 PM (eastern time). It has an excellent concept, an excellent and professional host in Alex Trebek, and game play that keeps your concentration to the game. I almost always play along and phrase my own answers in the form of a question. What excites me even more is when a great contestant comes along and starts winning consecutively and shutting down his competitors. When you get someone who wins multiple games, then the excitement starts driving in. Ken Jennings is the biggest winner, followed by Dave Madden when it comes to days (Brad Rutter is up along with Ken Jennings when it comes to money, due to his tournament wins), but this season has produced several many-day champions. Jeopardy! is the intellectuals game show of this time, and it's great to see that kind of classic format doing well.
It would be great to see a game show wave like that from 1999 to 2001. During that time, you had "21," "Greed," and "The Weakest Link," which were shows that had excellent concepts, but unfortunately didn't last too long. Then, you had what I felt was the great game show of the decade (with the original format of course), "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" with Regis Philbin. This was the game show that ultimately brought the quiz show concept back on track. It was just so exciting to see millionaires be made and the ladder was so intense and kept you on your toes. Unlike many current game shows, where they made making the million far more complicated than it needed to be, all questions simply got harder, but you got to keep your lifelines no matter what. The show started airing more and more, and quickly began an unfortunate slide in the ratings. The syndicated version started like the original, but then began to change its format time and time again. At the moment, the game is extremely different from the original.
Simply put, I'm looking for another rebound of intellectual, big money, big opportunity game shows that give people the opportunity to win big amounts and contend for records of being the highest game show winners. It's great to see big names like Ken Jennings, Brad Rutter, John Carpenter, Dr. Kevin Olmstead, Ed Toutant, Dave Leglar, Curtis Warren, and many others rise to the ranks and win big. Some of the biggest names competed in a sixteen-player elimination tournament on GSN called "Grand Slam," which was exciting in itself, something that would have made it even bigger on a heavy network. I highly believe that a few more names in the exclusive club of game show heavyweights won't hurt at all and I highly believe that game shows with big money opportunities wouldn't hurt either.
Monday, July 18, 2011
More Memorable Sax Solos
According to my stats page, my "Memorable Sax Solos" post I wrote last month has received a good amount of page views. Sax solos are a pleasure within itself, as music in general can be ear candy. Some ear candy is good and some ear candy can be unfathomable, and I know plenty examples of both. Someone who plays a good saxophone can make for some really good ear candy and can fill what ever time length very well. Some of which can be as long as Clarence Clemons' three minute sax solo in "Jungleland" and some could be five seconds, like Eddie Money's solo in "Take Me Home Tonight." Here are three more sax solos that I did not include in my original list, but have realized that there was a place for them on the list.
How Sweet It Is (To Be Loved By You) (David Sanborn)- This is not the 1964 original version by Marvin Gaye, but the 1975 version by James Taylor. Taylor was more jazzy compared to the Motown style in which Gaye gave to the song. However, Taylor did do a good job with this hit, as he has had over covers such as "Handy Man." What really did this song well was the sax solo that David Sanborn had during the song. It really put an exclamation point and made the term "jazzy" stand out and be bold. I felt that this song was a bit simple in general, but once you get to the sax, then things start to get fun.
Young Americans (David Sanborn)- This is another 1975 hit, this one being sung by David Bowie and the topic of the song being about the current state of society. Back in this era, protest songs that have to do with or were influenced by the Vietnam War were very common. While 1975 was the end of the Vietnam War-era, this song was still an interesting one. In some songs, you're waiting and waiting for a sax solo that only lasts for a short period of time and occurs just once in the song. This song, on the other hand, has a strong sax solo in the beginning and then continues throughout the song. It takes up the background, unlike "Baker Street," where the sax solo has four appearances and just as much, if not more, time as Gerry Rafferty's vocals. Still a good sax, though.
Freeway Of Love (Clarence Clemons)- When I wrote about the late Clarence Clemons in my previous post about sax solos, I hadn't realized that he had a sax solo in Aretha Franklin's 1985 upbeat hit "Freeway Of Love." This is one of those songs that is just cheesy, but at the same time is fun to listen to. When you put in Clarence Clemons on the saxophone, you have yourself something even bigger and better. He has time to shine in the beginning and then he has his own solo that fits perfectly into the song. Clemons had many more performances than just those with the E Street Band. He brought soul to this eighties radio hit that made it really feel like you were riding on the Freeway Of Love.
If there was an option to have the saxophone playing when you are walking up to Heaven, I bet that plenty of people would surely take that option. You can have something upbeat, bluesy, jazzy, or what ever other style you would want to hear when you are heading up. As long as it's good, that's all that matters.
How Sweet It Is (To Be Loved By You) (David Sanborn)- This is not the 1964 original version by Marvin Gaye, but the 1975 version by James Taylor. Taylor was more jazzy compared to the Motown style in which Gaye gave to the song. However, Taylor did do a good job with this hit, as he has had over covers such as "Handy Man." What really did this song well was the sax solo that David Sanborn had during the song. It really put an exclamation point and made the term "jazzy" stand out and be bold. I felt that this song was a bit simple in general, but once you get to the sax, then things start to get fun.
Young Americans (David Sanborn)- This is another 1975 hit, this one being sung by David Bowie and the topic of the song being about the current state of society. Back in this era, protest songs that have to do with or were influenced by the Vietnam War were very common. While 1975 was the end of the Vietnam War-era, this song was still an interesting one. In some songs, you're waiting and waiting for a sax solo that only lasts for a short period of time and occurs just once in the song. This song, on the other hand, has a strong sax solo in the beginning and then continues throughout the song. It takes up the background, unlike "Baker Street," where the sax solo has four appearances and just as much, if not more, time as Gerry Rafferty's vocals. Still a good sax, though.
Freeway Of Love (Clarence Clemons)- When I wrote about the late Clarence Clemons in my previous post about sax solos, I hadn't realized that he had a sax solo in Aretha Franklin's 1985 upbeat hit "Freeway Of Love." This is one of those songs that is just cheesy, but at the same time is fun to listen to. When you put in Clarence Clemons on the saxophone, you have yourself something even bigger and better. He has time to shine in the beginning and then he has his own solo that fits perfectly into the song. Clemons had many more performances than just those with the E Street Band. He brought soul to this eighties radio hit that made it really feel like you were riding on the Freeway Of Love.
If there was an option to have the saxophone playing when you are walking up to Heaven, I bet that plenty of people would surely take that option. You can have something upbeat, bluesy, jazzy, or what ever other style you would want to hear when you are heading up. As long as it's good, that's all that matters.
Let's Be Brutally Honest: Polls Need Some Tweaking
While they may not be the most accurate source, polls make an impact on how the American people vote. Whether it be in a primary or in a general election. It's the polls that determine who is a front runner, who is a dark horse, who is a long shot, and everything else in between. Polls are what encourage people to conform to a candidate who has a chance and dismiss a candidate that "seems" to have absolutely no chance. The reason it "seems" they have no chance is because they've been dismissed. Just like anything else, the only time anything is impossible is if you say and confirm that it's impossible. Otherwise, anything is possible (of course, unless it's something that falls under the category as being ridiculous). The U.S. Presidential Election of 2012 is no different. You have your front runners and you have your candidates that aren't as heavily known. However, anybody has a chance to win and anybody should deserve that chance.
At the moment we speak, the front runners include Mitt Romney and the up and rising Michele Bachmann. We knew about Romney from the 2008 election and how he was a front runner from the time he entered until Super Tuesday, when he withdrew because he was unable to keep up with eventual Republican nominee John McCain. We also know about his governorship when he was governor of Massachusetts. As for Bachmann, she's a representative from Minnesota, who is a driving force for the Tea Party. We have only begun to hear about her. However, there are a lot of things that help her stand out. Besides being the only female in the race (which to me plays no effect in the way I vote), she is also from Iowa and a representative in the state north of Iowa. That, along with her all-around conservative views, make her a strong candidate. Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina are the big players in determining the Republican nominee. Iowa could very well be hers if she plays everything right.
Let's get back to polling. These polls have really given these candidates the spotlight to stand out. Then you have Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Santorum, who are beginning to lag, despite being given plenty of opportunity to shine. With Ron Paul, it took him most of the 2008 election to stand out and earn the recognition he deserves. Then, you have candidates that don't get the recognition they deserve, such as Buddy Roemer, Fred Karger, and especially Gary Johnson. Despite being excluded in recent polls and from CNN's first debate of the primary season, Johnson has polled in around the same numbers as Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman Jr. when he has been included in the polls. While polls shouldn't matter, they do. This is because polls not only influence the public's view, they also make up a portion of who is and isn't allowed to participate in the debates. Roemer and Karger have already been excluded and will probably continue to be excluded from debates, as Johnson has been excluded once and could continue to be excluded if he continues to not be included in polls. Libertarian Republicans, such as Johnson and Paul, have been excluded on several occasions, yet are beginning to make an impact on the votes.
The next point to make is this. Why are candidates who are not in the race being included in polls that matter? There are many polls that include Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, and many others. These candidates have not entered the race and we don't know whether or not they will enter. As far as I'm concerned, they should be featured in the "other" category until they declare that they actually are entering the race. Plus for the record, Christie has more than confirmed that he will not be running in 2012. I think he would make a great candidate and a great president, but he has other business he needs to take care of in New Jersey. Palin was considered a front runner since the end of the 2008 elections, but with Bachmann now in the race, this may simply split the vote. Also, Palin lags the most in polls against incumbent Barack Obama.
When organizing a poll, the organizers should have to include every current candidate (those who are running in enough states to win the election of course), and then include an "other" category if they want someone who has yet to enter, and an "undecided" if they have yet to decide. If they want to include polls with other candidates, they could do that as well, but this given plan should be the plan that organizers look at when they need to determine who should be able to participate in the debates. Of course, name recognition plays a big part, but that comes naturally.
Every candidate who enters a race should have the opportunity to win the election they enter. A primary is no different. You already have the name recognition and the results in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina that make an impact as to who is seen as the grand candidate in the Republican primaries at the very least. With that being the case, why don't you simply restructure your polling in order to give every candidate the opportunity to be recognized.
For the record, I will not confirm the candidate I will be endorsing for the primaries at this moment. I have a short list of whom I like most, but I need to strongly think about my decision. Regardless who I support, my reviews of the debates will remain unbiased and my grades will be based off of how clear the answers were and how well they performed in the debate.
At the moment we speak, the front runners include Mitt Romney and the up and rising Michele Bachmann. We knew about Romney from the 2008 election and how he was a front runner from the time he entered until Super Tuesday, when he withdrew because he was unable to keep up with eventual Republican nominee John McCain. We also know about his governorship when he was governor of Massachusetts. As for Bachmann, she's a representative from Minnesota, who is a driving force for the Tea Party. We have only begun to hear about her. However, there are a lot of things that help her stand out. Besides being the only female in the race (which to me plays no effect in the way I vote), she is also from Iowa and a representative in the state north of Iowa. That, along with her all-around conservative views, make her a strong candidate. Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina are the big players in determining the Republican nominee. Iowa could very well be hers if she plays everything right.
Let's get back to polling. These polls have really given these candidates the spotlight to stand out. Then you have Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Santorum, who are beginning to lag, despite being given plenty of opportunity to shine. With Ron Paul, it took him most of the 2008 election to stand out and earn the recognition he deserves. Then, you have candidates that don't get the recognition they deserve, such as Buddy Roemer, Fred Karger, and especially Gary Johnson. Despite being excluded in recent polls and from CNN's first debate of the primary season, Johnson has polled in around the same numbers as Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman Jr. when he has been included in the polls. While polls shouldn't matter, they do. This is because polls not only influence the public's view, they also make up a portion of who is and isn't allowed to participate in the debates. Roemer and Karger have already been excluded and will probably continue to be excluded from debates, as Johnson has been excluded once and could continue to be excluded if he continues to not be included in polls. Libertarian Republicans, such as Johnson and Paul, have been excluded on several occasions, yet are beginning to make an impact on the votes.
The next point to make is this. Why are candidates who are not in the race being included in polls that matter? There are many polls that include Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, and many others. These candidates have not entered the race and we don't know whether or not they will enter. As far as I'm concerned, they should be featured in the "other" category until they declare that they actually are entering the race. Plus for the record, Christie has more than confirmed that he will not be running in 2012. I think he would make a great candidate and a great president, but he has other business he needs to take care of in New Jersey. Palin was considered a front runner since the end of the 2008 elections, but with Bachmann now in the race, this may simply split the vote. Also, Palin lags the most in polls against incumbent Barack Obama.
When organizing a poll, the organizers should have to include every current candidate (those who are running in enough states to win the election of course), and then include an "other" category if they want someone who has yet to enter, and an "undecided" if they have yet to decide. If they want to include polls with other candidates, they could do that as well, but this given plan should be the plan that organizers look at when they need to determine who should be able to participate in the debates. Of course, name recognition plays a big part, but that comes naturally.
Every candidate who enters a race should have the opportunity to win the election they enter. A primary is no different. You already have the name recognition and the results in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina that make an impact as to who is seen as the grand candidate in the Republican primaries at the very least. With that being the case, why don't you simply restructure your polling in order to give every candidate the opportunity to be recognized.
For the record, I will not confirm the candidate I will be endorsing for the primaries at this moment. I have a short list of whom I like most, but I need to strongly think about my decision. Regardless who I support, my reviews of the debates will remain unbiased and my grades will be based off of how clear the answers were and how well they performed in the debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)