So...
Just how hard is it to make a great X-men movie? Apparently, a lot harder than it should be.
In case you haven't heard, the X-men are coming back to theaters soon. Slated to start shooting later this month in London, X-men: First Class aims to tell the early days of America's favorite team of mutants and the origin of the Professor Xavier/Magneto grudge. After the muck of the last two X-men films (yes, I'm including X2, as well as X-men: The Last Stand), I was less than excited about another X-men movie coming to the cineplex under Twentieth Century Fox's stewardship.
But then Fox did something interesting. They hired director Matthew Vaughan (Stardust, Kick-Ass, Layer Cake) to helm the new X- film. Vaughan is a smart choice, a proven director with a diverse track record and legit fanboy status. With Layer Cake Vaughan proved he could bring complexity and edge to his movies (important for X-men), and with both Stardust and Kick-Ass he showed he could successfully adapt a comic book and infuse it with fun, excitement and, something that was lacking in the last three X-incarnations, color.
What do I mean by color? I'm not talking about diversity casting, I'm talking about the look of the film. The cinematography, settings, and art direction. The world of the X-men comics is full of color. The images literally leap off the page with interesting locations and distinct settings. Compare that to the films, which were gray and flat, more akin to Batman than the X-men. It's the old Empire Strikes Back dichotomy; just because a film has a dark subject matter, it doesn't mean the movie itself has to be shot dark.
This applies also to the X-stories, as well as the look. Plot-wise, the first X-men movie was by far the best of the three existing pictures, but even it is just okay. Yes, it's a solid start to the franchise, but it is limited in focus and, while a decent introduction to the world and characters, feels so small compared to the comic books on which it is based that it fails to do justice to the X-men property. What should have been the film that takes the concept and soars with it, then, X2, the sequel, only continues to sputter along under Bryan Singer's simplistic and underwhelming direction, with an ending that doesn't earn the major character death it provides due to a simple lack of logic (as in, why exactly can't Jean Gray just use her psychic powers to lift the airplane our heroes are on from inside the jet, rather than stepping outside to do it despite certain death?). The final film in the trilogy, X-men: The Last Stand (from super-hack Brett Ratner), is nothing short of insulting to X-men fans (from both the comics and the previous two movies), but at least it attempts to provide the thrills the X-men comics have always offered, something Singer did as if one hand was always tied behind his back.
Finally, with Vaughan, Fox seems to understand that X-men is about story as well as big-budget action. And in addition to Vaughan, Fox has hired some seriously talented actors (Kevin Bacon, James McAvoy, January Jones) to bring this new story to life. Billed as a prequel to the films, it looked hopeful that it could in fact serve as a reboot in the way that Spider-man is now being tackled or the recent Star Trek movie was done... or perhaps, dare I say, the king of the comic book reboots, Batman Begins, was made. Batman Begins is interesting because it actually began as a prequel to the original Warner Bros./Tim Burton Batman movies, but ended up being the start of a new Bat-series after audiences showed interest in seeing more from this new Bat-incarnation. With X-men: First Class we have a new direction under Matthew Vaughan and a new chance to do this franchise justice. Could this be to the existing X-men movies what Batman Begins is to the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher Bat-films? I sure hoped so... until I heard that Bryan Singer is again involved in the X world, this time as a producer.
Plop! That was the sound of my interest in this movie splattering back onto the floor. Didn't the failed Superman Returns reboot finally prove to Fox that Singer can't handle comic book adaptations? I guess not, because now we have his hand in the pot again with X-men, all but assuring that this ne X-men movie will essentially be little more than a prequel to his flawed X-men films? This is the equivalent to having had Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher serve as a producer on Batman Begins. If either one of them had been, we likely would never have had Batman Begins or The Dark Knight, as it overwrites their Bat-films.
This new X-men film should be Vaughan's to Sheppard, and Vaughan's alone. When Singer walked away from the X-men to do Superman, he should have been done with the X-world. But they'd fact that Fox brought him back shows that they still don't get it when it comes to this franchise. Sure, First Class will probably be big, but it could be so much bigger. Of all the comics, X-men is the one that is the most complex, most appealing to adults as well as children in that it is closest to dealing with current events, as the mutant/human dynamic could be seen as a metaphor for a number of different issues.
True, there are some signs that this film could be intriguing. First, the characters are mostly mutants who are little known even to many X-fans. That gives Vaughan plenty of breathing room to use them in interesting ways without treading too heavily on continuity. Also, the film is rumored to be set in the 60s, and would hopefully take advantage of the Cold War vibe of that era to infuse the film franchise with some intrigue and spy-level suspense. The possibility of mutants going under cover on some sort of globe-trotting adventure excites me. Also, the filming location of London could prove to be a fresh look for the X-film world and capture the early New York setting of the X-men comics.
Hopefully, this film is a big, larger-than-life adventure with the depth and scope that the classic X-men comic stories always provided. And hopefully the studio heads at Fox realize that the original X-films aren't timeless classics, but more akin to the original Batman movies, which faded out and were replace by Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. If this movie can be made into the start of a new franchise, rather than a prequel to a less than stellar X-franchise so far, then X-men: First Class could be something I could truly get behind. If this film wants to get off on the right foot, my advice is for Matthew Vaughan to ignore any input from Bryan Singer.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Mosque my words.
So...
I'm beyond sick of hearing about this so called Ground Zero Mosque, which isn't even a Ground Zero Mosque. It's actually a Cultural Center that has a prayer room, and it's not located at Ground Zero. Rather, i's more than 2 blocks away. Yes, that's damn close to Ground Zero, but it's NOT Ground Zero.
Even though I'm tired of hearing politicians and pundits discussing this Manhattan Islamic Cultural Center, I'm going to chime in with my take on the debate. On one side we have the anti crowd, who opposes the building of the cultural center, which they call a Mosque (probably because it sounds scarier). Many of these naysayers, after all, are the ones who started all this furor by releasing fear-tactic blog posts and self-made videos such as this one (I've decided to retract the link to not give it the hits it doesn't deserve) in which it seems like a giant Mosque is going to overtake Manhattan and terrorists are just going to start flooding into America via some kind of magic Mosque portal. Of course, many, many Republicans jumped on this and are using it to add fuel to their fire for the upcoming elections. It's shameful that they would use 9/11 to campaign off of. But I guess that's nothing new. Heck, we even went to war in Iraq on the ashes of the World Trade Center. But to take a local issue and turn it into a national debate scares me because it opens up the discourse in other areas on whether Mosques should be "allowed" to be built there. Just look at the news, in Rutherford Country, Tennessee there was a recent meeting at the Courthouse about validity of building a Mosque in town.
The biggest reason I'm tired of hearing about this Cultural Center is because there are so many more important issues to discuss right now in America, from the economy, to the wars, to Immigration that this is a distraction. In the same way that Freedom Fries and Senior Death Panels were. It's essentially a Witch Hunt and I'm worried that Muslims are going to become bogeymen, dragged out by the Right-Wingers to scare us and keep us distracted from the bigger issues.
I'm also concerned that if the Cultural Center were to be moved, it would open up the floodgates. If Muslims can't build here, then maybe next year they can't build there. And, let's say, they do move the Cultural Center. Where should they move it? Manhattan is only so big. This argument could easily turn into a "no Mosque in Manhattan" one or maybe even a "no new Mosque in New York" rally. Maybe that's a bit extreme, but then again that's how it always starts: with something small.
I'm not insensitive to the feelings of the 9/11 victims' families. But it's an overstatement by politicians who say that all 9/11 victims' families are against the construction of the Cultural Center, as so many have done. It bugs me in the same way that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell continually say they represent "the American people" or "the American people are opposed to" XYZ. With all due respect, if you knew what the American people wanted, your party wouldn't have gotten your asses kicked in the 2008 elections. Point of fact, many 9/11 victims' families are for the Cultural Center, as they see it as a way to bridge the divide; the Cultural Center is intended as a place to reflect on the devastation of 9/11 and how destructive radical Islam is.
This whole Cultural Center debate should have been a local issue, but you know we're screwed when Newt Gingrich chimes in with comments like, and I'm paraphrasing, "we shouldn't have Mosques in America until they have Churches and Synagogues in Saudi Arabia." Hello, Newt, we're better than Saudi Arabia. But, sadly, it is a national issue now, egged on by misinformation and Right-wingers inflaming their base, which has spilled over into mainstream America. Newt also claims that it is wrong that the Islamic community demands Religious intolerance from us, but in Muslim countries they ask for submission. He isn't entirely off there, but, again, we are not a Christian or Jewish nation. And these are American citizens attending these Mosques. Do I wish other countries were as fair to other religious as we are. Yes! But punishing American-Muslims and Islam is the wrong way to go. We should take it up with the countries and their leadership, not through religion.
With so many so divided the best and fairest thing would be to revert back to Constitutional law, which essentially states that this Cultural Center has the right to be built there. In my opinion, there's a really good opportunity here for Islamic leadership in New York to say "even though the law is on our side, our intention was not to create this controversy and so we are moving the Cultural Center elsewhere." But then, to where? And, for that matter, what then? If they bow to pressure here, maybe they will next time, too? It's a slippery slope.
The Ironic thing, of course, is that their defiant attitude is a very American one.
I'm beyond sick of hearing about this so called Ground Zero Mosque, which isn't even a Ground Zero Mosque. It's actually a Cultural Center that has a prayer room, and it's not located at Ground Zero. Rather, i's more than 2 blocks away. Yes, that's damn close to Ground Zero, but it's NOT Ground Zero.
Even though I'm tired of hearing politicians and pundits discussing this Manhattan Islamic Cultural Center, I'm going to chime in with my take on the debate. On one side we have the anti crowd, who opposes the building of the cultural center, which they call a Mosque (probably because it sounds scarier). Many of these naysayers, after all, are the ones who started all this furor by releasing fear-tactic blog posts and self-made videos such as this one (I've decided to retract the link to not give it the hits it doesn't deserve) in which it seems like a giant Mosque is going to overtake Manhattan and terrorists are just going to start flooding into America via some kind of magic Mosque portal. Of course, many, many Republicans jumped on this and are using it to add fuel to their fire for the upcoming elections. It's shameful that they would use 9/11 to campaign off of. But I guess that's nothing new. Heck, we even went to war in Iraq on the ashes of the World Trade Center. But to take a local issue and turn it into a national debate scares me because it opens up the discourse in other areas on whether Mosques should be "allowed" to be built there. Just look at the news, in Rutherford Country, Tennessee there was a recent meeting at the Courthouse about validity of building a Mosque in town.
The biggest reason I'm tired of hearing about this Cultural Center is because there are so many more important issues to discuss right now in America, from the economy, to the wars, to Immigration that this is a distraction. In the same way that Freedom Fries and Senior Death Panels were. It's essentially a Witch Hunt and I'm worried that Muslims are going to become bogeymen, dragged out by the Right-Wingers to scare us and keep us distracted from the bigger issues.
I'm also concerned that if the Cultural Center were to be moved, it would open up the floodgates. If Muslims can't build here, then maybe next year they can't build there. And, let's say, they do move the Cultural Center. Where should they move it? Manhattan is only so big. This argument could easily turn into a "no Mosque in Manhattan" one or maybe even a "no new Mosque in New York" rally. Maybe that's a bit extreme, but then again that's how it always starts: with something small.
I'm not insensitive to the feelings of the 9/11 victims' families. But it's an overstatement by politicians who say that all 9/11 victims' families are against the construction of the Cultural Center, as so many have done. It bugs me in the same way that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell continually say they represent "the American people" or "the American people are opposed to" XYZ. With all due respect, if you knew what the American people wanted, your party wouldn't have gotten your asses kicked in the 2008 elections. Point of fact, many 9/11 victims' families are for the Cultural Center, as they see it as a way to bridge the divide; the Cultural Center is intended as a place to reflect on the devastation of 9/11 and how destructive radical Islam is.
This whole Cultural Center debate should have been a local issue, but you know we're screwed when Newt Gingrich chimes in with comments like, and I'm paraphrasing, "we shouldn't have Mosques in America until they have Churches and Synagogues in Saudi Arabia." Hello, Newt, we're better than Saudi Arabia. But, sadly, it is a national issue now, egged on by misinformation and Right-wingers inflaming their base, which has spilled over into mainstream America. Newt also claims that it is wrong that the Islamic community demands Religious intolerance from us, but in Muslim countries they ask for submission. He isn't entirely off there, but, again, we are not a Christian or Jewish nation. And these are American citizens attending these Mosques. Do I wish other countries were as fair to other religious as we are. Yes! But punishing American-Muslims and Islam is the wrong way to go. We should take it up with the countries and their leadership, not through religion.
With so many so divided the best and fairest thing would be to revert back to Constitutional law, which essentially states that this Cultural Center has the right to be built there. In my opinion, there's a really good opportunity here for Islamic leadership in New York to say "even though the law is on our side, our intention was not to create this controversy and so we are moving the Cultural Center elsewhere." But then, to where? And, for that matter, what then? If they bow to pressure here, maybe they will next time, too? It's a slippery slope.
The Ironic thing, of course, is that their defiant attitude is a very American one.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Freeing the anchor (babies) by changing the 14th Amendment.
So...
There's a lot of talk in the news about immigration reform (whatever that means these days) and illegal immigration, which has turned to discussion about the 14th Amendment. For those who don't know, the 14th Amendment is the addition to the US Constitution that grants automatic citizenship to anyone born in the United States. It was drafted after the Civil War in response to African-Americans and newly freed slaves, allowing them and their children to be free citizens on America, whereas before they did not have that right upon birth. Congress at the time did not consider the current plight of immigrants nor the economic burden of illegal border crossings on this country, but many believe that the section of the 14th Amendment which grants automatic freedom to those born in the US should still be upheld. Others, however, feel it allows too many to take advantage of a Constitutional addition not written for it's current usage, such as those who enter this country for the sole purpose of having their children granted US citizenship. There are even charter trips for groups of non-US citizens that come here from other countries, jetting pregnant foreigners to US soil, booking them the living arrangements and allowing the expectant mothers to give birth to their babies in US hospitals (at US taxpayers expense), then return home so that one day their children can just come freely into this country.
Those who want to keep the 14th Amendment the way it is claim that to adjust the 14th Amendment would be punishing innocent children, which is a tough case to sell to the American people. There is also the argument that we should not change the Amendment, as it is equal to changing the Constitution. This later argument is flimsy, because the Amendment itself is already a change to the original Constitution. Also, there are so many differences in American culture that the founding fathers couldn't have predicted (though they did an amazing job of creating a Constitution broad enough to be timeless) that Constitutional ratifications and changes are sometimes necessary. While not an excuse to go trampling all over the Constitution, there are instances where Government must examine it for a changing society.
Those who want to modify the 14th Amendment to remove the automatic citizenship clause claim that it promotes illegal immigration, as non-citizens cross the border to have their babies in this country illegally for the sole purpose of giving them citizens. In addition to flying into this country, as I mentioned above, along the Mexican border US hospitals are getting flooded with expectant illegal immigrant parents sneaking into the country and having what is called "anchor babies." The term anchor babies refers to the baby being put into the position of, via their automatic citizenship, tethering the illegal parents into America as immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) is often unwilling, understandably, to kick the parents of the US citizen child out of the country since the child is a legal citizen. This baby then acts as the anchor who ties the child down while not only the parents stay here, but other members of the family enter the country as once the child turns 18 he can sponsor family members to get them citizenship. Not only is it unfair to those who wait patiently to be granted citizenship, it's a burden placed on an innocent child who has no say in their future.
To those who say that changing the 14th Amendment to drop the automatic citizenship clause is cruel and simply wrong to punish the children of illegals, is it not cruel and wrong to do otherwise? What about the child who has to grow up knowing their parents have broken the law for them? Is that fair to give the child a life where the first act they committed as a citizen is to have broken the law? And what about living with the fear that their parents are illegal immigrants and could very well be (however unlikely) deported? Not to mention the burden of having to often bring in other family members? It is wrong and unfair for a child to have to grow up where there parents are not able to have the best life they can have as illegals in the country, yet it would be wrong to just make them citizens. It's a hardship no child should have to go through. Also, it is dangerous for the parents to cross over illegally for the sake of the child. By changing the Amendment, it would discourage expectant mothers from risking their lives for the journey to America to give birth here and thus not endanger the child, either.
Never mind the cost of illegal births or the unfairness of it to immigrants who follow proper channels, automatic citizenship is simply a danger and unnecessary burden for a child to take on, through no fault of their own, and should be modified in the 14th Amendment. For the sake of the expectant parents and the child-to-be it is the right thing to do.
There's a lot of talk in the news about immigration reform (whatever that means these days) and illegal immigration, which has turned to discussion about the 14th Amendment. For those who don't know, the 14th Amendment is the addition to the US Constitution that grants automatic citizenship to anyone born in the United States. It was drafted after the Civil War in response to African-Americans and newly freed slaves, allowing them and their children to be free citizens on America, whereas before they did not have that right upon birth. Congress at the time did not consider the current plight of immigrants nor the economic burden of illegal border crossings on this country, but many believe that the section of the 14th Amendment which grants automatic freedom to those born in the US should still be upheld. Others, however, feel it allows too many to take advantage of a Constitutional addition not written for it's current usage, such as those who enter this country for the sole purpose of having their children granted US citizenship. There are even charter trips for groups of non-US citizens that come here from other countries, jetting pregnant foreigners to US soil, booking them the living arrangements and allowing the expectant mothers to give birth to their babies in US hospitals (at US taxpayers expense), then return home so that one day their children can just come freely into this country.
Those who want to keep the 14th Amendment the way it is claim that to adjust the 14th Amendment would be punishing innocent children, which is a tough case to sell to the American people. There is also the argument that we should not change the Amendment, as it is equal to changing the Constitution. This later argument is flimsy, because the Amendment itself is already a change to the original Constitution. Also, there are so many differences in American culture that the founding fathers couldn't have predicted (though they did an amazing job of creating a Constitution broad enough to be timeless) that Constitutional ratifications and changes are sometimes necessary. While not an excuse to go trampling all over the Constitution, there are instances where Government must examine it for a changing society.
Those who want to modify the 14th Amendment to remove the automatic citizenship clause claim that it promotes illegal immigration, as non-citizens cross the border to have their babies in this country illegally for the sole purpose of giving them citizens. In addition to flying into this country, as I mentioned above, along the Mexican border US hospitals are getting flooded with expectant illegal immigrant parents sneaking into the country and having what is called "anchor babies." The term anchor babies refers to the baby being put into the position of, via their automatic citizenship, tethering the illegal parents into America as immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) is often unwilling, understandably, to kick the parents of the US citizen child out of the country since the child is a legal citizen. This baby then acts as the anchor who ties the child down while not only the parents stay here, but other members of the family enter the country as once the child turns 18 he can sponsor family members to get them citizenship. Not only is it unfair to those who wait patiently to be granted citizenship, it's a burden placed on an innocent child who has no say in their future.
To those who say that changing the 14th Amendment to drop the automatic citizenship clause is cruel and simply wrong to punish the children of illegals, is it not cruel and wrong to do otherwise? What about the child who has to grow up knowing their parents have broken the law for them? Is that fair to give the child a life where the first act they committed as a citizen is to have broken the law? And what about living with the fear that their parents are illegal immigrants and could very well be (however unlikely) deported? Not to mention the burden of having to often bring in other family members? It is wrong and unfair for a child to have to grow up where there parents are not able to have the best life they can have as illegals in the country, yet it would be wrong to just make them citizens. It's a hardship no child should have to go through. Also, it is dangerous for the parents to cross over illegally for the sake of the child. By changing the Amendment, it would discourage expectant mothers from risking their lives for the journey to America to give birth here and thus not endanger the child, either.
Never mind the cost of illegal births or the unfairness of it to immigrants who follow proper channels, automatic citizenship is simply a danger and unnecessary burden for a child to take on, through no fault of their own, and should be modified in the 14th Amendment. For the sake of the expectant parents and the child-to-be it is the right thing to do.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
A word on Sprint's new hotness, the Samsung Epic 4G.
So...
Today, Sprint finally announced the release date of their version of the Samsung Galaxy smart phone, dubbed the Epic 4G. As the name suggests it is a 4G compatible phone (meaning that it's good only for those areas that have 4G coverage, otherwise it's 3G). It's a pretty spectacular phone, I'll be the first to admit that, but it's not a phone that's unique to Sprint. AT&T, Verizon and even T-Mobil all have their own version of the Samsung Galaxy. The ONLY difference with the Sprint version compared to the other companies is that Sprint's Galaxy has a slide-out QWERTY keypad. This keypad is a pretty handy feature, allowing the option to either type touch screen or on a normal, albeit smaller, keyboard. However, this keypad isn't without it's faults, it does make the phone a bit heavier. With or without the extra weight, though, I don't think the keypad should make the Epic a more expensive version of the galaxy than it's competitors since, again, it's almost the same phone.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what Sprint is doing: charging their customers an extra fifty bucks to get their Samsung Galaxy. Now, this phone is already available on AT&T and T-Mobil and both retail for 199.99. The same price as the Iphone 4, mind you. And over at Spring, the uber-hot EVO (Sprint's first foray into 4G territory) also retails for 199.99. Expensive, but reasonable. You would expect the new Samsung to sell for that same amount as Sprint's previous 4G phone, if not the price of the same phone at AT&T and T-Mobil. I mean, how could it actually cost MORE than the King of all smart phones, the Iphone 4G? But I guess Sprint has decided to make an extra buck by sticking it to the customer and charging them 249.99. This is clearly part of the reason for the long delay on the Epic's release date. Based on the high sales of the EVO and the high level of interest in the Epic, Sprint has jacked up the price an extra fifty dollars, making it the most expensive smart phone on the market. Worse, Sprint suckered their customers by setting up a website so users could pre-pre-register for the Epic 4G, so customers could be assured they would get the advanced forms necessary to get the phone on it's release date. Sounds nice, but they then counted up all those site visits and pre-pre-registrations and decided they had enough interest to be able to jack the prices of the phone up.
Worse, Sprint has always prided itself on having cheaper plans than AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobil. Dan Hesse, Sprint's CEO, has a commerical running where he boldly proclaims that for 69.99 you can get everything (mobil, text and Internet), whereas at AT&T and Verizon you can only get mobil calling and text for that price. Now, users that sign up for the Samsung Epic are required to pay a shady $10.00 "premium content" fee. This is a fee that isn't required for their other smart phones, but is something they began to require for the EVO and continued with the Epic, even though those phones don't do anything different than their other smart phones - they still access the same sights. It's because they are 4G, I guess, and it's a sketchy way to claim that their plans are 69.99, when, in fact, they require an extra 10 buck fee making the plans 79.99. As more and more phones come out with 4G capabilities, I guess the new price, whether they advertise it or not, will be 79.99. The funny thing is that very few markets actually have 4G capable cell phone towers set up, so the 10.00 fee really shouldn't be applied to those markets since they aren't getting the "premium content" as intended.
Still, even though it's disappointing to see the changes in Sprint's customer service and their up until now low prices, the service plan pricing is still on par with the other mobil companies. And the phone is pretty awesome, though in my opinion not worth the extra 50 bucks. But, really, if you want a phone that is not going to be obsolete in two years, and you want the QWERTY keypad, then you really don't have a choice but to pay the extra money. I guess I should be use to this by now considering how long the cell phone companies have been monopolizing Americans with outrageous pricing and unbreakable contracts. Really, the only wonder is how long it took Sprint to join the club.
FYI, Sprint's Samsung Epic 4G releases August 31, with pre-registration beginning today.
Today, Sprint finally announced the release date of their version of the Samsung Galaxy smart phone, dubbed the Epic 4G. As the name suggests it is a 4G compatible phone (meaning that it's good only for those areas that have 4G coverage, otherwise it's 3G). It's a pretty spectacular phone, I'll be the first to admit that, but it's not a phone that's unique to Sprint. AT&T, Verizon and even T-Mobil all have their own version of the Samsung Galaxy. The ONLY difference with the Sprint version compared to the other companies is that Sprint's Galaxy has a slide-out QWERTY keypad. This keypad is a pretty handy feature, allowing the option to either type touch screen or on a normal, albeit smaller, keyboard. However, this keypad isn't without it's faults, it does make the phone a bit heavier. With or without the extra weight, though, I don't think the keypad should make the Epic a more expensive version of the galaxy than it's competitors since, again, it's almost the same phone.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what Sprint is doing: charging their customers an extra fifty bucks to get their Samsung Galaxy. Now, this phone is already available on AT&T and T-Mobil and both retail for 199.99. The same price as the Iphone 4, mind you. And over at Spring, the uber-hot EVO (Sprint's first foray into 4G territory) also retails for 199.99. Expensive, but reasonable. You would expect the new Samsung to sell for that same amount as Sprint's previous 4G phone, if not the price of the same phone at AT&T and T-Mobil. I mean, how could it actually cost MORE than the King of all smart phones, the Iphone 4G? But I guess Sprint has decided to make an extra buck by sticking it to the customer and charging them 249.99. This is clearly part of the reason for the long delay on the Epic's release date. Based on the high sales of the EVO and the high level of interest in the Epic, Sprint has jacked up the price an extra fifty dollars, making it the most expensive smart phone on the market. Worse, Sprint suckered their customers by setting up a website so users could pre-pre-register for the Epic 4G, so customers could be assured they would get the advanced forms necessary to get the phone on it's release date. Sounds nice, but they then counted up all those site visits and pre-pre-registrations and decided they had enough interest to be able to jack the prices of the phone up.
Worse, Sprint has always prided itself on having cheaper plans than AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobil. Dan Hesse, Sprint's CEO, has a commerical running where he boldly proclaims that for 69.99 you can get everything (mobil, text and Internet), whereas at AT&T and Verizon you can only get mobil calling and text for that price. Now, users that sign up for the Samsung Epic are required to pay a shady $10.00 "premium content" fee. This is a fee that isn't required for their other smart phones, but is something they began to require for the EVO and continued with the Epic, even though those phones don't do anything different than their other smart phones - they still access the same sights. It's because they are 4G, I guess, and it's a sketchy way to claim that their plans are 69.99, when, in fact, they require an extra 10 buck fee making the plans 79.99. As more and more phones come out with 4G capabilities, I guess the new price, whether they advertise it or not, will be 79.99. The funny thing is that very few markets actually have 4G capable cell phone towers set up, so the 10.00 fee really shouldn't be applied to those markets since they aren't getting the "premium content" as intended.
Still, even though it's disappointing to see the changes in Sprint's customer service and their up until now low prices, the service plan pricing is still on par with the other mobil companies. And the phone is pretty awesome, though in my opinion not worth the extra 50 bucks. But, really, if you want a phone that is not going to be obsolete in two years, and you want the QWERTY keypad, then you really don't have a choice but to pay the extra money. I guess I should be use to this by now considering how long the cell phone companies have been monopolizing Americans with outrageous pricing and unbreakable contracts. Really, the only wonder is how long it took Sprint to join the club.
FYI, Sprint's Samsung Epic 4G releases August 31, with pre-registration beginning today.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
An open letter to Ben Quayle, candidate for Arizona's 3rd district.
So...
Ben Quayle, son of former nitwit Vice President Dan Quayle, today you put out an ad saying that you were "raised right" and that Barack Obama is the "worst President in US History." Really? Obama has only been in office 18 months and already you feel justified in making that claim. Let's see, James Buchanan laid the framework for the Civil War, Herbert Hoover brought the country the great depression and let's not forget George W. Bush, who I don't even need to list the devastation he brought about. Ben, this is desperate. And I know there are 9 other candidates running against you in a very crowded Arizona Congressional race, and I understand you need to stand out, but that claim is just sad.
Let's also not ignore the obvious attempt to distract from the swirling storm surrounding the accusations that you wrote for the dirtyscottsdale.com website as a regular contributor named Brock Landers (the porn moniker from "Boogie Nights") who sought to find the hottest chick in Scottsdale, drank whiskey alone to avoid "emotional setbacks" and banged strangers at other people's houses. First you denied any association with the site. Now, you say you did post, but only to "drive traffic to the site." Ummm... okay, sure. Keep in mind you didn't post under your real name, so how exactly were you trying to drive traffic to the website? By putting up pictures of skanky women and pointing out their flaws?
Furthermore, do you expect anyone to believe that you did not post as Brock Landers when at first you denied that you even posted on dirtyscottsdale.com, but now admit that you actually did, only not as the person the site's founder claims you did? Come on, you expect us to believe that? You're credibility is clearly shot. And how is this having been "raised right"? How is this not dirty politics reminiscent of Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that women" fib. We don't need another sketchy politician in Washington, we've got them in spades.
If you win you will have set the tone for your term as one based on lies. But hey it worked for George W. Bush and you don't seem to think that was so bad.
Ben Quayle, son of former nitwit Vice President Dan Quayle, today you put out an ad saying that you were "raised right" and that Barack Obama is the "worst President in US History." Really? Obama has only been in office 18 months and already you feel justified in making that claim. Let's see, James Buchanan laid the framework for the Civil War, Herbert Hoover brought the country the great depression and let's not forget George W. Bush, who I don't even need to list the devastation he brought about. Ben, this is desperate. And I know there are 9 other candidates running against you in a very crowded Arizona Congressional race, and I understand you need to stand out, but that claim is just sad.
Let's also not ignore the obvious attempt to distract from the swirling storm surrounding the accusations that you wrote for the dirtyscottsdale.com website as a regular contributor named Brock Landers (the porn moniker from "Boogie Nights") who sought to find the hottest chick in Scottsdale, drank whiskey alone to avoid "emotional setbacks" and banged strangers at other people's houses. First you denied any association with the site. Now, you say you did post, but only to "drive traffic to the site." Ummm... okay, sure. Keep in mind you didn't post under your real name, so how exactly were you trying to drive traffic to the website? By putting up pictures of skanky women and pointing out their flaws?
Furthermore, do you expect anyone to believe that you did not post as Brock Landers when at first you denied that you even posted on dirtyscottsdale.com, but now admit that you actually did, only not as the person the site's founder claims you did? Come on, you expect us to believe that? You're credibility is clearly shot. And how is this having been "raised right"? How is this not dirty politics reminiscent of Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that women" fib. We don't need another sketchy politician in Washington, we've got them in spades.
If you win you will have set the tone for your term as one based on lies. But hey it worked for George W. Bush and you don't seem to think that was so bad.
Monday, August 9, 2010
"Everything's better in Israel."
So...
The title of this post is a quote from the latest episode of Covert Affairs. In it, our heroine gets entangled in a story line involving an Israeli spy. Throughout the episode the spy talks about how wonderful Israel is and at one point our heroine says maybe they could meet up again on the French Riviera and he says no, they should meet at the beaches in Israel because they are the best in the world and, in fact, everything is better in Israel.
Sigh. It's getting really old, Hollywood. Really, it is. The line has been crossed between political ideology and unbiased storytelling. It's gotten to the point where when you tune into a TV show it seems to quickly shift into an ad for the wonders and greatness of the Jewish nation. It doesn't help that, and this isn't racism, this is just simple numbers, most of the writers, directors, agents, producers and executives in Hollywood are Jewish.
In Hollywood, they like to say they want to hire writers who have experience in certain fields to set them apart. Say, if you want to work on a cop show, it helps to have been a former cop. Experience over imagination, is the viewpoint. It's a silly view to begin with, but it does allow them to find reasons to hire or not to hire. Say if they don't like you on a personal level, well, they have a technical excuse not to hire you so they don't have to flat out say we don't like you. Mind you, this isn't some official rule, more like a rule of thumb. However, this stance doesn't seem to apply to Jewish writers. And the problem with that is, other than the hypocrisy of it, is that we then get writers who fill the scripts with what they know. Just as a cop would write about what he knows on a cop show (being a police officer), a Jewish writer would write about what he/she knows... which often boils down to plots about Jewish issues and all things Israel.
Seriously, next time you watch a show turn on your brain and listen/look for it. Now, I understand the controversial nature of this post and the fact that any perceived criticism of Israel or the Jewish people in general grants you an automatic anti-Semite label, but if we can get past that petty name calling I think there is a real discussion to be had here on the effects of an overwhelmingly Jewish entertainment industry on American television.
I mean, what would happen if there was an American (Jewish or otherwise) on an Israeli TV show and he said the line "everything's better in America"? Most likely ridicule and a criticism of American elitism, if not charges of racism. There's also a danger in tying American TV (and thus America) with Israel so heavily. Imagine if the entertainment business was predominately Muslim. Would we not draw the concern of Israel? Plus, even though Israel is a strong ally of the United States, it is still a separate country with it's own policies and agendas, many of which don't align with our own. If Israel comes under fire for something, like the recent blockade of Palestinian supplies headed for the Gaza strip, it's important that American isn't seen as blindly supportive of Israeli policies. With international TV syndication and distribution at an all time high, we have to keep in mind that for many places in the world their view of America comes from television.
Nobody outside of Hollywood talks about Israel the way the writers on these shows do. So the question is: should there be a bigger distinction between the character's voice and the writer inserting his ideology when it comes to Israel and Jewish issues? Maybe a better way to look at it is if Hollywood is supposed to write for people or write to people?
The title of this post is a quote from the latest episode of Covert Affairs. In it, our heroine gets entangled in a story line involving an Israeli spy. Throughout the episode the spy talks about how wonderful Israel is and at one point our heroine says maybe they could meet up again on the French Riviera and he says no, they should meet at the beaches in Israel because they are the best in the world and, in fact, everything is better in Israel.
Sigh. It's getting really old, Hollywood. Really, it is. The line has been crossed between political ideology and unbiased storytelling. It's gotten to the point where when you tune into a TV show it seems to quickly shift into an ad for the wonders and greatness of the Jewish nation. It doesn't help that, and this isn't racism, this is just simple numbers, most of the writers, directors, agents, producers and executives in Hollywood are Jewish.
In Hollywood, they like to say they want to hire writers who have experience in certain fields to set them apart. Say, if you want to work on a cop show, it helps to have been a former cop. Experience over imagination, is the viewpoint. It's a silly view to begin with, but it does allow them to find reasons to hire or not to hire. Say if they don't like you on a personal level, well, they have a technical excuse not to hire you so they don't have to flat out say we don't like you. Mind you, this isn't some official rule, more like a rule of thumb. However, this stance doesn't seem to apply to Jewish writers. And the problem with that is, other than the hypocrisy of it, is that we then get writers who fill the scripts with what they know. Just as a cop would write about what he knows on a cop show (being a police officer), a Jewish writer would write about what he/she knows... which often boils down to plots about Jewish issues and all things Israel.
Seriously, next time you watch a show turn on your brain and listen/look for it. Now, I understand the controversial nature of this post and the fact that any perceived criticism of Israel or the Jewish people in general grants you an automatic anti-Semite label, but if we can get past that petty name calling I think there is a real discussion to be had here on the effects of an overwhelmingly Jewish entertainment industry on American television.
I mean, what would happen if there was an American (Jewish or otherwise) on an Israeli TV show and he said the line "everything's better in America"? Most likely ridicule and a criticism of American elitism, if not charges of racism. There's also a danger in tying American TV (and thus America) with Israel so heavily. Imagine if the entertainment business was predominately Muslim. Would we not draw the concern of Israel? Plus, even though Israel is a strong ally of the United States, it is still a separate country with it's own policies and agendas, many of which don't align with our own. If Israel comes under fire for something, like the recent blockade of Palestinian supplies headed for the Gaza strip, it's important that American isn't seen as blindly supportive of Israeli policies. With international TV syndication and distribution at an all time high, we have to keep in mind that for many places in the world their view of America comes from television.
Nobody outside of Hollywood talks about Israel the way the writers on these shows do. So the question is: should there be a bigger distinction between the character's voice and the writer inserting his ideology when it comes to Israel and Jewish issues? Maybe a better way to look at it is if Hollywood is supposed to write for people or write to people?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)