Category — Movies-TV

An article at Ars Technica reports on a Chicago TV station’s claims that video games are like drugs - the station cites a social worker who says that as a result children are behaving worse than they did historically.

The Ars article pretty quickly dismisses the possibility, throwing it in with a pile of other emergent social phenomena that simply rubbed mainstream society the wrong way.  It then goes on to discuss if gaming can be truly addictive, discusses how addition itself is a poor word in general and ultimately finds that gaming is more on the order of an eating disorder or compulsive gambling than it is with heroine.

Its an interesting article to be sure, and outside of that, you can weigh many good and bad points relating to video games, but I’d like to take a quick step back and revisit the original claim made by the station.

Personally, I think that this is the drug manufacturer calling the dealer evil.  The average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day, compared to roughly 7.5 hours spent gaming all week.  Over 98% of all American homes have a television, yet only 50% of American’s play video games.  Are you seeing a trend here?

This TV station is really saying – “Hey, don’t let your fat-ass bratty kids play too many video games!  Polluting their brains is OUR job!”

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I like TV and I like video games – you don’t have to read my blog for long to know that about me.  But it can be appalling the content that is available in both mediums – allowing your kids to be exposed to some of this stuff, when it is questionable if you should be exposed to it is simple lunacy.

But, I think we all know that.  A kid shouldn’t be playing a game like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas in the first place – if you disagree, then you deserve how your children turn out.

My first point is more along the lines of what TV can put into the mind of a child.  There are very few cartoons out there where the parents are even somewhat helpful, let alone play the part of the heroes.  Usually, parents are the bumbling, can’t-be-trusted type that everything needs to be hidden from – be it a secret lab, or a failed test.  “Keep it away from Mom and Dad!”  The parents in many shows are downright stupid, with the kids being the ones who always have to set them straight.  “Thank goodness for that upstart 7 year old!  She’s so spunky!  HAHA!  Good stuff!”  No, not good stuff.  Fathers tend to fare the worst – they’re almost always stupid or angry or petty or square or…  You get the picture.

What does this do to our children?  It programs them for 4 hours every day that Mom and Dad don’t have the answers, aren’t worthy of their respect and certainly don’t require obedience.  Then they turn around and look at us and realize that the TV is probably right! We don’t have our crap together – 50% of us are divorced, of those that aren’t, large percentages are fighting, cheating or working too much.  Kids come from broken homes, have no father or no mother, or even worse, have 2 mommies or 2 daddies.  Even us Christians don’t fare well in these areas – we’re all messed up too!

Raising kids isn’t easy, especially in a two income family – but don’t blame anything or anyone else for how your children turn out.  To be sure, there are a few extenuating circumstances, but the overwhelming majority of disobedient, disrespectful and ill-adjusted children are directly because of a lack of interactive parenting not because of a presence of interactive gaming or crappy television.

While most people would agree with that statement, we still have the social trends to prove that they don’t act on it.  Why? Because it’s HARD work.  It’s longsuffering work.  And for many in society, there are no clear guidelines to follow.  We do what sounds good… Sorta.  Really, we do what feels good, which usually equates with what’s easiest and gives the least amount of friction.

Isn’t taking the “easy” way out practically synonymous with not doing the right thing?  Why then, do we parent that way?  I believe it is a lack of wisdom.

In the greatest book of wisdom ever gathered, Proverbs, there is a passage that has long caused uproar and consternation among many more “enlightened” parents – “spare the rod, spoil the child”, or more correctly:

He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him. (Proverbs, 13:24)

This is often misunderstood and used by weirdoes on both sides to prove completely dissimilar points, neither of which are correct.

In ancient times, a Hebrew man would keep a “rod” or a walking stick.  As he aged, he would carve memories and stories from his life into the wood, creating a repository of everything that he had lived that was worthy of regard.  In a sense, the rod was a container for his wisdom – that which his life had taught him. It would indeed also be used for more mundane things, as any walking stick or staff would be, discipline included.

The point is this – don’t beat your children indiscriminately, but discipline them with careful wisdom, love and understanding.

This doesn’t just mean corporal punishment, but giving them true discipline, in every sense of the word.  Discipline to do things like NOT watch 4 hours of disrespectful television every day.

So, how do we get the wisdom necessary to properly discipline our children?  I believe it starts with God.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. (Proverbs 9:10)

And he said to man,
       ‘The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom, and to shun evil is understanding.’ (Job 28:28)

This isn’t a fear that invokes cringing terror, but rather a spirit of awe, humility and dependence upon our creator.  We learn wisdom by acknowledging that God is who He is – GOD.  By accepting His divine authority and working to understand Him, we gain more wisdom.  Doesn’t this make sense?  The more we acknowledge and understand the creator of the universe, the more we understand how to interact with His creation?

Wisdom is then used to properly discipline our kids so that they aren’t the disobedient, disrespectful and ill-adjusted little children that we all can’t stand and are terrified of raising.

Am I saying I have this all figured out?  Heck no!  I’m learning every day, mess up often, and seek counsel from two different friends that I deeply trust, who have already raised their children in a Godly manner and who have the RESULTS that I would like to see with mine.

So, who is more to blame for the breakdown of juvenile society? The people that cram our children full of disobedient, violent, “kids always know better” images for 2 full months out of every year, or the people who make games that give you more points for screwing hookers and shooting police officers in the head for only half a month out of every year?

Obviously neither – it’s the parents.

Don’t forget that the new season of The Sopranos starts March 12th.  I’ll be watching all its usual grittiness in HD splendor.

I know – its not exactly a family show, but I’m an Italian that grew up in NJ, and some of the characters in the show remind me of characters from my childhood.  I swear Paulie Walnuts is my “Uncle” Vic and I don’t even want to talk about the flashbacks that Livia gave me…  

My Dad, who is 100% of Italian descent, won’t watch the show.  I, being more of a mutt of Western Europe, have no such challenges.  Honestly, what I enjoy about the show is how it is about the characters more than anything else.  For a good outline of why that’s important, read these two articles from my brother’s blog.  You’ll never look at entertainment the same way…

Anyway, The Sopranos only USED to be the darkest show on television – that title now belongs to Deadwood.

Yow.

“Muslim pop singer Deeyah has irked the Muslim world with her provocative new music video that shows her stripping off a burka to reveal her bikini-clad body.”

See the full report here. Oddly enough, the song words themselves should garner more controversy than the video, but somehow I doubt that they will.

via Michelle Malkin

On one of the Sci-Fi boards that I frequent (I know, I’m a geek…), someone asked this question:

• Should they just make Trek movies
• Should they restart Enterprise
• Should a new series be made
• Should they leave it as it is and move on

Now, I’ve waxed dramatic on this topic before, but I’ve nailed down some more supporting evidence for my postulations. I posted this to the forum where the question was asked, so some apologies are in order for the stream-of conscience-esq nature of the following post.

Anyway, here you go:

IMHO, Star Trek itself rocks… But it also has the distinction of being the best (and worst) handled show in sci fi history – again IMHO.

I believe that in order for another ST series to be popular, they have to come out with a movie again first – kick in a new generation of fans, so to speak. This point could be argued quite a bit, but in they days of the DVR, our TV ratings system is imploding in on itself and I don’t think that the industry has ANY clue what people actually like to watch anymore… But, I digress. Agree with this point or not, I’m moving on…

Unfortunately, a popular movie today is much different than the historical ST movie – they have to make it more “epic” than your traditional ST movie. People want BIG – don’t believe that? Well, let me prove it…

First of all, look at how many of the top 20 grossing films in history for the US are “greater sci fi” – I know some of you will argue with me that something like Spider Man is Sci Fi, but bear with me… (all info from IMDB, btw)

2. Star Wars (1977) $460,935,665
4. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) $434,949,459
5. Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace (1999) $431,065,444
6. Spider-Man (2002) $403,706,375
7. Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (2005) $380,262,555
8. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $377,019,252
9. Spider-Man 2 (2004) $373,377,893
11. Jurassic Park (1993) $356,784,000
12. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) $340,478,898
16. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001) $317,557,891
17. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) $313,837,577
18. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) $310,675,583
19. Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi (1983) $309,125,409
20. Independence Day (1996) $306,124,059

14 of the top 20!!! Man, people love this stuff… But look at the pictures and how they break down:

EPIC films:
2. Star Wars (1977)
5. Star Wars: Episode
I – The Phantom Menace
7. Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith
8.The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
12. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
17. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
18. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones
19. Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi
20. Independence Day

Good “Story” Films:
4. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
11. Jurassic Park (1993)

Existing Franchise Films:
6. Spider-Man (2002)
9. Spider-Man 2 (2004)
16. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001)

Now, a couple of disclaimers – just ’cause I classified a film as epic, doesn’t mean it isn’t a good story, or doesn’t come from an existing franchise. And, you could say that these don’t really add up to anything, because really we are talking about primarily 2 really good franchises – StarWars and LOTR. Well, I would argue those with you as well – in fact, independence day being there makes my point for me. But anyway…

My REAL point is this – to have a REALLY successful film, the best idea is to do an Epic Sci-Fi film. Probably not a lot of argument for this statement.

So the real question is, why hasn’t this been done with Star Trek? Why is it that the franchise that is arguably the most RICH in story and potential doesn’t ever seem to come up with a plot that is sweeping in nature? I mean, there are complete sectors, dozens of races, hundreds of ships, politics galore, etc and in Nemesis, we get 2 ships in a standoff as the climax. IT’S ALWAYS 2 DAMN SHIPS!

Compare to the opening scene of Revenge of the Sith to see the drastic difference I’m talking about…

Now, I liked Nemesis, but that’s ’cause I’m a die-hard trek fan, or more correctly, a complete Starfleet whore – I’ll watch ANYTHING from these series, and probably like it. But the hard fact of the matter is that the economics of what gets made today has changed drastically from even the days of DS9 and CERTAINLY from the days of TNG. Enterprise would have been fine 10 years ago, but it doesn’t cut it in the economics of today. To me, that is a shame, but it is what it is…

If we want to see our beloved show continue to be a blip on main stream media radar, it has to change with the times and give the people what they want.

Even Shakespeare always put a parade in his plays – why? To appeal the masses, so he could keep his theater open and put on more plays. Masterpieces can STILL be written that appeal to the masses, and I can’t think of a better “universe” to do it with than the ST universe.

The question is will the “powers that be” ever remove their heads from their rears long enough to take a glimpse at reality.

And that my friends, is a question for the ages…

There has been a bit of controversy going on about new NBC show “The Book of Daniel” that chronicles the life of an Episcopalian Priest and his less than traditional family.

In an interview with the AP, Star Aidan Quinn (Rev. Daniel Webster) says the show is a “wholesome show. … It just has the courage to deal with some of the real issues that go on in people’s lives.”

My response, is “Really? Hmm – go on…”

Quinn continues, “I’m an Episcopalian priest who struggles with a little self-medication problem, and I have a 23-year-old son who’s gay, and a 16-year-old daughter who’s caught dealing pot, and another son who’s jumping on every high school girl he sees, and a wife who’s very loving but also likes her martinis.”

Many folks embroiled in the controversy, such as the American Family Association are trying to petition NBC to remove the show. Others believe that the show is a positive influence and that the AFA is over-reacting. ” ‘This is an offbeat, inclusive series — inclusive of people of faith and inclusive of gay and bisexual people,’ Damon Romine, GLAAD’s entertainment media director, told the PlanetOut Network. ‘It doesn’t surprise me that the AFA would be afraid of this series — it shows a family that’s both deeply religious and loving and accepting of their gay son.’ ”

OK, time out! Lets take a minute and look at this. What’s wrong with this picture?

Now, I haven’t seen this show, and I haven’t made up my mind if I will watch an episode or two. In general I don’t like to monetarily support items that I don’t agree with, but then I already pay for cable every month and with a DVR I don’t watch commercials anyway – so I’m up in the air on it.

This aside though, I’d like to attempt to put forth a reasonable argument for why many Christians are upset and worried about this type of show – hopefully an argument that non-Christians will understand. I know that to many non-believers, Christians can look like an odd bunch, getting our panties in a wad about the slightest little thing. I’d like to at least explain the anger that “The Book of Daniel” has fanned, and why we don’t necessarily even need to see it to know what we are up against.

On the one hand, self-medication, homosexuality, drugs, fornication and alcoholism are topics that many people deal with on a daily basis. On the other hand, I’m sorry but who the hell can say that this is “wholesome”?

Merriam-Webster defines “wholesome” as “promoting health or well-being of mind or spirit”. Now, which of those show twists, exactly, were the wholesome ones? Oh, being the Episcopalian priest maybe?

As C.S. Lewis so eloquently describes in his book Mere Christianity it is very important to guard the meaning of words, for otherwise they end up having no use at all. He describes the slide of the word “Gentleman” from meaning a man who had a coat of arms and some landed property into a term of praise targeting his behavior. Originally, there was no conflict with being a Gentleman and a liar, but with today’s meaning that would be impossible – maybe. See, the problem is that not everyone agrees on what the behavior of a gentleman should be, so the word is now useless for the task of accurate description. It is a nebulous idea whose meaning though likely similar, can differ for each person in profound ways. While there were plenty of words to praise or chastise behavior already, we now have nothing save full explanations to refer to the original Gentleman.

We see this same issue with Quinn’s reference to “wholesome” – the etymology of it is from the old English “whole”, in the healthy sense and is circa 1200. Originally this meant in a moral sense, with the physical sense being first attested to circa 1374. For an English word at those times in history, saying morality would mean talking about a Christian morality and then the flow of this morality into the body in a physical sense. So, this was a distinct word – if something was “wholesome” it displayed the distinct characteristics of a physically and spiritually sound Christian foundation. I have severe doubt that “The Book of Daniel” will stand up to this definition, regardless of what Quinn says.

How can I say that without even seeing the show? Because of the creators and their world view. Forgive me if I’d rather not take my direction of what is wholesome from the mainstream media and Jack Kenny. The AFA says this of Kenny: “a practicing homosexual who describes himself as being ‘in Catholic recovery,’ and is interested in Buddhist teachings about reincarnation and isn’t sure exactly how he defines God and/or Jesus. ‘I don’t necessarily know that all the myth surrounding him (Jesus) is true,’ he said.”

Its OK to be questioning things – God gave us a free will for a purpose – but don’t take your questions and put our label on them. This is the crux of the issue. Being a Christian means a SPECIFIC thing, and we object to those who are not Christians telling the nation what it means to be one of us.

It would be like me putting a show on NBC entitled “The Lesbian” – just because I like women, doesn’t make me a lesbian. Right now, it means something pretty specific and I just don’t qualify. Portraying a Christian priest who acts in very unchristian manner is the same thing. They just don’t qualify to showcase the subject. How do I know he acts in a very unchristian manner? Because doing otherwise would never make it on NBC.

Romine says that its OK for a “deeply religious” family to be “loving and accepting of their gay son” – I would agree, but I doubt it is in the manner that Romine is talking about. In general, I believe that with only a few exceptions (Exodus International and Love Won Out for example) the Christian community at large has lost a huge opportunity to minister to homosexuals. As a Church, we seem to be OK helping adulterers and drunks overcome their sin, but gays have to have completely healed themselves before they can be among us? That’s not right. I say hate the sin, love the sinner.

The real issue is that I don’t think Romine, OR “The Book of Daniel” will sign up to the gay son being in sin. I don’t mean to focus only on the homosexual aspect – I’m sure that most of these other unwholesome things will be portrayed simply as foibles that make for drama in the life of Daniel. I would wager a large sum that “The Book of Daniel” is all about how the family despite its problems, despite its differences and despite the challenges of life are able to overcome through love and togetherness. Well, that is very sweet, and a nice message, but it isn’t Christian. Its secular humanism, and as a Christian, I object to it wearing a Christian cloak.

If my guess is correct, then the fact that Daniel talks directly to Jesus only makes matters worse. With this type of direct give and take relationship, Daniel’s actions will implicitly carry Jesus’ approval. I find it hard to believe that NBC, Quinn or Kenny have gone through the Biblical scholarship necessary to answer these questions, especially when their goal is ratings not sound theology. If the response to these culture-defining issues isn’t based on solid Christian teaching, then what is it based on? Given the source, I’d again say secular humanism. So, what about this is Christian?

Non-Christians say we are over-reacting. Christians say this type of show chips away at what it means to be a follower of Christ, and that’s something we will ALWAYS be upset about.

Just a quick post to tell ya all about an AMAZING piece of software that every confirmed movie junkie should know about. Its made by Collectorz, and is simply called Movie Collector.

From their website, here is a quick list of features:

Catalog DVDs automatically
Just type the movie titles or scan the barcodes to add DVDs to your personal movie database

Download all movie & DVD data
Including cover image, cast and crew plus all DVD details (region, audiotracks, subtitles, etc…)

Browse your DVD covers
Use the Thumbnail View to browse your collection by cover image

Instantly sort your lists
On any field, e.g. alphabetically by title, director or genre, or by year

Search your movie database
E.g. find a movie by title or all movies that Arnie plays in

Print movie lists

Export to HTML, XML, CSV – XML Export! What more could you ask for?

Track your loans – WOW! I’ve been looking for something like this!

I just bought it today, and I’ve put in about 145 movies so far. Its SO EASY! With the barcode lookup and several sites to download the info it takes only about a minute a movie. They even sell a little barcode scanner for those of you with bigger collections. I’m just typing the barcode in – it really doesn’t take that long with the keypad. It finds 99% of them right away…

I’ve been thinking about writing a piece of software like this for quite some time – in fact, I’ve already put coded the framework in ASP.NET. I was mostly interested in a way to publish the collection for friends to search on and then keep track of the movies that I would loan out.

While there is no dynamic way of taking your Movie Collector collection and publishing to the web, exporting to HTML or XML is a simple click away. Its not too large a task to just re-upload the HTML, or for that matter, put together your own XSL to markup the exported XML. Its not automated, but its darn close…

Once I’ve got all my DVD’s in the system, I’m going to use the XML output to create a small ASP.NET mobile control to query the system from my Treo 650 internet browser. This way, when shopping the bargain bins at WalMart, I’ll never re-buy a movie I already own by accident!

Not bad for $35!

What to say about this movie? My feelings are conflicted about it, but not in the way you would normally think

1. It was a very touching film
2. The acting was superb, all around
3. The characters were very well done
4. It left me very sad, for a number of reasons

The film was touching – I cared about everyone (except maybe Deborah Clasky, played by Tea Leoni), I wanted to the best for them, and I could empathize with everyone’s situation. The “message” was really good, not overstated, but firm enough to let you know a point has been made. The character interactions were superb, with each person taking from the “new” family what they couldn’t get from their own. On a personal note, a lot of the “mixed messages” really hit home for me, having spent a good part of my childhood relatively poor compared to those around me.

If you are looking for a deep, yet still fun, heart-felt movie then Spanglish is your film.

The acting was phenomenal, and the characters were spot-on:

• I mentioned before that I didn’t care about Tea Leoni’s character. Not because she did a poor job with it – exactly the opposite. She was so good as a neurotic, self-centered, full of false-confidence, former career woman that you just had to despise her. In fact, its her overall character that leads to one of the best lines in the film, which is delivered by Cloris Leachman playing Leoni’s reformed alcoholic mother – “Lately, your usual low self-esteem is just good common sense”. OUCH!
• Adam Sandler was very likeable as John Clasky. I normally say that I don’t like Adam Sandler films, but after Spanglish and 50 First Dates I need to change that statement. I expected this to be your typical, “I’m not just a comedian” type of role, but Sandler made me believe and care for his character. He even managed to still be a bit Adam Sandler funny, but no to the distraction of the persona. His relationship with daughter Bernice was well done and added a lot of depth to the film.
• Speaking of Bernice, Sarah Steele is absolutely worth mentioning. In a film full of great acting, she managed to pull off the most natural characterization in the bunch.
• Paz Vega’s Flor was amazing. The fact that she didn’t speak English for most of the film didn’t stop you from knowing exactly what she intended. Her facial expressions communicated more emotion and garnered more feeling than most actors can with words. Indeed, Flor was likeable from her very first scene. Her interactions with the other characters were overwhelmingly real, each conducted with a cohesive flair that rounded out a fully believable persona. With a combination of stunning beauty and flawless delivery, Vega portrayed a character that I won’t soon forget.

So, why, isn’t my review just a simple “stunning, must see”? Because the darn thing made me sad!

I was sad that the Claskys’ marriage had decomposed into the remnants of a once-good relationship. I was sad for Deborah’s choices, and for the personal devastation that they wrought throughout her family. I was sad because the movie ended without finding out if Deborah ever changed!

I was sad because John and Flor could never be together – not because of social complexities or some other BS, but because of real reasons; reasons I firmly agree with and admire the characters for acknowledging. In a society where people so quickly throw the responsibility of marriage out the door for their own selfish desire, it was great to see two such perfectly matched characters deny themselves for what is good and right. But still, their “loss” made me sad.

On a More Personal Note

While this is a heck of a list of sad things, it still just didn’t add up to why I was feeling such a loss. It finally hit me that what really made me sad, was the relationship that Flor and her daughter Christina shared. An elder Christina, who narrates the film, says towards the end of the film “My identity lies secure in the knowledge that I am my mother’s daughter.”

I find it odd that I would feel a sense of loss at not having such a relationship with my own mother, the least reason of which is the fact that I’m not a woman. I couldn’t possibly have that kind of relationship with my mother… Yet, the character of Flor embodied a caring, hard working, deeply convicted person who dealt with hardship in a manner that we should all aspire to, and Christina’s acknowledgement of that, despite the difficulties her younger-self had with her mother’s decisions, made fitting tribute.

With the passing of my own mother over 3 years ago, it saddens me to think that in many ways, she never was able to triumph over her own hardships before God called her Home. Seeing this stark contrast with Flor (albeit a Hollywood character who I’m sure would have an equal number of flaws in real life) made me regret not being able to look up to my mother in the same way that Christina did with hers.

My mother taught me many things, but self-sacrifice, grace under pressure and hard work were not among them. Those I first learned from HER mother Ruth, known to me as Grammy. Maybe one day, I’ll be as good at them as she was…

Conclusion

Spanglish is a great film about life, love and family. I heartily recommend it to anyone that wants more than your average romantic “dramedy”. But, be warned, the film may stay with you for some time, depending upon your own life.

Favorite Quotes

John to Flor: “They should name a gender after you. Just looking at you doesn’t do it. Staring is the only way that makes any sense.”

Deborah: “Are you really that much nicer than me?”
John: “You don’t set the bar too high.”

Flor to John: “I have never met a man who can put himself in my place, as you do… How did you become this man?”

Flor to Christina: “I’m sorry to have to pose to you the question of your life, as you are just a child, but the time has come for me to ask… Is what you want for yourself to become someone that is so very different than me?”