Many football fans, myself included, love watching a football game being played in winter weather. There's something fitting about it, considering the sport is played in the fall months into the winter, and by the time December rolls around cold weather starts to affect how games are played in half the cities across the country. There have even been a few notorious games played in heavy winter weather, most notably the Raiders/Patriots playoff game in January 2002.
The Super Bowl has perennially been played in either domed stadiums or warm weather cities since it's played in early February every year. The NFL hasn't wanted winter weather to potentially impact the game, and with good reasons. Snow and ice impact travel and mobility of fans coming to a host city, as well as the actual field conditions for the game itself. Still, Goodell announced that Super Bowl 48 (I think Roman numerals just look stupid now) would be played in East Rutherford, New Jersey, where the Giants and Jets play their home games. When he had made the original announcement, he took the obvious risk of inviting Mother Nature to affect the game, but also claimed that fans had been clamoring for this kind of Super Bowl for years.
Despite my love of watching football being played in snow and winter weather, I never liked this idea at all. Having the rest of the playoffs being played in potentially cold cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore, or Denver is fine. There isn't much that the NFL could do to avoid weather during January in cities such as those, and the home teams have a bit of an advantage in being used to the weather there. The home fans are also used to what the weather is like, so they know what they're getting into if their team has to host a playoff game (or more) in January. They can adequately prepare for cold and/or snow, and take an extra jacket or two if need be.
So what happens if a warm weather team has to play in Super Bowl 48? Teams in cities like Miami, Tampa, Phoenix, or San Diego aren't used to playing in freezing temperatures, and Northern Jersey is typically below 32 degrees in early February. Their play in cold weather could be affected negatively, and who would want to watch a sloppy Super Bowl? I wouldn't like watching players slip and slide in the snow, especially if the players from that team rarely ever see snow in the first place.
Consider the fans in this equation as well. Fans in those same warm weather cities aren't used to cold or snow either, so they don't know how to prepare properly either. They sure wouldn't know how to drive in such conditions either, so unless they rely on taxis or other public transportation they would have to walk for the most part. That would either get very expensive very quickly, or not be much fun at all.
Taking all those factors into account now, think about this latest potential development: The Farmers Almanac made its annual predictions of what winter 2014 will be like, and it ain't pretty.
"Pretty" may not be the right term. A blanket of snow is actually very beautiful to admire....from the comfort and warmth of one's own house. I happen to love watching the snow fall while sitting on my couch, sipping hot chocolate and watching a movie. I don't mind shoveling snow from a driveway or sidewalk. And who doesn't love a good ol' snowball fight?
The key here is that I'm talking about dealing with snow within the confines of where I live. If I'm traveling to New York or Northern Jersey because my team is in the Super Bowl, I'd have to drive up there through a potentially awful snowstorm. Then I'd have to find a place to park it in a hotel. Then I'd have to walk around the snow when I want to sight see. Then I'd have to avoid slipping on a patch of ice somewhere on the ground.
And that's before we even get to watching the game.
Oh, and don't forget - I'm used to brutal winter weather. What if fans from cities like Atlanta or San Francisco come to New York for the Super Bowl? They have no idea what they're in for. Their flights could be affected, and by the time the game actually starts on Sunday night (when it's coldest, considering the sun won't even be out!) they may be more excited to go home than watch the game.
Plus, what about the halftime show? If the snow is falling and it's 20 degrees outside, what will the NFL do with its performance at halftime? I suppose the concert could be played from an alternate location, but that would only help the fans watching from home. The fans in the stadium would be screwed.
What if the weather got to be so bad that fans would actually leave the stadium? I realize that would only happen in the most dire of circumstances, but it's happened to plenty of football games in the past. The NFL wouldn't like the idea of a half-empty stadium by the 4th quarter. There's only so much a TV broadcast can cloak by concentrating on the action on the field.
My overall point here is that I think the idea of having the Super Bowl being played in a stadium where winter weather could impact the game is a terrible idea. I thought it was a bad idea from the moment Goodell had first announced it, and if the Farmers Almanac was correct in its predictions, the worst possible outcome could happen. Such a situation would make the debacle in Dallas a couple years ago look like a minor hiccup.
I know I sound like a Daniel Downer in talking about this, but I guess in my eyes the Super Bowl was never broken in the first place. It certainly didn't need "fixing." I realize this is just an experiment for the league, but it does want its #1 media market to enjoy the exposure of hosting the Super Bowl, especially when much smaller markets like Jacksonville and Detroit have hosted Super Bowls in the past.
I only hope this doesn't mean that Denver will one day host a Super Bowl. Talk about a recipe for disaster.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
2013 NFL Season Predictions Sure To Go Wrong
We're getting close to my favorite time of the year, sports-wise. The pennant chases in baseball are heating up, and football season is upon us. Once again, for the fourth straight year, here are my 10 predictions for the upcoming NFL season....
1. The Philadelphia Eagles will win the NFC East. Hear me out on this one. I know their last two seasons have been dismal, particularly their 2012 season. Andy Reid is gone, with University of Oregon coach Chip Kelly taking over. But here's the kicker stat that I keep thinking about: Since 2003, there has been at least one team every season who finished last place in its division to win the division the following year. That's not a fluky stat, and I think the Eagles stand the best chance at being this year's version of that team. Plus, every team in the NFC East beats each other up all year long, so 9 wins could be enough to win it and host a playoff game. The team has enough key pieces in Vick, McCoy, and Jackson on offense to put points on the board, and the defense can still play with the other offenses in the division.
2. The Miami Dolphins will make the playoffs somehow. I honestly think the Dolphins have a legitimate shot at winning the AFC East, but even if they don't they will snag at least a Wild Card spot. Ryan Tannehill looks like the real deal, and having Mike Wallace to throw to will give the Dolphins enough offensive boost to win a few key games (even though I think Wallace is overrated as a receiver). I expect them to give the Patriots the first true competition in the division in years.
3. Tom Brady will throw for his fewest touchdown passes since 2009. Speaking of the Patriots, I am way down on them this year, for obvious reasons that have affected their offense. With Wes Welker departed for Denver and Aaron Hernandez facing all kinds of legal trouble, the key receiver is Rob Gronkowski, and there's no telling when he'll be healthy for the season. Do the likes of Danny Amendola (an injury risk in his own right), Aaron Dobson, Julian Edelman, and/or Michael Jenkins really intimidate defensive backs across the league? The Patriots will still likely win at least 10 games this season since two of the three other teams in their division are bottomfeeders of the league, but I expect them to struggle by their standards and also rely on their running game more since their receivers are much weaker than they have been in years.
4. The Baltimore Ravens will break the 1984 Chicago Bears' single season team sacks record. One of the reasons why I've been looking forward to this season is for football talking heads to shut up about the turnover the Ravens had since January. They kept talking about the Ravens losing the likes of Ray Lewis, Paul Kruger, Dannell Ellerbe, and Ed Reed on their defense, saying those players can't be replaced (Mind you, they also loved to rant over the last few years how Lewis and Reed were also shells of their former selves, which I would say contradicts the previous statement). So the Ravens chose to revamp their front seven and added Chris Canty, Marcus Spears, Daryl Smith, and Elvis Dumervil, on top of drafting nose tackle Brandon Williams and linebacker Arthur Brown. Haloti Ngata will now move back to his native position of nose tackle and rotate with Williams, and Terrell Suggs will rush opposing quarterbacks opposite Dumervil on the other side. The 1984 Bears currently hold the record for most sacks in a single season with 74, and I think the Ravens will break that record with their revamped line this year.
5. The Oakland Raiders have a legitimate shot at going 0-16. I made a similar prediction back in 2010 about the Browns after looking over their schedule for that season, and I came away with a similar feeling about the Raiders this year. Their nondivisional opponents include the AFC South and NFC East, which means they'll face teams like the Texans, Colts, Titans, Eagles, Redskins, Giants, and Cowboys, and I wouldn't expect the Raiders to beat any of those teams. In fact, their game in Week 2 is home against the Jaguars, and if they don't win that game I don't think they have another winnable game on their schedule until Week 14 against the Jets. Even if they do manage to win a game or two this season, I expect them to wind up with the first overall pick in next year's draft.
6. The Indianapolis Colts will steal the AFC South away from the Houston Texans. The Texans have been on the cusp the last couple seasons, but they haven't managed to win more than a single game in the playoffs at all. They were in the driver's seat for the #1 seed in the playoffs with about three weeks to go in the regular season, and then they got sloppy by mid-December. I think something similar will happen this year, only this time it will cost them the division and a home playoff game in January. The Colts and Texans face off twice in the second half of the season, including a very important match up in Week 15 in Indianapolis.
7. Matt Ryan will be the league MVP. I think Matt Ryan is going to have a career year, even after getting his big contract this offseason. The NFC South is a pretty tough division, and while I don't think the Falcons win 13 games again like they did last year, they'll still come out on top. I actually thought Ryan was fairly overrated for most of his career to date, but I've come to think of him as a really good quarterback in the league, and he'll get a whole lot more exposure throughout the season.
8. Larry Fitzgerald will be the Comeback Player of the Year. This prediction sounds a bit weird since players on the comeback usually are recovering from injury, but Fitz hasn't had any significant injuries at any point during his career. His issue has been a lack of a decent quarterback on his team since Kurt Warner retired a few years ago. Now that he has (at the very least) a competent quarterback in Carson Palmer, he'll return to the kinds of numbers he was putting up during the hey days of his career, and be worth drafting in fantasy football again.
9. Adrian Peterson will be the first running back in history to rush for 2000 yards in back-to-back seasons. Until somebody figures out how to stop Adrian Peterson, I see no reason why he'd slow down or step backwards from where he left off at the end of last season. He's a special kind of running back and offensive threat, and the kind of player that almost any NFL fan would like to see win a championship before the end of his career.
10. The Baltimore Ravens will repeat as Super Bowl champs and defeat the Seattle Seahawks in Super Bowl 48. I know, I know. Such a stinking homer pick. There is a bit of logic to my thinking though, so roll with me for a moment before dismissing my prediction. I've already talked about how the Patriots are down. In addition to the Patriots, the Steelers are down as well, the Bengals need Andy Dalton to beat the likes of Tom Brady and/or Peyton Manning, and the Texans need Matt Schaub and Andre Johnson to avoid getting hurt. That leaves the Broncos in the AFC as the only real rivals to the Ravens, and Ravens have already shown they can beat the Broncos on the road in the playoffs last year. I don't think the Ravens will steamroll through the regular season (I think they finish with 11 wins), but the team as a whole looks better than last year's Super Bowl champs.
Meanwhile over in the NFC, there are just as many contenders who look weaker than they were last year, namely the Packers and 49ers. Seattle has Percy Harvin recovering from surgery and will have him back by December to make their playoff push. I expect them to beat Atlanta in the NFC title game before traveling to New York to face the Ravens.
And there you have it. If history is any indicator, I probably will only have 3 or 4 of these predictions come true.
1. The Philadelphia Eagles will win the NFC East. Hear me out on this one. I know their last two seasons have been dismal, particularly their 2012 season. Andy Reid is gone, with University of Oregon coach Chip Kelly taking over. But here's the kicker stat that I keep thinking about: Since 2003, there has been at least one team every season who finished last place in its division to win the division the following year. That's not a fluky stat, and I think the Eagles stand the best chance at being this year's version of that team. Plus, every team in the NFC East beats each other up all year long, so 9 wins could be enough to win it and host a playoff game. The team has enough key pieces in Vick, McCoy, and Jackson on offense to put points on the board, and the defense can still play with the other offenses in the division.
2. The Miami Dolphins will make the playoffs somehow. I honestly think the Dolphins have a legitimate shot at winning the AFC East, but even if they don't they will snag at least a Wild Card spot. Ryan Tannehill looks like the real deal, and having Mike Wallace to throw to will give the Dolphins enough offensive boost to win a few key games (even though I think Wallace is overrated as a receiver). I expect them to give the Patriots the first true competition in the division in years.
3. Tom Brady will throw for his fewest touchdown passes since 2009. Speaking of the Patriots, I am way down on them this year, for obvious reasons that have affected their offense. With Wes Welker departed for Denver and Aaron Hernandez facing all kinds of legal trouble, the key receiver is Rob Gronkowski, and there's no telling when he'll be healthy for the season. Do the likes of Danny Amendola (an injury risk in his own right), Aaron Dobson, Julian Edelman, and/or Michael Jenkins really intimidate defensive backs across the league? The Patriots will still likely win at least 10 games this season since two of the three other teams in their division are bottomfeeders of the league, but I expect them to struggle by their standards and also rely on their running game more since their receivers are much weaker than they have been in years.
4. The Baltimore Ravens will break the 1984 Chicago Bears' single season team sacks record. One of the reasons why I've been looking forward to this season is for football talking heads to shut up about the turnover the Ravens had since January. They kept talking about the Ravens losing the likes of Ray Lewis, Paul Kruger, Dannell Ellerbe, and Ed Reed on their defense, saying those players can't be replaced (Mind you, they also loved to rant over the last few years how Lewis and Reed were also shells of their former selves, which I would say contradicts the previous statement). So the Ravens chose to revamp their front seven and added Chris Canty, Marcus Spears, Daryl Smith, and Elvis Dumervil, on top of drafting nose tackle Brandon Williams and linebacker Arthur Brown. Haloti Ngata will now move back to his native position of nose tackle and rotate with Williams, and Terrell Suggs will rush opposing quarterbacks opposite Dumervil on the other side. The 1984 Bears currently hold the record for most sacks in a single season with 74, and I think the Ravens will break that record with their revamped line this year.
5. The Oakland Raiders have a legitimate shot at going 0-16. I made a similar prediction back in 2010 about the Browns after looking over their schedule for that season, and I came away with a similar feeling about the Raiders this year. Their nondivisional opponents include the AFC South and NFC East, which means they'll face teams like the Texans, Colts, Titans, Eagles, Redskins, Giants, and Cowboys, and I wouldn't expect the Raiders to beat any of those teams. In fact, their game in Week 2 is home against the Jaguars, and if they don't win that game I don't think they have another winnable game on their schedule until Week 14 against the Jets. Even if they do manage to win a game or two this season, I expect them to wind up with the first overall pick in next year's draft.
6. The Indianapolis Colts will steal the AFC South away from the Houston Texans. The Texans have been on the cusp the last couple seasons, but they haven't managed to win more than a single game in the playoffs at all. They were in the driver's seat for the #1 seed in the playoffs with about three weeks to go in the regular season, and then they got sloppy by mid-December. I think something similar will happen this year, only this time it will cost them the division and a home playoff game in January. The Colts and Texans face off twice in the second half of the season, including a very important match up in Week 15 in Indianapolis.
7. Matt Ryan will be the league MVP. I think Matt Ryan is going to have a career year, even after getting his big contract this offseason. The NFC South is a pretty tough division, and while I don't think the Falcons win 13 games again like they did last year, they'll still come out on top. I actually thought Ryan was fairly overrated for most of his career to date, but I've come to think of him as a really good quarterback in the league, and he'll get a whole lot more exposure throughout the season.
8. Larry Fitzgerald will be the Comeback Player of the Year. This prediction sounds a bit weird since players on the comeback usually are recovering from injury, but Fitz hasn't had any significant injuries at any point during his career. His issue has been a lack of a decent quarterback on his team since Kurt Warner retired a few years ago. Now that he has (at the very least) a competent quarterback in Carson Palmer, he'll return to the kinds of numbers he was putting up during the hey days of his career, and be worth drafting in fantasy football again.
9. Adrian Peterson will be the first running back in history to rush for 2000 yards in back-to-back seasons. Until somebody figures out how to stop Adrian Peterson, I see no reason why he'd slow down or step backwards from where he left off at the end of last season. He's a special kind of running back and offensive threat, and the kind of player that almost any NFL fan would like to see win a championship before the end of his career.
10. The Baltimore Ravens will repeat as Super Bowl champs and defeat the Seattle Seahawks in Super Bowl 48. I know, I know. Such a stinking homer pick. There is a bit of logic to my thinking though, so roll with me for a moment before dismissing my prediction. I've already talked about how the Patriots are down. In addition to the Patriots, the Steelers are down as well, the Bengals need Andy Dalton to beat the likes of Tom Brady and/or Peyton Manning, and the Texans need Matt Schaub and Andre Johnson to avoid getting hurt. That leaves the Broncos in the AFC as the only real rivals to the Ravens, and Ravens have already shown they can beat the Broncos on the road in the playoffs last year. I don't think the Ravens will steamroll through the regular season (I think they finish with 11 wins), but the team as a whole looks better than last year's Super Bowl champs.
Meanwhile over in the NFC, there are just as many contenders who look weaker than they were last year, namely the Packers and 49ers. Seattle has Percy Harvin recovering from surgery and will have him back by December to make their playoff push. I expect them to beat Atlanta in the NFC title game before traveling to New York to face the Ravens.
And there you have it. If history is any indicator, I probably will only have 3 or 4 of these predictions come true.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
What Gets My Blood Boiling
I don't get easily offended or even pissed off about anything very often. I try to take most ideas and comments with an open mind, even if the opinion is different from my own. This is especially true when debating or discussing something as sensitive as religion; I have many close friends and even some family who have vastly opposing views on religion compared to mine, but we disagree and leave it at that. I'm hardly a missionary, so getting to a really in-depth conversation over religion would quickly put me in over my head.
With that in mind, I came across this brief story today during my lunch break at work. Like I said, I try not to get too flustered when I read something about a non-religious person getting into a tizzy over a religious person - Christian or otherwise - making a public display of his or her views. The last time I can recall ever getting really offended over something anti-Christian was a theater performance I saw in college where a character had intentionally created a performance designed to offend Christians everywhere.
My view on anything in the media designed to be anti-religion or anti-Christian has always been the same: The predominant amount of anti-religion rants have been against Christianity, mainly because it's the "mainstream" religion in this country and around the world. I can't remember the last time I ever read anything from the likes of American Atheists targeting Muslims or Jews. Getting back to the aforementioned performance I had seen, I didn't exactly give the character in the play props for being "edgy" for simply mocking Christian theology.
Anyway, the story I came across today was probably the first time I had been so deeply offended and pissed off at an atheist getting riled up about a public display of Christian faith. I never knew the story of Buzz Aldrin bringing communion with him when he had landed on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission. When I read that particular side to the moon landing, my first thought was, "Wow, that's pretty awesome."
Then I read about the fit that Madalyn Murray O'Hair threw.
As the link mentioned, the astronauts aboard Apollo 8 had wanted to read a passage from Genesis 8 during their mission into space. They had wanted to broadcast their reading across the airwaves, but O'Hair threatened to sue the U.S. government if they went ahead with their plans on the grounds that they were government employees on duty, and should not be associated with a religious expression thanks to the separation of church and state. Because of that headache, NASA didn't allow Aldrin to publicly air his communion on Apollo 11.
O'Hair passed away back in 1996 so it's quite literally a dead issue, but my reaction upon reading this story was, "To hell with you, lady."
Pun intended on that one.
Why do atheists look for excuses to get pissed off about any religious individual making an expression of their faith? What bothers them so much about our faiths that we have to keep them bottled up at all times? And why oh why do they have this elitist attitude for feeling "enlightened" that they've "figured out" that there is no God?
Atheists can disagree with me all they like, and I really don't care. What pisses me off is that they're so concerned with people of all religious backgrounds and faiths being open about their faiths, they in fact become the very thing they supposedly are trying to stop: they force feed their own beliefs on others and essentially spread the idea that their civil liberties are more important than those of the people they disagree with. If that's not irony, I don't know what is.
I can at least respect people like Joss Whedon (writer/director of The Avengers and creator of shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer) because even though he is an atheist, he at least will write characters in his films who have religious beliefs, like Captain America in The Avengers for one. He doesn't place his own ego or beliefs ahead of other people who may disagree. I'm okay with that.
There is one great irony that gets a little payback towards any of these angry atheists like Madalyn Murray O'Hair who are still out there today, and that is "In God We Trust" has been the official national motto since 1956, and the phrase appears on all American coins and $20 bills. Add to that the line "One nation, under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and "God Bless America" being sung at baseball games across the country. Things like that give me a little satisfaction knowing bitter atheists still have to acknowledge the vast majority of Americans and people worldwide believe in a God of some kind. I'd call that vindication.
With that in mind, I came across this brief story today during my lunch break at work. Like I said, I try not to get too flustered when I read something about a non-religious person getting into a tizzy over a religious person - Christian or otherwise - making a public display of his or her views. The last time I can recall ever getting really offended over something anti-Christian was a theater performance I saw in college where a character had intentionally created a performance designed to offend Christians everywhere.
My view on anything in the media designed to be anti-religion or anti-Christian has always been the same: The predominant amount of anti-religion rants have been against Christianity, mainly because it's the "mainstream" religion in this country and around the world. I can't remember the last time I ever read anything from the likes of American Atheists targeting Muslims or Jews. Getting back to the aforementioned performance I had seen, I didn't exactly give the character in the play props for being "edgy" for simply mocking Christian theology.
Anyway, the story I came across today was probably the first time I had been so deeply offended and pissed off at an atheist getting riled up about a public display of Christian faith. I never knew the story of Buzz Aldrin bringing communion with him when he had landed on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission. When I read that particular side to the moon landing, my first thought was, "Wow, that's pretty awesome."
Then I read about the fit that Madalyn Murray O'Hair threw.
As the link mentioned, the astronauts aboard Apollo 8 had wanted to read a passage from Genesis 8 during their mission into space. They had wanted to broadcast their reading across the airwaves, but O'Hair threatened to sue the U.S. government if they went ahead with their plans on the grounds that they were government employees on duty, and should not be associated with a religious expression thanks to the separation of church and state. Because of that headache, NASA didn't allow Aldrin to publicly air his communion on Apollo 11.
O'Hair passed away back in 1996 so it's quite literally a dead issue, but my reaction upon reading this story was, "To hell with you, lady."
Pun intended on that one.
Why do atheists look for excuses to get pissed off about any religious individual making an expression of their faith? What bothers them so much about our faiths that we have to keep them bottled up at all times? And why oh why do they have this elitist attitude for feeling "enlightened" that they've "figured out" that there is no God?
Atheists can disagree with me all they like, and I really don't care. What pisses me off is that they're so concerned with people of all religious backgrounds and faiths being open about their faiths, they in fact become the very thing they supposedly are trying to stop: they force feed their own beliefs on others and essentially spread the idea that their civil liberties are more important than those of the people they disagree with. If that's not irony, I don't know what is.
I can at least respect people like Joss Whedon (writer/director of The Avengers and creator of shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer) because even though he is an atheist, he at least will write characters in his films who have religious beliefs, like Captain America in The Avengers for one. He doesn't place his own ego or beliefs ahead of other people who may disagree. I'm okay with that.
There is one great irony that gets a little payback towards any of these angry atheists like Madalyn Murray O'Hair who are still out there today, and that is "In God We Trust" has been the official national motto since 1956, and the phrase appears on all American coins and $20 bills. Add to that the line "One nation, under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and "God Bless America" being sung at baseball games across the country. Things like that give me a little satisfaction knowing bitter atheists still have to acknowledge the vast majority of Americans and people worldwide believe in a God of some kind. I'd call that vindication.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
There's Nothing Wrong With Needing a Little Help
Back around the beginning of this year, I started thinking about seeing a therapist. There were a number of reasons why the idea popped in my head, and I did a little reading on the subject. I even talked to a couple close friends to get their insight, mostly ones who I knew had already been to a therapist in the past. They all encouraged me to go ahead with it, considering the benefits they had gotten from therapy.
Then came the procrastinating. I kept thinking, "Oh, I'll go find one. Next week." A week turned into two weeks, then four weeks, and then next thing I knew six months had gone by and I still didn't do anything about it. Denial had crept its way into my head too, fooling me into thinking maybe I didn't really need one after all. I told myself I'm fine on plenty of occasions, and that I didn't think I needed a therapist like I had first thought I did.
The past few days taught me otherwise.
I'm not going to go into the deep details because they're too private, but I realized earlier this week that I need to find a therapist. I don't care if she tells me I'm overreacting in needing to talk to someone; hell, if she does tell me that I'll probably be relieved. Still, I'm pretty confident that I could use some professional insight instead of just some family members or friends telling me what I want to hear.
Last night I think was the confirmation more than anything else that I need some mental help. I went to bed after a night out with my friends, and I had a dream about my family. I've talked on here a few times about how my family has become very disjointed since my parents' divorce, but the effect it's had on me has been greater than I've estimated. I dreamed that somehow my parents chose to reconcile and got back together, eventually remarrying. It was one of those dreams that almost felt like reality to me, and when I had woken up I didn't realize at first that it was merely a dream. When the truth did settle in on me, I felt something like disappointment, though that word is far too soft to describe my reaction. I regretted that I had woken up, wishing that I could go back to that mental fantasy.
I had already called a local therapist and set up an appointment for Monday evening after work a couple days ago, so this dream wasn't the catalyst for my choice. It was, however, more evidence to confirm the necessity for working through a lot of emotional baggage that I've been carrying around. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if I found out there was plenty more issues that I'm not already aware of that I need to work on as well. Time will tell just what kinds of issues I have buried deep inside me, and how long it will take for me to work on them.
I haven't yet decided on just what kinds of details I will share on here regarding my sessions. It'll likely depend on the kinds of things we discuss, and the things I learn about myself. The good thing is that I've gotten over my initial procrastination and denial, and it "only" took me six months to figure that part out.
I don't know how long the road is ahead of me, but there may be some hope.
Then came the procrastinating. I kept thinking, "Oh, I'll go find one. Next week." A week turned into two weeks, then four weeks, and then next thing I knew six months had gone by and I still didn't do anything about it. Denial had crept its way into my head too, fooling me into thinking maybe I didn't really need one after all. I told myself I'm fine on plenty of occasions, and that I didn't think I needed a therapist like I had first thought I did.
The past few days taught me otherwise.
I'm not going to go into the deep details because they're too private, but I realized earlier this week that I need to find a therapist. I don't care if she tells me I'm overreacting in needing to talk to someone; hell, if she does tell me that I'll probably be relieved. Still, I'm pretty confident that I could use some professional insight instead of just some family members or friends telling me what I want to hear.
Last night I think was the confirmation more than anything else that I need some mental help. I went to bed after a night out with my friends, and I had a dream about my family. I've talked on here a few times about how my family has become very disjointed since my parents' divorce, but the effect it's had on me has been greater than I've estimated. I dreamed that somehow my parents chose to reconcile and got back together, eventually remarrying. It was one of those dreams that almost felt like reality to me, and when I had woken up I didn't realize at first that it was merely a dream. When the truth did settle in on me, I felt something like disappointment, though that word is far too soft to describe my reaction. I regretted that I had woken up, wishing that I could go back to that mental fantasy.
I had already called a local therapist and set up an appointment for Monday evening after work a couple days ago, so this dream wasn't the catalyst for my choice. It was, however, more evidence to confirm the necessity for working through a lot of emotional baggage that I've been carrying around. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if I found out there was plenty more issues that I'm not already aware of that I need to work on as well. Time will tell just what kinds of issues I have buried deep inside me, and how long it will take for me to work on them.
I haven't yet decided on just what kinds of details I will share on here regarding my sessions. It'll likely depend on the kinds of things we discuss, and the things I learn about myself. The good thing is that I've gotten over my initial procrastination and denial, and it "only" took me six months to figure that part out.
I don't know how long the road is ahead of me, but there may be some hope.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
The World War Z You Didn't See
I'm pretty late to the party on World War Z, but since I finally saw it over the weekend I felt compelled to talk about it on here. This won't be a traditional review as other films I've seen were, though; this is going to be something a bit different.
Every now and then a major film production hits a snag, and the film's script has to be rewritten either while the film is still being shot or even in post-production. Many films have gone through this process, including Star Trek: The Motion Picture, The Devil's Own, The Exorcist prequel, and Superman II. If that sounds like the recipe for disaster, that's because it is; most films find themselves crippled if the scripts are heavily rewritten so deeply into production. The sheer cost of keeping the production staff and cast together long enough to complete the film as originally conceived is crazy. Many times the film in question is doomed if something so drastic happens, with Superman II being one of the few exceptions.
Chalk World War Z up as another exception to the rule. The film by itself is one of the most intense movie experiences I've had in a long time, and I'm still pressed to come up with the last time I was gripping my seat from the first five minutes of a movie. That the film is even halfway decent is extremely impressive, given its troubled (to say the least) production history.
For starters, the film was originally supposed to be released around Christmas last year. The film was delayed by six months for a number of reasons, primarily because at that point, the studio hated the third act of the film. A new writer was hired to rewrite the script and come up with a new ending to the film entirely, while still leaving the door open for a sequel.
Before I get too much into that, it's also worth noting that Brad Pitt and director Marc Forster reportedly hated each other during filming. It supposedly got so bad that they only communicated back and forth via handwritten notes. Part of the source of their mutual dislike was their disagreement over how to adapt the book in the first place; Pitt loved the book's style and how it retold events of the zombie apocalypse after it had already happened, while Forster wanted to tell a linear story and show the origins of the apocalypse itself. (I should mention that I can't confirm how much of these details are accurate. I read all sorts of articles about these issues with varying degrees of detail over how well or little Pitt and Forster got along)
If you've seen the film, then you'll be able to follow what I'm about to discuss. If you haven't, be warned because SPOILERS abound here.
The point where the original ending and the rewritten third act started with Pitt's character Gerry and another soldier escaping Jerusalem after it was overrun by zombies. They board an airliner with the intent of getting to a World Health Organization facility in India in order to find something that will help them develop a cure for whatever disease has turned so much of the planet's population into zombies.
Trouble is, there's a problem on the plane, and by "problem," I mean zombies. The plane crashes, and Gerry and his soldier companion are the only survivors. They make their way to a W.H.O. facility nearby, and have to work with the few doctors on site to come up with a way to protect the remaining healthy humans. It's a very intense game of hide and seek within the hospital, and actually served as a great contrast to the previous crazy action sequence in Jerusalem.
Compare that to this breakdown of the original third act.
Where to start?
I didn't even notice Matthew Fox as the paratrooper who had saved Gerry's family at the beginning of the film. I didn't recall his name listed in the opening credits either. Fox is actually one of my favorite actors right now, and it wasn't until I had read that breakdown that I even knew he was supposed to be in the film at all, much less play a crucial role by the third act.
The more I've read about this original climactic action sequence, the more curious I am to see it. I've seen other alternate endings and deleted scenes from movies on DVDs and Blu Rays I own, but the only two notable films I can think of that were so vastly rewritten and reshot that were made available to own were The Exorcist prequel and Superman II. Ideally, I'd like to see everything that was originally shot edited with the rest of the movie, along with details over stuff that was conceived but not shot. I don't expect much of any that to be included though.
Here's the kicker: The ending used in the final film was, in my opinion, a better choice than the original ending. I thought the climactic sequence in the W.H.O. facility was dark, suspenseful, and the perfect contrast to the loud, crazy action sequences in Jerusalem and on the airplane. Making another huge battle sequence in Russia to follow everything else would have been both exhausting and anti-climactic, not to mention the tagged on plot element of Gerry's family being de facto hostages. There was plenty of set up for a sequel in the finished film, while still providing closure to everything that had happened already. The original ending would have provided closure to nothing, and merely act entirely as set up for a sequel.
On second thought, I think what I'd like to see more than the footage shot for the original ending is a documentary on the entire process. I'm sure that will never happen though, given how it would likely paint the overall production of the film in a negative light. Such a piece would probably highlight the animosity and frustration of the staff, along with showing them butting heads with the studio suits. No film producers would so openly show themselves as combative or confrontational as they would have to be in a behind the scenes documentary like the one I'm imagining. I can picture the producers approaching the director and writing staff on their desire to radically change the tone and pace of the film. That might be painful and awkward to watch.
Regardless, I'm extremely impressed with how World War Z turned out, despite all the headaches that went on behind the scenes. It's definitely one of the few exceptions where such headaches were worth it.
Every now and then a major film production hits a snag, and the film's script has to be rewritten either while the film is still being shot or even in post-production. Many films have gone through this process, including Star Trek: The Motion Picture, The Devil's Own, The Exorcist prequel, and Superman II. If that sounds like the recipe for disaster, that's because it is; most films find themselves crippled if the scripts are heavily rewritten so deeply into production. The sheer cost of keeping the production staff and cast together long enough to complete the film as originally conceived is crazy. Many times the film in question is doomed if something so drastic happens, with Superman II being one of the few exceptions.
Chalk World War Z up as another exception to the rule. The film by itself is one of the most intense movie experiences I've had in a long time, and I'm still pressed to come up with the last time I was gripping my seat from the first five minutes of a movie. That the film is even halfway decent is extremely impressive, given its troubled (to say the least) production history.
For starters, the film was originally supposed to be released around Christmas last year. The film was delayed by six months for a number of reasons, primarily because at that point, the studio hated the third act of the film. A new writer was hired to rewrite the script and come up with a new ending to the film entirely, while still leaving the door open for a sequel.
Before I get too much into that, it's also worth noting that Brad Pitt and director Marc Forster reportedly hated each other during filming. It supposedly got so bad that they only communicated back and forth via handwritten notes. Part of the source of their mutual dislike was their disagreement over how to adapt the book in the first place; Pitt loved the book's style and how it retold events of the zombie apocalypse after it had already happened, while Forster wanted to tell a linear story and show the origins of the apocalypse itself. (I should mention that I can't confirm how much of these details are accurate. I read all sorts of articles about these issues with varying degrees of detail over how well or little Pitt and Forster got along)
If you've seen the film, then you'll be able to follow what I'm about to discuss. If you haven't, be warned because SPOILERS abound here.
The point where the original ending and the rewritten third act started with Pitt's character Gerry and another soldier escaping Jerusalem after it was overrun by zombies. They board an airliner with the intent of getting to a World Health Organization facility in India in order to find something that will help them develop a cure for whatever disease has turned so much of the planet's population into zombies.
Trouble is, there's a problem on the plane, and by "problem," I mean zombies. The plane crashes, and Gerry and his soldier companion are the only survivors. They make their way to a W.H.O. facility nearby, and have to work with the few doctors on site to come up with a way to protect the remaining healthy humans. It's a very intense game of hide and seek within the hospital, and actually served as a great contrast to the previous crazy action sequence in Jerusalem.
Compare that to this breakdown of the original third act.
Where to start?
I didn't even notice Matthew Fox as the paratrooper who had saved Gerry's family at the beginning of the film. I didn't recall his name listed in the opening credits either. Fox is actually one of my favorite actors right now, and it wasn't until I had read that breakdown that I even knew he was supposed to be in the film at all, much less play a crucial role by the third act.
The more I've read about this original climactic action sequence, the more curious I am to see it. I've seen other alternate endings and deleted scenes from movies on DVDs and Blu Rays I own, but the only two notable films I can think of that were so vastly rewritten and reshot that were made available to own were The Exorcist prequel and Superman II. Ideally, I'd like to see everything that was originally shot edited with the rest of the movie, along with details over stuff that was conceived but not shot. I don't expect much of any that to be included though.
Here's the kicker: The ending used in the final film was, in my opinion, a better choice than the original ending. I thought the climactic sequence in the W.H.O. facility was dark, suspenseful, and the perfect contrast to the loud, crazy action sequences in Jerusalem and on the airplane. Making another huge battle sequence in Russia to follow everything else would have been both exhausting and anti-climactic, not to mention the tagged on plot element of Gerry's family being de facto hostages. There was plenty of set up for a sequel in the finished film, while still providing closure to everything that had happened already. The original ending would have provided closure to nothing, and merely act entirely as set up for a sequel.
On second thought, I think what I'd like to see more than the footage shot for the original ending is a documentary on the entire process. I'm sure that will never happen though, given how it would likely paint the overall production of the film in a negative light. Such a piece would probably highlight the animosity and frustration of the staff, along with showing them butting heads with the studio suits. No film producers would so openly show themselves as combative or confrontational as they would have to be in a behind the scenes documentary like the one I'm imagining. I can picture the producers approaching the director and writing staff on their desire to radically change the tone and pace of the film. That might be painful and awkward to watch.
Regardless, I'm extremely impressed with how World War Z turned out, despite all the headaches that went on behind the scenes. It's definitely one of the few exceptions where such headaches were worth it.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Challenging My Manhood
I came across a blog post that listed the four things modern adult men should be able to do on their own. I've mentioned before how I get a kick out of posts on Cracked, especially their lists involving movies and TV shows. I don't read their social posts very often, but this post's headline caught my attention.
The natural question now becomes, can I do the four things listed in the post?
4. Build a Fire.
Yes, I can build a fire, but this should come with an asterisk. I don't think I'd be able to build a fire using only kindling and rocks in the woods, so if I was somehow lost on my own in the middle of nowhere you might as well plan my funeral. A bear would likely eat me before I'd survive long enough to last on my own prior to being rescued.
However, I can build a fire like most anyone else builds a fire today - through the use of starter logs. Give me a fireplace, some wood, a few pieces of kindling, a starter log, and a few matches and we'll be good to go. It probably wouldn't be safe to use to roast marshmallows or melt chocolate due to the chemicals in the starter log, but we'll still be safe and warm in the winter.
3. Run a Mile.
Mildly funny story: When I was in high school, my gym class had a conditioning training of sorts for all the students every spring. The teachers wanted to make sure the students were healthy enough to handle basic conditioning training, which included running a 7-minute mile. The course was one large oval-shaped path, and a mile would be four laps around the course. Our teacher told us anyone who couldn't complete a 7-minute mile had to run an extra lap.
I had to run an extra lap.
A couple days later I was talking about the run with a classmate in a separate computer programming class. She asked me what my running time was, and I said it was 9 1/2 minutes. Our computer teacher happened to be the track and field coach at our school, and when she overheard my running time she turned around and had a look of shock on her face. I had to shrug and admit the truth, and then said I wouldn't stand a chance in making the track team with a time like that. She laughed and got the joke.
I was eventually able to condition myself into running a 7-minute mile, but that was a very long time ago. I haven't timed myself in a very, very long time, but I can say at least I can run a mile using the bikes at the gym. I'm not sure how good that makes me look though.
2. Change a Flat Tire.
This I have done. I only did it once, so I had to learn as I went along, but a few years ago I had to come to the rescue after a friend of mine called me up in panic because she had a flat tire on the side of the highway. We had to work together in order to figure out how to swap the flat tire for the donut spare in her trunk, but we managed to do it properly. The toughest part by far was loosening the nuts on the tire in order to remove it. Either way, I can certainly do it again if there was a need for it in the future.
1. Dividing Up a Bill.
I'm not sure I understand why this is even on the list. What guy can't divide up a bill properly, especially if his cell phone has a calculator built into it? Maybe I'm just a numbers guy so dividing up a bill and calculating the tip properly comes naturally to me, but I rarely ever need a calculator to tally anything up.
I was actually surprised at some omissions on this list. There were a few things that I would think most adult men should be able to do that weren't on here. Things like....
Paint a room
Cook a full meal from scratch
Set up a TV entertainment center (TV, cable box, Blu Ray player, etc)
Know roughly how much cologne to wear at a given time
Fix basic plumbing problems, e.g. clogged or overflowing toilet*
Know how to dance*
*I need to learn how to do this.
What other basic skills have I missed?
The natural question now becomes, can I do the four things listed in the post?
4. Build a Fire.
Yes, I can build a fire, but this should come with an asterisk. I don't think I'd be able to build a fire using only kindling and rocks in the woods, so if I was somehow lost on my own in the middle of nowhere you might as well plan my funeral. A bear would likely eat me before I'd survive long enough to last on my own prior to being rescued.
However, I can build a fire like most anyone else builds a fire today - through the use of starter logs. Give me a fireplace, some wood, a few pieces of kindling, a starter log, and a few matches and we'll be good to go. It probably wouldn't be safe to use to roast marshmallows or melt chocolate due to the chemicals in the starter log, but we'll still be safe and warm in the winter.
3. Run a Mile.
Mildly funny story: When I was in high school, my gym class had a conditioning training of sorts for all the students every spring. The teachers wanted to make sure the students were healthy enough to handle basic conditioning training, which included running a 7-minute mile. The course was one large oval-shaped path, and a mile would be four laps around the course. Our teacher told us anyone who couldn't complete a 7-minute mile had to run an extra lap.
I had to run an extra lap.
A couple days later I was talking about the run with a classmate in a separate computer programming class. She asked me what my running time was, and I said it was 9 1/2 minutes. Our computer teacher happened to be the track and field coach at our school, and when she overheard my running time she turned around and had a look of shock on her face. I had to shrug and admit the truth, and then said I wouldn't stand a chance in making the track team with a time like that. She laughed and got the joke.
I was eventually able to condition myself into running a 7-minute mile, but that was a very long time ago. I haven't timed myself in a very, very long time, but I can say at least I can run a mile using the bikes at the gym. I'm not sure how good that makes me look though.
2. Change a Flat Tire.
This I have done. I only did it once, so I had to learn as I went along, but a few years ago I had to come to the rescue after a friend of mine called me up in panic because she had a flat tire on the side of the highway. We had to work together in order to figure out how to swap the flat tire for the donut spare in her trunk, but we managed to do it properly. The toughest part by far was loosening the nuts on the tire in order to remove it. Either way, I can certainly do it again if there was a need for it in the future.
1. Dividing Up a Bill.
I'm not sure I understand why this is even on the list. What guy can't divide up a bill properly, especially if his cell phone has a calculator built into it? Maybe I'm just a numbers guy so dividing up a bill and calculating the tip properly comes naturally to me, but I rarely ever need a calculator to tally anything up.
I was actually surprised at some omissions on this list. There were a few things that I would think most adult men should be able to do that weren't on here. Things like....
Paint a room
Cook a full meal from scratch
Set up a TV entertainment center (TV, cable box, Blu Ray player, etc)
Know roughly how much cologne to wear at a given time
Fix basic plumbing problems, e.g. clogged or overflowing toilet*
Know how to dance*
*I need to learn how to do this.
What other basic skills have I missed?
Monday, June 17, 2013
The Vicious Cycle Keeps On Turnin'
If you had asked me over the weekend when the Miss USA Pageant was, I wouldn't have been able to answer your question. Turns out it was just last night, and I knew this for two reasons:
1.) People were talking about Miss Utah on Facebook;
and
2.) There's a video clip of her answer to a question that has quickly become very popular for all the wrong reasons.
If you haven't seen it yet, take a look below:
Some of you may hate me for posting a video of such stupidity, and for that I'm sorry. But I had to say a little bit about this video, and get into the bigger picture for a bit.
The first thing that came to my mind once I had seen this video was the notorious clip of Miss Teen South Carolina from a couple years ago. Even when that video became an internet sensation, my reaction was the same to this clip:
Why do we still have these beauty pageants?
I'm asking that as a genuine question hoping to find a real response. Do the networks and sponsors still really make enough money off this crap? Is that why we're subjected to these offensive and fairly misogynistic shows? Twenty years ago they were sort of relevant, but now they're just fodder for the entertainment world. Who really cares about who "wins" these contests? They're nothing but free advertising for makeup and clothing brands. Nothing is really at stake.
Part of me even feels bad for the contestants in these pageants. I only pity them to a certain degree, considering the kinds of answers we get to questions in the interview round. They're clearly programmed to use fire words like education, jobs, America, and gender roles. They babble on for a minute or two using those words thinking that will lead them to getting votes from the judges.
Just who are these judges at these pageants anyway? What kinds of qualifications do they have to adequately judge these contestants? As much as I hate ice skating at the Winter Olympics for being roughly equivalent to these beauty pageants, I can expect that many of the judges in that event are former ice skaters. They know the skills involved in all the moves an Olympic skater needs to perform, so they have some qualifications.
But this lady who asked Miss Utah.....who the hell is she and why should I care? How is she more qualified than anyone else to judge these pageants?
There's a bigger problem here with these pageants that I don't think most people stop to consider. That problem is the parents of these contestants. These women are very likely competing in beauty pageants of some kind from the time they're in kindergarten, and I can't imagine many of them dream from that moment they want to follow this course for their lives. What's disturbing is the kind of lengths they'll go to in order to get their kids involved in a beauty pageant, and this clip from the movie Bruno will make my point for me:
That clip was one of two parts of Bruno that I found to be funny, but this was funny for all sorts of horrifying reasons. These parents don't care about what they have to agree to in order for their kids to get into show business, and the joke is clearly on them for being so dumb that they'd allow their kids to be involved with heavy machinery, live animals, and other dangers so the kids would have a chance at a big break. The social implications of this clip show what kinds of families many of these beauty pageant contestants could have possibly grown up in. I'm not going to surmise that the majority of contestants follow this pattern, but I think it'd be naive to assume that all of them got started because of their own desires. The parents want to live vicariously through their children's careers, and the vicious cycle perpetuates itself.
I guess I answered my own question from earlier as to why we still have beauty pageants. Designer makeup and clothing brands will always market themselves, but the big driving force is having parents who want their kids to be the most beautiful one in town. There's nothing wrong for parents to take some pride in the accomplishments of their child or children, but it's the crazy ones who push their kids into career paths such as Miss USA that keep this garbage coming back.
Unfortunately the reality is that as long as these pageants are still on TV, we're bound to get more nonsense responses like Miss Utah's or Miss Teen South Carolina's. I can only go on ignoring useless TV programs like these, but I sincerely hope that no one I know turns out to be like the parents in Bruno.
1.) People were talking about Miss Utah on Facebook;
and
2.) There's a video clip of her answer to a question that has quickly become very popular for all the wrong reasons.
If you haven't seen it yet, take a look below:
Some of you may hate me for posting a video of such stupidity, and for that I'm sorry. But I had to say a little bit about this video, and get into the bigger picture for a bit.
The first thing that came to my mind once I had seen this video was the notorious clip of Miss Teen South Carolina from a couple years ago. Even when that video became an internet sensation, my reaction was the same to this clip:
Why do we still have these beauty pageants?
I'm asking that as a genuine question hoping to find a real response. Do the networks and sponsors still really make enough money off this crap? Is that why we're subjected to these offensive and fairly misogynistic shows? Twenty years ago they were sort of relevant, but now they're just fodder for the entertainment world. Who really cares about who "wins" these contests? They're nothing but free advertising for makeup and clothing brands. Nothing is really at stake.
Part of me even feels bad for the contestants in these pageants. I only pity them to a certain degree, considering the kinds of answers we get to questions in the interview round. They're clearly programmed to use fire words like education, jobs, America, and gender roles. They babble on for a minute or two using those words thinking that will lead them to getting votes from the judges.
Just who are these judges at these pageants anyway? What kinds of qualifications do they have to adequately judge these contestants? As much as I hate ice skating at the Winter Olympics for being roughly equivalent to these beauty pageants, I can expect that many of the judges in that event are former ice skaters. They know the skills involved in all the moves an Olympic skater needs to perform, so they have some qualifications.
But this lady who asked Miss Utah.....who the hell is she and why should I care? How is she more qualified than anyone else to judge these pageants?
There's a bigger problem here with these pageants that I don't think most people stop to consider. That problem is the parents of these contestants. These women are very likely competing in beauty pageants of some kind from the time they're in kindergarten, and I can't imagine many of them dream from that moment they want to follow this course for their lives. What's disturbing is the kind of lengths they'll go to in order to get their kids involved in a beauty pageant, and this clip from the movie Bruno will make my point for me:
That clip was one of two parts of Bruno that I found to be funny, but this was funny for all sorts of horrifying reasons. These parents don't care about what they have to agree to in order for their kids to get into show business, and the joke is clearly on them for being so dumb that they'd allow their kids to be involved with heavy machinery, live animals, and other dangers so the kids would have a chance at a big break. The social implications of this clip show what kinds of families many of these beauty pageant contestants could have possibly grown up in. I'm not going to surmise that the majority of contestants follow this pattern, but I think it'd be naive to assume that all of them got started because of their own desires. The parents want to live vicariously through their children's careers, and the vicious cycle perpetuates itself.
I guess I answered my own question from earlier as to why we still have beauty pageants. Designer makeup and clothing brands will always market themselves, but the big driving force is having parents who want their kids to be the most beautiful one in town. There's nothing wrong for parents to take some pride in the accomplishments of their child or children, but it's the crazy ones who push their kids into career paths such as Miss USA that keep this garbage coming back.
Unfortunately the reality is that as long as these pageants are still on TV, we're bound to get more nonsense responses like Miss Utah's or Miss Teen South Carolina's. I can only go on ignoring useless TV programs like these, but I sincerely hope that no one I know turns out to be like the parents in Bruno.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)