The most anticipated post of the year!

I haven't been kind to advertising. Much of it is silly and doesn't make much sense to me. The fact that some commercials are made to look like real-life conversations, to me, is silly. I honestly don't think I'll be chatting up with my friend how much SuckUp (TM) Brand Paper Towels are more absorbent than the leading brand.

Advertisers have bent the truth for the longest time, and perhaps the worst offenders are movie studios and television networks.

I was watching TV the other night, and came across an ad for the upcoming musical-turned-movie, Rent. Towards the end of the announcer's rantings, he says that the play "defined a generation." Huh? What? "Defined a generation?" Whose generation, and how exactly does a play define a generation? Does that mean if they did a play about people playing video games all the time, that would define a generation?

Okay, that was a bit of a stretch, I know. These grandiose claims about movies blow my mind. Its the same about TV shows. With every new fall television season, comes "the most anticipated show of the new season," or "the premiere everyone has been waiting for!" Most of the shows, if not all, I've never even heard of. Since when did tv critics (maybe) count as "everyone?" Just because Entertainment Weekly says about the new show Funny Things Happen to Steve, "wow, we sure look forward to seeing this show," doesn't make it the most anticipated show of the season. Funny how they hype these shows. Imagine using that type of logic in an everyday situation. "Just wait till I take you to the dentist, Timmy! It's the most anticipated visit of the year!" To the dentist, maybe, because he'll be paid handsomely.

Of course the biggest overhype or overselling belongs to feature films. A lot of people have seen the standard "review" tv spots for movies, where they show quotes from critics about the movie. You know the kind. "Critics are calling Movie Almost Released Direct to Video laugh out loud funny! I loved it!" then in small print, A. Reviewer, Mudhole Texas Observer. A major film distributor, Sony, I believe, was actually fined for using a fake reviewer in many of their ads. That's right, they made someone up. And there's gotta be some studios out there who try to persuade critics to give them a good quote.

Of course my all-time favorite ads are those for movies released in early January. "The best movie so far this year!" Well, yeah...its the only movie so far this year.

But in the end I'm sure it's all for the best. After all, no one wants to see an ad for a movie that was called "adequate" by the New York Times. "A. Reviewer comments, 'meh. this movie was okay I guess.'"

I'll be dipped

One of the classic bits on the series Seinfeld was when George Constanza dipped his chip into some dip, took a bite, then dipped again. Someone at the party then expressed his disgust at George's "double dipping."

But now "double dipping" has an entirely new meaning to those of us who are big DVD fans. That term now belongs to the act of releasing a DVD, typically one with very few "special features" on it, then later on releasing another edition of the same movie, this time with more features.

For some movies, this act is understandable. After all, when most DVDs began being released in the late 90s, studios didn't think that DVDs would become as big as they are today. So why not release another edition, this time with a cleaned up picture, and some better extras? But sadly, in most cases a double dip is wholly unnecessary. A sequel will come out and the studio will release a new version of the original, add some promotional featurettes for the sequel to it, and slap "Special Edition" on the cover. That, or the single disc, "barebones" edition of a movie will be released, then months later the 2 disc special edition with all the extras will appear.

For what reason do the studios do this? Well, many attribute it to the fact that studios now want to establish a sort of "rental window." You remember this practice back in VHS days. A movie would be released on home video, but it was "rental priced" only.. meaning that you could buy it from your local Blockbuster Video, but it would cost you $75. A few months later, the studios would then release the movie "priced to own." Okay, makes sense somewhat.. for VHS, that is. If studios really want a rental window, then stop releasing these single-disc editions of movies for $12.99 at Best Buy during release week without dropping a hint that a better edition is in the works.

But nope, we won't see that from studios. DVDs are far too profitable. Its no huge secret that films make most of their money not in theaters, but on home video. Alien vs. Predator, considered a flop in theaters, made roughly $75 million on DVD. And that was just the first release. Typically the reason people will buy these new editions is that they are under the impression that this new edition is "better" than the previous one. Studios also like to reel in consumers with the "Unrated/Uncut" editions, with "footage they couldn't show in theaters!" Which, of course, is usually a lie. They'll edit in some deleted scenes from the movie and call it unrated. The idea is to make the consumer think that they are going to be watching raunchy footage with more violence and/or sex. (Which is why a lot of "unrated" editions are of adult-themed movies) Fact is, most directors don't even approve these uncut editions. Columbia/Tristar released a "director's cut" of the Vin Diesel movie XXX to coincide with the release of the sequel. This was no director's cut; in fact, the director actually spoke ill of the deleted scenes that were added to the movie on the first DVD release!

Luckily some filmmakers out there are letting people know ahead of time that a better edition is in the works somewhere down the line. This was most evident with the Lord of the Rings DVD releases. Peter Jackson announced the "extended editions" well before the "theatrical edition" was released. This way people had a choice. Other "double dips" have also been announced before the first DVD release, most recently with the movie Sin City. Robert Rodriguez said a longer version would be available with lots of extras. Sure enough, about a week ago, this new edition was announced for December, mere months after the regular edition was released.

Most editions do not have this luxury of advance warning. Fox is becoming a large offender of this practice. If we're lucky we'll get a free movie ticket with it. Some studios have been experimenting with multiple releases on the same day. You get the "standard edition" with your choice of widescreen and fullscreen, and then you get the 2-disc "deluxe edition." For the most part I like this practice. It gives people choice and lets you know that if you're a collector, you can get the better edition right away. The thing that kinda gets me on this, though, is the pricing. Just as an example, Warner Brothers did this with Constantine and will repeating it with Batman Begins. The deluxe edition with all its special features is usually a couple of dollars more than the standard edition. Problem with that is stores will only put a sale price on the standard edition. Constantine was something like $13.99 first week with the standard, but I had to pay full price for the deluxe, which was $22.99.

So how do you know if the DVD you are buying is just the studio's way of tossing you a few bread crumbs? There are several ways. First, you can keep an eye on the extra features. If the DVD is of a blockbuster movie like say, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, which made a lot of money, but the only features listed are a few deleted scenes and an HBO special, more than likely you'll be getting a new edition later. You can also check out DVD-related websites for information. Fellow DVD fans will usually warn people ahead of time if a better edition looms.

It's a fact of life that companies will try to take advantage of customers. Hopefully armed with additional info consumers will be able to send a message back to movie studios to stop overflooding the market. You'd think studios would start to learn a lesson by now. Studios like Dreamworks and Disney are under a minor investigation right now after shipping waaaaaay too many copies of DVDs like Shrek 2 and The Incredibles to stores. Copies that weren't sold. Note to studios: not every single person in the family needs their own copy of a DVD.

Serial...er, CEREAL thieves

If there's one running theme in a good portion of commercials for kids' cereal, its thievery. Think about it.. they center around one character or characters wanting to take cereal that is not theirs away from another character. They seem to fall in one of two categories:

1. Character(s) A tries to steal cereal from Character(s) B using disguises or tricks. The commercials for Fruity & Cocoa Pebbles fall in this category, as well as Trix.
2. Character(s) A tries to defend his cereal by being stolen from Character(s) B by using various schemes. Lucky Charms is a prime example of this.

If this kind of thing were happening in real life, the Trix Rabbit would be in jail for harassing children, Fred Flintstone would have a restraining order against Barney Rubble (100 rocks at all times?), and Lucky the Leprechaun would be in therapy for his paranoid delusions of children everywhere wanting his Lucky Charms.

But what really gets me is that these characters go to all this trouble to commit larceny when they could just as simply buy it from a store. With all the time, effort, and probably money that the Rabbit and that weasel Barney put into their schemes, you'd think they could just buy a large crate of their respective cereals. And Lucky.. when those kids are chasing you, why not use your magic to say, put up a 7-11 inbetween you and the kids? A 7-11 full of Lucky Charms? And hey, shouldn't you be more worried about your pot of gold than some silly cereal?

Even cereals like Fruit Loops have commercials mostly dealing with theft of the cereal. And let's not forget the drug addict that is the Cocoa Puffs bird.

But they are only commercials. I'm quite certain that little Timmy isn't going to dress up as Sally's long-lost Uncle, knock on her door, and say "Wow, Trix! I've been lost on a desert island for years and have been dying for some Trix, may I have some?"

Oh, and on a side note, about how many friggin' different kinds of marshmallows can they possibly put into Lucky Charms??! Honestly!

Booking Movies

Hello dear readers. I am sorry for being gone so long. Lately, I have been pondering on a issue that has bugged for a long time. It's nothing earth shattering mind you, but I think it needs to be addressed. The following is based on my observations and thoughts. I in no way make a promise to solve this issue, but to hopefully shed some new ideas on the issue.

I like movies. I like to go out to see them, but I usually will not see them alone. Sadly, the past few years I have been reluctant to go see movies with people. The main reason for "why?" is simple. Due to my luck or God's twisted sense of humor, I usually end up seeing a movie with a person that will say one thing that really gets to me. "Well, the movie was great but the book was better." AUGGGGGGHHHHH. That really gets to me. It also bugs me when this is said within mixed company, people usually take the side of the book, but usually I don't. Due to my natural tendency to "go against the grain" I stand up for the movie. Ok, "go against the grain" is another way of saying I am weird, I am just trying to be articulate.

I honestly feel movies based on books really get a bad rap. For example, take "The Lord of the Rings" movies. In my opinion the best fantasy epic movies ever made to date. When the first movie came out I set out to read the book version. The book naturally went into more detail and the plot moved more slowly than the movie did, but when it came to action sequences the movie outshined the book. I found this contrast funny and understandable. I found it funny because, it seemed when I read a part in the book when there was action I pictured the scene from the movie in my head. The opposite was true when I watched the movie. I recall parts of the book that had information about the various characters that wasn't mentioned in the film. In my experience with "The Lord of the Rings" I found the book helped me to understand the film. I also had help from my parents that have the read the books and understood little details that were included in the film, but not necessarily explained. For example: The scene when Frodo was snatched by the "giant squid." The monster wasn't trying to eat Frodo (well probably not at first) but searching for the Ring. That was a detail that would have escaped me, if it weren't people that read and understood the book.

I have a confession to make. When a movie is based on a book I usually see the movie before I read the book. This is contrary to what people usually do and I think that's part of the problem. I honestly think that when people read a book then go see the movie version they honestly think the movie is going to follow the book by the letter. This isn't usually the case, and I can see why this happens. A movie has a set budget that goes to numerous departments and people that get paid, while a writer has more free reign to create their masterpiece. This means that if the director and/or the "powers that be" might order some story editing to cut costs. I think this is the main thing that disappoints many readers. I admit that I have been disappointed in the way some stories are redone for the silver screen. One example that comes to mind is "The Sum of All Fears." In my opinion, one of Tom Clancy's best novels ever. Basically, the book discusses how Arab terrorists find an old nuclear bomb and use it to blow up the Super Bowl, and how it heats up tensions between the U.S. and Russia. In the movie though, the main villains are German fascists trying to start a war between U.S. and Russia via a nuclear bomb. Am I disappointed with the change, heck ya, but I look beyond that glaring change and realize that it is a good movie (in my opinion). There are times that I have been pleasantly surprised, how close the movie is to the book. The movie "Red Dragon" is about 99% close to the book. The only thing I notice is some chronology was changed up, but it was minor change.

There are some books that I would love to see on film, but deep down I know it won't happen, because the books is just too dang long. I really sympathize with the film makers when they have to adapt a book to film. I feel as long as they keep with spirit of the story, and don't try change up what the author's message (if he/she has one) then I am for it. I believe there are film makers that actually care about the book and the author enough that they will be sensitive.

In fact, this November the fourth "Harry Potter" film is coming out, and I can tell yall that I am excited. I realize that some details will be left out and some stuff will be portrayed out of order, but that's okay with me. I have to realize this fact since the fourth book is 734 pages long. I know how it will end, but what excites me is seeing how the film makers will visually translate the book.

Some of yall think I am mad, for supporting movies this way. That's fine, but I think books and movies need each other. Seeing how another person views the characters, plot, and settings might help us to understand what we have read. As long as we have professional and caring people that work on making a visual version of the stories we love, we can continue enjoying what we have read on the silver screen.

Smurfs...big blue hypocrites

So I'm sitting here at home sick today, I figured now would be a good time to get some posts done. Quite frankly I need the money from going to work, but what good is going to work when you're sneezing every other minute? Anyway..

Its amazing I think, how sometimes stuff just comes to mind out of the blue (good pun there, you'll see why.) I asked my friend while we were adventuring in City of Heroes if he ever thought ill of the Smurfs. Then I told him why I asked him that.

I seem to recall when I was younger, watching The Smurfs with my 2 older siblings, and we would express our disgust with the Smurfs. You see, there was at least one episode (perhaps more) where the Smurfs would find say, a cute little baby deer in peril due to some evil-looking wolf. Sure enough the Smurfs would rescue the cute deer and drive the wolf off. But what about that wolf? Did the Smurfs ever think of it? Maybe its a wolf with a hungry pack of pups back at the den. And now, due to the Smurfs' meddling, the pack will soon go hungry.

What reasoning do those blue goons have behind saving the deer? Is it cause its so cute and innocent? Well there's a nice message. Do they have some code of the forest they are fulfilling? Either way we found the Smurfs to be hypocritical. Here they are defending a creature of the forest by harming another one. And my friend laughed at my question, but agreed totally.

So there you have it. Those meddling Smurfs. Don't even get me started on the fact that they have a village of dozens of male smurfs and only one female smurfs. Oh and what the heck is "smurfing" anyway??

From the Mind of Mocha (Part 2)

Hello again, humans. Princess Mocha the Cat here. Okay, I'm not an official princess, but I should be.

Last time I was here, I discussed how important it is for you to let us keep our schedules and not interrupt us when we are in the middle of something. Today I would like to reiterate the importance of sleep, and to show that cats do have a softer side.

Believe it or not, we cats like to watch over our humans. If you are watching too much television, then we gently remind you to do other things (mainly giving us rubbings). If you are eating too much food, we will offer to take care of some of that food for you.

But more importantly, we like to monitor your sleeping habits. Its a well-known fact to cats that you humans do not require the 18 hours of sleep that we do. In fact, its more like 7 or 8 depending on the human. We find it peculiar that you sleep only when it is dark out. Maybe you don't have solar-charged batteries like we do? Oh well, that's beside the point.

We cats know sleep, and again, we know that you don't need more that about 8 hours. Anything beyond that will leave you unable to perform certain duties, most importantly, giving us our needed attention.

So you may think we are being fussy when we try to wake you up, but actually we are keeping your best interests in mind and making sure you do not oversleep. My human, he usually folds after some gentle nudging, though sometimes I have to get rough and nudge him harder. Then I make sure he's up and ready to go by letting forth a loud meow. Sure, sometimes he doesn't budge, but then I just lie down next to him, reminding him that I won't leave until I've performed my duty.

You humans sure seem grumpy though when we wake you up. But again I remind you we are only trying to help you get started in your day. We are better than any electronic box with singing humans in it. And hey, what better thing to make you less grumpy when you get up then our adorable faces?

Whoops, it's time for my mid-morning pre-nap grooming. Till next time.

Berry Grunt Revisited

Some weeks ago, I posted an altered recipe for a Berry Grunt, which featured several different options. Lo and behold, Alton Brown, whose book I got the recipe from, decided to air the recipe on his show Good Eats. The recipe can be seen here.

And darn it, he made a few changes of his own.

So here it is again, with all the options there are between the different versions. Pick and choose according to your tastes, your cookware, and your willingness to use the oven or not.

Berry Grunt (Revisited)

Cooking Vessel:
10 inch cast iron skillet, or
Dutch oven

Berry filling:
19 oz. (4 cups) berries, frozen or fresh
1 cup water (although you may want to use a little less for frozen berries)
1 cup sugar
spices to taste. goes well with nutmeg, cloves, cinnamon, ginger, mace, etc.

Dough topping:
2 cups flour
2 teaspoons baking powder
1/4 teaspoon baking soda
1 cup buttermilk (regular works just fine)
1/2 stick unsalted butter
2 tablespoons sugar (optional)

Heat the berry filling in your cooking vessel to a simmer. Cook over medium heat 15 mins. Meanwhile sift together the dry ingredients in the dough. Cut in the butter, chilled, and work with your hands until the butter pieces become pea-sized. Create a well in the middle and add the milk. Mix with a wooden spoon or spatula until it comes together. (Optional: put the dough on some wax or parchment paper that has been lightly dusted with flour, fold into a ball, and refrigerate until the filling is ready.)
Drop the dough by spoonful evenly over the top of the berry mixture.

Dumpling-style: Place a lid over the cooking vessel and cook over low heat, 15-20 mins or until the dough is cooked through. You'll get a dough much like chicken and dumplings... kind of airy, almost cakey.
Cobbler-style: Place the cooking vessel in a 400 degree oven for 15-20 mins or until the dough is golden brown on top. This produces a more cobbler/biscuit-type topping for your grunt.

Personally, I find the oven-baked version to produce better results, but the stovetop is just as good. Plus, the dessert keeps well in a airtight container, and reheats nicely in the microwave. (half power for about 2:30 usually does it for me) While all berries are good, I tried it with nothing but blueberries and found it to be best.

Thanks again to Alton Brown of 'Good Eats.'

I gave at the office

Happily, there are a lot of people wanting to participate in relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina.

The Red Cross, obviously, along with several other smaller charities. Celebrities and sports teams are chipping in. Telethons are being held on TV to raise money (sometimes with rather interesting results like these). Even places in the local community are helping out. I've heard of churches taking donations of food, clothes, bathroom products, and the like. People are opening up their homes to people who have lost theirs in New Orleans. It's great to see so much effort being put in.

Then, there are situations like the one I'm about to describe. Outside a local grocery store (I won't say which), some folks with some crudely made cardboard signs were taking donations for relief efforts. There were no Red Cross or Salvation Army logos to be found, no organizational links seen. These people seemed to be just out there on their own volition. The people weren't taking grocery items as you'd might expect, it seemed to be one of those "whatever change you've got on you" type situations. When asked if I would donate, I told them no. Then, I got this look from them like I'd committed some unspeakable act. But these people could not provide a specific name of a charity or organization just that they were with a "local charity." As terrible as it might sound, for all I know, they could take the money at the end of the day and go buy themselves a stereo.

I'm definitely not a bad person. Far from it. I just refuse to give money to people who can't tell me who they are and who they are collecting money for. So if you decide to do some good and go out and volunteer, don't expect money from me.. unless of course you are with a reputable organization.