I've been doing facebook for a while now, and some things people do there are so annoying to me, that I've decided to write this. These complaints are in no particular order, but all of them should be taken seriously, because If you do this on facebook, I hate you.
1. Quit posting "I'm bored," or any variation on that, when you post something to facebook, it's supposed to make everyone's day better or worse. Telling everyone you know that you are pathetically unentertained while using a computer helps no one, least of all, you. If you do post those two demon words, make it interesting, like, "I'm bored, IN SPACE!"
2. Stop posting on statuses and photos someone added more than a week or two ago. Nothing ruins my internet binge more than clicking on a notification be be dragged to a horrible joke you posted on a status I don't even remember.
3. Stop sending me farmville/mafia wars messages. Messages are supposed to help me, not make me want to tear out your soul. Also, if you play farmville or mafia wars, it might be in your favor to keep it to yourself....... you enormous nerd.
4. Don't post purposely vague things just to make the rest of us ask what it is. Because deep down, you're only doing it to make yourself feel important for two more minutes, instead of hopelessly defeated and depressed. Facebook isn't the best way to solve that issue. Get a therapist.
5. Posting those statuses that say "Please post this to support (insert minority/deadly disease patients here) 90% of people won't do this, are you going to do the right thing?" Here's the problem with that, If I don't post it, I feel like a jerk, If I do, then I make other people feel like jerks when they don't post it. It creates a lose-lose situation for everyone. And really, how is a status on facebook going to help anyone? The only exception to this rule is if it's a joke, like instead of supporting cancer patients, it's supporting the families of people who died in the Hogwarts attack, in which case, it's the coolest thing ever.
So there you have it, my list of personal peeves for facebook, now I will warn you that I WILL come down hard on you if you do any of these on my wall. You have been warned.
Labels
- Books (3)
- Comics (1)
- Misc (8)
- Movies (20)
- music (6)
- Theater (4)
- Theme Parks (1)
- TV (6)
- video games (14)
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Science and Religion
The other day, during my obscenely long midterm lunch block, I mentioned to an acquaintance of mine that I was deeply religious. But am I? I go to church every Sunday, I sing in the choir, I serve on the altar. But I still swear, I make sex jokes, I'm mean to people I don't like, and I sit less than a phonebook away from my girlfriend.
The truth is, when put in perspective, looking throughout time, I'm about as unreligious as you can get. However, by today's standards, I am off the scale of religiousness. Most people know little or nothing about God, many other Catholics I know only go to church on Christmas, and that isn't even right, if you only go once a year, you should go on Easter. In my religious Ed class, most of the kids are there against their will because the parents are still desperately holding onto the last scrap of moral fiber the kid has. Church attendance is also way down in the past twenty years, the number of priests is steadily declining, and the world is becoming more and more secular everyday. People are losing interest in religion and faith. There are still some religious people out there, but a portion of them seem to me like they are only doing it to stand out among the crowd. When people do this, they are usually real open, too open, about their religion. When I know someone who does that, I take their religion, and tack "super" onto the front. I know one super-protestant, who posts about prayer, a very private thing, on Facebook, and one super-jew, who glares at you if you mention Hitler in any way. To paraphrase the bible, "Don't pray in public, you're only doing it for attention." These people may be religious for the wrong reasons, but at least they act with the ethic, but overall, interest in faith is dying.
Why is this happening? A mere two hundred years ago, you would be a social outcast if you didn't spend literally all day in church on Sunday. Entire wars were fought over religion, and still are, but only in parts of the world where science is not as prevalent, is this a coincidence? Absolutely not. Science is the source of all these problems, and I'm not saying we go back to the Stone Age. The root of the problem is people are misinterpreting science for what it really is. Hundreds of years ago, people used religion to explain science. Lightning was a pissed-off Zeus, the world is here because God created it in seven days. Sciences like the Big Bang Theory convince some people that there is no God, But I have thought otherwise. The big bang theory states that before the universe was created, all the matter existed in a singularity, which was infinitely small, hot, and dense. This singularity then exploded and created the universe, static on your TV is leftover energy from the explosion. The only unanswered question of this theory is what trigged the explosion? Well I can only assume that you would need a giant source of power. But nothing besides the singularity existed, so how could that power be generated? My answer: God.
People who say that science disproves the existence of God have it all wrong. A long time ago, people used God to explain science, now, we must use science to explain God.
The truth is, when put in perspective, looking throughout time, I'm about as unreligious as you can get. However, by today's standards, I am off the scale of religiousness. Most people know little or nothing about God, many other Catholics I know only go to church on Christmas, and that isn't even right, if you only go once a year, you should go on Easter. In my religious Ed class, most of the kids are there against their will because the parents are still desperately holding onto the last scrap of moral fiber the kid has. Church attendance is also way down in the past twenty years, the number of priests is steadily declining, and the world is becoming more and more secular everyday. People are losing interest in religion and faith. There are still some religious people out there, but a portion of them seem to me like they are only doing it to stand out among the crowd. When people do this, they are usually real open, too open, about their religion. When I know someone who does that, I take their religion, and tack "super" onto the front. I know one super-protestant, who posts about prayer, a very private thing, on Facebook, and one super-jew, who glares at you if you mention Hitler in any way. To paraphrase the bible, "Don't pray in public, you're only doing it for attention." These people may be religious for the wrong reasons, but at least they act with the ethic, but overall, interest in faith is dying.
Why is this happening? A mere two hundred years ago, you would be a social outcast if you didn't spend literally all day in church on Sunday. Entire wars were fought over religion, and still are, but only in parts of the world where science is not as prevalent, is this a coincidence? Absolutely not. Science is the source of all these problems, and I'm not saying we go back to the Stone Age. The root of the problem is people are misinterpreting science for what it really is. Hundreds of years ago, people used religion to explain science. Lightning was a pissed-off Zeus, the world is here because God created it in seven days. Sciences like the Big Bang Theory convince some people that there is no God, But I have thought otherwise. The big bang theory states that before the universe was created, all the matter existed in a singularity, which was infinitely small, hot, and dense. This singularity then exploded and created the universe, static on your TV is leftover energy from the explosion. The only unanswered question of this theory is what trigged the explosion? Well I can only assume that you would need a giant source of power. But nothing besides the singularity existed, so how could that power be generated? My answer: God.
People who say that science disproves the existence of God have it all wrong. A long time ago, people used God to explain science, now, we must use science to explain God.
Monday, January 17, 2011
the Fretless Bass reviews: The Green Hornet.
Movies are made to make you pumped up after you see them, so you tell all your friends, "IT WAS AWESOME!!!!" So when you are a reviewer, you need to wait a little bit and think hard about the movie before you make conclusions. This was especially the case with The Green Hornet (flawless transition), which is as action-filled, and adrenalin-charged as any movie. I came out of that movie loving it, but after some thought I came to the conclusion that The Green Hornet is a "meh" movie disguised as a really good one.
First off I will continue my vendetta against 3D, in which The Green Hornet was filmed. I don't think it was even made for 3D, the lack of 3D moments tells me that they just made it into 3D in the editing room. Truth be told, 3D didn't ruin The Green Hornet, it would have been just as mediocre without the influence of Avatar. What really grinds my gears is how the production team obviously thought it would help the movie. 3D isn't for every movie. Avatar and 3D worked well together because Avatar had really good visuals, but 3D isn't what made that movie (Let me clarify right now, I thought Avatar looked fantastic, and I saw it without 3D, it did stand up on its own without it. What I hated about Avatar was its predictability and the plot). So the production team thought 3D would help The Green Hornet, but the truth is, 3D didn't affect the experience for me at all.
Detail time. The Green Hornet was entertaining, but will I remember it in a year, no. Why? My biggest issue was that there was this whole deal where both main characters liked their secretary, and were jealous of each other over her, and they resolved it, but I didn't get any closure on the issue. The movie didn't even give the resolution its own scene, just at some point it said, "Ok, that's over, now back to the gun violence." Which is another thing, for heroes, the protagonists seemed to have no problem pumping their enemies full of lead. This would be ok if the movie were a morality play. "Is fighting crime worth hurting so many people?" or, "Can violence to stop violence be justified?" But no, the movie shows these men brutally killing people, and portraying them as totally moral heroes.
I also didn't like the predictability of the movie. I'm not going to tell you about the plot points I predicted because I don't want to spoil it for you. I predicted how the movie would go from the third or fourth scene.
Lastly, Seth Rogen was a perfect choice for the main character; the movie may have fallen short, but Seth was fantastic. Sadly, Mr. Rogen's performance did nothing to make the sting of this hornet enter my soul. Perhaps if the movie had more of a message, or if I believed the heroes were doing good for the right reasons, I may not have just crucified it the way I did, but nay, this hornet has no sting.
First off I will continue my vendetta against 3D, in which The Green Hornet was filmed. I don't think it was even made for 3D, the lack of 3D moments tells me that they just made it into 3D in the editing room. Truth be told, 3D didn't ruin The Green Hornet, it would have been just as mediocre without the influence of Avatar. What really grinds my gears is how the production team obviously thought it would help the movie. 3D isn't for every movie. Avatar and 3D worked well together because Avatar had really good visuals, but 3D isn't what made that movie (Let me clarify right now, I thought Avatar looked fantastic, and I saw it without 3D, it did stand up on its own without it. What I hated about Avatar was its predictability and the plot). So the production team thought 3D would help The Green Hornet, but the truth is, 3D didn't affect the experience for me at all.
Detail time. The Green Hornet was entertaining, but will I remember it in a year, no. Why? My biggest issue was that there was this whole deal where both main characters liked their secretary, and were jealous of each other over her, and they resolved it, but I didn't get any closure on the issue. The movie didn't even give the resolution its own scene, just at some point it said, "Ok, that's over, now back to the gun violence." Which is another thing, for heroes, the protagonists seemed to have no problem pumping their enemies full of lead. This would be ok if the movie were a morality play. "Is fighting crime worth hurting so many people?" or, "Can violence to stop violence be justified?" But no, the movie shows these men brutally killing people, and portraying them as totally moral heroes.
I also didn't like the predictability of the movie. I'm not going to tell you about the plot points I predicted because I don't want to spoil it for you. I predicted how the movie would go from the third or fourth scene.
Lastly, Seth Rogen was a perfect choice for the main character; the movie may have fallen short, but Seth was fantastic. Sadly, Mr. Rogen's performance did nothing to make the sting of this hornet enter my soul. Perhaps if the movie had more of a message, or if I believed the heroes were doing good for the right reasons, I may not have just crucified it the way I did, but nay, this hornet has no sting.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
the Fretless Bass reviews: The Cape pilot on NBC
Today, I'm snowed in, so I'm writing about something I saw yesterday. It was The Cape, a show about a man who was unjustly framed for a horrible crime and must don a new identity to protect his family and get his life back. So it's pretty much every super hero movie or show ever made.
I kid The Cape, I actually liked it a lot, but I'm a fanboy, and as a reviewer, it is my duty to look at this in perspective, objectively, without bias.
The show was entertaining, but was it really good? Luckily, I'm here to answer that question for you, so you don't need to think as much. (Orwellian?) The pilot's job is to draw the audience in with high action, focus, and conflict, so its job is to be the best episode in the entire run of the series. If every episode of The Cape is as good as the pilot, then this show is the next 24 for me until The Walking Dead staggers back onto my TV next fall. But TV shows rarely replicate the quality found in the pilot. The Cape makes the mistake of giving the protagonist one ultimate goal, in this case; it's to prove his innocence by taking down a private military contract army that runs the city. This is going to get old fast. Luke Cage made that mistake as well in his first issue, but the geniuses at Marvel were smart enough to leave Luke's problems open ended enough to keep the series interesting after the death of this antagonist. This is not the case with The Cape, should the main villain fall, there's no more juice left in the tank, and The Cape dies. Like I said, the same bad guy in every episode is going to get old. They also introduced one villain that has scales on his face, and a whole organization of super-killers, but they all work for the ultimate villain as well, so it's kind of a fail on that scale.
At the end of the day, or this review, or whatever you and your cult may call it, the pilot of The Cape was good, but the show has nothing to really set it apart from any other super drama on TV or the big screen. If guys wearing capes and cool hoods excites you as much as it excites me, then you'll probably like the pilot of The Cape, as for the rest of the series, I predict it will fall into the problem Power Rangers had where you could recite what was going to happen in every episode before it even happened. So don't get your hopes up. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go put a towel over my head and pretend I'm Batman.
I kid The Cape, I actually liked it a lot, but I'm a fanboy, and as a reviewer, it is my duty to look at this in perspective, objectively, without bias.
The show was entertaining, but was it really good? Luckily, I'm here to answer that question for you, so you don't need to think as much. (Orwellian?) The pilot's job is to draw the audience in with high action, focus, and conflict, so its job is to be the best episode in the entire run of the series. If every episode of The Cape is as good as the pilot, then this show is the next 24 for me until The Walking Dead staggers back onto my TV next fall. But TV shows rarely replicate the quality found in the pilot. The Cape makes the mistake of giving the protagonist one ultimate goal, in this case; it's to prove his innocence by taking down a private military contract army that runs the city. This is going to get old fast. Luke Cage made that mistake as well in his first issue, but the geniuses at Marvel were smart enough to leave Luke's problems open ended enough to keep the series interesting after the death of this antagonist. This is not the case with The Cape, should the main villain fall, there's no more juice left in the tank, and The Cape dies. Like I said, the same bad guy in every episode is going to get old. They also introduced one villain that has scales on his face, and a whole organization of super-killers, but they all work for the ultimate villain as well, so it's kind of a fail on that scale.
At the end of the day, or this review, or whatever you and your cult may call it, the pilot of The Cape was good, but the show has nothing to really set it apart from any other super drama on TV or the big screen. If guys wearing capes and cool hoods excites you as much as it excites me, then you'll probably like the pilot of The Cape, as for the rest of the series, I predict it will fall into the problem Power Rangers had where you could recite what was going to happen in every episode before it even happened. So don't get your hopes up. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go put a towel over my head and pretend I'm Batman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)