Kyle A. Massa

Page 27 of 27

I JUST KILLED A DOG! (I bet you’ll read this now.)

April 26, 2012 /

Before we start, just to be clear, I’ve never actually killed a dog. But dogs are the topic of today’s blog, or rather, animals in general. Have you ever been to a movie in which an animal is killed? People get mad. What’s funny is, nobody seems to care when, in the very same scene, a human being is killed.

Of course, I should first clarify what I’m talking about. I’m sure that many people were moved when Jenny died in Forest Gump or when Dumbledore died in Harry Potter. But these were characters that we had connected with over the course of the film. I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about action films in which people are being blown away in every other shot. Most of the time, viewers don’t even blink.

Take the same movie, but now replace that nameless extra with a dog. Suddenly you have a mutiny in the theater. Chairs get destroyed, popcorn begins to fly, chaos reigns supreme…

Of course, I’m exaggerating. By not by much. I kid you not, I’ve been to movies where people have left the theater after seeing a cat get killed. I’m not trying to say that this isn’t upsetting, but at least ten humans were killed earlier in the film, and no one flinched.

So what does this say about us? Why do we find dying animals so upsetting?

Personally, I think it might be about cuteness. Yes, cuteness. Show someone a video of a guy stepping on an ant. Very few people will get upset. But replace that ant with a kitten, and you’re in for it. And what’s the difference between an ant and a kitten? You guessed it. Cuteness.

I’m sure there are thousands of other explanations for this phenomenon, but honestly, I don’t care to spend five-thousand plus words exploring them. I think the reason probably varies from person to person.

At any rate, I’ll leave you  with this parting question: why do we always assume that animals are all innocent and cuddly?

Hasn’t anyone ever read Cujo?

Mapex Voyager Drum Set

April 26, 2012 /

I bought a Mapex Voyager drum set, and I must say, I love it. Maybe it’s just my inner-thug talking here, but there’s something really fun about whaling away on something with wooden sticks. And what’s better, I can call it music.

The drums came at $500, a pretty good price for a beginner set, and especially one of high quality. Disclaimer: I bought from a local store, and I’m pretty sure that the owner was nice enough to give me the set at a discounted price. At any rate, I think they go for $600 normally. Still not too bad.

The drums are very nice. Solidly built, strong, and I’m sure they’ll last a long time. The hardware is great too. My one complaint is probably the cymbals. Mine are already beginning to warp, and I’ve only had the set for about a month. Of course, they aren’t exactly name brand, so I probably should’ve expected that. Anyway, I can buy new ones.

Setup was easy, and took less than an hour. They came with an instructional DVD that was quite helpful, and I had them up in no time. My only complaint was that you need to tune the drums, and I found the DVD rather unhelpful with that. I think I’m going to need a drummer to come in and help me get it right…

After setup, I went to work. Like any skill, it’s actually a lot harder than it looks. Guys in bands play like it’s second nature, but it takes a lot of practice. I played three or four hours a day for about a week straight, and it took me that long just to master a basic beat. I wonder how long it’ll take me to play my first drum solo…

Music these days…

April 26, 2012 /

I was watching the channel “Palladia” the other day, and it is quickly becoming my favorite station. They show old and new concerts pretty much all day, each one in high definition. It’s like stepping back in time to watch some of the greats. I’m talking Led Zeppelin, The Who, Pink Floyd, all of those rock and roll legends. Afterward, they showed footage from some modern concerts, and I must say, something struck me. When did computers start playing music?

Now I know I had a very similar post go up just a few days ago, but I feel like it’s something worth talking about. I’m sure I must not be the first person to notice this. How could we not? Most popular modern artists today have their music generated electronically rather than with instruments. There are even some who don’t really sing, but only appear to sing through the use of auto-tuning.

Does this mean that modern artists are less talented? Of course not. Many artists are excellent singers, songwriters and dancers. But think about this: how many modern mainstream artists can you name who can rip off a good guitar solo? Granted, there are still old bands out there with guys who could always do that, like Metallica and The Rolling Stones. But I’m not talking about them. I’m talking 21st century century bands. Do any modern guitarists from those bands measure up to their 20th century counterparts? The truth is, they do not.

So what’s become of popular artists playing real instruments? It may be that music itself has changed. Rock was certainly always a spectacle. Shows were just as much about the onstage antics as they were about the music. But today, it’s a different sort of show. Today it seems like the music takes a backseat to the performance. We have choreographed dancing to go with the singing, and crazy costumes to boot. Of course, we had that before, but never to the same degree.

I realize I must sound like a crotchety old man right now, but gosh darrnit, kids these days just don’t know good music when they hear it!

Game of Thrones: The Best Show On TV

April 26, 2012 /

Has there ever been a more entertaining show?

If so, I’ve never seen it. I can’t get enough. Does it have backstabbing, you ask? What about plotting? And incest? Yes my friends, it has all that and more. Although, I could do without the incest.

Basically, I see it as a soap opera you’re not ashamed to watch. I mean think about it. Everyone hates each other, everyone’s sleeping with each other, and it’ll probably never end. Sounds like a soap to me.

But thankfully, Game of Thrones is far more intelligent than your run-of-the-mill daytime soap, thanks in large part to the character development. Each is so well drawn and so believable, it seems as though they’re based upon real people. I think it’s a credit to George R.R. Martin and the writing team that they could create such strong characters.

Furthermore, it’s helped bring fantasy into the adult mainstream. Of course, Lord of the Rings was certainly mainstream, but not in the same way. Before A Song of Ice and Fire, most mainstream fantasy literature was aimed toward a younger audience. That’s not to say that an older audience couldn’t enjoy it. Quite the contrary; Lord of the Rings is extremely popular, both on the page and on the screen. However, it deals with more universal themes. A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones deal with more realistic themes. In essence, it’s fantasy for adults. Not only this, but A Song of Ice and Fire has spawned a new generation of fantasy for adults, such as Joe Abercrombie’s First Law series.

Personally, I hope they continue making the show. It’s extremely expensive, but at the same time, it’s so wildly popular that I think it will stay on for at least a few more years. Can’t wait for the next episode! But until then, just remember…winter is coming.

The Old Folks Effect

April 24, 2012 /

I want to get a copyright on this phrase. It’s something I’ve noticed ever since the Superbowl halftime show four years ago. Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers were the band that year, and though I personally enjoyed them, it seemed to everyone else at the party that they weren’t especially good. Okay, I get it. They aren’t exactly Heartbreakers anymore. But the music should speak for itself.

In fact, there seemed to be a similar reaction to The Rolling Stones, Bruce Springstein, The Who, and most recently, Madonna. I call this the “Old Folks Effect.”

It seems to me that people get turned off by old people playing music. I suppose it’s a young person’s game and all, but honestly, nowadays, old people are much better at it than young people. Remember the Black Eyed Peas? No instruments, and Fergie was the only person actually singing without the aid of autotune. When did we start using computers instead of instruments?

Look, I’m not trying to knock modern music. Obviously, most modern musicians are very talented. But I think that there is something to be said for old music. Personally, I find it to be far more appealing, but that’s not the point. The point is that modern music wouldn’t exist without the old folks.

So next time you see an old person rocking out to “Born To Be Wild,” try to repress the Old Folks Effect. Someday, that’ll be you. Only, you’ll probably be listening to something like “Moves Like Jagger.”

The Wii-U…Will it sell?

January 17, 2012 /

I love Nintendo. Even now, I still remember the day I got my Gameboy Color. I spent countless hours slaying octoroks in Legend of Zelda and stomping on goombas in Mario Bros, and I enjoyed every second of it. As far as video game companies go, I think Nintendo is the best at capturing the imaginations of minds both young and old.

So, naturally, when I heard that a new platform was coming out, I was excited. After all, Nintendo is known for their ingenuity. As we know, they were pioneers of motion-sensing technology with the Wii, and of touch screen capabilities with the DS. Now Nintendo is trying for a combination of the two, called the “Wii-U.”

According to a recent article by CNN, the Wii-U will utilize a motion sensitive touchscreen, allowing one player to play independently, while the other four play using the TV screen. An interesting idea, but will it sell?

As much as it pains me to say this, I don’t think so. I love Nintendo for their innovation, but in this instance, I think that same innovation might be their Achilles heel. After all, there’s such a thing as being too creative.

Take Nintendo’s R.O.B., for instance. In 1985, Nintendo released the R.O.B., or the Robotic Operating Buddy, which was just that; a life-sized robot who could play alongside the gamer. Obviously, this product was as ambitious as it was unique. Before or since, I don’t think there’s ever been anything like R.O.B. But oddly enough, R.O.B. never caught on. Or maybe it wasn’t so odd.

R.O.B. was innovative, but too much so. You see, gamers as a whole are a people grounded in tradition. They like their games new, but not their systems. If a system strays too far from the norm of a nine-button controller and online interface system, hardcore gamers won’t buy it. I think the Wii proved this observation. Though it sold well with older and younger people, hardcore gamers chose the Xbox first.

Furthermore, few companies are going to jump at the opportunity to make games for this system. Though companies look for innovation, it is difficult for them to make certain types of games for certain systems. Just like it is challenging to make a satisfying shooter on a handheld platform, it will be extremely difficult for companies to make fighters for the Wii-U.

That being said, I must say quickly that while Nintendo is taking many creative risks, I think they should be applauded. Among the top three video game companies, Nintendo is by far the most creative. Many will say the Xbox’s Kinect is superior to the Wii’s motion control. But don’t forget, Microsoft was following the trail of breadcrumbs left by Nintendo when they created their motion-based product.

So what I’m saying is this: Nintendo is the most innovative of the current video game companies. However, in their quest for innovation, they sometimes alienate the hardcore gaming market. For this reason, I’m concerned that the Wii-U may have poor sales.

I know I’ll probably end up getting one. But the question is, will anyone else?

Not just movie magic. Movie sorcery.

January 6, 2012 /

Imagine this: you go to a movie, sit down with your popcorn and your soda, settle in for your movie, and who appears on screen in this brand new, 21st century film but…Marilyn Monroe?

Personally, I don’t really buy this idea, but after chatting with my father just a few nights ago, I thought it was at least worth some thought. He and I were talking, and he was telling me about a movie he’d just seen, called “The Adventures of Tin-Tin.” I’ve not yet seen the film, but my dad described the CGI (computer generated imagery) as excellent, almost comparable to a real-life image. Furthermore, he surmised that soon, within the next five years, we would have CGI so lifelike that we could effectively resurrect dead actors and actresses and put them back onto the screen. My dad cited Humphrey Bogart, Elvis Presley, and Marilyn Monroe as his three most likely candidates for this treatment. He even thinks that synthesizers will soon be built that can match their voices exactly, creating the perfect CG recreation of the dead. This technique would eliminate the need to pay actors millions of dollars. And without real actors, who needs agents or producers? Entire films could be made within studios, by only a handful of people. In the near future, promises my father, this will be commonplace.

I hope I’m not the only one who doesn’t like this idea. First off, do we really want movie studios to have this kind of power? Essentially, they’ll be able to put any star they want into any movie. So let’s say they make some snoozer rom-com that no one will be interested in. “Why not throw Marilyn in?” they might ask. It’s not like they would need to pay her computer-generated counterpart. It would be far cheaper than hiring a new actress, and who wouldn’t want to see Marilyn Monroe back on the silver screen?

But what would that do to her legacy, I wonder? She would go from an American icon to a marketing gimmick, a computer generated simulacrum thrown into any old B-movie just to generate a little interest. I’d even go as far as to say that this would be disrespectful to her memory, or the memory of any star resurrected in such a way.

Furthermore, what would this do to the industry? Imagine a world without actors and actresses. Yes, there would be far less celebrity gossip, and admittedly, some of those actors and actresses wouldn’t exactly be missed. But think about what we would be losing in terms of screen performance. Acting, like many other forms of art, is based in subtlety. Though film animators are vastly talented people, can we really expect them to create characters with more depth and passion than experienced actors? Granted, most viewers have no problem identifying with Woody and Buzz and Mike and Sully, myself included. But in terms of emotional depth, these are relatively simple characters. If we take an intense, introspective drama, 2007’s “There Will Be Blood” for example, and replace Daniel Day-Lewis with a perfectly lifelike, computer-generated version of himself, can we really expect the same quality of performance?

Lastly, acting is a human art. Just like athletic exhibition or musical performance, we appreciate it because it is a difficult skill that requires practice. In this country, athletes are loved because they possess skills that most other people do not. Part of the reason Michael Jordan became so famous was that he could perform feats that wowed even his peers. His leap from the foul line in the 1988 Slam Dunk Contest was impressive because he was pushing the limits of human potential. The same goes for music. Jimi Hendrix was admired because he did things on the guitar that no other human could do, then or now. Meryl Streep has earned 16 Academy Award Nominations because she exhibits acting skills that surpass those of most other people.

But where is the achievement if we replace these extraordinary people with computer-generated clones of themselves? Even if the clones perform the exact same feats, I doubt that anyone would be impressed. After all, a machine is built to perform a task. If one such machine can replicate the actions of a dead star, it is merely performing the task which it was built for. On the other hand, a human who could perform these tasks would be met with praise, because that human is functioning above the norm.

I realize that this is an awfully long post, and though I could go on for several more pages, I’ll end it here. If my dad turns out to be right, I hope to see you picketing for real actors. I know I will.

Apocalypse Now…or Never

January 3, 2012 /

I’m having a hard time buying this “2012: World is Going to End” crap. Don’t get me wrong, I think 2012 is going to be a big year. After all, we’re going to have a new presidential election, and those are always fun, right? For those metal heads, Black Sabbath is going on tour with the original lineup for the first time since ’78. And, we’ll finally be rid of those abysmal “Twilight” films. I think it’s safe to say that these things are all far more certain than the apocalypse. Though to be fair, Ozzy Osbourne may put a damper on the reunion, due to the strong possibility that he’s been a zombie for the past ten years. I’ll admit that he doesn’t seem to have much of a craving for brains, and he doesn’t seem to be completely dead. But seriously, much as I love the man, he doesn’t seem to be entirely alive either.

As we all know, the Mayans were a brilliant and progressive people. They created a complex hieroglyphic system and built structures that wow experts even today. There is even some evidence that suggests the ancient Mayans were astronomers, even before the telescope was invented. But perhaps their most notable contribution to the world is the Mayan calendar.

For those who don’t know, the Mayan calendar ends somewhere around December 21st of the year 2012. Many people seem to think that this is some sort of warning for our imminent destruction, that the world is going to end on this date, or that there will be some great cosmic event that will irrevocably alter our world.

On that point at least, I agree with the doomsayers. There will indeed be a huge event in the year 2012, and it will be called…The Hobbit.

That’s right, The Hobbit. Not a meteor, or a flood, or any other cataclysmic disaster. It will be this move, and it will change our world. This is the foundation of fantasy literature, being translated into a live-action film for the first time. I’ve never been much of a crier, but tears of joy are staining my computer screen even as I type these words…

But, I digress. After all, according to the doomsayers, we only have a year to live. They seem to think that there’s no time for tears, nor is there time to be thinking about dwarves and dragons and wizards. I should be doing all the things I’ve always wanted to do but have never had the balls for. That’s the good thing about a deadline: it gives you the balls to get things done.

And what better deadline is there than my own impending doom? It’s so final, so conclusive. The perfect motivator. If I don’t do it now, I’ll never have the chance to do it again.

But wait a second. Let’s be rational for a moment. Before we all pull out our bucket lists, let’s sit down and think for a moment. Let’s say that you’re making something, anything. It could be a cake, a song, a scrapbook, a movie, anything. At the moment, I’m feeling hungry, so let’s use the cake as our example.

Let’s say you spend a huge amount of time on your cake, adding layer upon layer until you’ve constructed a castle of funfetti and frosting. It may be huge, yes, even long-lasting, so great that people will gawk at it for years after you’re dead. (If you don’t believe me, make a funfetti cake and leave it in your dorm room for a few months. See if it isn’t still there.)

Eventually, due to old age, a lack of baking tools, or a sugar-induced coma, you’ll have to stop adding layers to the cake. The same is true for anything. Much as I may want it to, even “The Simpsons” won’t go on forever. Well, maybe that’s a bad example.

At any rate, I think we must understand the Mayan calendar from this perspective. The Mayans could not add and add and add years to their calendar infinitely. They had to stop somewhere, and December 21, 2012 just happened to be that day.

Although, I will admit that I can see why some think we’re headed for annihilation. Between war, global warming, and Justin Bieber, the world seems to be going a little nutty. I swear, if Bieber gets any more popular, I hope the world ends.

Either way, whether we make it through this year or not, I think we can all agree on one thing. Life can change at any moment. One day, we may be on top of the world, and the next, the world may be on top of us. If the latter is our fate, if 2012 is really our last year on this earth, let’s go out with a bang. Let’s do what we’ve always wanted to do.

Because isn’t life best when it’s lived to the fullest?

Newer posts »

Disclosure: Some links on this site may be affiliate links. This means I earn a commission on sales made through those links, while you pay no additional cost.

Alliance of Independent Authors

© 2024 Kyle A. Massa

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑