Apparently I like damaging my eardrums when I go to a concert. Last night I went to an Alter Bridge show, and took a picture of the fact that they were selling ear plugs at a rock concert. Once this was posted on my Facebook, my very loving friends informed me that earplugs don't detract from the experience but just save your eardrums from more damage.
Being that one of those friends quoted a doctor, I have no doubt it's true; BUT I just can't. I have worn plugs when I was singing so I could hear myself; however, when I'm in the crowd I want the pure experience.
Mark Tremonti in Anaheim 4/27/11
I think part of the reason I refuse is because I still have that college girl inside me. She wants the reverb, the miss-mix on occasion, the static or ringing for the hour after. She/I want to feel like I've been to a rock show/concert. It's one of the BEST feelings in the world. If you can still hear perfectly after, did you really go to a ROCK show?
Another reason goes along with that ties into the college girl inside me, and that is--I think--if I have to wear earplugs in the crowd then I'm too old to be a rock show! I don't worry about getting old in many regards--I could care less about wrinkles, gray hair (which I don't have), or the number on my driver's license. I don't need to go out to a club until 3 AM anymore; but I want my live music to be loud and deafening, damn it!
This is the sound I want (a small snipet from last night):
Alter Bridge is an AMAZING example of a GREAT rock show! I worry if I had the ear plugs in that I would miss hearing the excitement in Myles Kennedy's voice when he's speaking to the crowd; never mind the fact it would filter his angelic blues tone that brings a smile to my face and seems to reach any octave. Also, what would the plugs do to Mark Tremonti's riffs and solos? I just can't bear to even think that I could miss those nuances.
Myles Kennedy in Anaheim 4/27/11
I have a pure love for almost all music (granted I tend to focus on vocals because at heart I'm a singer). The flip side of being the stubborn child who won't use earplugs (no matter how good for me they maybe): I do make sure that during shows I take care of my voice. I only yell/scream a certain way, and I clap more than anything. I guess it is just a matter of priorities all around.
I was going to hold off on my Dr. Who's companions blog until I watched a few more episodes with Karen Gillan (Amy Pond). But with the news of Elisabeth Sladen's (Sarah Jane Smith) passing, it cannot and shouldn't wait.
I came to Dr. Who late, meaning I joined for the reboot several years later--but I'm caught up in time for this Saturday! However, once I became addicted (just a few weeks ago), I went back and watched some of the originals. I focused mainly on the episodes that starred the very lovely Elisabeth Sladen.
What I learned from those episodes is that Sarah Jane Smith/Sladen was on the forefront of feminism to some degree. She still wore dresses but fully believed that her opinion was important and should be listened to; despite the fact that the Doctor normally didn't until it was too late. I would even say that it was Sarah Jane's tenacity and intelligence that lead the creators of the reboot to cast the companions that our generation has come to love. I also loved that mastermind Russell T. Davies gave this generation a chance to learn from and love Sarah Jane Smith by bringing her into the reboot and giving her a spin off. To say that Elisabeth Sladen will be missed is putting it mildly. She exuded acceptance, joy, fun and determination on screen.
But Elisabeth Sladen certainly paved the way for what is my favorite companion: Rose Tyler. Rose had the same stubbornness of Sarah Jane, but Rose had a childlike wonder about her. Rose was the perfect companion for the reboot because she was every viewer--skeptical but fanciful. I also loved Rose because, out of the most recent companions, her relationship arc with the Doctor was the most believable. I believe they fell in love, and I could see it happen. Also, Billie Piper is just bloody brilliant and you'd have to be crazy not to love her!
My other favorite companion was Captain Jack Harkness, but I don't normally see him as a companion because I started out a Torchwoodfan and went backwards. I love Captain Jack because he throws all the rules out of the window. He is multi-sexual; man, woman, alien, doesn't matter if he feels it. His motives are not always clear or right, and even the biggest fan can get angry at or hurt by him. I think that Captain Jack is one of the most complex and intriguing characters created in at least the last decade. I also have to say that John Barrowman is beyond fantastic, and I would watch him read the phone book.
Then the other companions--I will list in the order of my liking: Donna Noble (Catherine Tate), Amy Pond (Karen Gillan), and Dr. Martha Jones (Freema Agyeman). For me the reason these are listed the way they are comes down to their relationship with the Doctor. Donna was the Doctor's best friend--nothing more, nothing less. Donna was a loud mouth, not the brightest star in the sky, and had the biggest heart. It was refreshing after the season before her.
The next is Amy Pond. Amy is the current companion, and she is very endearing. I like Amy because she seems to have quite a handle on all things TARDIS, which means she does her own share of rescuing. My least favorite is Dr. Martha Jones. Martha was fine really, and her season had tons of reveals (a few that still haven't paid off--i.e. the Face of Boe). But Martha drove me nuts because she seemed to immediately be in love with the Doctor. Her immediate "love" seemed to cheapen the connection with Rose and was overall just annoying like a besotted teenager.
I know I missed several companions (Mikey, Wilf, Rory, and some others from the original years as well). I meant no disrespect, but I'm more of a fan of the reboot. I firmly believe that all of the Doctor's companion remind him what is beautiful about being human. One of those beautiful characteristics was embodied by Sarah Jane Smith--loyalty.
So, during all of my excitement last week over Scream 4, I ignored (or maybe hoped I hallucinated) that Relativity Media was remaking The Crow. First of all, I'm not a fan of the idea of remakes (reboots) in general. I've found that in most cases, non-creative people take a film I loved and turn it into a mindless drivel with popular stars of no substance. Harsh; huh? But true.
The Crow remake/hack job is just the most recent announcement of Hollywood trying to ruin my adolescence and teenage years. (On this note, I don't understand why it seems to be the "cult" classics being remade... No one wants to blatantly rip-off Pretty in Pink I guess.) I could go on and on about the remake craze, and probably will at a later date; but for today I want to focus on this one.
The Crow for me is one of the world's most perfect movies. It has special meaning for me because it helped me cope with death, and became a staple for Christmas Eve for my mom and I. It was also just amazingly well done; and starred a man, that I think most of my generation will agree, was taken from our movie screens way too soon.
I read a blog by Annette Bourdeau about the 20 reasons why Bradley Cooper should not be Eric Draven. Annette inspired me to come up with a list of my own... The 10 reasons why a remake/reinvention/butchering just SHOULDN'T happen:
10. A remake without the original cast will likely be met by the same ill-fate as it's 3 sequels and one television show.
9. Casting is clearly already heading downhill (and I'm a Bradley Cooper fan way back to Alias, but I just can't be behind this). While I don't think anyone should reprise the role of Eric, it should at the very least be someone with a similar (not same, because there isn't anyone) presence.
8. I don't know how the music will play in this one. At the time true rock and heavy metal were still extremely popular if not mainstream. I would hate for a studio to do to The Crow what another person (::muffled cough voice:: Howard Stern) was trying to do to Rock-n-Roll High School without the Ramones (i.e. can't/shouldn't be done).
7. Why does a cult classic that had good box office numbers the first time need to be another cash cow for someone else? And, truthfully, based on the buzz thus far who is going to buy a ticket to even see that happen?
6. If you do a remake, shouldn't you employ the same rules as the original. In other words, no mega-names to be cast? The script and story are soulful and shouldn't be outshined by anyone.
5. The closest thing to a truly tortured soul character Hollywood has presented (won't say pulled off) in recent years is Edward from the Twilight series. This does NOT bode well for our generation's dark dream hero of Draven.
4. The other problem with a remake of this caliber is the outrage from the fanbase. We weren't behind sequels, despite new characters, because there was no Brandon Lee. Now Relativity wants to retry the original without him? This will denigrate and possibly piss off past Cooper fans and anyone else cast in the film.
3. According to IMDB they have already slated a new screen writer (and it's no longer Nick Cave, who I actually may have liked). Granted David J. Schow hasn't done much of note since the original; he's still out there in the world...unattached to the new re-hashing.
2. Hollywood can't do intense love stories anymore; and at the bare bones of The Crow, that's what it is.
1. To have the character Eric Draven on the big screen without Brandon Lee is sacrilege. It's a slap in his face over his death. At least the other three sequels (if not the television series) were aware of that.
All of this being said, I'm sure my blog won't put a wrench in this butc-er, remake. They should cast appropriately. I'm not sure who this would be because I don't think anyone can be Eric Draven with Brandon Lee in the ground. But a tan frat boy with baby blues doesn't come close. I just ask that Relativity Media give Draven fans the respect they deserve for wearing out our VHS' and memorabilia. Despite what travesty comes from this, we should all remember it "can't rain all the time."
If you look by the year alone, yes, it's been 15 years since the original Scream. But technically, it's not quite 15 years because the original came out in the December of 1996. Yes, I know, I'm splitting hairs; but it makes me not feel quite as old. To avoid putting spoilers in here, to the best of my ability, I thought I'd reflect on what I thought about Scream 4 and what's changed during these 14 1/2 years...
Midnight Showings Then: I was at both midnight showings for Scream 2 & Scream 3. (I was underage for the original.) Now: You couldn't pay me to go to a midnight showing (the only exception would be if an Anita Blake movie is ever made). Over the years I found out that there are typically rude, obnoxious teenagers at these that ruin the experience for me.
Woodsboro Then: The original was filmed entirely in CA, and the houses were spread far apart. I don't know why but there is something far scarier about surrounding woods than 10 feet from your neighbor. Now: The fourth installment was filmed entirely in MI. Woodsboro is now much more suburban and the high school and the town look completely different. With all the time that's passed this isn't a huge leap, except to people like me who pay way too much attention to details. I do appreciate the production trying to help stimulate the economy in Motor City though.
Sarcasm Then: It was the perfect amount and not distracting. Now: I wouldn't call this one perfect, but I understand why it was more over the top. I would expound on this but I want to avoid spoilers...So, let's just say in a post-Columbine, post-Virginia Tech world the tongue has to be farther into the cheek.
Suspense Then: The first Scream was brilliant in this department. The MPAA was stricter at the time; so the gore was less. This made Craven concentrate on simple shoe shots, deserted hallways, creepy noises, etc. Now: This is probably my biggest complaint of the new movie. The suspense wasn't any where close to as good. They could now show gorier kill scenes (which they did); that apparently also meant they sparsely used the classic, simple, amazing tricks that build the suspense. (I think I only saw one shoe shot!)
The Killer(s) Then: I didn't see the reveal coming in the first one. Craven and Williamson duped me into thinking it was the dad the first time I saw it. Now: I didn't see the reveal again. This time I think there were too many possibilities to pin it down. In other words Craven and Williamson are still fully capable, although this time they didn't have a clear misdirect to one specific character.
The Soundtrack Then: I LOVED the first soundtrack. I was addicted to Nick Cave's "Red Right Hand" (which made cameos in the other two films). I also loved "Whisper to a Scream," "Youth of America," "Don't Fear the Reaper," et al. I over played the soundtrack so much, it was my first CD to tear up strictly over how much it was played. Now: Honestly, there's no nice way to say this: The soundtrack BLOWS, and is distracting at parts. While the rest of the film paid respect to it's legacy, the soundtrack showed no history. I realize it had to appeal to a younger audience, but "Red Right Hand" strategically placed somewhere would have gone a long way with me.
Overall, though, I truly enjoyed the hell out of the film; I jumped 3 times. Craven and Williamson are still two of my favorites and I love them together (despite the fact that the doofus from Scream 3 did rewrites on the new one). I did enjoy the new cast immensely, despite the fact that Skeet Ulrich, Matthew Lillard, Rose McGowan and Jamie Kennedy hold a very special place in this horror geek's heart.
In February a lawmaker from Georgia recently decided that the language for a complaint about rape, stalking, and domestic violence is too harsh. He proposes that a victim (I call them survivors) be called the "accuser" instead of victim.
To me this is beyond idiotic. We don't call kidnapping, theft, attempted murder, or physical battery victims "accusers." We call them victims because that's what they are, and to some small minded people it's because we can see or quantify the damage done. But that is true with the above crimes as well, it's just not an item missing.
Also in January politicians started to try to redefine the actual word rape by rewriting an abortion law. The proposal was to say that abortion would receive no funding except in cases of "forcible" rape. After the years that women have spent to make sure all survivors are treated with the dignity, respect and support they deserve--lawmakers want to negate it all and say only if force is used. Keep in mind not all states have even adjusted "force" to in their laws to include date rape drugs or other narcotics used to eliminate a woman's senses (i.e. too much alcohol).
These proposed play on words are another case of people calling into question crimes against women that no one wants to talk about it. These crimes are dirty, deviant, disgusting, violating and affect a woman for her whole life in one way or another. No one wants to talk about those crimes where victims can talk back; but we, as a society, have to talk about them in order to make change in this world.
I hope these proposals are all turned down and not brought up again. A person only has to say the word "no" for it to be rape--and if a person it not able to speak, it's still a "no." It does NOT matter whether a rapist uses drugs, alcohol, body, knife, threat or a gun: It's still rape and a violation of that woman. Lawmakers can call it what the will, but survivors know what happened.
If you or someone you know has been a victim of sexual assault, please call and talk to someone: 1-800-656-HOPE (4673) or by logging on to the online hotline at http://www.rainn.org/.
With Scream 4 being released this Friday, this seems like the perfect time to finally (according to some readers) write my love of horror films blog. I feel the need to place a disclaimer before I start though: I promise I'm not really sick and twisted in any other way except for my taste in film and television. :)
Now that that's out of the way, let me begin... My love of horror films started when I was 6 or 7 years old. My Aunt Vicky was babysitting while we were staying at my grandparents house. Aunt Vicky loves horror films probably maybe as much as I do, and she put on a VHS (yes, I'm aware this dates me) of Poltergeist.
From the moment I heard Carol Anne's voice I was hooked. I loved the suspense, the gore that was good for its time, the story telling and, of course, my favorite part: the adrenaline you get right before you jump. It wasn't long after that night that my once musical foddered requests from the video store started being sprinkled with the genre that is still my favorite to this day--horror. Although it was still several years before my parents agreed to let me rent them, I found ways and friends to sneak them in with like any child who is told "no."
Once my parents finally said "yes," I fell in love with Wes Craven and John Carpenter. I could watch Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street over and over again. This infatuation some times pulled me away from family movie nights. My brothers would inevitably pick out a comedy or action film I wasn't interested in, so I'd stow away in my parents room with which ever VHS I had conned my dad into letting me rent. One of these is scorched into my brain because my baby brother, who at the time was maybe 4, insisted on watching Invasion of the Body Snatchers (circa 1978) with me. (For anyone who's thinking I'm a horrible big sister--1. I covered his eyes during the scary parts; and 2. I may actually be once you read more).
Then high school came along and I felt like I couldn't really be scared anymore; and my sophomore year I saw the release of Scream (I know I really just dated myself with that one!). I fell in love and adoration again with Wes Craven and found a new writing hero through Kevin Williamson (my other Kevin obsession). It was the first horror film that I felt was actually written for MY generation. The characters (especially Randy) said what I thought, being the horror buff geek that I was/am. I topped off my high school years on prom night, luckily with friends that loved me, and had a scare-a-thon with the original Prom Night, Carrie, and--just for giggles--Prom Night 2.
Scream renewed the horror genre and I suddenly had tons of choices in the box office (though few were as clever as Scream). College was much the same thing of not being scared, although the Ring did make me jump. And this is the story where I may just be a horrible big sister. One of my brothers insisted on going with a group of us to see the Ring, needless to say the movie scared him. He wanted his big sister to sleep in his room, and I did on his couch. (Aw! I know!) The next morning this same, sweet, adoring big sister taunted said brother with phone calls ("7 days") and turning the television to static from the other room unseen. This story amuses me; even though I'm not sure he ever really forgave me.
Grad school, I still saw as many horror films as I could get my hands on. My thesis was a horror film that I wrote in homage to the genre (Scream specifically) and to Heathers. But, alas, I met my husband: who does NOT like horror films, especially in theaters. Luckily, he loves me enough to rent them after they come out. There are a few exceptions: Saw and Scream, which means I will be seeing that one with the hubby in theaters.
As strong as my love of horror films is, I'm very critical. I judge the films by several different criteria, but the most important is if I jump or not. I say the most important because if I'm seeing a horror film, I want to be swept up in a story and scared enough to jump. This, for me, made Insidious a very scary movie (I jumped 6 or 7 times; and thanks Cara for going with me!). So, I will let everyone know if Scream 4 can do make me jump or not.
So, for the last three Wednesdays I have been off work--this is not a bad thing. For the last weeks there have been new episodes of The Good Wife--also, not a bad thing. BUT because I was off work, I've missed out on a very important part of my week: the post Good Wife Ingy/Polly time (this is the bad thing--very bad).
My cubemate and I both enjoy our fair amount of television. We don't have the exact same tastes in programs, but we have similar enough that after a good episode we both brim with anticipation to discuss it. Although we didn't figure this out until it seemed like we were the only two people in our office watching The Good Wife last year.
While we both always have the best of intentions of watching the show on Tuesday night at 10 PM when it airs (yes, I'm shamelessly plugging the show); every once in a while things (er, sleep) comes up and the talk is postponed. But despite feeling a little tired today, I feel the need to take a jolt of caffeine to make sure that I can have this very important conversation tomorrow.
To non-TV watchers or non-Good Wife fans (which if you are, you should rectify that because the show is brilliant!), this may not seem like a big deal. But discussing the Lockhart/Gardner/Former Bond firm's demise and relaunch, or who has Peter slept with now, or what is Kalinda's biggest secret, and could Alicia be ANY stronger? are very important to us.
The writing on the show is amazing. The performances are breathtaking. The fact that they took a real life circumstance (politicians cheating on their wives) and made it into a victorious woman's story is brilliant and satisfying to any viewer.
As I settle in tonight for my television viewing, I am truly giddy for the morning!
For anyone who thinks I'm going to talk about a strange medical condition or talk about an intrusive exam, do not worry--not going to happen. I firmly believe there is such a thing as TMI and I refuse to do that, at least at this point. Instead, I will be talking about my latest obsession: Doctor Who.
I have two very close friends who are to blame for this infatuation. But the truth is, I'm shocked I didn't find it on my own. The show as everything I love: snarky humor, sci-fi elements, supernatural elements, cleverly embedded foreshadowing, social commentary, a tortured guy who copes with humor, and a season long story arc. Not to mention one of my other favorite shows, Torchwood, spun off from Doctor Who.
I spent four days of my recent vacation doing nothing but watching the reboot of Doctor Who, spending time with my husband and sleeping. It's safe to say I became addicted to Russell T. Davies. I say to Davies and not the actual show because Davies is brilliant. I am in LOVE with the way he weaves story and drops subtle foreshadowing. His skill makes you want to immediately go back and re-watch an episode just to see if you missed any clues.
Couple that brilliance with the phenomenal David Tennant, and the show, for three years, could do no wrong. The first season of the re-boot were still fantastic, but Christopher Eccleston was a little too spastic for me. But you can't deny that he and Billie Piper were successful at relaunching this brand. I really liked Piper and once she was paired with Tennant it became adoration (I'll do an entire post on the Doctor's companions later, though).
However, this adoration made me very tentative about watching the most recent season with a new Doctor and show runner. That being said, I was able to watch the last 4 episodes on demand through cable television. Matt Smith didn't make me all warm and fuzzy like Tennant, but he's not a bad Doctor. The writing, to me wasn't as clever and crisp, but Smith was enjoyable and fun. In fact, one could say he's a good Doctor. We all have our favorite Doctor who we'd love to hitch a ride on the TARDIS with; but a favorite doesn't make them the only good Doctor.
April is an awareness month for a cause that is very dear to my heart--sexual assault. But I have yet to see a commercial for it; however I have seen other commercials for another cause-Parkinson's disease. I don't take issue with sharing a month; afterall there are more causes in the world than the 12 months the calendar provides.
But I DO take issue with a cause that can't be prevented getting more (or any) attention to a cause that with enough awareness can protect some human beings from an assault that will stay with them in some way shape or form for the rest of their lives. Parkinson's is a worthy cause and research is very important for those diagnosed to be able to manage the disease or even find a cure. The same is true for MS, cancer, arthritis and any other disease that is incurable but manageable.
Statistics on Parkinson's states that 1 in 272 people are diagnosed with the disease. They also estimate that the number is really 1 in 90 people suffer from the disease but not all are diagnosed. The symptoms and characteristics of this disease increase over time and, until there is a cure, remain with the those diagnosed until death.
Statistics on sexual assault say 1 out of 6 women are victims/survivors, and 1 out of 33 men are victims/survivors. By all accounts, these numbers are probably low because rape and other sexual assaults are not always reported. The effects of being a survivor of sexual assault include PTSD. PTSD's symptoms and characteristics also last a life time; although they are do not visually present as those of Parkinson's.
During this month I will post several other blogs about sexual assault and do my own part in raising awareness since the media seems to have forgotten.
If you or someone you know has been a victim of sexual assault, please call and talk to someone: 1-800-656-HOPE (4673) or by logging on to the online hotline at http://www.rainn.org/.
