What Phil Claimed about Beatles Fans

 Phil posited, "Whenever anyone under 37 tells me their favorite band is The Beatles, I always ask the same two questions: 1) Are your parents huge Beatles fans and 2) Do you go to a lot of concerts. I almost invariably get the same two answers: yes and no. That tells me they just aren’t a big fan of music in general and they’re purely tapping into nostalgia. They choose the Beatles b/c it’s a fairly inoffensive answer and they don’t have much more to draw on. I got bad news for you: The Beatles have been iterated on. If you asked an alien to listen to the Beatles and Oasis and asked the alien who the better band is, it would pick Oasis..."

Most of you know I am a huge fan of The Beatles and will often defend them when people attempt to trash them or their fans. When Phil claimed Beatles fans are not well educated in music, I immediately became interested.  Here my answers to your questions.  1) No  2) No.  My dad is not a huge fan but was like everyone else growing up in America throughout the 1960s - typically enjoying The Beatles. My mom is a big Patsy Cline and Elvis fan.  She appreciates The Beatles but not exactly a big fan.  I turned on to them when I was teenager because I would rather listen to Rubber Soul (one of their better albums) than any rap or the pop shit on the mainstream radio during the mid to late 90s.  When I heard the White Album, Revolver, and Abbey Road, I was sold.

Why do I not go to concerts?  I don't like the atmosphere.  I saw O.A.R. live and it was fun but I could easily enjoy "Crazy Game of Poker," "City on Down," and "This Town" through my home stereo system and/or phone.  I saw Lifehouse and Dot Dot Dot at the Bluebird when I lived in Bloomington and the both put on great shows but I hated feeling trapped.  I have no interest in being around a mosh pit or a lot of weed so concerts aren't my scene.

Yes, Phil is correct that The Beatles were iterated but way sooner than Oasis.  The Beatles kicked off the British Invasion during the mid 1960s and were successful.  From their success, we heard from other noun based bands prefaced by an article such as The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Zombies, The Hollies, The Animals, The Kinks, The Moody Blues, The Troggs, and The Yardbirds.  So yes, Phil, The Beatles were iterated but they also iterated other bands,  One song that gets mistakenly credited to them is "Twist and Shout."  That song belongs to the Isley Brothers, it's just that The Beatles did it better.  They also covered Buddy Holly's "Words of Love," and it sounds better than the original. The Beatles get mimicked when bands don't even know they are doing it.

Now, Phil specifically mentioned Oasis as iterating The Beatles.  The Beatles were a four member band with each member playing an instrument and singing.  Oasis had (have?) five members and more or less resemble The Rolling Stones.  Why compare them to The Beatles?  Because they're British?  Well, so are the Stones and have the same amount of members, so why not the Stones?  Would Phil think the same way if someone said The Stones were his/her favorite band?  The Who?  Zeppelin?  Aerosmith?  Hahaha - Aerosmith...anyway.  I think it comes down to the fact Phil doesn't like The Beatles or that they are consistently ranked as the top band by Rolling Stone Magazine. I sense some jealousy.

Finally, Phil stated that "if you asked an alien to listen to the Beatles and Oasis and asked the alien who the better band is, it would pick Oasis."  That has to be one of the dumbest things I read and sometimes I read an editorial from Fox News.  I can think of three big hits from Oasis: "Wonderwall," "Champagne Supernova," and "Don't Look Back in Anger."  I can think of twenty - seven number one hits from the Beatles so let's contrast.  "Get Back" or "Wonderwall"...."Hey Jude" or "Wonderwall"  "All You Need is Love" or "Wonderwall"..."Eleanor Rigby" or "Wonderwall"...."Help!" or "Wonderwall"....yeah, an alien would not pick Oasis.  I think Phil just enjoyed this SNL skit too much and believed what the Will Ferrell character said

So Phil, I understand I am not like all Beatles' fans you encountered.  After all, I worked as a DJ/Producer in college (big whoop) and had to keep up with new music every week.  To dismiss all fans of one band is way too simplistic.  C'mon, us Beatles' fans are not Yankees fans.  When someone asks me what is my favorite band, I have a tough time answering it because I love Soundgarden, Nirvana, Alice in Chains, Boston, Journey, Florence + The Machine, The Shins, Mellencamp, and many many others.  I then ask the questioner, "of all time?"  If that's the case, it is The Beatles...without hesitation or equivocation. 

Genres: The Debate Continues

Hartman was right all along.  If we're going to do genres, it needs to be formalized.  I started with this link and mostly stuck to it: http://www.filmsite.org/genres.html

Genre proposition is as follows:

Action (sub-genres of Martial Arts (Ong Bak), Superhero (The Avengers), Exploitation (Machete), Spy (Skyfall), Disaster (Sharknado), Revenge (Kill Bill), Bad-Ass (Con Air), Chase (The Fugitive), Revolution (Hunger Games))

Adventure (sub-genres of Treasure Hunt (National Treasure), Fantasy (Lord of the Rings), Journey (Life of Pi), Life Story (Forrest Gump), Swashbuckler (Aladdin))

Comedy (sub-genres of Spoof (Austin Powers), Satire (Office Space), Slapstick (Ace Ventura), Raunchy (There's Something About Mary), Character-Based (Funny People), Romantic (The Ugly Truth), Sports (Major League), Drug (Pineapple Express))

Crime (sub genres of Mafia (Goodfellas), Heist (Ocean's Eleven), Small-Time (Fargo), Gangster (Pulp Fiction), Police (French Connection))

Documentary (sub-genres of Activist (Blackfish), Participatory (Farenheit 9/11), Personal (Dear Zachary), Investigatory (Standard Operating Procedure), Competition (King of Kong), Nature (March of the Penguins), Verite (Only the Young), Performance (Conan O'Brien Can't Stop))

Drama (sub-genres of Historical (Lincoln), Biopic (Walk the Line), Romance (Punch Drunk Love), Family (Little Miss Sunshine), Workplace (Glengarry Glen Ross), Psychodrama (Fight Club), Sports (Rocky), Ensemble (Crash), Coming of Age (Stand By Me), Character Study (There Will Be Blood))

Epic (sub-genres of Sword and Sandals (Gladiator), Heroic (Braveheart), War (Apocalypse Now))

Horror (sub-genres of Torture Porn (Saw), Slasher (Friday the 13th), Serial Killer (Se7en), Satanic (The Exorcist), Home Invasion (Straw Dogs), Psychological (The Shining), Creature (Jaws), Ghosts (Sixth Sense), Zombie (28 Days Later), Mythical (Dracula))

Musicals

Science Fiction (sub-genres of Space Travel (Sunshine), Aliens (Alien), Technology (Terminator 2), Time Travel (Back to the Future), Space Opera (Star Wars))

Westerns (genres of Classic (3:10 to Yuma) and Revisionist (Unforgiven))

What do you think?

Summer TV

In terms of media entertainment, it’s tough to get much worse than July.  If you’re a big movie fan, all the major summer blockbusters are out, and now we’re getting the garbage action stuff.  (Hercules will surely be a guilty pleasure for me though.)  If you’re a sports fan, all you got are preseason NFL reports and dog days baseball.  If you’re a video game fan (like me), you’re getting a lot of solid one-off experiences while waiting for the fall tidal wave.  And if you’re a TV fan, you’re getting the stuff not good enough for the fall/spring, save a couple hidden gems.  So, with that, what the hell is everyone watching?  And better yet, is there anything good out there?  In case you wanna jump into something, here’s how everything is doing in the ratings…

http://uproxx.com/tv/2014/07/how-are-the-new-summer-shows-like-the-strain-and-the-leftovers-doing-in-the-ratings-so-far/

Here’s what I’m watching, from most interesting to least…

The Leftovers

Synopsis: The Leftovers takes place three years after a global "Rapture", which caused the unexplainable disappearance of 2% of the world population. It centers not on the people who were taken, but on the ones left behind, in the hamlet of Mapleton, New York.

My Thoughts: Fantastic concept on paper that is being done… fairly well.  The show mainly follows the town sheriff and his fractured family, using them as a conduit to give us how various groups have come to terms with the event.  Since it’s from the creator of Lost, it’s not surprising that the mystery is the draw.  I also have issues with the central storyline revolving around a strange cult known as The Guilty Remnants. 

(Side note: I was 99.99999% sure that we would not see an on-screen death more gruesome than “you know which one” from Game of Thrones in all of 2014.  HOLY BEJESUS WAS I WRONG.  The one from this week’s episode takes the cake, the pie, and any other desserts you would be offering up.)

Nathan For You

Synopsis: In the series, Fielder plays an off-kilter version of himself, who tries to use his business background (a commerce degree from the University of Victoria (UVIC) in 2005) and life experiences to help struggling companies and people, offering them strategies that no traditional business consultant would dare to attempt.

My Thoughts: PLEASE TELL ME SOMEONE ELSE IS WATCHING THIS SHOW!  It’s amazing.  Easily the best thing on during the summer.  I have the infamous “Dumb Starbucks” episode DVR’ed currently.

Tyrant

Synopsis: Bassam "Barry" Al Fayeed is from the war-torn fictional country of Abbudin. He has been living in self-imposed exile in Los Angeles for nearly 20 years. Barry, the younger son of Abbudin's dictator, ends his exile to return with his American family to his homeland for his nephew's wedding. His arrival leads to a dramatic culture clash, as he reluctantly returns to the familial and national politics he once left.

My Thoughts:The trailer drew me in and I’ve never watched any FX drama, so why not start here.  I’m not sure I’m gonna last with this one.  Character actions are pretty silly for a show taking itself so seriously, and the potential for the "White Savior" is taken to the nth degree in such an unbelievable way (yes the main character isn't white, but the concept is analogous).

Wilfred

Synopsis: The show follows a young man named Ryan (Elijah Wood) and his neighbor's dog Wilfred (Jason Gann). In the opening episode, Ryan concocts a drug cocktail in order to commit suicide. After this failed attempt, Ryan's neighbor, Jenna (Fiona Gubelmann), knocks on his door to ask him to look after Wilfred, whom Ryan sees and hears as a man in a dog costume.

My Take: I’m dangerously close to “hate-watch” territory with this one.  I just want to see how it ends, and I’m very much prepared to be let down big time.

Emmy Nominations

Here's a solid list of the Emmy nominations with some commentary from Metacritic...

http://www.metacritic.com/feature/2014-primetime-emmy-nominees

No point in going to the insanity that networks get to classify their stuff as comedy/drama/miniseries, as that's a whole other post.  I'm just going to throw out my very unresearched and uninformed predictions in the Drama and Comedy categories.

Drama

Outstanding Drama: We all missed Downton Abbey in the prediction post.  Hey, here's a fun fact - only ONE of these shows aired more than 10 episodes this Emmy year (House of Cards).  Game of Thrones at 10 was second highest.  Even though it should be in miniseries, I'll go True Detective.  Definitely commited to a vision, and it was strong start to finish.  I still think it's cheating it's even in here.
Lead Actor: You know Jon Hamm is licking his chops for 2015.  Regardless, Cranston and McConaughey are a total tossup if you ask me.  I think the voters go with Matthew McConaughey b/c they only have one shot and he definitely deserves something.
Lead Actress: Only show I've ever watched on this list is Scandal, and Kerry Washington ain't winning for that performance.  I'll go chalk here: Claire Danes.
Supporting Actor: It would be a travesty of the highest order if Peter Dinklage lost.  I'm guessing he'll be the biggest favorite to win in the Drama races.
Supporting Actress: I thought Lena Headey had a strong season, so why not?
Guest Actor: I feel like this is a dark horse pick - Joe Morton  made every scene he was in better in Scandal.  I'll go with him.  Bert Cooper is definitely not winning.
Guest Actress: No clue as I only watched three of these shows.  Of those I do watch, Diana Rigg is a standout.
Writing: Maybe I'm crazy, but this one feels like a slam dunk for Moira Walley-Beckett.  Even though I didn't watch Breaking Bad, I've heard how great "Ozymandias" was. 
Director: Another slam dunk.  Cary Joji Fukunaga locked this sucker up with one shot.

Comedy

Outstanding Comedy: I really hope Modern Family doesn't win, only because it's not as good as its legacy would suggest.  Nope, give this one to critic darling Orange is the New Black.
Lead Actor: Jeez, I watch none of these.  Just b/c I like him, Louis C.K.
Lead Actress: Stacked group.  Amy Poehler deserves to win for Leslie Knope at some point, but not sure it's this year.  Julie Louis-Dreyfus in a walk probably.
Supporting Actor: I thought Andre Braugher was great in Brooklyn 99.
Supporting Actress: No clue, as I don't think Kate Mulgrew is one of the stronger OITNB performers.  I thought Anna Chlumsky had a strong year in Veep, so I'll go that route.
Guest Actor: Gary Cole dominated in Veep with a fun role.  Sure.
Guest Actress:  Wow, there are all the OITNB noms.  One of 'em is probably gonna win, and it should probably be Uzo Aduba, who had the toughest role and nailed it.
Writing: No clue.  Veep's writing is always strong, so Simon Blackwell, Tony Roche, Armando Iannucci.
Directing: Hey remember when everyone watched Glee?  Anyway, just b/c they won't shut Modern Family out complete, Julia Mancuso.

Grading Philosophies

Having now completed one full round of Mediocre Movie Reviews, I can’t help but think about our similarities and differences in grading philosophy.  I have been trying to gauge how most of us grade movies, and I feel that we all approach things at a slightly different angle.  This is definitely a good thing – it’d be extremely boring if we all just gave out the same grade.  It’s fun to have divisive movies like Machete Kills out there; the most interesting discussions have come from the movies that divided us the most.  That being said, I was hoping each of us could briefly sum up how we grade movies, just to give the rest of us a better idea where we’re coming from with our grades.

Now, I know on the spreadsheet, Kissel has included his "rubric" if you will.  I’m glad that works for him, but it feels a little too “checklist” for me personally.  I have a feeling that if Kissel took a Myers-Briggs personality test, he’d score high in the Sensing category (See: http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/sensing-or-intuition.asp).  My personality type doesn’t jive with that sort of system (I’m pretty in the middle on sensing vs. intuition, but I tend to end up closer to the side of intuition), and I end up grading on a much more blurry scale.  That said it’s impossible to give out a grade without having some sort of criteria.  Here are some of the questions I ask myself when formulating my final grade for a movie:

Did this movie achieve its implied objective? – This is far and away my biggest consideration.  Not every movie is made to be a best picture nominee.  If the goal of a movie is to make me think, and it makes me think, I’ll probably give it a decent grade, regardless of my enjoyment.  Not surprisingly, this is VERY difficult to do with comedy, as comedy is so subjective and drawn from personal experiences.  We all have those movies that we basically say “I get it.  Someone probably finds this funny.  I’m just not one of them.”  The example that sticks out to me for this is Bad Santa.  I don’t remember what grade I gave it, but it’s an F- for me personally.  I probably gave it a higher grade because I know some people do find that crap funny, and Billy Bob does a good job of acting in it.

Did I enjoy this movie? – Seems simple enough, but I figured I’d point out it isn’t my chief concern when grading.  As difficult as it can be, I try my damnedest to remove my personal taste best I can.  For example, I must admit that I enjoyed The Game more than Holy Motors while watching.  However, I gave Holy Motors a higher grade.  I felt that it was definitely a better movie, even if it didn’t necessarily enjoy the experience.  This is an issue I will forever have with character pieces.  To me, they tend to meander.

Would I rewatch this movie? – This is a concern depending on the type of movie.  There are several movies I absolutely love that I really don’t need to watch again.  My brother has a theory that many movies only have so many “good watches” in them.  Eventually, you just can’t be emotionally impacted by them anymore.  Gladiator is maybe my favorite movie ever, but I’m pretty confident I’ve exhausted all my “good watches.”  Likewise, I still have a few in the bank for Shawshank Redemption, and I’ve made sure to save them.  Comedies and action movies need to be rewatchable to be good.  They have to pass the “channel surfing test” that I referenced in my Machete Kills review.  The “channel surfing test” is simple – if I were flipping channels and saw this movie on, would I stick with it, and if so, for how long?  If a Rocky movie is on, I might stick depending on what the scene is.  If The Two Towers is on, I’m almost assuredly going to be sucked in for the duration.

Is this movie meant to be watched this way? – Let’s face it, some movies stand on their own, while others demand an experience.  I’m not talking Rocky Horror Picture Show levels necessarily, but some movies are undeniably better to watch in a group.  Not to keep referencing it, but Machete Kills feels like a movie that is meant to be watched with a group of people while everyone is drinking.  Pineapple Express is meant to be watched while stoned (probably).  Again, this is tough to consider, and even tougher to simulate for the purposes of this group.  I wonder what our Machete Kills reviews would have been had we all watched it together, then reviewed on our own after the fact.

That’s a quick summary of some of the things I consider when reviewing.  I know there are a handful of things I do not consider while others do.  Here are two of the biggies that I’ve seen mentioned in other reviews on here that I don’t personally ascribe to.

One of the big things I do not consider that I think many of us do is time & place for older movies like Taxi Driver.  I kind of understand the social climate going on, but I wasn’t watching in 1976.  I watched the movie in 2014, and I want to discuss how the movie felt to me in 2014.  Most people aren’t going to pick up on cultural subtleties of the movie, as they may not have that personal well of knowledge to draw from.  I can only review the movie as a cultural outsider, so I’ll review it from that perspective.  An older movie doesn't necessarily have to draw on its time and place to be interesting.  Some movies are timeless and translate in any climate (see: The Graduate).

I also do not consider whether or not I actually remember the plot.  For the most part, people have terrible memories when it comes to the plot of anything, especially for movies they’ve only seen once.  I cannot tell you a great number of details from Big Fish.  However, I remember the experience and how it made me feel at the time.  If that was strong enough, then it’ll get a higher grade from me.  Many older movies that I did not grade were movies that I watched but could not remember for the life of me any major plot points or my own feelings.  Odds are these are a bunch of B-/C+’s for me, but it probably wouldn’t hurt to rewatch and figure it out before actually grading.

So, with that, how does everyone else grade?  Do you have a checklist method?  Is it purely based on your enjoyment?  Or are we all reviewing the exact same way?

Revisiting Westeros - GoT 1: Winter is Coming

While we wait for this Holy Motors debate to take over our lives (I'm calling it; it will happen), let's begin the "who knows how often I'll actually do this" series we were all waiting for: REVISITING WESTEROS!  Yes, I actually did sit down and watch the very first episode of Game of Thrones for the first time since its original airing.  Some thoughts from that original episode (Spoilers for anyone not caught up are coming):

• I miss Ned Stark.  Sean Bean, bad ass.  Pretty much all you need to know about Ned is in that initial scene where he executes the deserter of the Night's Watch.  "The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword."  Good on you Ned.
• The show felt so much more light-hearted, but that's probably b/c the tragedy isn't until the end.  Watching all the Stark kids interact together was heart-warming and depressing at the same time, knowing where all of them are now.
• If you need a reason to watch anything in this episode, go back and watch Tyrion's first scene.  His hair is RIDICULOUS.  They gave Dinklage some emo blonde wig that looks completely insane.  I'm fairly certain the wig didn't even make it to the end of the episode.  I have no idea why they didn't just reshoot that scene.
• Cersei's character has not changed in the slightest.  Every living character has become someone much different.  Not her.
• I forgot Jon's relationship with Catelyn.  What a bitch, huh?  Jon's relationship with much of the family was interesting.  Of course, it was only for motivation purposes.  I can't see how any of it affects the remainder of the story at this point.
• Speaking of living and dying, here's a list of the cast of this episode, and where they are now.  Not surprised which list is longer.  Enjoy!

Game of Thrones 40: The Children

Well, we have 10 months to talk about this one, so make it count!

What does Jon Snow know now? We all happy to see Mance back? Where the hell does Stannis come from? Can you fit that many horse through Castle Black's gate so fast? What exactly is a proper northern drink, anyway?

Can we get Maester Aemon in every episode? Every damn one. Speaking of not Maesters... what's going on with the Mountain?

Welcome back Emilia Clarke, am I right? But, why didn't Daeny tell the ex-slave he can work for his old master, instead of this slave contract thing? Burning toddlers now, Drogon... not cool. Did you get teary eyed for the dragons? Where are your dragons!?!?! Oh, in the catacombs, where you put them.

Skeletons! Any other Skyrim players get excited for this? Any body else get a quick sad feeling for Hodor again? Is that a tree, or a person... it's no raven with three eyes! How's Bran gonna fly?! He could have used that ability in episode 1.

How about Cersei, letting her dad in on the family secret? Shouldn't he be proud.. that's a lot of Lannister blood in those grandchildren!

Who would you have bet on between Brienne and the Hound? More perplexing.. how the hell did Arya and The Hound get away from the gate... I questioned this before, and still do. They wouldn't just let them walk away would they? Logically speaking, Littlefinger and Sansa may have paid good money for Arya, right? Oh well.  Should Arya have given him mercy? Is he dead?!  Anybody forget she was carrying that coin around?

Oh, Tyrion... you just couldn't leave without causing a ruckus, could you? What'd you think about Shae's last moment? In the end, Tywin shit, but not gold, eh? Give me some thoughts on that conversation! Any guess as to where that crate is headed?

I'm sure there's more to talk about... and much to speculate on for next season, especially if you like Dornish things!