Second Verse, Same as the First

I'm kind of getting into a groove with my writing/blogging lately.  By "a groove," I mean that I am more writing for myself than for the six people who read the blog.  I have often heard that writing needs to be practiced if you want to get really good at it.  And I have found that to be true - when I get out of the habit of writing, I have a harder time getting back into the swing of it.  I also think my writing is rougher when I get back into it.  So I'm pretty glad I am starting to get back into the swing.  (You may not be, but there are plenty other options out there for you.  Like THIS for example.  See, now I'm not such a bad option.)  Of course, me writing more often means that you will probably be subjected to my oft-threatened "Why Green Superheroes Don't Work on Screen" post.  Win some, lose some.

The other night, I was watching a riveting football game between national powerhouses (that was a lie - I was watching Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban for the fiftieth time).  A commercial ran for Like Crazy - a movie starring Chekov from the new Star Trek movie that I will never even think about watching, even under duress.  In the background of the commercial, I heard a somewhat familiar song playing, but being sung by someone I hadn't heard before.  I did a quick Google search and found out it was Ingrid Michaelson singing "Can't Help Falling in Love" - alson known as "Fools Rush In."  I went ahead and got the song on iTunes and it was really good - a completely original version that really added some touching depth to the song.

It got me thinking.  I have four versions of that song in my iTunes library and really like all of them.  (There are probably several hundred takes on that song in existence.)  Do you have songs like that, where you have multiple versions that are equally entertaining?  I'm not really talking about Christmas songs.  I have nine versions of "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen," fourteen versions of "O Holy Night," twenty-one versions of "Silent Night."  There are only so many Christmas songs to record, so there is going to be a massive amount of duplication.  You have the same situation with hymns and praise songs.  I have multiple recordings of "Amazing Grace" and "Come Thou Fount" and "I Could Sing of Your Love Forever."  I'm talking about regular songs that have been recorded several times, but where the artist brings a fresh take to it each time.  I'm a sucker for remakes, especially really good ones or ones that salvage a cruddy song.  (Go listen to U2's version of Gloria Estafan's ridiculous "Everlasting Love" or Chris Daughtry's acoustic "Poker Face.") If an artist I like does a remake on some obscure album, I usually get it (find Coldplay's live take on REM's "Everybody Hurts").

It is pretty common to have two versions of a song.  Remakes happen frequently - especially in the age of shows like American Idol, X Factor, and Glee (especially Glee).  But I think it is much more rare to have a song with three or more versions.  It is also hard to find songs that are uniquely and creatively remade.  Take "Unchained Melody."  Tons of people have done that song, but most of them aren't very original - they just sound like a bad karaoke version of The Righteous Brothers.  So I went through my iTunes library to find out which songs I had multiple versions of and decided to evaluate why in the world I own them all.

• "Can't Help Falling in Love" - 4 versions - Elvis Presley, Bono, UB40, Ingrid Michaelson - This is one of those rare songs were each version is a winner.  Obviously, the original Elvis version is a classic.  Bono recorded his version for the movie Honeymoon in Vegas with Nic Cage, SJP, and James Caan (forgettable movie indeed).  It was beautiful, with Bono's falsetto floating in during the last third to add a tenderness that wasn't there in Presley's.  Right after that UB40 recorded the song for Sliver with Billy Baldwin and Sharon Stone.  (Okay, the song doesn't have a great movie track record.)  The reggae twist on the song almost transmits a joyfulness in the singer's inability to quit loving this person.  It isn't mourning or longing as much as professing love.  Then Michaelson's version is just incredible and lovely - full of aching and desperation missing in each other version.  I love all four.  
• "For Once In My Life" - 3 versions - Frank Sinatra, Michael Buble, Stevie Wonder - Right off the bat, my problem is that I am sucker for Motown Stevie Wonder.  I think his version of this song is just amazing.  It is pretty special to have a song that can hold up to a Motown treatment and a too-cool Jazz version.  I'm not always the biggest Sinatra fan, but he does a decent job.  Buble is giving his version of Sinatra's version.  (When you get down to it, isn't Buble's entire career his version of Sinatra?)  To me, the Stevie song is by far the best take.
• "Hallelujah" - 6 versions - Leonard Cohen, Jeff Buckley, kd lang, Jason Castro, Rufus Wainright/John Cale - I'll admit it.  I never had heard of this song before Shrek.  I fell in love with it in the film (Cale's version).  The CD came with Wainright instead - another good version.  Then I got Jeff Buckley's absolute home run of a version - the one most people recognize.  Finally I purchased the Cohen original and kind of wondered how it had spawned so many remakes, unless people just were convinced they could do a better take on a beautifully written song.  Jason Castro has a surprisingly nice, but not groundbreaking, recording of it.  And kd lang's from the Winter Olympics is glorious.  This is one of those songs where all of them are going to be somewhat similar - haunting, moving, powerful.  There will be degrees of those things.  You probably won't hear a reggae version, thank goodness.  (Well, I won't buy it if there is one.) Personally, I would rank them Buckley, Cale, lang, Cohen, Rufus, Castro.  
• "How Can You Mend a Broken Heart" - 3 versions - BeeGees, Melinda Doolittle, Michael Buble - The last season of "American Idol" we really were into was Season Six.  I even got the CD at the end of the season, which is why you will see Idol versions of several songs.  This song is one of my favorites.  I love the BeeGees version.  It carries with it a level of sadness and pain that is not always evident in the disco loving group.  Buble's take is smoother, but it also incorporates the BeeGees falsetto throughout the last third - a nice move, I always felt.  Doolittle's song is stupid.  She refused to sing "how can a loser ever win" because she didn't like calling people losers.  That alone disqualifies the song.  She also sang it in her too-characteristic milquetoast style.  (I still think if she had embraced her inner Tina Turner she would have won.  Her best performances were the rocking ones.)  Admittedly, I don't have the Al Green version.  I'm probably missing out.  But I never claimed to be authoritative on music.  And his is over six minutes - a big dragged out.
• "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" - 4 versions - Gladys Knight, Marvin Gaye, Creedence Clearwater Revival, California Raisins - Another brilliant song.  I'm not a huge CCR fan and I am a HUGE Gladys Knight fan.  Even today, Gladys Knight could sing most divas under the table.  I think it is a riot when they bring her onto a show like Idol and she humiliates whoever it is she is supposed to duet with.  Then she kind of gives them a "nice try" look and walks off stage.  So you can guess where I land on this.  But, the Marvin Gaye version was also incredible.  I have a Motown Classics Gold album with the forty greatest Motown songs (not at all subjective).  It includes BOTH Knight's and Gaye's version - one right after another on the album.  That doesn't happen often.  The CCR version is fine with a nice Southern rock twist on the song.  But the real winner, obviously, is the California Raisins.   
• "I Want You Back" - 3 versions - Jackson Five, The Waiting, Smokey Robinson - The Jackson Five version is awesome.  The Waiting version is fun.  The Smokey one is slow and too mellow - like a lot of Smokey's stuff.  Again, just my opinion.
• "I'll Stand By You" - 3 versions - The Pretenders, Gina Glocksen, Glee - This is one of those "what the heck?" songs where having multiple versions don't make sense.  I never was a huge fan of The Pretenders version.  It was a bit much for me.  I got the Glocksen one on the aforementioned Idol CD.  It sounds like karaoke.  Then I got the Glee version on one of their CDs.  It was one of the dumber songs and one of the dumber sequences in the show.  Finn sang this to an ultrasound of his unborn child that wasn't really his.  Why do I have three versions of this?
• "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" - 6 versions - Judy Garland, Straight No Chaser, Israel Kamakawiwo'ole (2 versions), Glee, Matthew Morrison and Gwyneth Paltrow - Here we go... This is probably the quintessential remake song.  Yes, I have six versions.  You have the original one made famous by Wizard of Oz.  Obviously a classic that has led to countless remakes and redos.  Then, along came Israel Kamakawiwo'ole and his absolutely brilliant Hawaiian ukelele version.  That completely changed the song.  The Straight No Chaser version is a mashup with Jason Mraz's "I'm Yours" that owes more to Iz's classic than Oz's.  Iz himself released two takes - one stand alone and one incredible mashup with "What a Wonderful World."  Then you have the Glee version that Matthew Morrison sang at the end of Season One.  I have to give Morrison credit; he did a good job.  It is basically a remake of Iz's take, complete with ukelele.  But Morrison's voice is less island, so it makes it a little blander.  His duet with Paltrow on his solo album is kind of a mashup of both the Oz and Iz versions.  It is good, but I don't think it is as good as the Glee version.  All in all, though, you have at least two very distinct takes on the same song that are both very good in their own right.  That puts it in the class of "Can't Help Falling in Love."
• "Imagine" - 3 versions - John Lennon, Blake Lewis, Glee - This is where I get in trouble.  I hate this song.  I don't care if it is one of the most popular songs in history or that it was written by Lennon.  I hate it.  I have always hated it.  Part of it is that I don't like some of what it says.  I can get on board for prayers for world peace.  But Lennon puts out that the way to accomplish that is get rid of a whole bunch of stuff - including God and religion.  Obviously, that kind of hits close to home for me.  I did not purchase any of these versions - they came on collections that I wanted.  I'll move on before I get blasted by the pro-Imagine crowd.
• "In Christ Alone" - 4 versions - Travis Cottrell (2 versions), Page CXVI, Avalon - Technically, this would fall into the praise and worship category.  But it is also a very good example of how different takes can completely alter a song.  The Avalon version of this song is the pretty standard version that has been heard in churches all over the country.  It is a good song with a great message and powerful emotion.  The Page CXVI is very low key and mellow.  Personally, I think it really robs the song of its power, but some people love it.  The Travis Cottrell version is incredible.  He mashes it up with "Solid Rock" and brings in a praise team.  I have two different live versions of his of the song.  Both are great and extremely moving.  One of the big challenges of praise music recordings is to make it recognizable, but also unique.  Cottrell definitely pulls that off.
• "Jesus Freak" - 4 versions - dcTalk, dcTalk (live), dcTalk (lounge joke), Newsboys - It is perhaps dcTalk's most famous song - a great song.  I love it.  The live version is just a more frantic version of the album version.  When Michael Tait of dcTalk became lead singer of Newsboys, they recorded a version of it.  It sounds just like the dcTalk version, except with Tait doing all the voices - which actually hurts the song.  The only version that really brings any freshness was actually put on the Jesus Freak album as a joke.  It is a lounge singer version, which I have always thought was both hilarious and clever.  
• "My Deliverer" - 3 versions - Rich Mullins, Ragamuffin Band, dcTalk - When Rich Mullins died, he had a very rough copy of his next album recorded on tapes.  It was truly a shame because it was an AMAZING album.  So, posthumously, the album was released on two CDs - the original rough recordings by Mullins and then fully recorded and mastered versions put out by his backing band and industry friends.  The song "My Deliverer" is just an incredible song.  I prefer Rich's original take, but the full album version is also very good.  It is more upbeat and polished, which doesn't actually help it.  When Prince of Egypt came out in theaters, dcTalk made a version of this song with the lyrics changed a bit to make it more about Moses than Jesus.  I never liked the lyric alteration, but the take itself is pretty good and unique.  It adds a rock flavor, which makes it more a celebration of victory.  Rich's original was quieter, like he was reminding himself that rescue was coming and to not give up.  Each subsequent version brought less of that wounded perspective.  I have always been partial to the original - but I also like the middle movie in most trilogies the best.  I'm weird.
• "To Make You Feel My Love" - 5 versions - Bob Dylan, Billy Joel, Garth Brooks, Adele (2 versions) - Another song where every version seems to be a complete home run.  Dylan's folk take, Joel's powerful 80's piano rock version, Brooks' country ballad, and Adele's Motown diva longing. I love all the versions of the song and each artist completely makes it their own (in the words of the Idol judges).  If you didn't know better, you would think that each artist wrote it.  I first heard Joel's song and thought it was his - until a friend corrected me about Dylan.  I had another friend who swore Brooks wrote it - until I corrected him about Joel and Dylan.  And there are people who swear that Adele wrote it.  It's one of those cases where the perfect person for each generation remade the song.  (Adele is really good at this - her version of Bonnie Raitt's "I Can't Make You Love Me" absolutely nails it.)
• "Somebody to Love" - 3 versions - Queen, George Michael, Glee - There is the Queen classic.  There George Michael trying to replace Freddie Mercury (impossible) with the rest of Queen in a decent, but subpar, version.  And there is Glee mangling the Queen version.  If anyone could have replaced Freddie Mercury, it would have been George Michael.  Which shows you just how awesome Mercury was.
• "Sway" - 4 versions - Rosemary Clooney, Michael Buble, Melinda Doolittle, Glee - Yeah, I don't understand this one either.  I can't really identify which one is better.  They all are virtually the same take.  And all of them are pretty stupid.
• "You Really Got Me" - 3 versions - Van Halen, Sanjaya Malakar, The Chipmunks - Speaking of stupid...  What a perfect way to end this examination.  Van Halen's song is hardly a classic.  But it is typical 80s David Lee Roth led Van Halen.  Then you have the complete trainwreck Sanjaya's inexplicably bad karaoke song that really could be used as punishment.  Then you have The Frigging Chipmunks putting out a take that would be considered torture by the Geneva Convention.  This song epitomizes the hit and miss nature of multiple song versions.  You have some songs that are like a framework that a talented artist can conform in any number of directions. Then you have some songs that are like trying to bend concrete.  

Those are what I have to offer.  Feel free to hit up the comments to list your favorite song with multiples - or to let me know which ones I missed.  

Next Iron Chef: Game Changer

I certainly never intended to do a weekly recap of Next Iron Chef: Super Chefs, but that was before two things happened in this last week's episode.  First, the show positioned itself to become the greatest competition show in the history of Food Network.  Second, my entire set of picks from week one got completely turned on its head.  I realized that there actually is not an ulterior motive driving this show.  Literally, anyone can go out at any time.  And it got proved this past week when my top two landed in the bottom three and the person many expected to win went home.

Just to recap my picks, I had projected the following order:

1. Geoffrey Zakarian
2. Robert Irvine
3. Anne Burrell
4. Marcus Samuelsson
5. Michael Chiarello
6. Alex Guarnaschelli
7. Elizabeth Falkner
8. Beau MacMillan
9. Chuck Hughes
10. Spike Mendelsohn

Needless to say, I am a little bit nervous now.  The bottom three were Zakarian, Irvine, and Chiarello.  Burrell got throttled for playing it too safe.  Samuelsson got reamed out again for making too many dishes.  And Guarnaschelli, who looked completely outmatched last week, sailed to the first place finish without a single negative comment by any of the judges.  In fact, the top three were Falkner, Guarnaschelli, and Hughes.  MacMillan still is kind of floating around, limping on his injured ankle - which is kind of a metaphor for his involvement in this whole show.

The battle was to take stadium food and reinvent it as Kitchen Stadium Food.  (Ha, clever.)  I thought the judging as a whole was a bit odd.  Zakarian admitted that he doesn't have a freaking clue what constitutes ballpark food.  So he just made this two ridonkulous dishes that were labeled by the judges, "The best food we've eaten in this entire competition."  That earned him a seventh place finish.  Meanwhile, Hughes tossed out this hoagie that was so messy and disorganized that they could barely eat it.  Naturally, he came in second.  The only intelligent rankings were Guarnaschelli first and Chiarello last.  

The last place finish allowed viewers to finally see the reason why I can't stand Chiarello.  He made some bizarre dish and topped it off with a raw egg yolk in a shell.  The judges hated it and told him so.  Then Alton Brown, being the snotty arrogant turd he is, went on to lecture Chiarello by holding up his egg and allowing the whites to drip off.  "If you are going to use raw egg, you certainly need to make sure it doesn't look like this (whites drip off for effect).  An inability to separate an egg is hardly characteristic of an Iron Chef."  The camera cut to Chiarello.  "You didn't like the egg, fine.  Tell me and move on.  No need to beat it into the ground."  Now, don't get me wrong, I wish someone would punch Alton Brown in the mouth for his self- absorbed schtick.  But that is what he does.  That is why the Food Network put him in this position.  Brown truly believes he is smarter and better than everyone else in the food universe.  You need someone that delusional to stay tough as the host with these big shot chefs.  If I was Chiarello, I would have bristled too.  Then I would have calmly walked to the end of the table and slammed Brown's head and his ridiculous fedora into the plate of food.  It is just that every single time they interviewed Chiarello, he was basically taking the stance that there is no way he should be in last place.  There's a fine line between confidence and cockiness.  All celebrity chefs are confident.  Some are cocky.  I can't stand those guys.  Don't ask me to define it.  Using the cop out the Supreme Court created, "I just know it when I see it."

Anyway, the final showdown between the bottom two was Irvine and Chiarello.  They had to use peanuts and had thirty minutes to create a dish to highlight this.  Apparently this is is extremely difficult since all of the chefs had their eyes bug out like in a Looney Tune cartoon.  Irvine came up with a fish dish - halibut crusted with peanuts on a peanut hummus with a peanut sauce and sauteed vegetables.  It looked awesome - like something he has pulled out of thin air numerous times on Dinner Impossible.  This is exactly why I expected him to win.  He has made a career out of this kind of stuff.  

Chiarello decided to make a fettucini with peanut pesto, along with a side tomato salad.  Take a second and read that again.  He made a fettucini with peanut pesto.  No, he didn't crack open a box of Ronzoni.  He freaking MADE PASTA.  In thirty minutes.  That means he made it from scratch.  The other chefs were just stunned.  Just about every single one of them said they couldn't believe he was making pasta.  In thirty minutes.  This was the moment when I knew Irvine was going home.  You can't compete with that.  Chiarello didn't even blink about the concept of pulling it off either.  He broke down the time and just did it.  He deep fried the peanuts (What?!?) and then used them instead of pine nuts in the pesto.  Then he tossed that with his HOMEMADE PASTA.  (I still am thrown off by this.)  Wham.  

The judges didn't know what to do.  Both dishes were superb.  Irvine ended up getting voted off 2-1 because his peanut hummus was a little too gummy.  And probably because they realized that Chiarello had MADE HIS STINKING PASTA.  The rest of the chefs were visibly shaken when Irvine left.  I think that all of them thought he was going to be in it for the long run. Plus, Chiarello made a great point at the end of the show.  He said that he wasn't upset to be in the bottom two.  That had given him one more experience in a Kitchen Stadium setting than the others.  He is more of a force than I thought.  Actually, it is obvious I don't know anything about the show.  My entire evaluation structure got turned on its head.  There are several things I realized this week.

1. Zakarian is this year's Ming Tsai.  Last year, Tsai could cook circles around everyone.  But the reason he lost was because he too often didn't follow the exact wording of the challenges.  Zakarian is in that boat.  He has more cooking ability than anyone else there.  That's obvious by the way the judges respond to his food.  But if he doesn't stick to the rules, he will get booted out.
2. Marcus Samuelsson needs to settle the heck down.  So far, the chefs have had to create four dishes - Samuelsson has had to do five, since he was in the bottom last week.  Samuelsson has made eleven.  He always does extras, just to impress the judges.  The problem is, they aren't impressed.  They even went so far as to say that the next time he makes extras, they are going to make him tell him which ones to judge and they won't taste the others.  
3. Alton Brown gets more annoying every year.
4. There is a big difference between cooking for "regular people" and cooking for judges.  This is the biggest variable I missed last week.  The challenge this week was crafted for Robert Irvine.  It was basically the same thing he has done before on Dinner Impossible.  You go raid the vendors at a ballpark and come up with dishes with what you find.  I've seen that show.  Irvine excelled and everyone raved.  But, in that case, the Everyone raving was a group of regular people.  It is easier to impress regular people with cooking than experts.  Think about it - when Irvine cooks for three hundred construction workers, do you really think some foreman is going to tell the camera the flavor profiles weren't consistent?  One of Irvine's dishes was a Hot Burg.  He took hot dogs and ground them up and mixed them with the hamburgers he was making.  Brilliant.  Alton Brown said it was great.  It would have killed with average people.  But the judges were unimpressed.  That was Irvine's downfall.  He is the best chef on Food Network's roster when it comes to knowing what average people wants.  That is how he is so successful with Dinner Impossible.  That is how he does such a great job in helping people fix their restaurants on Restaurant Impossible.  That is why he is such a great coach on Worst Cooks in America.  It really is why I like him so much.  And that is precisely why couldn't be the Iron Chef.  They don't want someone who will impress the masses.  They want someone who will wow the food judging elite.  
5. This show is going to be a LOT more exciting than I thought it would be - and that is saying a lot.  There aren't many shows that I watch live any more.  I'll let it record on my DVR and wait fifteen minutes just so I can fast forward through commercials.  The only shows that we, on a regular basis, are too excited to wait the fifteen minutes.  The first is Castle on ABC.  The second is Burn Notice on USA.  And the third is Next Iron Chef.  Pretty elite company in our house.

Now in 3D!!!

A couple weeks ago, we all went to see Lion King 3D during its "Not As Limited As We First Thought Engagement."  My wife and I were huge fans of the original.  I remember seeing it in the theater when it first came out.  I was home from college during the summer of after my sophomore year.  It was maybe the only movie I ever saw with both of my parents in the theater.  I loved it.  My mom wasn't that big of a fan of it.  I don't remember what my dad thought.  I bought the soundtrack and had the movie on VHS when it came out.  I had hoped my kids would like it too.  We have the DVD and they've watched it before.  But the chance to see it on the BIG SCREEN - and in 3D!!!  Plus we had some Disney movie vouchers and ten bucks on my AMC Stubs card.

My wife and I were taken in all over again.  The movie is so majestic and incredible.  The score and soundtrack and phenomenal.  And the story is very powerful - with elements of Star Wars and Macbeth woven throughout.  It was beautiful in 3D.  But it reminded me of those old Viewmaster discs that made a "three dimensional" picture that looked suspiciously like a pop up book.  It worked better than some newer 3D movies, though.  It didn't resort to cheap tricks like things flying at the screen.  But it didn't take me in like I was hoping.  It probably was because the film was a 2D classical animation, and you just can't make that completely 3D.  The other reason is because Lion King was about the closest thing to a 3D movie as you could get without it really being one in the first place.  The attention to detail and the depth of the original film was already engrossing.  Scenes like the animals coming to see the newborn Simba, with Zazu flying overhead was already powerful.  In 3D it was even cooler.  But I didn't walk away saying that it improved the movie that much.  I would have enjoyed seeing the original on the big screen anyway, so the 3D was kind of icing.

[Side Note: Josiah loved the movie.  Natalie didn't like it because it was too dark and violent.  Gabe didn't care for it at all and spent most of the movie crawling all over us and playing on Heather's phone.  I had forgotten just how dark the movie was.  That's probably the reason I liked it so much.  Of course, I was 20 the first time I saw it.  Soooooo....]

It made me think about 3D movies in general.  Lion King 3D was a runaway success.  It took in 90 million dollars during its brief run.  New movies would kill for that kind of box office.  This was a movie that had been out for sixteen years and was coming on Blu-ray three weeks later.  Disney spent about $10 million on the 3D transfer and maybe another $10 million on promotion.  So a $70 million profit isn't a back month for the Mouse.  That doesn't count the increased sales of the Blu-Ray packs that came from the new generation of fans from the re-re-release.  (It had previously been re-released on IMAX in 2002 and took in $15 million there.)

We have been inundated with 3D movies.  The reason why is obvious.  It's all about the green.  The average movie can be transferred to 3D for between $2 million and $5 million.  Movie theaters charge an extra $4 per 3D ticket.  So that means that a movie can generate an extra $20-$50 million from that small investment.  The problem is that most of these 3D titles aren't delivering on the added cost.  So we are seeing the box office of 3D movies dropping.  Movies that were expecting boffo 3D money are underperforming pretty consistently.  Many in the industry have wondered if it is the death knell for 3D movies.  I don't think it is.  Have you ever known Hollywood to leave money on the table?  Even an underperforming 3D movie (think Harry Potter 7.2, Pirates 4, Green Lantern, Green Hornet) can pull in an extra $20 million from that small transfer.  Would YOU give up $20 million?  Yeah, neither would the movie studio.  [Another Side Note:  I'm not saying Harry Potter 7.2 underperformed.  $1 billion worldwide box office is NOT underperforming.  Its 3D numbers were disappointing to Warner Brothers.]

From what I've seen, there are three types of 3D movies coming out right now:  the 3D Film as Investment, the 3D Film as Experience, and the 3D Film as Event.  To me, the breakdown is probably about 70/20/10 for those three categories.  And that is probably why we are seeing such a backlash against 3D movies in general.

The 3D Film as Investment is the movie where the studio executive is saying, "You know, we could do a 3D transfer on this movie and make an extra $30 million.  We're already going to make a lot.  Let's make more and improve the movie's bottom line.  Maybe I can buy another BMW."  These are movies like Captain America, Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans, Harry Potter, Despicable Me, Gnomeo and Juliet.  The movie doesn't really get any better through being in 3D.  It may have a few extra moments that feel cool.  There are some 3D gimmicks thrown in.  But your feeling for the movie isn't going to improve much wearing those glasses.  In fact, it may actually HURT the movie.  Take Captain America.  I saw this movie twice this summer - once in traditional format and once in 3D.  And I saw them in that order.  I loved the movie.  It really exceeded my expectations.  I liked the performances, the characters, even the look.  The 1940s scenes had an old time hue to them.  It almost had a washed, sepia tint that you didn't even notice until the 2011 scenes.  The whole movie looked different.  It was a nice visual element.  In 3D, though, I kept noticing the annoying stuff.  When Cap was racing on top of a train, it looked like an action figure on a toy train.  It made all the FX look faker.  It actually made the film LESS believable.  I probably would have not had such a high opinion of the film if I had seen it in reverse order - 3D first and 2D second.  Actually, I may not have seen it twice at all.  If that had been the case, the theater really messed up their accounting.  Getting two tickets is better than getting an extra $4 on one ticket.

Generally, I avoid this type of 3D film.  It's not worth it.  It takes your brain and eyes a while to buy into the 3D format in the first place.  Some elements don't work and seem clunky.  And the gimmicks are just insulting.  I usually will just see the 2D version of this movie.  I saw movies like Thor, Harry Potter, Toy Story 3, and Cars 2 in traditional format.  It just wasn't worth the extra money - especially when you are talking about that surcharge on every ticket (between two and five, depending on who in our family went).  I usually can tell what stuff they stuck into a movie to make it "worth the 3D upcharge."  In Harry Potter 7.1, I sat there and pointed out seven different scenes to Heather that were filmed for the 3D transfer that they ended up not doing.  I did the same thing with Thor.  I don't find that endearing.  I find that insulting.  Make a good movie.  That will suck me in.  I don't need gimmicks.

The 3D Film as Experience is a movie where your experience is actually improved by the 3D format.  You know, the kind of movie that this was developed for - the kind that they should limit 3D movies to.  Usually, this kind of movie is not transferred to 3D; it is actually filmed in 3D.  (Although that is not always the case.  For example, there was no way to salvage Pirates 4, even though it was shot in 3D.)  Movies in this class are films like Avatar.  The movie was made in 3D and was designed to be experienced in 3D.  I would argue Tron: Legacy would fall into this category.  I actually really liked that movie.  The scenes in the "real world" were shot in traditional 2D.  When they went into the computer world, it became 3D.  And it BECAME 3D.  It sucked you in and you were IN that world.  The movie was better that way.  These movies are hard to come by.  Truthfully, documentaries seem to do this better.  I will be more willing to see this type of film than the first type.  The new Amazing Spiderman 3D looks like it will fit into this category.  It is being filmed and created in 3D.  One of the goals of the filmmaker is to actually let the viewer feel like Spiderman as he swoops through town.  The first preview showed some of that.  That's a movie worth seeing in 3D - if they can pull it off.

The 3D Film as Event is the rarest of the 3D crop.  This is a movie that becomes a "must see."  You could argue that Avatar moved into this category after its release.  Everyone was seeing it.  It was the highest grossing movie of all time.  So, even though it was an experience, it became more than that.  People felt left out if they didn't see it.  (And the backlash hipster crowd refused to see it BECAUSE everyone saw it.)  Lion King would definitely be in this category.  Beauty and the Beast also fell into this group when it came out in 3D a few years back.  You often will see a re-release of a big movie fit into the Event category.  Coming up next year, you will see more films fall into this group.  Titanic is coming to 3D on April 6, 2012.  That movie was such a mammoth event when it came out that I fully expect it to do big business.  Plus, James Cameron is THE king of the world . . . of 3D.  So, expect it to deliver the goods.  Star Wars begins its trek to 3D, and its eventual release on 3D Blu-Ray, next year.  Episode 1 hits theaters on February 10.  The plan is to release the entire series, one per year.  But, recent buzz has been that George Lucas may not follow through if Episode 1 bombs.  (Brilliant strategy, leave the fate of the series in 3D to arguably the worst film of the series.  Don't start with Episode IV or anything.)  Personally, I don't know if I will see Titanic when it comes out.  I liked the movie, but I'm not in love with it.  My son and I are already making plans to see Star Wars, though.

I don't think 3D movies are going anywhere.  There is too much money in the format.  In addition, with the growing market of 3D Blu-Ray players, 3D televisions, and 3D tv stations, it just seems like it will hang on for a while - even if it doesn't deserve to.  I think we have seen a movement where moviegoers are expressing their distaste for stupid 3D releases, just like they revolted against unnecessary IMAX movie offerings.  Those special formats are best left to movies that deserve the added attention - movies that are Experiences or Events.  Those are the kinds that I go to.  I already have trimmed back my moviegoing in general.  I don't go to everything that comes out.  Lots of movies look just fine on my tv and I can handle the $1 redbox rental much easier than the $10 ticket price.  I'm not going to waste even more money on 3D gimmicks.  It's the same message we've been telling studios for years.  But some effort into your films.  Make something we want to see, that is worth seeing, and we'll watch it.  Instead of putting an extra $2 million into a transfer, put it into screenwriting or directing.  If the studios want to see their ticket sales go up, their 3D sales improve, make movies that are worth paying for.

Vicious

You know how sometimes something just sits there in the base of your brain for months? And out of nowhere a minor event just kind of triggers it to become a big issue? That's kind of what I'm dealing with right now with the "New Media." I'm not sure if all of you know what I'm talking about. Over the last few years, the Old Media (newspapers, television news) has slowly been giving way to New Media (bloggers, social networking, YouTube, live news updates via twitter). We have seen major news outlets just shut down, due to their eroding readership and income.

What has stepped into that void is the New Media. They have become the de facto news source for many people. For a large number, this is an upgrade since this new source is more "honest" and less restrained by corporate influence or political bias. It is more relatable since it is not written by stuffy academics who don't live in the real world. On the flip side, this New Media also has virtually no accountability at all. You can say whatever you want in a blog or on a facebook post and no one can do anything about it. If you pulled that stuff in a newspaper or on a news broadcast, you would get sued for libel.

So, now TMZ is considered a legitimate news source, frequently quoted by mainstream news outlets. It, in reality, is a gossip site. But they have tons of contributors, so they can get places that ABC can't. They also can accuse people of all kinds of stuff that isn't verified, since they aren't "mainstream media." Take the Carrie Prejean case - the former Miss California whose personal religious beliefs came under fire by Perez Hilton (another New Media maven). She has gone rounds with the Miss USA group, swapping lawsuits. Last week, all the lawsuits were mysteriously settled. No one knew what exactly caused the quick settlement, until TMZ announced it was the appearance of a sex tape of Prejean. Everyone went, "Oh, okay. Now we understand." Every single story I saw mentioned how TMZ verified the tape's existence. When did TMZ become a legitimate source? They also played the same role when Erin Andrews of ESPN was victim of a peeping tom this summer - verifying the tape.

So there is now this parasitic relationship between Old Media and New Media. The traditional sources of news are relying on the newer ones frequently for news and verification of stories. They also know that many younger people actually trust TMZ more than CBS - or believe Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert over Brian Williams of NBC. [Most young people have no clue that the larger players in "New Media" are owned by "Old Media" companies, anyway. Fox owns MySpace. Google owns YouTube. NBC owns Hulu.]

Here's my problem. Bias is always going to exist in media. You cannot report a story without your perspective playing a part. And all news outlets play the "yellow journalism" game every day - playing up shocking stories over boring stories. Take a look at CNN.com some time. They always push the more scintillating stories up the chart. Why? Money. They get paid by advertisers for clicks. And there is more money in clicks on pages further into a website. CNN may get 5 cents for an ad view on page one, but get 20 cents for an ad view three levels in. So they want to drive people further into their site. So they push the crazy stories. All websites do this. It's how newspapers ran for decades - push the big nutty story because people want to read it.

Well, in New Media, there is a different bias also prevalent. It is viciousness. There is an ugly edge to these sites. Some of it is that they writers and editors are people who were shunned by mainstream media sources. Maybe they weren't good enough or popular enough. Maybe the didn't get hired, or they didn't get the degree they needed. Now they are going to take it out on the big dogs. They are relentless in their criticism of people in leadership or in the public eye. But it isn't just criticism trying to make change. It is just vicious attacks - lashing out to hurt or to make the attacker feel better. And it even happens when one of these New Media types reaches a level of success - they become targets as well. Every movie, book, television show, comic book, album that comes out faces acerbic commentary. Entertainers have to deal with dozens of sites ripping into them in a mean-spirited fashion. If I had to come up with one word for the tone of the Internet, it would be sardonic -- bitterly and mockingly sarcastic.

One example is Deadspin.com. This is a site that is supposed to "cover sports coverage." It was created to talk about the sports coverage out there - like ESPN, CBS, etc. The site, first of all, is owned by Gawker Media - which also owns a lot of very unsavory sites. But it has a very nasty edge to it. A couple weeks ago, ESPN personality Steve Phillips found himself in a big problem where his mistress went psycho and told his wife that they were together. When Deadspin confronted ESPN to validate the rumor, the Worldwide Leader denied everything. Then it hit the newspapers everywhere. Deadspin got furious at ESPN for withholding info. So they went into attack mode - and they started airing unsubstantiated rumors about multiple ESPN personalities and executives. They outed affairs and behaviors. All because they got scooped on a story.

How is that responsible? How can that level of viciousness be okay for a "news outlet." Deadspin hides behind the fact that they are a glorified blog. But shouldn't there be some responsibility? Another example is with Bill Simmons - ESPN's most popular writer. Simmons himself circumvented the usual process of getting hired. He started his own sports blog in Boston. Finally, he got to be so popular that ESPN hired him. Now he is a massively successful writer and media person. His articles get more hits than any other sportswriter. His podcast is the most listened to sports podcast in America. He just wrote a second book - The Book of Basketball - that hit #1 on the New York Times Nonfiction chart. He has reached a level of huge success. Instead of being happy for him - a regular guy who made good - he has become a major target of places like Deadspin and bloggers everywhere. They relentlessly ridicule him. They slam his characteristic writing style. They rip into his love for Boston sports. Personally, I think it is because they are all jealous.

I like Simmons. He is one of my writers that I read all the time. I bought his book the week it came out and I love it. It is a very thorough and entertaining look at basketball. But he gets ripped constantly about his book signings or his "selling out" or his opinions. I don't like everything he writes - his morals and mine are light years apart. And, sure, I think he is a little hung up on himself. But this is a guy who worked hard and made his dream come true. He's doing well and creating very enjoyable stuff. So, naturally, he deserves to be tormented and hated.

I write a blog (actually I have three). I use Facebook and Twitter. You could say I am a "New Media" member, since I don't have a journalism degree but still write my opinions out there. I write books for Defender Ministries, even though they are not put out by a mainstream publisher. I hope to circumvent some of the traditional methods for a writer - especially a religious writer. But I hope I never reduce myself to the level where I would be so vicious and hateful. I try hard to make sure I don't go over the top. Yes, I have written things in my blogs that I would never say to someone's face - like Michael Vick, Alex Rodriguez, Billy Donovan, Ronald McDonald. I just don't think I have ever been vicious out of jealousy or spite. And, quite frankly, I can't stand reading things with that bent. I fear that this mentality is only going to get worse. The more popular these sites become, the more they are validated. Unfortunately, that means the mindset becomes acceptable as well. It doesn't make for a pleasant or beneficial experience for anyone.

MEDIA: Why Star Trek Is Better Than Star Wars

I promised a controversial and troubling post for my next entry. And here it is. There are some huge branding battles out there. You know what they are. Coke vs. Pepsi. Ford vs. Chevy. McDonald's vs. Burger King. Windows vs. Apple. There is the number one, the number two, and no one else matters. That is the way that I see the Star Wars and Star Trek battle. You have Star Wars - arguably the bigger of the two, with the marketing and legacy and bulk. And you have Star Trek - the smaller and less of a juggernaut. The rest of the sci-fi properties are not in the discussion. You can talk until you are blue in the face about how amazing Battlestar Galactica was. But until it can consistently put out entries to the levels where it has made over a billion dollars in box office revenue (not counting television, merchandising, or anything else), it is an also ran. The same goes for every other sci-fi offering. You just cannot match those two behemoths.

My experience with these two is different than most. I am 35. I was born in 1974. So, according to the majority of people my age, I should be an unabashed Star Wars fan. The first movie came out when I was three, followed at age five and eight. I should have been right in the mix of those Star Wars fanatics. Most people my age are. I know for a fact that my son would have been in that boat - since he is NOW. But I didn't see the original trilogy until I was 18 and in college. For over ten years, I had been hearing how awesome this series was. "You HAVE to watch it." I wasn't allowed to watch it. When I got to college, I finally saw it.

It was okay. (Ducking the force lightning.) You have to give me a break. I saw these movies in August of 1992. I already knew that "Luke, I'm your father." The good guys won. I already had seen toys and heard stories. As far as the technology goes, remember what had come out by that point. In July of 1991, Terminator 2 had come out. Morphing technology. Liquid metal turning into man. And in the summer of 1993, dinosaurs were about to come to life with Jurassic Park. It was hard to be impressed with a pilot turning a dial and flying into a box of lines. Especially when you had been watching Star Trek.

Star Trek: The Next Generation hit the airwaves in 1989. I started watching it in 1990 or so. So, I had been seeing flying spacecraft and impressive sets. There were special effects. Nothing Star Wars put out there was that impressive, in 1992. So I was not that impressed. I tried hard. I bought the movies, watched them with my friends. I went to the Special Edition releases (and realizing how there were long boring stretches in the original trilogy). And I got really worked up about the 1999 arrival of Episode 1 - organizing a big group of people to go. But, it coincided with my own battle with movies (reflected in this award winning blog entry). So I never saw Episode One until last year. I still have not seen Episodes Two or Three.

Star Trek is a different story. I watched the show every week. I watched Deep Space Nine every chance I could - my personal favorite series. I watched Voyager until they got really stupid. And I watched Enterprise for a while, too. I have seen every Star Trek movie. And I have seen every once since Six in the theaters. The newest one? I saw it twice and would watch it again tomorrow if I had the time and money. So, is it me? Is it just my personal preference? I mean, I like Pepsi, Burger King, and Apple. I guess I root for the second place finisher. Or is it something more? Is Star Trek actually better? Let's try to analyze. Winner of each topic gets 10 points. Loser can get up to nine.

BOX OFFICE TAKE

You would assume that this is a runaway for Star Wars. You would be right. Total domestic take for Star Wars? $2.2 billion. Total for the Treks? $1 billion. (And that is only because a quarter of that came from this summer's reboot.) $1 billion is nothing to sneeze at - it is ninth all time in franchises. But, not even close.

WINNER: Star Wars 10-5

BOX OFFICE QUALITY

This one is closer than you may imagine. The hit and miss nature of Star Trek is well documented. The odd number movies are usually atrocious, while the even ones are good. Well, until 10 was terrible and the reboot (11?) was the best ever. I would say, though, that Star Trek 2, 4, 6, 8, and 11 hold up comparably well against the Star Wars saga. Let's be honest here. Episode Five is an all time classic. Episode Four is also a legend. But, aside from that, what about the others? Six was good, but was it great? There are some really bad moments, not to mention that the ending ruined what was one of history's great villains - and probably could be held accountable for the disaster of the first three episodes. Episode One is good - but nothing so much better than Trek Four. Episode Two is ridiculous - at least the part I have seen. The romantic angle is just juvenile and Hayden Christiansen does what entire galaxies couldn't do - takes the bite out of Darth Vader. I haven't seen Three, but I have heard it was good, but not legendary. Honestly, 1-3 are largely bailed out by side characters (Darth Maul, Mace Windu, the Fetts). And Lucas even mishandles those - there is no way you should kill someone as awesome as Maul in the first act and replace him with Saruman. But, even I would be hard pressed to win an argument in Trek's favor here.

WINNER: Star Wars 10-8

TELEVISION:

Is this a fair category? Probably not. This is where Star Trek began and where it thrived. With the reboot, it may actually become a movie based brand. But for years it has been television first and foremost. Star Wars has dabbled here. The Clone Wars is not bad. It is better than the Star Trek Animated Series and probably better than Enterprise and Voyager. But it is a far distant fourth to the Original Series, TNG, or DS9. There is a new Star Wars live action series coming out in 2010. That could be interesting. And Clone Wars got better as the season rolled on. But you are up against some heavy competition. TNG was a phenomenal show. There are episodes of it that were just jaw-dropping - even by today's standards. They were one of the first to really utilize the end-0f-season cliffhanger to great success. I still remember when Picard, changed to a Borg, was staring at the Enterprise and Riker just said, "Fire." And season ends. WHAAAAAAT!?!?! To this day, when entertainment groups do rankings of cliffhangers, TNG is on the list with Lost and Dallas. The competition in this one is as bad as the box office one. Oh wait, I forgot the Star Wars Christmas Special....

Winner: Star Trek 10-5

GROUND BREAKING:

This is a tough category. Most Star Wars fans think that sci-fi didn't exist before Lucas and 1977. (Of course, most Trek fans feel the same way.) Trek was first by a long shot. It premiered in 1966. It tackled some huge issues. The first televised inter-racial kiss was on Trek. It was well known that Gene Roddenberry was preaching through his show - making each race a veiled representative of those on earth. As the shows progressed, it continued to tackle issues. Euthanasia, genocide, assisted suicide, ethics, what defines life. It was never just about space exploration - it was about mankind exploration. Star Wars was groundbreaking in the level of technology and how it related to the people. It was pure entertainment and it tried to reach people where they were. It was at Comic-Con when it was just two guys in a treehouse trading comics. And culturally, it would hit a nerve unlike anything before or after. The only way to decide this is with the question, would Star Wars been put out without Star Trek? I really don't know. Lucas pitched SW in 1971. There has to be a winner.

WINNER: Star Trek 10-9

CULTURAL IMPACT:

Even I am not so brazen as to imply Star Trek has had as large of an impact as Star Wars in our culture. Star Wars has done so much - especially if you throw in the impact of things like Industrial Light and Magic, Skywalker Sound, Pixar, Darth Vader, The Force, the books, the games, the conventions. Trek has its own contributions: Spock, Kirk, William Shatner, the Vulcan mind meld, Vulcan greeting, live long and prosper, Tribbles, Klingons around Uranus, warp speed. And Star Wars has Jar Jar Binks, so I must give Star Trek an extra point.

WINNER: Star Wars 10-7

PERSONAL CONNECTION:

Right now the score is 44 to 40 Star Wars. So I have to come up with something to explain why I think Star Trek is better - something to generate them some points. If you go with scope of franchise, Star Wars would win. If you go with quality of actors, Star Wars would win. If you go with coolness factor, Star Wars would win. So this is where you pull out the personal card. Star Wars is a huge battle that basically swirls around one family: The Skywalkers. It is a gigantic family drama. We see Luke alone at first. Slowly you add Leia and Han. They we find out about Anakin/Vader. Then we go back and learn all about Anakin. Later, we jump ahead to Luke's kids in what would be Episodes 7-9. But it swirls around Skywalkers. And it is a huge space war basically brought on by greed and power struggles. Most people are just pawns. You may see someone break through with an identity of their own - like Boba Fett. And that gets exploited as fast as possible. But there is very little for you, the viewer, to connect with. It is like watching Indiana Jones or Superman. You are never going to be that person. You don't have midichlorians or a whip or Kryptonian legacy. You are just some guy working in a cubicle eating Cheetos and spending too much time worrying about things like "Who is Hotter? Padme or Leia?" That guy in Star Wars wears a gray hat and gets killed when the Emperor's ego trip is blown to Kingdom Come. The Everyman factor is not there. It is pure escapist fun.

Star Trek is not. It is a bunch of individuals working together. Someone is going to be a person you can relate to. It may be the maintenance guy who works his way up to station engineer like Miles O'Brien. It may be the son trying to fill the shoes of a famous officer like Wesley Crusher or Jake Sisko. It may be the thieving sneaky bartender who is completely untrustworthy, yet somehow never ends up in jail, like Quark. It may be the hot green skinned Orion slave girl. Whatever. You relate to Star Trek. They are trying to make their ways and learn and make a difference. That was the beauty of the show. It was a bunch of people going to work and us watching their jobs unfold. Sometimes it would be something amazing like a space baby sucking energy out of the Enterprise. Sometimes it would be really mundane, like the episode Data's Day. It was like a sci-fi version of The Office. And the volume of shows and such really brought this home. It wasn't about the six epic showdowns. Sure, there were those. But it was about the day in, day out stuff too. Teachers, doctors, scientists, engineers. Following their leaders and trying to survive and learn. This was brought to light time and again in eleven movies and 725 episodes.

WINNER: Star Trek: 10 to 5

I think that is the tipping point in the argument to me. Books, comics, games. Frankly those are a draw. Movies: 6 vs 11. But when you have to come up with 725 stories? That says something. Once Star Wars dives into the television market, it may be different. They will have to get smaller - more intimate, more relatable. But that is not in their nature. It is always about the big picture. I can't imagine them doing what Star Trek did with Voyager - flinging a ship to the other end of space and then watching them get back. Or DS9 - basically setting a series on the Trek equivalent of the Cantina. And while I enjoy the big escapist epics. I am always going to be more drawn in the long term to the property I can invest in. That is why Lost is better than Heroes - you are invested in the castaways. This is even why I feel good about the new Trek direction - I left that movie being very interested in those people. Someone once said the biggest thing going for Star Trek was the characters. The people. I guess that's what tips the scales to me.

TOTAL WINNER: Star Trek: 50 to 49

Now, feel free to tear me a new one.

New Directions to Blogville

I want to begin by saying how much I appreciate all of the kind comments related to my last post - my tribute to Heather's grandfather. I received a lot of feedback from people - both in comments on Facebook, on the actual blog, and in person. I loved that man and he made an eternal difference in my life. So, it truly was the least I could do. This past weekend we had a memorial service for him, and it was again great to remember what an amazing man he was. In November, we are planning a large family reunion of sorts - which will also serve as a "memory exchange" of him. Be praying for his children and wife, as they are expectedly dealing with how to fill that large hole that has opened in their lives.

As my blog is reaching new heights of popularity - both at the blogspot site and on Facebook - I am constantly reminded of the varied people that I am blessed with as friends. I have people who share my beliefs on many fronts, and people who do not. The last thing I EVER want this blog to be is something that hurts someone. It is not something that is attempting to cram my opinions or beliefs down your throats. I realize that I am more conservative than some of my friends, and more liberal than others. And that is the beautiful thing about life - we can be friends despite our differences - and sometimes because of them. If I ever write about a topic, like religion, it is merely reflecting what I am going through.

Being at home more now, I have more chances to write. I have tried to limit my posts to once a week. But I have a backlog of posts, since things come to me more than weekly now. I also have had numerous people ask me to write more. I have resisted that for a while, but finally came up with an answer. I am going to divide the blog into six categories.

Think of it as Trivial Pursuit. I have matched the colors and tried to match the topics. We all love Trivial Pursuit, right? Anyone? I love the game. I remember that growing up, we had every version that came out. We would sit around the card table and all play - even my dad. (This was before his strokes and heart attacks robbed him of his mental prowess.) He knew everything. It was crazy. "What color facemask did the Topeka Raiders field hockey team use on their 'Puckin Crazy' promotional tour in 1958?" My dad would sit there, staring at the table for a few seconds. "Puce." And it was right. It was my goal to beat my father. I was the second strongest player, usually, having devoted a great portion of my brain to learning absolutely useless minutiae for much of my life. As the years slipped by, I slowly began to reel him in.

Finally, it happened. We were playing one night and I went out to a huge lead. I started to get cocky, as most teenagers would do. Talking trash. Stupid stupid stupid. My dad was a former Marine - a hulking 6'5" man of about 350 lbs. And bald - this made all the difference. You can shave the head of most men and make them look tons meaner. Worked for him, I can testify. He didn't take kindly to smart alecks of any age. So he began to slowly eat at my lead. Finally, it was like 5 pies to 5 pies. And then he got his sixth and made his way to the inner circle. We all ganged up on him and kept picking the questions he wouldn't get. Finally I got my sixth pie and got to the center ring. I think it was my sister - she lobbed me a softball question and I won. Sure, it was tainted. But I won. He looked at us, said it didn't count, and never played it again. So, that was a fun memory. Hmmmmm.... Let's get back to the explanation of the new setup.

SPORTS: I am well aware that many people are not interested in sports. The orange disc always meant Sports and Leisure. So if you see orange, think sports. This will cover football, UCF, basketball (rarely), and the other sports I generally don't care about or watch. I may even slip some fantasy football stuff in there. Because, we all know, the only thing worse than listening to people tell us their dreams is listening to them talk about their imaginary football league.

POLITICS: This has always been the topic I care the least to write about. Why? Well, because it never ends well. I wrote a post about why I voted for Huckabee last year - and I was afraid that I was going to get torched by my own party mates. But it is the blue disc, since that was usually Geography. I may post in this group, just so I can use that awesome picture of Obama. It isn't a comment on him - just an awful picture.

MEDIA: This would have been called Entertainment, but the word was too big. No lie. I figure this way I can also squawk about the news and such too. Sound all official and blustery. But this is mostly going to be used for movies and tv shows and music. And it is the traditional Trivial Pursuit pink color. Was anyone else equally terrified by the pink pie? I remember growing up the questions were always like, "Which onscreen duo released seven films under the Warner Cousins banner before becoming seal trainers in Panama?" I would just stare at the reader, drool running out of my mouth. Then my dad would mumble, "Percy and Ingrid, you dolt."

FAMILY: Falling into the traditional History color, Family will wear yellow. I thought that was appropriate. Family. History. Get it? [sigh] I think this will swallow up my posts about my brilliant wife, my adorable kids, and all those adventures. If you only care about my general statements on the world in general, then avoid yellow. And if you are eating snow, avoid yellow. Or so I'm told, since I live in Florida and we don't have snow. Or seasons. Or culture.

RELIGION: That's right, Arts and Literature takes the guise of religion with their brown disc. Again, I thought that this wasn't a hard stretch. I will do my best to confine my theological musings to this color. Obviously, there may be crossovers, and I may put two discs up for a post. I can see Yellow and Brown pairing off a lot. They seem like buddies. Like Green Lantern and Flash. Or Bert and Ernie.

FOOD: Science and Nature becomes food. Green. Okay, so this is a big stretch. But food is from nature or science - and sometimes both. Or something. Whatever. I wanted to keep this category because a lot of people liked my Angus burger review and asked for more food related stories. I think this is something I have spent my life preparing for. If there was a job on Food Network that involved no cooking whatsoever and just was some guy being a smart mouth about food? I would take that job.

So there you have it. This will take effect immediately. I hope that it helps. I look forward to sharing more, and I think that this will challenge me to come up with stuff. I know I have several things ready to get posted soon. One of them has the potential to be the most inflammatory, controversial, dangerous thing I have ever written. I can only tell you that it falls under the pink disc. And it will be coming soon.