David Bowie again…

The Olympics ended yesterday with a very, very big show that lovingly displayed the things that make Britain Britain.  There were fashion models, theater, and psychedelic floats.  There was much music, even a performance of “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” by Eric Idle.  This song, which appeared at the very end of The Life of Brian, my favorite Monty Python film, was aired complete, though the single profanity uttered in the song was heavily (and loudly) bleeped for American viewing.

Given all the Britannia on display, I was curious if David Bowie might make an appearance at the event.  After all, his song “Heroes” was played in a very prominent spot at the very beginning of the Olympics while the British athletes made their very first appearance/entrance into the stadium.

While the closing ceremonies were going on, and the show focused on the British fashion industry, they of course played Mr. Bowie’s song “Fashion” and, I suspect, that might well be where the show’s makers might well have loved to have him appear and sing…

But he didn’t.

Mr. Bowie wasn’t the only musician whose songs were played during the Olympics and didn’t show.  Pink Floyd’s “Wish You Were Here,” for example, was sung live, but neither Roger Waters or David Gilmour showed up to perform the song.  I believe Nick Mason, the band’s drummer, was the only Pink Floyd member present.

Yet Mr. Bowie’s absence felt to me like something more.  There have been articles written here and there hinting if not outright saying that Mr. Bowie has effectively, though quietly, retired, and not seeing him at the Olympics seemed to further that notion.  After all, this is a man who tended to release a new album almost every year and was constantly touring or making appearances in movies or TV shows.  His last album, 2003’s Reality, is rapidly approaching a decade since release.  While he toured in support of the album, he was diagnosed with an acute arterial blockage and had emergency angioplasty in 2004.  From that point on, his appearances have been sparse.  His last stage appearance was in 2006, his last recorded song was a collaboration with Scarlett Johansson in 2008.

So when his songs were presented in such prominent places during the opening and closing of the Olympics, I couldn’t help but think the event organizers were hoping to lure him out to do a live performance.  And given how long it had been since he did such a thing, one might have thought that Mr. Bowie would enjoy the opportunity to do just that.

The fact that he didn’t, as I said before, suggests to me that perhaps the whispers were right.  No, I’m not privy to Mr. Bowie’s personal life.  For all I know, he might be furiously working on a new album or acting in some film or doing something that deprives him of the time to head over to the Olympics and perform.

On the other hand, and given the fact that we’ve seen so little of Mr. Bowie since 2008, I can’t help but wonder if, indeed, those whispers of his retirement are indeed accurate.

If they are, I take that news as bittersweet.  After several decades of hard work, the release of many classic albums, and what must have been a very frightening health emergency, it would not surprise me if Mr. Bowie has decided he’s done enough.  I will continue to hope for new songs/albums from Mr. Bowie, but if Reality represents his last major work, I will cherish it along with his other albums, which never seem to grow old.

Social Media Scamsters…

Fascinating, and thought provoking, article from Laura Miller at Salon.com and recommended for anyone out there with thoughts of hyping one’s self-publishing ebooks:

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/09/social_media_scamsters/

When looking over some of the independent self-publishing authors out there, I was struck by those who had an incredible amount of extremely positive reviews about their book.  We’re talking about authors I was unfamiliar with, people who sometimes only had one book on their resume, yet over fifty plus positive reviews about said book.

I wondered: How was that possible?

In the past few years, I’ve released a graphic novel, a book of short stories, and five novels.  Those I’ve encountered who have read some (or all) of my works have given me very kind complements about them.  I’m not exaggerating when I say these complements often border on the wildly enthusiastic.  Despite this, there is a dearth of positive reviews of my works on Amazon.  Those that are there are positive, like this one I found on Amazon UK just today (it was posted on August 6th) concerning my most recent novel, Chameleon, and is written by someone who identifies him/herself as “freeloader”:

(Chameleon) is an excellent read, i could not put this book down, and i will be looking for other works by this author, once again i found this as a free download on amazon Kindle site, and i thought free must mean rubish, but no once again a good book to read and would have no hesitation in trying this author again

Just to be clear here: I have neither friends nor family in the UK, where I’m assuming this review originates from (it was, after all, on the Amazon UK website).  I’m proud beyond words that my book was enjoyed by this particular reviewer enough for him/her to spend a few moments of their valuable time giving the book such a glowing positive review.

But I know that the vast majority of people out there simply don’t have either the time or inclination to write positive or negative reviews for everything good or bad they stumble upon in their day-to-day life.

I know because I’m guilty of doing just that.

I could spend literally days, weeks, months, and years sorting through the music I enjoy and writing reviews of everything that turns me on and off.  Ditto for movies and books.  The same goes for hotels, airlines, and restaurants I’ve used.  I could also review shoe, clothing, and T-shirt companies.  Hell, I could even write about politicians and countries.  Just about everything one encounters in the course of a day could be reviewed by you, should you choose to do so.

Which brings us back to Laura Miller’s article and my suspicions regarding some of those independent books with curiously large amounts of positive reviews.  I suppose one could accuse me of being jealous that I don’t have as many positive reviews of my works…and I would certainly accept that as a possibility.  I won’t lie:  I do wish that more of my readers would take the time to review my works, especially if they enjoyed what I’ve written.

But I am also realistic enough to know that what I do get in terms of reviews are a blessing.  Why?  Because these people have done something I myself haven’t done nearly as much as I should:  Take a moment of their valuable time to write something positive…in this case, about works I created.

While I’m certain there are those out there who use social media and social media promotion companies to manipulate opinion of their works, the fact is that that’s a reality of the world we live in.  It is my choice not to use professional promotion companies to pump out false positive reviews.  Thus, for better or worse, the reviews that do appear regarding my works -few as they may be- are earned.

And for those who have taken the time to say such nice things, my thanks to you.

I truly, truly appreciate it.

Why Shopping Will Never Be The Same…

Absolutely fascinating article from USA Today exploring what may become of the whole shopping experience not too many years in the future:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-08-05/future-retail-tech/56880626/1

Some of what Jon Swartz, the author of that piece, notes has been on my mind for a while.

I’m not a huge mall rat, though there was a time I enjoyed heading to the mall and looking in on the bookstores and record/music stores.  When MP3s appeared, the record/music stores effectively were done.  I still love to purchase music, but I do so over the internet and find this the most effective way of getting my hands on what I want.

Bookstores, similarly, appear to be going the way of music stores.  Nowadays, you can purchase almost any book you want (including mine!) via Amazon or Barnes and Noble online.  Movies and TV shows, likewise, are appearing more and more online as well, either through pay per view services or instant viewing via Netflix or (again) Amazon.

Purchasing books, music, or movies/TV shows via the internet is incredibly convenient.  You don’t have to physically go anywhere and risk not finding what you’re looking for.  You also know right away whether something you’re seeking is available and can be purchased.  Downloading the material is almost instantaneous.  But purchasing a physical copy of said material (ie a CD or an actual book or a DVD/BluRay), isn’t all that hard either.  While you have to wait for it to be mailed to you, to me this wait is not a huge inconvenience.  In a matter of a couple of days or, at most, a week I have the material in hand.

Which brings us to what else is sold out there.  Most electronics are available online and I’m certain many people try them out in stores and may search online for the best price for items (there’s even a term for that: showrooming).  Clothing, I suspect, will take a little bit longer to enter the internet purchasing sphere.  You can buy items, but part of purchasing clothing is seeing how it looks on you.  And how can you sample clothing via the internet?  The article does provide a glimpse into that process, and chances are that this too will soon be something people search for on the internet.  The same goes with jewelry, although in that case and because of the cost one often wants to see the actual piece they intend to buy.

Food stores I suspect will survive the digital age.  We all make our trips to supermarkets for the week’s food, and while online services will offer this for some, I suspect many shoppers want to see the food they eventually pay for.  Bruised bananas are not an option!  As for restaurants, there will be more and more online ordering, especially for chains that specialize in “to go” foods like pizza.  However, I suspect people will never lose the urge to go out of the house now and again and spend a couple of hours in a restaurant eating a good meal.

Another store that will probably continue to exist is the hardware store.  Not only will people always head to such stores for home improvement products, but there will continue to exist moments when such products have to be bought right away and cannot wait for the mail to deliver them (from emergencies involving plumbing, electrical, or roofing problems to simple things like needing new lightbulbs or air conditioner filters).

What all this means, in the end, is what the above article notes.  The days of the shopping malls and strips malls may be coming to an end.  There may come a time when small “satellite” stores are the norm, where people go into those shops to see the individual items they want to purchase and examine them but do the actual purchasing over the net and get the items delivered to their house.

The world is indeed changing.

About the coming Presidential election…

Fascinating article by Michael Tomansky at The Daily Beast concerning the upcoming Presidential election…and the possibility it might be an Obama landslide:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/04/michael-tomasky-on-the-possible-coming-obama-landslide.html

I tend to agree with Mr. Tomansky, though I would hardly consider myself a political junkie (my wife might argue otherwise).

Having watched the political shows here and there, I’ve been struck by how incredibly weak a candidate Mitt Romney is.  He may be a nice guy, he may be an intelligent man, but as a candidate he’s stiff and prone to saying silly things.  And when not saying such silly things, he has been caught contradicting or denouncing what should be his core beliefs.  This is a man, after all, who was once pro-choice and valued Planned Parenthood.  Now he’s anti-abortion and threatens to “defund” Planned Parenthood.  In the past he was a proponent of gun control but now he’s a 2nd amendment purist.  And then there’s what’s perhaps the biggest inconsistency:  As Governor of Massachusetts he pushed through the state’s health care act, which was essentially copied with “Obamacare”.  Now, as a Republican candidate, he can’t say enough bad things about this system.

And I haven’t even gotten into issues of what taxes he paid and his stubborn belief that he should not release his IRS records.  Finally, there’s one more little thing:  One gets the feeling that hard core Republicans simply don’t trust him.

Yes, President Obama has issues to deal with, primary of which is the still fragile economy.  Having said that, unless President Obama stumbles really badly and does something colossally dumb, I just can’t see him losing to Mitt Romney.

Then again, we’re still a ways from the election and there’s plenty of time for things to change.  I doubt it, but we’ll see…

Five atheists who ruin if for everyone else…

Fascinating article by Ian Murphy and found on Salon.com regarding the above, five famous atheists who, according to the author, make all atheists look bad:

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/04/five_most_awful_atheists_salpart/

The author’s choices are fascinating, but the one that I found myself most agreeing with is the last of the five, S. E. Cupp.  I have watched a couple of episodes of MSNBCs’ The Cycle, a show that features a grouping of four different hosts including Ms. Cupp, and one of the episodes I saw featured a guest (I forget who) who was promoting a book about his philosophy of being.  Anyway, the hosts of the show and the author eventually ventured into the subject of religion and Ms. Cupp mentioned she was an atheist.  As an atheist myself, I thought this was a refreshing thing to hear.  While I do not share Ms. Cupp’s conservative philosophies (of the four hosts, she represents the “right”), I was curious to hear what she had to say about her atheism.

What followed was rather depressing and goes right in line with what Mr. Murphy wrote about Ms. Cupp.  Her statements on her atheism were bizarre and bordered on self-loathing.  When the segment was done, I couldn’t help but wonder how someone goes through life apparently hating a part of oneself.

Or does she?

Afterwards, I wondered if Ms. Cupp’s atheism was real or simply a tool for some other goal.  Was admitting to being an atheist her “clever” way of denigrating atheism?  A couple of times she noted how she envied people with religious convictions and wished she could experience that element in her life.  Pity us poor atheists, she appeared to say.  For we live a life of wandering, without having a God to look up!

As I said before, I’m an atheist.  Unlike Ms. Cupp, I’m comfortable in my skin.  I neither envy or miss religion.  However, neither do “look down” upon those who are religious.  I’ve lived in enough places and experienced enough cultures through my life to know that what works for me may not work for others.  Thus, if there is any one abiding philosophy I abide by, it is that one should strive to do what makes one happy inside, provided that doing so doesn’t hurt or annoy others.  (If there’s one thing I can’t stand is someone who thrusts one’s own philosophy, religious or not, onto others).

But to live your life as a self-described anything and talk as if that particular aspect of your being is a burden to you seems like such a colossal waste of time and energy.  If you aren’t comfortable being an atheist, then by all means stop being one.  There are many philosophies and religions out there.  Instead of going on about how much being an atheist brings you down, why not instead use that energy to look for something that will instead lift your spirits?

As the saying goes, life is too short.

So I went to a 7-Eleven yesterday…

…and as I walk to the counter and get in line behind the person the cashier is currently attended to, he asks for and receives two packs of Camel cigarettes.  As the attendant rings him up, she notices a can of cold beer on the counter beside him and asks if that’s his as well.

The man grips his two packs of cigarettes, shakes his head, and replies in one of those how-could-you-possibly-think tone of voices: “No, dear, I don’t drink.”

Reminded me of that scene in Airplane! where one of the passengers takes a swig of liquor while an old lady sitting next to him watches.  He realizes she’s staring at him and offers her a drink.  The old woman appears horrified by the man’s attempt at politeness and frostily replies “Certainly not!”.

She then proceeds to put a straw in her nose and snort a couple of lines of what looks an awfully lot like cocaine…

Best/Worst Movie Remakes

Now that the new version of Total Recall has just been released to movie theaters, I’ve noted a batch of “Best/Worst Movie remakes” articles appearing on the web.

This one is from The Vancouver Sun:

http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Movie+review+Total+Recall+redux+offers+popcorn+pleasures+nothing/7037708/story.html

I can’t disagree with much of what they list.  If I were to pick my personal favorite remake, I’d probably go with The Maltese Falcon.  What is most amazing about that classic film Humphrey Bogart film is the fact that it was actually the third version of that film!  The first version, also titled The Maltese Falcon was released ten years earlier in 1931 and featured Ricardo Cortez in the role of Sam Spade.  Bette Davis would appear a few years later in Satan Met a Lady (1936), the second version of the story that instead of a Maltese Falcon featured the hunt for a valuable “French Horn.”  Both films can’t hold a candle to the quality of the Humphrey Bogart version.

As far as worst remake…there are just so many examples of retreads that were either inadvisable or silly.   Not listed in the above article, for example, is the remake of the classic 1973 horror cult movie The Wicker Man.  The original film was an incredible and very unique work, which featured some very sharp jabs at something I believe no big time studio would dare approach in this day and age: Religion.  When I heard a remake was in the works, I simply couldn’t believe that the makers of this remake would dare to approach the subject matter in the bold way the original did.

I was right.  The 2006 version of The Wicker Man stayed very clear from the more potent religious themes present in the original film and the result was proved what I expected, a bland, ultimately silly and meaningless film that couldn’t hold a candle to the original.

Another film that I personally found hard to take was the 2006 film Superman Returns.  I am a HUGE fan of the 1978 Richard Donner directed Superman film.  To this day, I still consider it the very best superhero film ever made.  Director Bryan Singer obviously loves it too, but when he directed Superman Returns, I believe that love wound up hurting the overall product.  When Superman Returns was originally released in 2006, I was led to believe it was a sequel to the first two Superman films.  However, while there were some new ideas presented here and there (Lois having Superman’s baby), the movie was in reality a not so stealthy remake of Richard Donner’s Superman.

And it just didn’t have the majesty, the humor, or the charisma to pull it off.  Now, there are many who disagree with that assessment.  My local paper’s film critic was blown away by the film upon its release and gave is three and a half stars and proclaimed it one of the best films released up to that point in 2006.  The film appeared to be a modest success, so at the very least film audiences were divided.

Now, the quirkiest movie remake of them all:  Airplane!

Few may realize this, but Airplane! is a hilarious remake of the very serious 1957 film Zero Hour!, complete with exclamation point on the end.  The video below presents wonderful examples of the similarities between both movies.  Enjoy!

Prometheus sequel…?

The Hollywood reporter offered an interesting article that focused on the possibilities of sequels to films released this past summer, given their box office success/failure:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/summer-movie-franchise-avengers-snow-white-magic-mike-356583

The bit that fascinated me was about what was probably one of the most disappointing films released this summer (indeed, considering how eager I was to see this and the high hopes I had for it, maybe the most disappointing film in many summers!), Prometheus.  This is what they had to say about the possibility of a sequel to that film:

(FOX) studio’s big summer bet was Ridley Scott‘s Prometheus, June’s sort-of Alien prequel. The $130 million-budgeted film grossed a solid but not spectacular $303 million globally, putting it right on the franchise bubble. Fox confirms to THR that Scott and the studio actively are pushing ahead with a follow-up (stars Michael Fassbender and Noomi Rapace are signed) and are talking to new writers because Prometheus co-scribe Damon Lindelof might not be available. “Ridley is incredibly excited about the movie, but we have to get it right. We can’t rush it,” says Fox president of production Emma Watts, who also has overseen the successful reboots of the X-Men and Planet of the Apes franchises. A Prometheus sequel would be released in 2014 or 2015.

Despite my feelings regarding the film, I have to admit that I’d be open to a sequel.  I might -might!- even become excited to see such a thing, provided the story this time around is a good one and not the messy (though undeniably ambitious) story we had with Prometheus.

Going over the reprinted blurb above, the people who did enjoy Prometheus and are eager to see the sequel should note that nowhere in this piece does it say that this potential sequel is a certainty.  Indeed, note how the article states the movie’s gross was “solid but not spectacular” and that because of that it is on a “franchise bubble”.  Yes, director Ridley Scott is “excited about the movie” and is working on a sequel, but Fox president of production Emma Watts does not come out and say this sequel has been greenlighted.

Perhaps I’m reading more into this very short blurb than I should, but I get the impression that the people at Fox are well aware of the disappointment audiences had to the film and realize the Prometheus could have flopped badly.  While it made them money, they may feel they dodged a bullet and whatever profit they made was in spite of the movie’s weak story.  This is further reinforced by the fact that they are talking to other writers about the sequel because screenwriter Damon Lindelof “may not be available”.  One gets the sense that this is a polite way of saying they may not want him back.

However because the movie did make a profit, FOX studios are willing to give the film’s makers a chance to present a sequel concept/treatment/screenplay.  If this presentation excites them enough, they’ll go ahead with the sequel.  If it doesn’t…

Then again, the DVD/BluRay of the film will be released soon enough, and if that proves to be a success they might just warm up to the sequel idea a little bit more.

Were ancient Greek athletes tougher than today’s Olympians?

Fascinating article from Slate Magazine that compares some Olympic scores from ancient Greek athletes to those of modern Olympians.  The results are alternately predictable and fascinating:

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/explainer/2012/07/london_olympics_would_ancient_greek_athletes.html

One of the great “What ifs” of the sporting world is the idea of taking a famous (older) team in its prime and theoretically putting it up against another (modern) formidable team.  Kobe Bryant cracked that window a bit when he made reference to this current Olympic Basketball team being able to beat the “Dream Team” of 1992.  The critics instantly scoffed at Bryant’s statements.  Many of them felt there was absolutely no way that this current Olympic basketball team could win even one game against the 1992 team.

But I wonder.

A few years before he passed away, Jim Mandich, the plainspoken and very entertaining ex-Miami Dolphin tight end and radio announcer noted that while he prided himself for having been a part of the “Undefeated” Dolphin team of 1972 as well as what many consider the even better Superbowl winning team of 1973 (though they did not replicate their undefeated record of the year before), he felt that as legendary as those teams were, they wouldn’t put up much of a fight against modern football teams.

The fact is that with each passing year, modern athletics become more and more of a science.  And thanks to larger financial rewards, many athletes today can spend virtually the entire year conditioning themselves into peak physical shape.  Back in the early 1970’s, it was not uncommon for football players to spent the off season working at other jobs to sustain themselves.  A friend of mine, for example, recalled meeting Larry Csonka, perhaps one of the most famous of those Miami Dolphins, working at a car dealership during his off season.

So, who would win…today’s athletes or those of yesteryear?  In the end, its all theory.

But if someone one day comes up with a time machine and brings athletes from the past in their prime to play against athletes of the present (or more recent past)…Even though I’d love to think that some of my favorite athletes and teams from the past are and will always be the best, I think I’d put my money on more the modern athletes over them.