About 2 weeks ago, I got an email from an old friend, Bob Fera. Bob and I go way back. I played bass with his band for a few years, wrote songs with Bob, recorded a record or two. Needless to say, I love Bob like a brother. A brother I hadn't really heard from in a decade.
Here's the backstory...
About 10 years ago, I'd quit his band. Just showed up at practice and said "Sorry guys, I'm done."
I just wanted to play different stuff, was fresh out of college, broke, lost my parents, and just needed a change in my life. It was a bit of a dick move at the time, but people quit bands. It happens all the time. Bob was not happy, but accepted it. After that, we hardly spoke.
So, a decade went bye. I got a job, played in other bands, recorded my own stuff (some good, some not so good), and generally moved on. Life's been, well, pretty good lately. I could complain about a few things, but compared to my 20's, my 30's have been a breeze.
About Bob Fera's music:
I think Bob's voice is unparalleled. Just about everyone who sees him does. The man can sing. Unfortunately, he's never gotten the acclaim I really believe he deserves, not only as a singer, but as a songwriter. Bob's songs are simple, catchy, honest, and full of heart. The fact that his voice is so perfect sometimes distracts the listener from hearing how damned good the song itself is.
Here's an example... I was at his gig last weekend at the Tudor Lounge and shot this video:
Please excuse the cheesy video cross-cuts, I was covering up for my poor iphone camera skills, beer spills, etc. In the end, I tried to make the footage fit the song (titled "Just another mile...") and cut out my thumb on the lens!
Here's another track that I'd recorded with Bob back in the 90's. (The man can sing, but the song itself is pretty excellent..)
Anyhow, seeing Bob perform this past weekend highlighted (for me) how important Bob should be on the buffalo scene. More people should hear his music. Seeing Bob light up a stage is something we need to see more of.
So... why did Bobby email me 2 weeks ago? Well, Bob asked me to come back and play bass with him again. He's moving the current bassist (Nate) over to the piano.
Of course, I said "yes". Bob's making some of the best music in town and I am excited to be a part of it. More importantly, I'm even more ecstatic that I'll be seeing my old friend a lot more.
Scott's Journal
My Podcast Link
09/17/2010 10:18 #52767
Me & Bob...Category: music
07/23/2010 14:48 #52259
Why the "Double Rainbow" is the good for you.Category: youtube
The "Double Rainbow" video. If you haven't seen it, you will... it's everywhere.
I've seen several articles talking about how this simple little video of a guy going bananas over a rainbow has gone, well, bananas since Jimmy Kimmel tweeted it on the 4th of July.
Most of these articles I see focus on one of two things:
1. The speedy rise of the video's popularity (6 million views as of my typing this...)
2. The guy... Paul Vasquez (aka "Hungry Bear") and the fact that news outlets are calling him.
To me, that's the wrong side of the story. Very few writers are focusing on WHY this video is so popular. Why do people watch it over and over?
In this case, yes, the video's kind of funny, but I think this one's more than just that. What I believe attracts people to this video is the joy. This man is not faking it. The emotions he's going through, the glee, the pure joy at a simple fucking rainbow, are real and infectious. Who wouldn't want to feel that kind joy? Who wouldn't want to see someone else feel that kind of joy?
It makes you feel better just for having seen it. That's the kind of video that I really think SHOULD be viral. I see a lot of funny videos. Most are staged (Keyboard cat), some are cute (David after dentist), but this one is uplifting.
If you're laughing at the video, it's likely a GOOD laugh. The "Hungry Bear" wants you to laugh and smile and feel some joy, too.
The world sucks enough joy out of each of us every day, it's pretty cool that stoned guy (he's gotta be high) lovin' a rainbow can put some of it back.
Ok enough, if you haven't seen it yet, then here it is:
So far, I haven't seen anyone making fun of the guy. The only "parody" I've seen was this song done with his consent. (The proceeds from the mp3 go to him and Yosemite, which I think is pretty cool, as well.)
So go ahead, watch these videos and laugh, smile, and feel good.
I've seen several articles talking about how this simple little video of a guy going bananas over a rainbow has gone, well, bananas since Jimmy Kimmel tweeted it on the 4th of July.
Most of these articles I see focus on one of two things:
1. The speedy rise of the video's popularity (6 million views as of my typing this...)
2. The guy... Paul Vasquez (aka "Hungry Bear") and the fact that news outlets are calling him.
To me, that's the wrong side of the story. Very few writers are focusing on WHY this video is so popular. Why do people watch it over and over?
In this case, yes, the video's kind of funny, but I think this one's more than just that. What I believe attracts people to this video is the joy. This man is not faking it. The emotions he's going through, the glee, the pure joy at a simple fucking rainbow, are real and infectious. Who wouldn't want to feel that kind joy? Who wouldn't want to see someone else feel that kind of joy?
It makes you feel better just for having seen it. That's the kind of video that I really think SHOULD be viral. I see a lot of funny videos. Most are staged (Keyboard cat), some are cute (David after dentist), but this one is uplifting.
If you're laughing at the video, it's likely a GOOD laugh. The "Hungry Bear" wants you to laugh and smile and feel some joy, too.
The world sucks enough joy out of each of us every day, it's pretty cool that stoned guy (he's gotta be high) lovin' a rainbow can put some of it back.
Ok enough, if you haven't seen it yet, then here it is:
So far, I haven't seen anyone making fun of the guy. The only "parody" I've seen was this song done with his consent. (The proceeds from the mp3 go to him and Yosemite, which I think is pretty cool, as well.)
So go ahead, watch these videos and laugh, smile, and feel good.
07/10/2010 13:32 #52145
Reading Poetry to the Lawn MowerCategory: music
Hey folks. I've decided to create a new art form. It's called Reading Poetry to the Lawn Mower. This new medium is sure to revolutionize the art world. You see, garden equipment needs more culture. It's starved for some lyrical content. As such, I've taken up the task. I've even offered services to read to my mower on commission.
There's nothing quite like the expression on a weed wacker when you read it a nice passage from Frost, Poe, Dickenson, or Lady GaGa. You can see the years of abuse melt away. I had to document the phenomenon.
For my first forray into this new, emerging artform, I've taken on a song by the budding English artist SiFu Music .
You may ask yourself: "Why SiFu Music???" or "What the hell is SiFu Music?"
To answer both of those questions, I present to you "Aint Whatcha Say", the classic opus by SiFu Music:
I know what you're thinking: "Wow, that's the most amazing thing I've ever fucking heard!!". Well, my friends, you are correct. Your life has been altered. You may thank me, later. I, too, was blown away. With lyrics like "Ju Ju Ju Ju Ju Ju Ju Ju Ju", Bob Dylan's legacy is sure to fall.
I then proceeded to listen to the song for 24 hours straight. Although, it might have been 24 seconds. You see, I can't tell because listening to "Aint Whatcha Say" actually has time travel as a side effect.
So, when I returned to my senses, I said to myself: "Self, your lawn mower needs to hear this...". After hearing myself say that to me, I sprung into almost immediate action. (Ok, I waited like a week, but I'm a busy mo'fo and there was time travel going on.)
I grabbed my trusty video camera and made a movie... check it out:
But that's not all. I felt this song deserved more. It needed a tribute. An homage to the inspiration. Sleepless nights ensued. I was haunted by the sound of "Ju Ju Ju Ju Ju...".
It had become the white whale to my Ahab.
I had to conquer "Aint Whatcha Say".
So I busted out my trusty axe. I started riffin' in tongues. I traveled to the netherworld. I spoke to the animals. My soul took flight. I made an mp3.
There's nothing quite like the expression on a weed wacker when you read it a nice passage from Frost, Poe, Dickenson, or Lady GaGa. You can see the years of abuse melt away. I had to document the phenomenon.
For my first forray into this new, emerging artform, I've taken on a song by the budding English artist SiFu Music .
You may ask yourself: "Why SiFu Music???" or "What the hell is SiFu Music?"
To answer both of those questions, I present to you "Aint Whatcha Say", the classic opus by SiFu Music:
I know what you're thinking: "Wow, that's the most amazing thing I've ever fucking heard!!". Well, my friends, you are correct. Your life has been altered. You may thank me, later. I, too, was blown away. With lyrics like "Ju Ju Ju Ju Ju Ju Ju Ju Ju", Bob Dylan's legacy is sure to fall.
I then proceeded to listen to the song for 24 hours straight. Although, it might have been 24 seconds. You see, I can't tell because listening to "Aint Whatcha Say" actually has time travel as a side effect.
So, when I returned to my senses, I said to myself: "Self, your lawn mower needs to hear this...". After hearing myself say that to me, I sprung into almost immediate action. (Ok, I waited like a week, but I'm a busy mo'fo and there was time travel going on.)
I grabbed my trusty video camera and made a movie... check it out:
But that's not all. I felt this song deserved more. It needed a tribute. An homage to the inspiration. Sleepless nights ensued. I was haunted by the sound of "Ju Ju Ju Ju Ju...".
It had become the white whale to my Ahab.
I had to conquer "Aint Whatcha Say".
So I busted out my trusty axe. I started riffin' in tongues. I traveled to the netherworld. I spoke to the animals. My soul took flight. I made an mp3.
07/03/2010 12:44 #52086
I wish Apple took my privacy seriouslyCategory: iphone
he iPhone's a pretty neat device. Sure, it's not the best at being a “phoneâ€, but it is a very handy device to have in your pocket. As advertised, there really is an “app†for just about anything you can imagine. Sure, most of those apps are silly crap, but in truth, most of what people can imagine is silly, in fact, crap.
Over the past year or so, my little black iPhone has become an integral device in my daily life. I use it for e-mail. I surf the web on it. I use it to find restaurants, look up directions, answer random trivia, it's my camera, about 90% of my tweets and Facebook posts come from my iPhone. It's also my music player of choice. (Nothing yet designed tops the design of the iPod.)
So, what could be so wrong with the iPhone that I am considering ditching it? SMS popups. They are unstoppable.
That's right, iPhone's SMS Popup can't be stopped!
When a user receives an SMS on the iPhone, it pops up. By default, this “feature†will display the message on your screen, no matter what you are doing. The iPhone will light up, even if it's locked and asleep to show that text. So, by default, your text message is shown to whomever is looking at the screen at that time.
You can imagine the obvious implications of this. In fact, there are people who've run into nightmare-like problems because of it. All you need is the wrong text coming in at the wrong time and you could lose a job, a girlfriend, or ruin someone's birthday. (Thanks iPhone!)
Apple's solution: Users can shut of the “preview†mode for texts. This setting, which is buried in the phone's settings menus, will prevent the iPhone from displaying the message in the popups. However, the popups themselves appear to be unstoppable.
So, this setting removes the content of the message. The name (or number) of the sender will still show on the screen. So, if you don't want someone you're with to know who else is might be texting you, you're shit out of luck with the iPhone.
Apple's die-hard kool-aid drinkers will tell you “Just flip the phone over and you've got no problemâ€. I could not agree less. I should not have to worry about which side is facing up to keep my privacy intact.
Other iPhone-o-philes will say “Just download X app and it'll handle SMS differently...†Well, I have two retorts to that. Number one: I shouldn't have to buy some third party app to properly handle a core feature (SMS) on a phone. That's just stupid. Number two: None of those apps truly handle SMS. They handle e-mail, which is not SMS. So, using those apps, you cannot receive SMS from short-code based services. Therefore they are really all just shitty email clients. (Again, why the hell would I want to buy a feature that my crappy old BlackBerry could handle??)
If this were a new problem, I'd have more patience, but this has been a problem with iPhones since their initial release. How does Apple not see this as a privacy problem?
Oh wait, it gets worse. This can also become a power/battery issue.
Consider my situation: I receive SMS messages from a server. I get a text every time a process runs, and every time it finishes to let me know that things are working OK. This process runs about a hundred times a day, sometimes more. Needless to say, this adds up to a lot of texts. Hundreds per day. With my iPhone, this means that the display lights up every time a text comes in, sucking my battery dry for no good reason. On top of that, typing an e-mail, playing a game, tweeting, or doing just about anything is constantly interrupted by popups. (Very annoying.) All I want to do is shut the popup off. Doesn't sound too earth-shattering, but it appears that the “genius†designers at Apple are dumbfounded.
In general, I'm a fan of Apple's products. My Macbook is the best laptop I've ever owned. My iPhone is, in general, the best handheld device I own. However, this one flaw may very well be unbearable. How can Apple, who spend so much on design, let this slip by? How could they have not noticed this when beta testing SMS on their devices? Worse yet, they've had several years to correct this problem and, despite a vocal outcry, have utterly ignored this obvious flaw in their otherwise well designed device.
Sure, a year or two ago, there was nothing that compared to the iPhone. However, the worm has turned. Google's Android phones have caught up in features and useful applications. This small annoyance may very well be the tipping point that drives me to Android.
Over the past year or so, my little black iPhone has become an integral device in my daily life. I use it for e-mail. I surf the web on it. I use it to find restaurants, look up directions, answer random trivia, it's my camera, about 90% of my tweets and Facebook posts come from my iPhone. It's also my music player of choice. (Nothing yet designed tops the design of the iPod.)
So, what could be so wrong with the iPhone that I am considering ditching it? SMS popups. They are unstoppable.
That's right, iPhone's SMS Popup can't be stopped!
When a user receives an SMS on the iPhone, it pops up. By default, this “feature†will display the message on your screen, no matter what you are doing. The iPhone will light up, even if it's locked and asleep to show that text. So, by default, your text message is shown to whomever is looking at the screen at that time.
You can imagine the obvious implications of this. In fact, there are people who've run into nightmare-like problems because of it. All you need is the wrong text coming in at the wrong time and you could lose a job, a girlfriend, or ruin someone's birthday. (Thanks iPhone!)
Apple's solution: Users can shut of the “preview†mode for texts. This setting, which is buried in the phone's settings menus, will prevent the iPhone from displaying the message in the popups. However, the popups themselves appear to be unstoppable.
So, this setting removes the content of the message. The name (or number) of the sender will still show on the screen. So, if you don't want someone you're with to know who else is might be texting you, you're shit out of luck with the iPhone.
Apple's die-hard kool-aid drinkers will tell you “Just flip the phone over and you've got no problemâ€. I could not agree less. I should not have to worry about which side is facing up to keep my privacy intact.
Other iPhone-o-philes will say “Just download X app and it'll handle SMS differently...†Well, I have two retorts to that. Number one: I shouldn't have to buy some third party app to properly handle a core feature (SMS) on a phone. That's just stupid. Number two: None of those apps truly handle SMS. They handle e-mail, which is not SMS. So, using those apps, you cannot receive SMS from short-code based services. Therefore they are really all just shitty email clients. (Again, why the hell would I want to buy a feature that my crappy old BlackBerry could handle??)
If this were a new problem, I'd have more patience, but this has been a problem with iPhones since their initial release. How does Apple not see this as a privacy problem?
Oh wait, it gets worse. This can also become a power/battery issue.
Consider my situation: I receive SMS messages from a server. I get a text every time a process runs, and every time it finishes to let me know that things are working OK. This process runs about a hundred times a day, sometimes more. Needless to say, this adds up to a lot of texts. Hundreds per day. With my iPhone, this means that the display lights up every time a text comes in, sucking my battery dry for no good reason. On top of that, typing an e-mail, playing a game, tweeting, or doing just about anything is constantly interrupted by popups. (Very annoying.) All I want to do is shut the popup off. Doesn't sound too earth-shattering, but it appears that the “genius†designers at Apple are dumbfounded.
In general, I'm a fan of Apple's products. My Macbook is the best laptop I've ever owned. My iPhone is, in general, the best handheld device I own. However, this one flaw may very well be unbearable. How can Apple, who spend so much on design, let this slip by? How could they have not noticed this when beta testing SMS on their devices? Worse yet, they've had several years to correct this problem and, despite a vocal outcry, have utterly ignored this obvious flaw in their otherwise well designed device.
Sure, a year or two ago, there was nothing that compared to the iPhone. However, the worm has turned. Google's Android phones have caught up in features and useful applications. This small annoyance may very well be the tipping point that drives me to Android.
scott - 07/03/10 19:58
I still like my MacBook, but then again I use it for a home recording studio, which Linux just can't do at this time. (well not anywhere near as well as Logic or GarageBand can)
It's just this one feature I really can't stand. Aside from that, I have no complaints.
I still like my MacBook, but then again I use it for a home recording studio, which Linux just can't do at this time. (well not anywhere near as well as Logic or GarageBand can)
It's just this one feature I really can't stand. Aside from that, I have no complaints.
paul - 07/03/10 19:44
As a former iPhone owner (2g, 3g, 3gs) I am now much happier with android. Now as happy as I was dropping osx for linux but happier nonetheless. Usually, ease of use with apple means less options. Of course having less options appears easy.
As a former iPhone owner (2g, 3g, 3gs) I am now much happier with android. Now as happy as I was dropping osx for linux but happier nonetheless. Usually, ease of use with apple means less options. Of course having less options appears easy.
metalpeter - 07/03/10 17:50
I don't have a cellphone but if I did this would drive me insane. I agree with you 100%. The Problem I have with apple is it seems there is this attitude of we are different and better and that they are linked. With this attitude you can't fix mistakes cause you don't think they are, and you think that people who dislike this function aren't in The know, and don't know what they are talking about. What is tough for me to believe is that it pops up over what you are doing, and you are correct about the privacy thing......
I don't have a cellphone but if I did this would drive me insane. I agree with you 100%. The Problem I have with apple is it seems there is this attitude of we are different and better and that they are linked. With this attitude you can't fix mistakes cause you don't think they are, and you think that people who dislike this function aren't in The know, and don't know what they are talking about. What is tough for me to believe is that it pops up over what you are doing, and you are correct about the privacy thing......
06/30/2010 14:07 #52065
Pretty sure Vampires don't "sparkle" in sunlightCategory: movies
I used to love vampire movies. Even the corniest of vampire movies had my attention (Fright Night, anyone?).
Vampires used to be the best bad guys. Evil, cunning villains who you could survive by following a few simple rules that everyone knows. (Garlic, sunlight, wooden stakes, etc.)
I can list off classic vampire flicks by the dozen. Everything from the classic Nosferatu, the animated gem "Vampire Hunter D", to Tarrantino's piece of shit slasher film (From Dusk 'Til Dawn), to the uber-exploitive classic, Blacula. Heck, I'll even chalk up the Lost Boys as a movie I still will watch whenever I catch it on cable. (Who doesn't love the "DEATH BY STEREO!" scene?)
Anne Rice decided to make vampires extra sexy, and Hollywood did a good job transitioning that in Interview with the Vampire. Hardly an Oscar worthy flick, but the vampires were at least kinda bad guys and it was a watchable movie.
For the most part, all vampire movies are somewhat terrible films. The stories are pretty predictable. The special effects are usually pretty lame. By Oscar standards, they're all junk, but they're fun flicks and they keep a tradition of sorts alive.
Then along came Buffy... Joss Whedon used the vampire genre as a springboard for clever writing and a fantistic TV series. (Again, cheesy, but fun.) Not all of his vampires were bad guys, but then again, it was (for the most part) a lighthearted show about dead stuff. Joss Whedon's show redefined the genre a bit and while Buffy (and Angel) were brilliant shows, their influence seems to have killed the vampire as a bad guy.
HBO's latest offering (True Blood) seems to want to be a "more serious" version of Buffy. It's OK for a TV show. I'll watch it because I like the genre. (Special girl falls for "good" vampire with a sordid past... has a bunch of friends who help her thwart evil... same fucking show, without the snappy writing of Joss Whedon.)
What do today's kids get? Twilight. WTF. I'm sorry kids. You're getting cheated. The story just sucks. The characters all suck, yet none of them suck blood. One-dimensional, boring characters who have nothing to offer. The female lead is a helpless damsel in distress who can't make up her mind on whether she wants to fuck a dog or a dead guy. (Niether of which have the balls to actually kill anything.)
This isn't a horror film, or an action film. It appears to be a live action version of "Bunnicula" crossed with an awkwardly written teen-aged masturbatory fantasy. It's completely devoid of anything spooky, scary, or even suspenseful.
My case in point: They swapped out vampires, the most bad-ass of all things-that-go-bump-in-the-night for goddamn fucking faeries that sparkle (yes, sparkle) in sunlight. No, that's not a joke. The vampires in the Twilight Saga sparkle when the sun hits them.
Unfortuantely, I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. Up next, they're going to start making "friendly" wereworlf movies. (Aww fuck... I guess Teen Wolf kinda shit in that pool already.)\
Can't wait to see Hollywood try and make zombies into a cute-n-cuddly monster. It's coming, I'm sure.
Vampires used to be the best bad guys. Evil, cunning villains who you could survive by following a few simple rules that everyone knows. (Garlic, sunlight, wooden stakes, etc.)
I can list off classic vampire flicks by the dozen. Everything from the classic Nosferatu, the animated gem "Vampire Hunter D", to Tarrantino's piece of shit slasher film (From Dusk 'Til Dawn), to the uber-exploitive classic, Blacula. Heck, I'll even chalk up the Lost Boys as a movie I still will watch whenever I catch it on cable. (Who doesn't love the "DEATH BY STEREO!" scene?)
Anne Rice decided to make vampires extra sexy, and Hollywood did a good job transitioning that in Interview with the Vampire. Hardly an Oscar worthy flick, but the vampires were at least kinda bad guys and it was a watchable movie.
For the most part, all vampire movies are somewhat terrible films. The stories are pretty predictable. The special effects are usually pretty lame. By Oscar standards, they're all junk, but they're fun flicks and they keep a tradition of sorts alive.
Then along came Buffy... Joss Whedon used the vampire genre as a springboard for clever writing and a fantistic TV series. (Again, cheesy, but fun.) Not all of his vampires were bad guys, but then again, it was (for the most part) a lighthearted show about dead stuff. Joss Whedon's show redefined the genre a bit and while Buffy (and Angel) were brilliant shows, their influence seems to have killed the vampire as a bad guy.
HBO's latest offering (True Blood) seems to want to be a "more serious" version of Buffy. It's OK for a TV show. I'll watch it because I like the genre. (Special girl falls for "good" vampire with a sordid past... has a bunch of friends who help her thwart evil... same fucking show, without the snappy writing of Joss Whedon.)
What do today's kids get? Twilight. WTF. I'm sorry kids. You're getting cheated. The story just sucks. The characters all suck, yet none of them suck blood. One-dimensional, boring characters who have nothing to offer. The female lead is a helpless damsel in distress who can't make up her mind on whether she wants to fuck a dog or a dead guy. (Niether of which have the balls to actually kill anything.)
This isn't a horror film, or an action film. It appears to be a live action version of "Bunnicula" crossed with an awkwardly written teen-aged masturbatory fantasy. It's completely devoid of anything spooky, scary, or even suspenseful.
My case in point: They swapped out vampires, the most bad-ass of all things-that-go-bump-in-the-night for goddamn fucking faeries that sparkle (yes, sparkle) in sunlight. No, that's not a joke. The vampires in the Twilight Saga sparkle when the sun hits them.
Unfortuantely, I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. Up next, they're going to start making "friendly" wereworlf movies. (Aww fuck... I guess Teen Wolf kinda shit in that pool already.)\
Can't wait to see Hollywood try and make zombies into a cute-n-cuddly monster. It's coming, I'm sure.
metalpeter - 07/02/10 16:57
Just had to say I fucked up I said the wrong Will Smith movie with i in. In terms of Irobot it is really more of a here is an idea that has been in anime movies and lets make it a live action movie.
Just had to say I fucked up I said the wrong Will Smith movie with i in. In terms of Irobot it is really more of a here is an idea that has been in anime movies and lets make it a live action movie.
scott - 06/30/10 23:28
Oh almost forgot... I Robot is a shitty action movie bastardization of the book by Isaac Asimov, not a zombie movie.
Fido, however, is definitely the "cute & friendly" zombie flick, however, it is more of an indie movie than a Hollywood studio film. (it's also really a good movie. Very campy and Billy connolly is great in it. )
Oh almost forgot... I Robot is a shitty action movie bastardization of the book by Isaac Asimov, not a zombie movie.
Fido, however, is definitely the "cute & friendly" zombie flick, however, it is more of an indie movie than a Hollywood studio film. (it's also really a good movie. Very campy and Billy connolly is great in it. )
scott - 06/30/10 23:23
I did leave out a ton of vampire movies... Salem's Lot, for example, is a great (and spooky) one. I also left out Bram Stoker's Dracula, as I have long tried to block out Wynona Rider and Keanu Reeves doing horrid English accents. The Hugh Jackman movie (Van Helsing?) is really a comic book movie adaptation, but I thought it was entertaining.
I realize that writers will put their own mark on the genre. That's fine. I just happen to think that Twilight is really, really bad. Embarassingly bad, in fact. The main vampire doesn't drink blood, sparkles in the sun, and drives a fucking Volvo. Need I say more?
I did leave out a ton of vampire movies... Salem's Lot, for example, is a great (and spooky) one. I also left out Bram Stoker's Dracula, as I have long tried to block out Wynona Rider and Keanu Reeves doing horrid English accents. The Hugh Jackman movie (Van Helsing?) is really a comic book movie adaptation, but I thought it was entertaining.
I realize that writers will put their own mark on the genre. That's fine. I just happen to think that Twilight is really, really bad. Embarassingly bad, in fact. The main vampire doesn't drink blood, sparkles in the sun, and drives a fucking Volvo. Need I say more?
tinypliny - 06/30/10 20:43
And come on! Mr. Pegg's friend-zombie-who-ends-up-living-in-the-shed does fit the cute and cuddly description.
And come on! Mr. Pegg's friend-zombie-who-ends-up-living-in-the-shed does fit the cute and cuddly description.
tinypliny - 06/30/10 20:41
True, but zombies have to stay in character or in other words, they need to kill some folks or eat some brains within 30 minutes of appearing on-screen (check the zombie guide if you don't believe me!). Otherwise they wouldn't be zombies!
And you forgot the Hugh Jackman vampire movie! (I forget its name...)
True, but zombies have to stay in character or in other words, they need to kill some folks or eat some brains within 30 minutes of appearing on-screen (check the zombie guide if you don't believe me!). Otherwise they wouldn't be zombies!
And you forgot the Hugh Jackman vampire movie! (I forget its name...)
metalpeter - 06/30/10 20:04
Not sure if you are talking about the Twilight series or the newest movie, it doesn't matter really. As with Zombie Movies you have different kinds of movies with in that same type. Twilight (with out seeing the 3rd). Is more a movie about love and High School and the people in it are Vampires. This is the reason why I couldn't get into the Vampire Diaries (not bashing 90210) but that was like that but the people in it were vampires. Now the sparkling I like, I think it might be a kin to those internet pictures with sparkles, think about the picture comments on Fubar or MySpace. I never saw The Lost Boys but didn't they run on the idea that if you wear Sunglasses it protects all of you from the sun? That is both a cool idea and stupid at the same time. I haven't really followed Zombie movies but the same thing is true of them as well. Some movies have zombies that move slow, then you have runners, then in films where some bug takes over they can climb or shoot guns. Everyone has a different take on Vampires. Lets be honest if everyone followed the same rules then all the same vampire movies and TV shows would all be the same and be very dull. I also think twilight is aimed at teens and girls. That being said to talk about True Blood, The Vampire Diaries and Twilight to be honest isn't fair with out also reading what they where based on. I have read none of them. So I can't say if the film versions differ from the books, if they don't then the bashing isn't really fair. I would love to see a more old school Vampire style movie that is really good, but I doubt it will happen for some time. Oh I think the zombie thing Happened Wasn't Irobot considered a zombie flick and those robots where cute......
Not sure if you are talking about the Twilight series or the newest movie, it doesn't matter really. As with Zombie Movies you have different kinds of movies with in that same type. Twilight (with out seeing the 3rd). Is more a movie about love and High School and the people in it are Vampires. This is the reason why I couldn't get into the Vampire Diaries (not bashing 90210) but that was like that but the people in it were vampires. Now the sparkling I like, I think it might be a kin to those internet pictures with sparkles, think about the picture comments on Fubar or MySpace. I never saw The Lost Boys but didn't they run on the idea that if you wear Sunglasses it protects all of you from the sun? That is both a cool idea and stupid at the same time. I haven't really followed Zombie movies but the same thing is true of them as well. Some movies have zombies that move slow, then you have runners, then in films where some bug takes over they can climb or shoot guns. Everyone has a different take on Vampires. Lets be honest if everyone followed the same rules then all the same vampire movies and TV shows would all be the same and be very dull. I also think twilight is aimed at teens and girls. That being said to talk about True Blood, The Vampire Diaries and Twilight to be honest isn't fair with out also reading what they where based on. I have read none of them. So I can't say if the film versions differ from the books, if they don't then the bashing isn't really fair. I would love to see a more old school Vampire style movie that is really good, but I doubt it will happen for some time. Oh I think the zombie thing Happened Wasn't Irobot considered a zombie flick and those robots where cute......
scott - 06/30/10 19:32
Awww shit. You're right about Fido. However, Fido does kill people as I recall. ;)
Awww shit. You're right about Fido. However, Fido does kill people as I recall. ;)
tinypliny - 06/30/10 19:04
Hahaha - did you miss Fido? Zombies are already cute and cuddly. :)
Hahaha - did you miss Fido? Zombies are already cute and cuddly. :)
I was at the gym and a TV was on with subtitles. It was Fox News and all it said was "Obama's on vacation" while the rainbow video played. I was a little miffed at their bullshit likening of the mother fucking POTUS to a guy named Hungry Bear.
Then I realized the subtitles were broken and had been there for several stories already.