3 Reasons Why Terminator 2 is the Greatest Action Film Ever

In 1992, director James Cameron did what was unthinkable: make a sequel to the widely acclaimed Sci-Fi action film, The Terminator.  The idea itself was crazy, but actually making it better was not even considered to be a rational thought.  However, as shocking as it was, it not only happened, but also became, in this writer's opinion, the greatest action film ever made.  It had everything that made a great action film, great characters, a chilling vision, and other features that make it great and make it still hold up this well today.  Here are a few reasons why I believe Terminator 2 is the best action film ever made:

1) Incredible Action to raise the stakes.

When it comes to making action better in a sequel, there is absolutely no one better than James Caameron.  Before he started going downhill after Titanic, James Cameron was widely known for using great action and used it to raise the stakes in his films.  As much as the action in Terminator was cool, it wasn't the main draw of the film.  The Original film focused on its story more on the horror aspect of Arnold's character because, after all, a killer robot played by Mr. Freeze from Batman and Robin (with no funny puns) was coming to kill you is pretty terrifying.  Here, the film has elements of horror, but is purely highlighted and starred by the action.  There action chases, gun play, fist fighting, and big set pieces that were awesome, entertaining, and kept you on the edge of your seat.  It had to raise the stakes, and boy did it do so.

2) The T-1000

Alright, I'm going to get major heat for this, but I wasn't the biggest fan of Arnold as the original T-800.  I mean he was good, but it was clearly evident from the moment we saw him that he was the bad guy.  Here, this film takes it in a more fresh, and more creative direction with the T-1000.  Played by Robert Patrick, the T-1000 was both badass and also terrifying,  This was the original unkillable badass before Deadpool, as he could just come back from anything thrown at him.  This was someone that could turn into anyone, anything, or any sharp, stabbing weapon that he wanted,  He took everyting thrown at him til the very end, and could be anyone, which just made him even more terrifying.  He was there to kill John Connor, and wouldn't stop until he suceeded and his mission was complete.

3) Sarah Connor

Speaking of things that I wasn't the biggest fan of from the original Terminator, Sarah Connor was just okay in that movie.  She wasn't bad, she was just the ordinary damsel that we've seen a hundred times.  This film went in the best direction possible and made her into one of the best female characters in film history.  We see what the first film put her through and how much she is trying to save her son and the world from destruction, only to have no one believe her and call her insane.  She becomes hardened, toughens up, and is turned into the best action character since Ripley in the alien movies (thanks again to James Cameron for Aliens).  We see how she had to change herself in order to survive, but also remain the good woman we remember Sarah being and loving to her son, as she remembers her son and her humanity. Badass, kind, and complex, Sarah Connor was the best overall package.

The Ranch is Wretched

Ashton Kutcher and Danny Masterson are back at it again.

Image Credit: Netflix

A few posts ago, I brought up how every time we log into Netflix, they throw new original content at us. We usually accept it and sometimes even watch it because Netflix has a reputation for good original programming. From “Orange is the New Black” to “Narcos” to “House of Cards” to “Trailer Park Boys”, Netflix has gained a name for compelling and entertaining content.

So it’s surprising when an original show is as disappointing as Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace”.

Created by Two and a Half Men’s Jim Patterson and Don Reo, “The Ranch” focuses on Colt Bennett, an ex-amateur football player in his mid-30s who returns to his family’s Ranch in Colorado when he has a try out nearby. He reconnects with his older brother Jameson ‘Rooster’, played by Danny Masterson, hard-ass father Beau, played by Sam Elliot, and independent mother Maggie, played by Debra Winger.

In my opinion, the multicam sitcom failed in more ways than it succeeded. Here are a few reasons:

1)    All White Cast.

Image Credit: Netflix

Every single person seen on screen at any point in all ten episodes is white. Was the intention for accuracy because they’re ranching in Colorado? A comedy with so many other inaccuracies, it’s hard for me to believe that this is the aspect they had to try to mirror. Netflix’s tendency to put out progressive content took five steps backward with this casting.

2)   Do we still love these jokes?

The considerable number of sexist and racist jokes per episode was shocking. Sam Elliot’s character often made offensive jokes about other races, which was in his character, but I still feel like we’re past this. Kutcher and Masterson’s characters perpetuated the offenses with constant sexist jokes. Even worse, there were way too many jokes about sleeping with underage girls. Several times an episode, one of the characters would say something along the lines of “I didn’t know she wasn’t eighteen” or “I’m going to the cheerleading practice at the high school”. These characters are in their 30s and going to watch high school cheerleaders. That’s way too creepy.

3)  Just talk normally.

Your options are either talking with an accent or not. Not both. Not switching between a Rocky Mountains accent, something Southern, and what you sound like when you speak to your friends. During conversations between Colt and Rooster, they would fall into an accent then lose it within a few minutes. Also, the Rocky Mountains are not in the South. They’re not the same accent.

4)    Dip

Every once in a while, and I mean I saw him do it twice, Colt Bennett would take out a can of chewing tobacco, put a piece inside his mouth, and then it would disappear. First of all, to anyone that’s even seen dip, you spit it out and you spit out pretty quickly. Is Colt just leaving it in his mouth forever? Second, why does this only happen twice? He does it at two random times, not during stressful or emotional situations, which could work as a character trait. It struck me as so random and inaccurate that I got lost.

Image Credit: Netflix

  5)    Beau Bennett or John Wayne?

Beau’s character is more stock than not. The old rancher or farmer who’s stuck in his ways, knows the value of hard work, and makes typical racists jokes. I could’ve been watching Ethan Edwards in The Searchers for all I know. Although the writers tried to give him a twist with his love for Maggie, I don’t feel like it’s enough to make him stand out.

As a shock to me, “The Ranch” has been picked up for a second season less than a month after it’s April 1^st release and following less-than-stellar reviews. Hopefully, the writers will be able to give me more to look forward to.

DC's "The Flash" Movie loses its Director

As DC's Cinematic Universe has been set up by Batman v. Superman, and will continue to expand with upcoming projects such as Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman, Warner Bros. has been making many different changes to their universe and future projects, one of them has come for the anticipated debut standalone for The Flash, as the film has just lost its project.

Planned to be released in March 2018, the Flash project had already signed on actor Ezra Miller (Perks of Being a Wallflower) as the scarlet speedster himself, and hired Seth Grahme-Smith as both writer and director of the project.  However, while Miller will remain in the lead, as he had already appeared in Batman v Superman and will again in Justice League Part 1, THR has reported that Smith has officially left the project, citing "creative differences" between the studio and the director.  The project has lost the director and will seek to replace the role, but no official word has been given.

Grahame-Smith is fairly well-known for his work as an author, taking traditional stories and putting a comedic horror-inspired spin on them, leading his past work — which includes Pride & Prejudice & Zombies, as well as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter — straight to the big screen.  However, the writer has not made his official big screen directorial debut, and will have to wait even longer.  Still, Ghrame-Smith will still be credited for writing the script, which was based on a treatment from Phil Lord and Chris Miller (21 Jump Street, The Lego Movie).

In my opinion, this is something that has been kind of blown out of proportion.  Yes, losing a director can be a big setback to some projects, these are not uncommon for most films, especially for Superhero films.  Just last year, Patty Jenkins was brought onto Wonder Woman to take over the project as director, Edgar Wright left Ant Man because of creative differences between them and the studio, which led to the hiring of Peyton Reed, and Thor 2 lost its original director, who was Patty Jenkins, because of differences.  

Changing directors is nothing new for films, as plans often change for films.  Coming from someone who absolutely loved Man of Steel and liked Batman v. Superman (understanding much of the criticism), the DCEU needs to step up in terms of talent and bring in new talent to change things up.  Ghramme-Smith, despite having some writing experience, has never directed a feature blockbuster, and the works he has done have been fairly mixed to negative.  With so much riding on this property and universe, and Warner Bros. trying to make up for negative reactions to Batman v. Superman, it would make sense to change up if things weren't working, and, for all we know, they could have several replacements in mind as we speak.  And with a year before filming begins, there is plenty of time to find a replacement.

The Flash is still slated to come out on March 16, 2018.

Video Games - Learning v.s. Violence

How does video games influence children?

In 2013, Grand Theft Auto V, a video game software released by Rockstar Games was officially confirmed as the fastest entertainment property to gross one billion dollars in the Guinness World Record. Now videogames have become one of the biggest entertainment properties especially among children. 

Image Credit: Rockstar Games

Most recently, U.S. educators started to pay attention to gamification’s the strong power of attraction for students and use it to help teach humanities, science and math. However, that experimentation by educators brought about a controversy of whether playing videogames helps students to study or not. Some argue that children’s over exposure to videogames decreases their brain functions and leads to violent behaviors. On the other hand, others assert opposite opinions. For example, playing videogames enhances children’s cognitive skills and it doesn’t effect to players’ behavior. Do videogames really help children study and why are there different arguments depends on experts or specialists?

Some educators and scientists argue that playing video games enhances human’s brain functions such as cognitive skills or memorization. An associate professor of Teaching and Learning at Vanderbilt University, Douglas Clark, points out “game-playing students outperformed non-players in terms of cognitive, interpersonal  and interpersonal learning outcomes” in his survey. Games designed for education such as “River City” already exist and the National Science Foundation (NSF) asserts those games “help learners acquire deep science-inquiry skills and conception knowledge.” 

Image Credit: NES

In addition, video games have a potential to enhance not only cognitive skills but also children’s decision making abilities. Until five or ten years ago, all we could do in videogames was shoot or defeat opponents and get higher points. However, now videogames have become more and more complicated and some of those scenarios require very difficult decisions in terms of morality or humanity. 

An NSF program director, Chris Hoadley explains “Ten years ago, we had a lot of questions about whether you could get anything serious out of a game”, but at the same time he argues “serious games can enhance not only acquisition of facts or specific onscreen skills but also some of the more fuzzy, squishy, 21^st –century things like leadership, teamwork and agency.”  According to Pew Research Center’s data on Dec. 15, 2015, 64 percent of US adults think video games improve problem-solving and strategic thinking. Thus some claim that video games can enhance children’s brain functions. 

Other people argue that video games can cause people to commit acts of criminal violence, but there is small correlation between aggressive behavior and violent media consumption. It is clear that the students who killed 13 people at a Columbine, Colorado high school played a violent gun-shooting game, but it is unreasonable to ignore the other factors and conclude that the main reason was the bloody video game. 

Chris Ferguson, co-chair of the Department of Psychology at Stetson University asserts that “older researchers and doctors were more likely to view games negatively”. Playing videogames was not likely to be the main reason for that tragedy. 

Generally, aggressive children come from violent and abusive households and we can see playing videogames is just a way to release their anger. A creative director of the MIT Education Arcade, Scot Osterwell asserts “most of the studies that say games are harmful don’t hold up in terms of their validity.” Also the professor of literacy studies at Arizona State University, James Paul Gee argues “what matters most is how games are used and in what context.”  It is not necessarily accurate to claim that blaming videogames for the violent behavior is oversimplified and ignores other factors to make people aggressive and commit violent behavior.

For years, the debate on whether or not games can enhance learning and help students study is far from finished. However, the data showing games can improve people’s brain functions is abundant and we shouldn’t ignore it. 

Arguments that videogames leads to violent behavior are everlasting, but they are obviously just exaggerations by the media because there is countries where people can buy the exact same games and nobody is killed by shootings, such as Japan. Japan is the country that invented the world’s first videogame console and its videogame market is as large as the one in the United States. Many violent and sexual American games are popular in Japan and can easily be bought there. 

However there is an astonishing reality about the number of victims by shooting. According to Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention, the number of firearm mortality in the United States was 33,304 in 2014. On the other hand, it was 10 in Japan in the same year according to Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department. As we can see in this data, we should not be prejudiced against videogames and we should support the experimentation of putting this powerful tool into practical educational use.

Saturday Night Live to Air With Fewer Commercials

The popular late night comedy sketch shows is trying some new approaches to advertising.

Next season, Saturday Night Live plans to make some changes. Not in sketches, musical performances, or pop culture jokes, but instead in the amount of advertising aired during commercial breaks. An NBC Universal spokesperson announced that the popular late night comedy show will cut two commercial breaks – about 30% of the ads.

Image Credit: NBC Universal

This is the first of many steps for producers and advertisers to try to reconcile their mutual relationship that the Internet has infringed upon. NBC Universal explained that their main audience is younger and more impatient. The target generations are accustomed to watching television and other media on laptops and cell phones via the Internet. They’re habituated to the lack of commercials and breaks from shows. NBC is attempting to get closer to that on Saturday Night Live by cutting breaks. Instead, the show will work with advertisers to incorporate products into storylines and sketches.

Rather than advertisers paying NBC for a thirty-second commercial slot during SNL, they will pay to work with the writers and producers to integrate their products into the show. The method has already been attempted a few times in previous SNL sketches and on Fox’s “Empire”, where they worked with Pepsi to weave their drink into a three-episode story arc. SNL will be the first to try it on a regular basis, and NBC Universal may inaugurate the approach to advertising in other late night shows.

But what does this mean for Saturday Night Live itself? The show runs smoothly because of the commercial breaks that allow for set and costume changes. If the structure reforms, and one sketch moves immediately into another, how will the crew and cast handle such a shift? My prediction: the sketches will either be longer or contain fewer characters.

If the sketches are longer, I think it’s more likely for the comedy to get lost. Writing a longer sketch means writing more jokes, and writing more jokes means there’s a greater chance for the jokes to miss. They would be risking their comedy for longer airtime. The other option, fewer characters, is also a chance to lose the jokes. During the blocks with two or more sketches, the crew and cast will be airing on one set while setting up another. This means that only half the crew and cast can be involved with what’s happening on the air.

Comedy is always a risk. There’s always a chance the jokes will miss. I love SNL and usually think they’re hilarious. But if the longer airtime means less comedy, then, over time, it will lose its reputation and the target audience will watch it even less.

Will the new advertising plan successfully set a precedent for other shows to rebuild their money from advertisers? Will writers and producers be willing to sacrifice storylines for the sake of integrating products? I predict we will soon see a major change in the way advertising is done on television, and this very well might be it.

Should You Flake on "Flaked"?

Will Arnett's new show on Netflix feels difficult to get lost in, not the type of comedy attached to Arnett's name.

Image credit: Netflix

  

In recent years, we’ve seen a huge surge in original content from popular streaming services, especially Netflix. It seems like every time we log in to binge watch our favorite shows, Netflix has thrown three more new shows in our faces. Within the past few months, Netflix has released shows “Love”, “Fuller House”, “The Ranch”, and many others, including Will Arnett’s “Flaked”. I watched the eight-episode-long premiere season within a couple days and I had mixed feelings about it.

“Flaked” focuses on a recovering alcoholic, 12 years sober, and his willingness to help everyone around him while personally and covertly spiraling out of control. Before I hit play, I noticed Will Arnett’s name, which grabbed my attention (because who doesn’t love Will Arnett?). After I learned Arnett was the star, I fully expected to sit back and have a good laugh at a comedy.

I was wrong. I spent the whole first episode waiting for the jokes to start, for the mood to lighten. Yes, Will Arnett is a fantastic actor for both comedy and drama, but the dark tone took me off guard, and I was a little disappointed. I was stressed with school; I was escaping from reality; I wanted something light-hearted. When I realized I was in for drama and emotional stories, I considered quitting and starting a new show. But the uniqueness of the show kept me curious. Even though I was disappointed at the lack of laugh-out-loud comedy, I continued watching the next seven episodes.

The visuals were captivating, and after I accepted the solemnity and a few instances of dark comedic dialogue, I could not get used to the slow pace. Once again, possibly an accurate portrayal of life in Venice (I’ve never been there), but the slow pace was very difficult for me to get sucked into. It seemed like little happened in each episode, and I waited for answers for what felt like hours.

While the storylines were dramatic and the characters were both likeable and flawed, the slow pace makes me reluctant to watch the next season (if there is one). The show has set up several storylines to continue, such as London’s ex-fiance and Chip’s divorce; however, it only committed a handful of scenes throughout all eight episodes to those arcs. I did not have enough time to become invested in the long-term conflicts, allowing me to move on with my life, on to a new show, and not return to “Flaked”.

Image credit: Netflix

If you’re looking for a unique yet unexciting show to impress your hipster friends with, check out “Flaked” on Netflix. But if you want something to escape from reality, give you a laugh, or make it impossible for you to stop watching, I would look for a different show.