I'm no stranger to controversy, or to even taking the path of highest resistance just to annoy people, but what I'm about to say is not an attempt to troll anyone.
I actually hate Adele.
I'm going to type that again just so that people can realise that it isn't a typing error.
I actually hate Adele. Seriously. I hate her songs, I hate her music, I hate the fact that she's shoved down our throats every hour of every day and I hate the fact that people think she's the biggest and best thing to happen in the music world.
Adele's songs are so uninspired it isn't funny. Yes, she comes up with some nice lyrics, but it's not exactly "Give peace a chance" is it? I'm not saying that all songs need to have some kind of deep, philosophical meaning, but it's the fact that her songs don't seem to have a message at all. The song that gets played the most is "Someone Like You" (I think that's what it's called, I couldn't be bothered to go check) and it's the most depressing, dreary, non-rhythmic pile of crap I've heard in a long time. Not since Phil Collins unleashed his brand of crap-pop on the world that people lapped up have I felt this embarrassed to be part of the human race. Adele has conned everyone into thinking that she's a fantastic musician. She's not.
She has a nice voice, but that's about it. Her voice is not the kind of voice that I would hear playing in a record store and it would make me stop everything I was doing to find a member of staff to find out who it is. Her voice isn't outstanding. She's no Bob Dylan, let's put it that way.
I know people are going to say that I'm just jealous, and this is all sour grapes. I'm sure there's a little of that, but I dare anyone to look at someone successful and not feel even a slightly bit envious of them. There's probably going to be people who would say that I don't like songs with a sad message. This isn't true- I'm a fan of Gotye's "Someone I Used to Know", for a start. That song's got a depressing undertone, but it's been made in such a quirky and offbeat way that it's fun to listen to. Adele's "Someone Like You" is just her sitting at a piano hitting random chords attempting to get everyone else upset. Gotye took a song with a similar undertone but actually attempted to make it a bit fun. When was the last time you heard a chart topping song make a prominent use of a xylophone?
At the end of June Adele announced that she was pregnant- this means that, all being well, she should stay out of the recording studio for a while as she attends to the baby. Chances are that she'll just hire a nanny and go back to how she was, but hopefully, her bringing a new life into the world should lift her spirits a bit. Hey, she may even make a song that you can listen to without wanting to slit your wrists afterwards.
I really hope that she doesn't lose the baby, firstly because I wouldn't wish that on anyone; secondly, if she does, it'll probably make her songs even more upsetting than they were, if that's at all possible. And no doubt every single person in the world will say something along the lines of "You can hear the pain in her voice" or "She's showing her human side" or some bullcrap like that.
To be honest, her songs are probably all "daddy didn't love me" issues. In my brief research, I found out that her dad left the family home when Adele was three. Maybe he had a vision of the future in a dream and thought to himself "Fuck that, I'm not getting involved!" and thus ran. Therefore, we can realistically come to the conclusion that Adele's music is a cry out for being upset about her daddy leaving her when she was young.
Someone on Twitter said they's love for Adele and Eminem to have a relationship, just to hear the break up albums. Adele's would be wallowing in self pity, and Eminem's would just be a massive "Fuck you" to Adele. When us "normal" people have some bad news or go through a break up, we don't force our sadness onto others. What makes Adele any different? Because she was in the right place at the right time to break into the music business why does that allow her to act any differently to the rest of us? I do give her credit for not taking the TV talent show route, but I get the impression she didn't do that because the producers of the show(s) decided she wasn't marketable enough, wanted to perform her own songs and, frankly, wasn't what they were looking for. No-one wins TV talent shows by being downbeat and trodden, they win them by being happy(ish) and energetic.
So, long story short- Adele bad, anyone with even the slightest hint of positive emotion good.
This has been for your consideration.
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
Wednesday, 11 July 2012
Rebooking the 2011 Summer of Punk
If anyone really knows me (and I mean really knows me) then you'lll know that I'm a fan of pro wrestling. Yes, I know that it isn't real and it's all scripted, but so are movies and TV shows, yet we all still watch and enjoy those, don't we? Same shit, different smell.
In the summer of 2011 CM Punk cut a scathing shoot style promo, basically bringing to light all the things he hated about the company at the time. Because it was a shoot style, it wasn't scripted, it wasn't approved by anyone within the company, and it was his own words and thoughts.
The direction the company decided to take in the athermath of this was to take CM Punk off TV for a week then bring him back a week later for a televised contract negotiation. The following week was when CM Punk won the world title on a pay per view program (Money in the Bank), then he left the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment). He made a couple of appearences on TV shows before returning to the WWE, losing the title then going into a storyline with two older wrestlers- Triple H and Kevin Nash- then went nowhere. Thus ended the Summer of Punk 2011.
The WWE missed out on a huge opportunity to gain extra fans for their product. I started thinking to myself- I could have done a better job at writing this storyline. To use the correct term, I could have booked it a lot better. The first thing we need to establish is where the story went wrong. Up until Money in the Bank, there was nothing wrong- CM Punk was getting huge crowd reactions, and the people were ready and willing to see him win the title, just so that the WWE poster boy John Cena would get taken down a peg or two. This is where I start to change things around.
CM Punk's title had legitimately expired, but because we're playing smart here we would get Punk to sign an extension and make damn sure that no-one knew about it. That way, when he wins the WWE title and "leaves" everyone thinks that it's the real deal- his contract really has expired, he's really leaving the company and he's really taking the WWE title with him. It's impossible to deny the fact that Punk knows about the other wrestling companies besides the WWE- he mentioned them in his shoot, so we now let him start making bookings with these companies to appear and wrestle matches. This means that he'll be going to smaller shows with smaller crowds with the WWE title around his waist. He's effectively spreading the word of the company and showing people what their wrestlers can do. Hell, you can even have Punk say that he'll defend the WWE title at some of these shows- so you could have the Ring of Honor (ROH) champion against Punk for the WWE title- however, you make sure that Punk says that he won't drop the title, but he'll make the company's champion look good- you can have a match that looks like it could go either way, but Punk would eventually prevail. That's up to the performers to decide, though.
Meanwhile,at the Legion of Doom in the WWE, you have John Cena come out on the first TV show after Money in the Bank, and he's distraught. He's just lost the WWE title to a man that's left the company, and they took the belt with them. The one thing that Cena held dearest to him isn't around any more, and there's nothing he can do to change that. At this point, the owner of the company comes out (or whichever authority figure you prefer) and tells Cena to shut up and be a man about it. The WWE is going to do what they've always done- adapt and move forwards. That's why, as of the following week, there's going to be an on-going tournament to crown a brand new world champion. Cena says that's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that the WWE title is no longer in the company. The authority figure then tells Cena that he has to start looking ahead to making the future of the company better, which sends Cena over the edge. He says that there can't be a future without the WWE title, and starts destroying the ringside area, until security manage to get him out the building. There's then a commercial break while the ring crew make some makeshift repairs, and the show goes on without any further mention of Cena.
The following week, the participants are announced. Something very similar to this was done already, but the real life tournament was held over two nights, with Cena eventually winning the title despite not even being in the tournament. The eight participants in real life were (and don't worry if you don't recognise the names) Dolph Ziggler; Rey Mysterio; Jack Swagger; Ron Killings; Kofi Kingston; Alberto del Rio; The Miz; and Alex Riley. Rey Mysterio won the tournament but for some reason Cena was given a title shot on the same night that Mysterio won it, obviously winning the title back, which was when CM Punk made his return.
I would have the same people in the tournament, but I would have it run for three weeks- you have the first set of matches the same week as the competitors are announced, the semi finals the week after and the finals the week after that. The first week is where Cena comes out and demands to know why he isn't in the tournament. This is where your chosen authority figure says that due to Cena's attitude problem, he's been excluded from the tournament and suspended with immediate effect. So Cena storms off again, Mysterio wins the WWE title via the tournament, without a thing heard of Cena. The timing would be so that the tournament final would be on the SummerSlam pay per view event- a guarantee for a new champion would most likely get some ticket sales and home buys, especially with the absence of John Cena, a man who a lot of older viewers legitimately hate.
While all this is going on, Punk's been making himself busy- wrestling for the independent companies and making them some money while doing some black ops PR (as it were). The first show he appears in after SummerSlam, he should cut a promo after his match, basically saying how he's the real WWE champion and how Mysterio is a pretender to the claim. Then all of a sudden, John Cena runs through the crowd, leaps the barrier and attacks Punk. You'd obviously have to let security know so they don't try to stop him, but they'd drag Cena off Punk and eject him from the building.
This is where we get creative. There just so happened to be a WWE fan in attendance who just so happened to be recording Punk's promo and the subsequent Cena attack who just so happened to send the video to the WWE who just so happened to show the video on their next TV show.
Read between the lines, people.
So now this serves the purpose of making the WWE fan base aware of Punk again, and making them aware that Cena's willing to do anything to get the title back. You get Cena literally chasing Punk around the country- every show Punk's at, Cena's there. The smart thing to do would be to not have video of it every time, otherwise people would start to smell a rat. But this would start to agitate Mysterio, who believes that this means that Cena doesn't hold his claim to being champion seriously. So Mysterio challenges Cena to a match for the WWE title at the Night of Champions pay per view, and at the same time, lifts his suspension. The following week, Cena appears on WWE TV and accepts the challenge, and stops chasing Punk. This angers Punk, saying that Cena would rather chase a paper championship than attempting to win the real thing, which he owns.
So at Night of Champions, Cena wins- exactly the same time Cena won the title back from Punk in the real life storyline. Obviously that hasn't happened here, as Punk still has his title, which he's still defending across the country, and now Cena has his. So we have two WWE champions running around, both with a legitimate claim for the title. This way both champions look strong.
This is where we throw in a wild card. At Money in the Bank, Alberto del Rio won a contract that allowed him to challenge the WWE champion to a match, any place, any time. So instead of him challenging Cena, he goes to a show CM Punk;s wrestling in and challenges him instead. You have Punk accept and Alberto wins via shenanigans. Alberto has his PA tape the match so that when they go back to the WWE they can play the tape and state that Alberto's claim is legit. So now both WWE titles are in the WWE. This is when CM Punk goes back to the WWE and begs for his job back so he can get his rematch. This is why when Punk returns, all the crazy demands he made during the live contract negotiation didn't happen- he had to go back on them to get his job. He challenges Alberto to a rematch, which he states is a clause in his contract, but Cena comes out and says that you can't have two WWE champions running around.
Punk then suggest that the following pay per view, Hell in a Cell, is perfect for them to decide things- a triple threat Hell in a Cell match to decide the undisputed champion. In real life, this was the same match line up in the same kind of match for the WWE title at the same time. Alberto del Rio won the real match, but because this is a fantasy situation, we're going to have CM Punk win by pinning Cena, simply because he's going into the match with nothing to lose- therefore, he's logically going to want to win the most, and sometimes sheer determination is enough to win.
This allows Cena and Alberto fight over the number one contendership before the next pay per view, Vengeance. Punk could threaten to leave again with the title, but the authority figure would state that if Punk does then he'll be in breach of contract. So Punk has no choice but to stick around. You can then push Cena up to number one contender so you've got the good guy/bad guy dynamic while they fight over the title, and Alberto can then move on to feud with someone else over the number one spot. You keep the title on Punk, simply because that makes the title mean something. If a champion can beat off different challengers, not only does it make the champ look good, it also gives the title value, as less people hold it over a period of time.
And thus ends our little trip through fantasy land. I'll no doubt be spending some time looking through the archives to try and find another storyline that I think I can improve upon, but until then, insert your favourite closing statement here.
In the summer of 2011 CM Punk cut a scathing shoot style promo, basically bringing to light all the things he hated about the company at the time. Because it was a shoot style, it wasn't scripted, it wasn't approved by anyone within the company, and it was his own words and thoughts.
The direction the company decided to take in the athermath of this was to take CM Punk off TV for a week then bring him back a week later for a televised contract negotiation. The following week was when CM Punk won the world title on a pay per view program (Money in the Bank), then he left the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment). He made a couple of appearences on TV shows before returning to the WWE, losing the title then going into a storyline with two older wrestlers- Triple H and Kevin Nash- then went nowhere. Thus ended the Summer of Punk 2011.
The WWE missed out on a huge opportunity to gain extra fans for their product. I started thinking to myself- I could have done a better job at writing this storyline. To use the correct term, I could have booked it a lot better. The first thing we need to establish is where the story went wrong. Up until Money in the Bank, there was nothing wrong- CM Punk was getting huge crowd reactions, and the people were ready and willing to see him win the title, just so that the WWE poster boy John Cena would get taken down a peg or two. This is where I start to change things around.
CM Punk's title had legitimately expired, but because we're playing smart here we would get Punk to sign an extension and make damn sure that no-one knew about it. That way, when he wins the WWE title and "leaves" everyone thinks that it's the real deal- his contract really has expired, he's really leaving the company and he's really taking the WWE title with him. It's impossible to deny the fact that Punk knows about the other wrestling companies besides the WWE- he mentioned them in his shoot, so we now let him start making bookings with these companies to appear and wrestle matches. This means that he'll be going to smaller shows with smaller crowds with the WWE title around his waist. He's effectively spreading the word of the company and showing people what their wrestlers can do. Hell, you can even have Punk say that he'll defend the WWE title at some of these shows- so you could have the Ring of Honor (ROH) champion against Punk for the WWE title- however, you make sure that Punk says that he won't drop the title, but he'll make the company's champion look good- you can have a match that looks like it could go either way, but Punk would eventually prevail. That's up to the performers to decide, though.
Meanwhile,
The following week, the participants are announced. Something very similar to this was done already, but the real life tournament was held over two nights, with Cena eventually winning the title despite not even being in the tournament. The eight participants in real life were (and don't worry if you don't recognise the names) Dolph Ziggler; Rey Mysterio; Jack Swagger; Ron Killings; Kofi Kingston; Alberto del Rio; The Miz; and Alex Riley. Rey Mysterio won the tournament but for some reason Cena was given a title shot on the same night that Mysterio won it, obviously winning the title back, which was when CM Punk made his return.
I would have the same people in the tournament, but I would have it run for three weeks- you have the first set of matches the same week as the competitors are announced, the semi finals the week after and the finals the week after that. The first week is where Cena comes out and demands to know why he isn't in the tournament. This is where your chosen authority figure says that due to Cena's attitude problem, he's been excluded from the tournament and suspended with immediate effect. So Cena storms off again, Mysterio wins the WWE title via the tournament, without a thing heard of Cena. The timing would be so that the tournament final would be on the SummerSlam pay per view event- a guarantee for a new champion would most likely get some ticket sales and home buys, especially with the absence of John Cena, a man who a lot of older viewers legitimately hate.
While all this is going on, Punk's been making himself busy- wrestling for the independent companies and making them some money while doing some black ops PR (as it were). The first show he appears in after SummerSlam, he should cut a promo after his match, basically saying how he's the real WWE champion and how Mysterio is a pretender to the claim. Then all of a sudden, John Cena runs through the crowd, leaps the barrier and attacks Punk. You'd obviously have to let security know so they don't try to stop him, but they'd drag Cena off Punk and eject him from the building.
This is where we get creative. There just so happened to be a WWE fan in attendance who just so happened to be recording Punk's promo and the subsequent Cena attack who just so happened to send the video to the WWE who just so happened to show the video on their next TV show.
Read between the lines, people.
So now this serves the purpose of making the WWE fan base aware of Punk again, and making them aware that Cena's willing to do anything to get the title back. You get Cena literally chasing Punk around the country- every show Punk's at, Cena's there. The smart thing to do would be to not have video of it every time, otherwise people would start to smell a rat. But this would start to agitate Mysterio, who believes that this means that Cena doesn't hold his claim to being champion seriously. So Mysterio challenges Cena to a match for the WWE title at the Night of Champions pay per view, and at the same time, lifts his suspension. The following week, Cena appears on WWE TV and accepts the challenge, and stops chasing Punk. This angers Punk, saying that Cena would rather chase a paper championship than attempting to win the real thing, which he owns.
So at Night of Champions, Cena wins- exactly the same time Cena won the title back from Punk in the real life storyline. Obviously that hasn't happened here, as Punk still has his title, which he's still defending across the country, and now Cena has his. So we have two WWE champions running around, both with a legitimate claim for the title. This way both champions look strong.
This is where we throw in a wild card. At Money in the Bank, Alberto del Rio won a contract that allowed him to challenge the WWE champion to a match, any place, any time. So instead of him challenging Cena, he goes to a show CM Punk;s wrestling in and challenges him instead. You have Punk accept and Alberto wins via shenanigans. Alberto has his PA tape the match so that when they go back to the WWE they can play the tape and state that Alberto's claim is legit. So now both WWE titles are in the WWE. This is when CM Punk goes back to the WWE and begs for his job back so he can get his rematch. This is why when Punk returns, all the crazy demands he made during the live contract negotiation didn't happen- he had to go back on them to get his job. He challenges Alberto to a rematch, which he states is a clause in his contract, but Cena comes out and says that you can't have two WWE champions running around.
Punk then suggest that the following pay per view, Hell in a Cell, is perfect for them to decide things- a triple threat Hell in a Cell match to decide the undisputed champion. In real life, this was the same match line up in the same kind of match for the WWE title at the same time. Alberto del Rio won the real match, but because this is a fantasy situation, we're going to have CM Punk win by pinning Cena, simply because he's going into the match with nothing to lose- therefore, he's logically going to want to win the most, and sometimes sheer determination is enough to win.
This allows Cena and Alberto fight over the number one contendership before the next pay per view, Vengeance. Punk could threaten to leave again with the title, but the authority figure would state that if Punk does then he'll be in breach of contract. So Punk has no choice but to stick around. You can then push Cena up to number one contender so you've got the good guy/bad guy dynamic while they fight over the title, and Alberto can then move on to feud with someone else over the number one spot. You keep the title on Punk, simply because that makes the title mean something. If a champion can beat off different challengers, not only does it make the champ look good, it also gives the title value, as less people hold it over a period of time.
And thus ends our little trip through fantasy land. I'll no doubt be spending some time looking through the archives to try and find another storyline that I think I can improve upon, but until then, insert your favourite closing statement here.
Monday, 23 January 2012
Hello, my name's Gary...
...And I'm a Skyrimaholic.
As you probably guessed, I got The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim for Christmas, and I've just become completely obsessed with the game. For the last month my Twitter page has been dominated by posts about it. On the first day I had it I played it for about seven hours non stop. I'm actually writing this post at a natural break in the game. It has taken over my life.
On the upside, it's got me some extra followers on Ye Olde Twitter and I understand all the "arrow in the knee" jokes that have been circulating on the Internet for so long.
So that's about all from me. I need to go back to slaying dragons.
As you probably guessed, I got The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim for Christmas, and I've just become completely obsessed with the game. For the last month my Twitter page has been dominated by posts about it. On the first day I had it I played it for about seven hours non stop. I'm actually writing this post at a natural break in the game. It has taken over my life.
On the upside, it's got me some extra followers on Ye Olde Twitter and I understand all the "arrow in the knee" jokes that have been circulating on the Internet for so long.
So that's about all from me. I need to go back to slaying dragons.
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
I'm the godamn Batman!
I recently read an article on the internet outlining someone's theory for the new Batman film, Dark Knight Rises, basically saying that Christopher Nolan is going to kill off Bruce Wayne and that a random character introduced in another movie will take up the role as Batman (http://www.cracked.com/blog/advanced-batman-theory-why-nolan-will-kill-bruce-wayne/). I like this theory, but there's a few things that stood out for me.
Firstly, the author spends a few paragraphs talking about some of Christopher Nolan's other films, and attempts to tie them into the "Dark Knight" trilogy of Batman films. I think that this is a bit of a stretch, to be honest. The author was clutching at straws and trying to increase the word count. I can understand the point they're trying to make, but it's a bit like saying that all of Tim Burton's films are hinting at plot points at one of his future films. I think that it's a moot point that the director just so happened to make another series of films that talk about making an audience expect one thing, just to deliver the opposite to them.
What I also want to talk about with the author is how he explains what he thinks the role of Bane will be in the movies. In the comics, Bane broke Batman's back, leaving Bruce Wayne paralyzed and the role of Batman (temporarily) filled by Azrael. Bruce got better, though, and retakes the Batman cowl.
The author has said that this won't happen in the film, simply because the film isn't trying to recreate the comics. I couldn't agree more on this, but the author hints at Bane actually killing Batman. I can't picture this happening. For some reason, I can't picture the main character being killed off by a villian that not many people will really know. The obvious choice would have been Joker, but, alas, Heath Ledger isn't around anymore, and it was stated in Dark Knight Returns that Joker had no intention of killing Batman.
So, this brings us to another interesting point. Let's assume that Batman does indeed die in Dark Knight Rises and that the role of Batman is taken up by someone else. Christopher Nolan has stated that he won't put a Robin into his films. This is where the seemingly random character comes in. With no Robin to take up the cowl, it falls to someone else to fill the post. If this happens, it will annoy a lot of comic fans. In the comics, Batman was first Bruce Wayne, then following the events of Final Crisis Bruce Wayne was believed to be dead, the role of Batman was taken up by Dick Grayson- at the time known as Nightwing, but more famously known as Robin while Bruce was Batman. The natural progression of Batman is that the cowl gets passed onto Robin- a sort of master/student dynamic.
Batman needs a Robin, simply because Robin is the second in command. Anything happens to Batman, Robin steps up and takes his place. As Christopher Nolan isn't including a Robin in the movies, I think it's unlikely that you'll see a new Batman. The character the author of the linked article states that the character he thinks will take up the role of Batman after Bruce Wayne is someone called John Blake. Coincidently, when Dick Grayson takes up the role of Batman the Robin is Tim Drake (a very similar sounding name). What we could see is instead of John Blake becoming Batman, he might form his own idendity. I highly doubt it will be Nightwing. That's Dick Grayson's role. When Bruce Wayne is revealed not to be dead, he retakes the role of Batman, Dick goes back to being Nightwing, and we're back where we left off.
That is, however, it's revealed that Bruce has a son, Damian- the mother is Talia aAl Ghul, the daughter of Ra's al Ghul. Damian became the new Robin when Tim Drake decided to branch out and become his own crime fighter, under the name Red Robin. I'm going to call it- in Dark Knight Rises Bruce Wayne does indeed die, and John Blake decides to take his place, but not as Batman. I think he's going to replace Bruce, but under the "Red Robin" guise. I think that John will think that you can't replace Batman with a click of your fingers and a flash of lightning, so he comes up with his own crime fighting vigilante.
And thus, the movie version of Red Robin was born. I know that Red Robin isn't that well known a character from the comics, but neither was Mad Hatter, and he was recently featured in the Arkham City video game. What's to say that another relative obscure character won't be featured in the upcoming film(s)?
That's my take on where the celluloid Batman is going. I may be right, I may not be. We'll just have to wait and see.
While I've still got your attention, why not hit me up on Twitter @Gary_Xean? You know, for shits and giggles.
Firstly, the author spends a few paragraphs talking about some of Christopher Nolan's other films, and attempts to tie them into the "Dark Knight" trilogy of Batman films. I think that this is a bit of a stretch, to be honest. The author was clutching at straws and trying to increase the word count. I can understand the point they're trying to make, but it's a bit like saying that all of Tim Burton's films are hinting at plot points at one of his future films. I think that it's a moot point that the director just so happened to make another series of films that talk about making an audience expect one thing, just to deliver the opposite to them.
What I also want to talk about with the author is how he explains what he thinks the role of Bane will be in the movies. In the comics, Bane broke Batman's back, leaving Bruce Wayne paralyzed and the role of Batman (temporarily) filled by Azrael. Bruce got better, though, and retakes the Batman cowl.
The author has said that this won't happen in the film, simply because the film isn't trying to recreate the comics. I couldn't agree more on this, but the author hints at Bane actually killing Batman. I can't picture this happening. For some reason, I can't picture the main character being killed off by a villian that not many people will really know. The obvious choice would have been Joker, but, alas, Heath Ledger isn't around anymore, and it was stated in Dark Knight Returns that Joker had no intention of killing Batman.
So, this brings us to another interesting point. Let's assume that Batman does indeed die in Dark Knight Rises and that the role of Batman is taken up by someone else. Christopher Nolan has stated that he won't put a Robin into his films. This is where the seemingly random character comes in. With no Robin to take up the cowl, it falls to someone else to fill the post. If this happens, it will annoy a lot of comic fans. In the comics, Batman was first Bruce Wayne, then following the events of Final Crisis Bruce Wayne was believed to be dead, the role of Batman was taken up by Dick Grayson- at the time known as Nightwing, but more famously known as Robin while Bruce was Batman. The natural progression of Batman is that the cowl gets passed onto Robin- a sort of master/student dynamic.
Batman needs a Robin, simply because Robin is the second in command. Anything happens to Batman, Robin steps up and takes his place. As Christopher Nolan isn't including a Robin in the movies, I think it's unlikely that you'll see a new Batman. The character the author of the linked article states that the character he thinks will take up the role of Batman after Bruce Wayne is someone called John Blake. Coincidently, when Dick Grayson takes up the role of Batman the Robin is Tim Drake (a very similar sounding name). What we could see is instead of John Blake becoming Batman, he might form his own idendity. I highly doubt it will be Nightwing. That's Dick Grayson's role. When Bruce Wayne is revealed not to be dead, he retakes the role of Batman, Dick goes back to being Nightwing, and we're back where we left off.
That is, however, it's revealed that Bruce has a son, Damian- the mother is Talia aAl Ghul, the daughter of Ra's al Ghul. Damian became the new Robin when Tim Drake decided to branch out and become his own crime fighter, under the name Red Robin. I'm going to call it- in Dark Knight Rises Bruce Wayne does indeed die, and John Blake decides to take his place, but not as Batman. I think he's going to replace Bruce, but under the "Red Robin" guise. I think that John will think that you can't replace Batman with a click of your fingers and a flash of lightning, so he comes up with his own crime fighting vigilante.
And thus, the movie version of Red Robin was born. I know that Red Robin isn't that well known a character from the comics, but neither was Mad Hatter, and he was recently featured in the Arkham City video game. What's to say that another relative obscure character won't be featured in the upcoming film(s)?
That's my take on where the celluloid Batman is going. I may be right, I may not be. We'll just have to wait and see.
While I've still got your attention, why not hit me up on Twitter @Gary_Xean? You know, for shits and giggles.
Wednesday, 23 November 2011
Shakin' up the system
I got a plan. A cunning plan. A plan that I feel needs to be introduced into this country as soon as possible (obviously). I want to start a revolution- a social revolution, if you will. I want to shake up the schooling and work system in this country.
Now, I feel that a bit of background information's needed for this post. I ply my trade within the confines of the retail sector. It's not a job I hate (most of the time), but it's not a job I love. The biggest downside is that I have to interact with people on a daily basis. I know, I know, I knew about that before I started the job, but I never realised how irritating it can get sometimes. When you get people who quite clearly can't be bothered to do anything for themselves, that's when the job gets annoying. When you get people who are, shall we say, not the brightest tool on the shelf, and you realise that you may as well be talking to the nearest wall, that's when the job gets mildly frustrating. When you get people who treat you like something you stepped in, that's when the job gets downright hateful. This is the reason I want to shake up the school system- these problems all come down to a lack of respect- a lack of respect for the staff and a lack of respect for their working environment.
So, how do we solve this problem? Well, it's actually very simple. We need to find a way for people to learn respect for the retailers who work hard every day to keep their customers happy. Obviously not all customers can leave a store happy. Some of these people will let you know that they're not happy, and demdand that you do something, citing phrases like "the customer is always right" and "retail law" and other buzzwords they've heard on watchdog shows on television. The fact of the matter is this: the customer is not always right. In fact, the customer is very rarely right. This is one of the things we need to teach people. By breaking down this barrier of ignorance you open up the opportunity for understanding and learning.
Probably the most effective way for people to learn about an industry is to actually work in it. At the moment, the British schooling system has a work experience program, where children who are 15/16 will go out for two weeks and work for a company. This system is, frankly, useless. Two weeks isn't long enough for a person of that age to fully understand and comprehend what's happening within a business. Plus, you get children who want to work in, for example, a care home, but instead get told that the placement's full so they have to go work for their local shop. Because they don't want to be there, they won't make any effort to do the job. I know this, I've seen it firsthand. As such, we need to get rid of the work experience program in it's current form.
Instead, we put in a totally radical system. When children leave school, they have to do six month's work. But not just any work, they have to do six month's retail work. Believe it or not, retail work is more than just stacking shelves. It's an extremely complex industry, and there's a hell of a lot more happening behind the scenes than most people realise. Speaking on a personal level, I have to liase with five different outside companies, which I wasn't expecting when I first started the job. I think people would be amazed what actually goes into the running of a shop.
Now, you obviously need to give these people an incentive for doing the job, otherwise they won't turn up to it. The most obvious one is to pay them for it. At the time of writing, the minimum wage for school leavers under the age of 18 is £3.68 per hour. If you get them working 30 hours a week, that roughly equates to the same amount of time they would spend in school, and gives them a weekly pay of £110.40 per week, depending if the individual employers wish to pay them more or not. An additional point on this is that it's not really fair for the employers to be forced to pay school leavers this much, so the government will supplement half of it- £55.20 comes from a government grant, and the rest comes out of the employers pocket. When these children get older and start to pay tax, they'll effectively pay this money back and pass it on to the next generation of school leavers. This would actually mean you get a permanent circulation of currency- when someones's 15/16 they don't think about saving up their cash, they think about how they can go out with their friends, spend it and enjoy it. Look at that, I'm also putting forward a solution to help the economic crisis without even trying.
Money can't be the only incentive for people that age. This is where I think the Americans have the right idea by having a permanent record for people. I think this is a system that we need in this country. Not only can you put people's school grades onto it, you can also put if they completed their six months retail service or not. If they did, then great. If not, then they effectively "fail" school. To put it another way, it becomes part of the curriculum. Granted, there's no exam for it, there's no grade for it. If they turned up to their placement every day and put honest-to-god effort in, then that works in their favour. If they turned up every day but didn't bother to do anything, then that goes against them. If they don't turn up at all, they don't get paid and it goes on their record, thus rendering them unreliable and, in turn, unemployable. If you don't do your placement, then you only apply for the bare minimum of benefits, so it encourages you to actually turn up and the do the job even more. By making the downside as bad as possible, you're practically ensuring the fact that people will turn up and be bothered to do the job.
There are no doubt holes in this theory. I like to think that I've thought this through pretty damn well, but if there is anything, I encourage you to point it out to me so I can refine it.
Well, that's my theory. My main idea is for people to see when happens in retail and thus they gain a respect for the job and the people, and that the respect will be spread across the generations. Thank you for reading this far, and give me yo' opinions.
Now, I feel that a bit of background information's needed for this post. I ply my trade within the confines of the retail sector. It's not a job I hate (most of the time), but it's not a job I love. The biggest downside is that I have to interact with people on a daily basis. I know, I know, I knew about that before I started the job, but I never realised how irritating it can get sometimes. When you get people who quite clearly can't be bothered to do anything for themselves, that's when the job gets annoying. When you get people who are, shall we say, not the brightest tool on the shelf, and you realise that you may as well be talking to the nearest wall, that's when the job gets mildly frustrating. When you get people who treat you like something you stepped in, that's when the job gets downright hateful. This is the reason I want to shake up the school system- these problems all come down to a lack of respect- a lack of respect for the staff and a lack of respect for their working environment.
So, how do we solve this problem? Well, it's actually very simple. We need to find a way for people to learn respect for the retailers who work hard every day to keep their customers happy. Obviously not all customers can leave a store happy. Some of these people will let you know that they're not happy, and demdand that you do something, citing phrases like "the customer is always right" and "retail law" and other buzzwords they've heard on watchdog shows on television. The fact of the matter is this: the customer is not always right. In fact, the customer is very rarely right. This is one of the things we need to teach people. By breaking down this barrier of ignorance you open up the opportunity for understanding and learning.
Probably the most effective way for people to learn about an industry is to actually work in it. At the moment, the British schooling system has a work experience program, where children who are 15/16 will go out for two weeks and work for a company. This system is, frankly, useless. Two weeks isn't long enough for a person of that age to fully understand and comprehend what's happening within a business. Plus, you get children who want to work in, for example, a care home, but instead get told that the placement's full so they have to go work for their local shop. Because they don't want to be there, they won't make any effort to do the job. I know this, I've seen it firsthand. As such, we need to get rid of the work experience program in it's current form.
Instead, we put in a totally radical system. When children leave school, they have to do six month's work. But not just any work, they have to do six month's retail work. Believe it or not, retail work is more than just stacking shelves. It's an extremely complex industry, and there's a hell of a lot more happening behind the scenes than most people realise. Speaking on a personal level, I have to liase with five different outside companies, which I wasn't expecting when I first started the job. I think people would be amazed what actually goes into the running of a shop.
Now, you obviously need to give these people an incentive for doing the job, otherwise they won't turn up to it. The most obvious one is to pay them for it. At the time of writing, the minimum wage for school leavers under the age of 18 is £3.68 per hour. If you get them working 30 hours a week, that roughly equates to the same amount of time they would spend in school, and gives them a weekly pay of £110.40 per week, depending if the individual employers wish to pay them more or not. An additional point on this is that it's not really fair for the employers to be forced to pay school leavers this much, so the government will supplement half of it- £55.20 comes from a government grant, and the rest comes out of the employers pocket. When these children get older and start to pay tax, they'll effectively pay this money back and pass it on to the next generation of school leavers. This would actually mean you get a permanent circulation of currency- when someones's 15/16 they don't think about saving up their cash, they think about how they can go out with their friends, spend it and enjoy it. Look at that, I'm also putting forward a solution to help the economic crisis without even trying.
Money can't be the only incentive for people that age. This is where I think the Americans have the right idea by having a permanent record for people. I think this is a system that we need in this country. Not only can you put people's school grades onto it, you can also put if they completed their six months retail service or not. If they did, then great. If not, then they effectively "fail" school. To put it another way, it becomes part of the curriculum. Granted, there's no exam for it, there's no grade for it. If they turned up to their placement every day and put honest-to-god effort in, then that works in their favour. If they turned up every day but didn't bother to do anything, then that goes against them. If they don't turn up at all, they don't get paid and it goes on their record, thus rendering them unreliable and, in turn, unemployable. If you don't do your placement, then you only apply for the bare minimum of benefits, so it encourages you to actually turn up and the do the job even more. By making the downside as bad as possible, you're practically ensuring the fact that people will turn up and be bothered to do the job.
There are no doubt holes in this theory. I like to think that I've thought this through pretty damn well, but if there is anything, I encourage you to point it out to me so I can refine it.
Well, that's my theory. My main idea is for people to see when happens in retail and thus they gain a respect for the job and the people, and that the respect will be spread across the generations. Thank you for reading this far, and give me yo' opinions.
Monday, 3 October 2011
Why is Internet Explorer considered bad?
In my many travels on the Interwebnet, I stumble across many different comparisons- Opinion A is different to Opinion B, Product A is cheaper than Product B, Language A is easier to learn than Language B, and so on and so forth. One thing that I stumbled across today was the subject of Internet browsers. This is a subject that I've touched upon before, but this time, I found myself drawn to it for a very simple reason.
Everyone hates Internet Explorer.
I decided to go to Google and ask the question "Why is Internet Explorer considered bad?" and Google found no results. Same with Bing. Both search engines gave me other options, though, and I decided to read through some of them. From what I can tell, people don't like IE (Internet Explorer) because it doesn't display websites the same as other browsers such as Opera and Firefox, and that there's security risks invloved with using it.
This is bullshit. I don't see the big deal here. Okay, so web developers need to find workarounds for their pages to be displayed identically with all browsers. I hate to tell you this, Mr. Web Developer, but that is your job. You are the one that is paid to make a webpage that will be displayed identically on every browser being used. If you need to make a workaround for your precious page to be displayed on one browser, then you have to do it. That is why you call yourself a web developer, because you are making Internet pages that everyone can view. You're not making webpages for people only using, for example, Safari can view. If you were, then you would be a Safari Web Developer. But you're not. Deal with it.
As for those security issues attatched to IE? In case you people didn't notice, it's not about your web browser that puts you at risk, okay? It's the very fact that you're connected to the Internet in the first place that puts you at risk. If someone wants to gain access to your personal files, they'll do it via your web connection. Hackers don't give a damn what browser you're using. If there's a way for them to get onto your computer and steal your information, then they'll damn well do it. These security issues won't mean diddly squat if you've got decent, up-to-date anti-virus and firewall software. Hey presto, it's instantly harder to gain access to your machine.
I decided to have a look at the stats for this blog prior/during the writing of this post, and I discovered that the top three browsers that are used to view this blog are Internet Explorer, Firefox and Opera. The combined percentages of Opera and Firefox users is 33% while the percentage of IE users is 54%. Yes, you read that correctly. The majority of my readers use IE while the people who use Firefox and Opera combined is just over half that number. There are currently 21% more people using IE than Firefox and Opera combined, and I think that tells you something.
And because I'm feeling incredibly kind, I'm going to spell that out for you all elitist snobs out there.
There's nothing wrong with Internet Explorer.
Everyone hates Internet Explorer.
I decided to go to Google and ask the question "Why is Internet Explorer considered bad?" and Google found no results. Same with Bing. Both search engines gave me other options, though, and I decided to read through some of them. From what I can tell, people don't like IE (Internet Explorer) because it doesn't display websites the same as other browsers such as Opera and Firefox, and that there's security risks invloved with using it.
This is bullshit. I don't see the big deal here. Okay, so web developers need to find workarounds for their pages to be displayed identically with all browsers. I hate to tell you this, Mr. Web Developer, but that is your job. You are the one that is paid to make a webpage that will be displayed identically on every browser being used. If you need to make a workaround for your precious page to be displayed on one browser, then you have to do it. That is why you call yourself a web developer, because you are making Internet pages that everyone can view. You're not making webpages for people only using, for example, Safari can view. If you were, then you would be a Safari Web Developer. But you're not. Deal with it.
As for those security issues attatched to IE? In case you people didn't notice, it's not about your web browser that puts you at risk, okay? It's the very fact that you're connected to the Internet in the first place that puts you at risk. If someone wants to gain access to your personal files, they'll do it via your web connection. Hackers don't give a damn what browser you're using. If there's a way for them to get onto your computer and steal your information, then they'll damn well do it. These security issues won't mean diddly squat if you've got decent, up-to-date anti-virus and firewall software. Hey presto, it's instantly harder to gain access to your machine.
I decided to have a look at the stats for this blog prior/during the writing of this post, and I discovered that the top three browsers that are used to view this blog are Internet Explorer, Firefox and Opera. The combined percentages of Opera and Firefox users is 33% while the percentage of IE users is 54%. Yes, you read that correctly. The majority of my readers use IE while the people who use Firefox and Opera combined is just over half that number. There are currently 21% more people using IE than Firefox and Opera combined, and I think that tells you something.
And because I'm feeling incredibly kind, I'm going to spell that out for you all elitist snobs out there.
There's nothing wrong with Internet Explorer.
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
Humanity lost it's way
If you've been paying even the slightest bit of attention to the (UK) news recently, then it's highly likely that you've seen the story that's dominated the headlines these last few days: "Riots in London" is what sums it all up. The UK, a country that prides itself on it's civility and high standard of living, has descended into looting, rioting and general mayhem and destruction.
The video only shows a small amount of what was happening, yet at the same time, it sums it up a lot. It basically comes down to one thing- destruction for the sake of destruction.
It all started in the Tottenham area of London, where people were peacefully protesting over the death of a man in possession of a firearm after the police shot him, apparently without warning. I wasn't there, so I can't comment on if that's true or not, but somehow, the protest turned violent. The violence spread across London, people were giving reasons such as "[It's the] recession. We're bored and we've got no money." One person even claimed they were doing it to "get my taxes back." Idiocy doesn't even begin to cover it.
For a while, the mindlessness threatened to overrun the entire country, but people seemed to come to their senses, and it all slowly died away. Despite what you saw in the video, the police response was very minimal- it was almost as if they were scared to get involved. This lead to people talking about getting the army to diffuse the troublemakers, but there's an extremely good example against this course of action- did somebody say Northern Ireland?
Yes, there were riots in Northern Ireland, and the army were brought in to subdue the situation. The resulting standoff lasted 30 years.
So, what happens now? The violence has seemingly stopped, but I know for a fact that some retail outlets are still employing an extremely high level of caution, and with good reason- it only takes one or two people to start it up again, especially in the aftermath. The scenes are still fresh in people's minds, and if they've got the intelligence of a cheese sandwich (which, let's face it, most of the people rioting and looting do), then they'll want to imitate what they've seen on the magical picture box. And, thus, the mayhem will begin again.
There are many words that can be used to describe these people, but most of them can't be used in polite company. I'll leave it up to each individual to decide how extreme they want to take the descriptions, but I think that by my "cheese sandwich" remark it's an easy assumption that my own feelings are far from neutral on this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)