Do you remember the KFC Double Down? Probably not, because it’s been pretty much irrelevant for three years. But for a few months back in the summer of 2010, you would hear about the Double Down everywhere you turned – and not simply because KFC put together a massive marketing campaign to promote their new sandwich* - but because every news outlet in America decided that putting bacon in between two chicken breasts represented the downfall of our country. Apparently the absence of bread made the Double Down the hottest thing since sliced bread.

*If it lacks bread, is it still a sandwich? KFC marketed it as such, but I imagine John Montagu, 4^th Earl of Sandwich, is rolling over in his grave right now

So why do I bring this up now? Well, a recent trip to In-N-Out Burger got me thinking. During my In-N-Out visit, I ordered a Double Double and some french fries, nothing too out of the ordinary for a hungry 22 year old male (hell, the 14 year old in front of me got a 4*4 and a large Coke…woof.) But a quick visit to the In-N-Out Burger website reveals that this meal contained over 1000 calories and 60 grams of fat (don’t worry I burned off these calories by doing nothing for the rest of the day.) A little more research revealed that a KFC Double Down contains 540 calories and 32 grams of fat… so what was all the fuss about back in 2010? Every fast food meal is unhealthy, why was the Double Down singled out?

I guess the Joker answered this question best back in “The Dark Knight” when he waxed philosophical with Harvey Dent: “You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go 'according to plan.' Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all 'part of the plan'. But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!” The Joker’s channeling of Nietzsche offers a pretty effective explanation as to why the Double Down offended the sensibilities of so many Americans. It simply went against what we expected. If KFC threw a bun around the Double Down, it would have become even more unhealthy, but no one would have batted an eye. Our insistence on sticking to the plan often clashes with our rationality.    

Ultimately, humans are creatures of habit, and we do not like to stray from these habits. But maybe it would be in my best interests to stop habitually going to In-N-Out Burger.   

Shear the Beard?

If there’s one thing the 2013 Giants are good at its losing… and on July 30^th they lost something more than a game. Noted facial hair aficionado Brian Wilson opted not to sign for the Giants. This in itself is disappointing but far from terrible. A reliever coming off his second Tommy John surgery is not going to salvage the Giants disastrous season. It might be a good thing that the Giants did not sign him, they are riddled with enough bloated middle reliever contracts as is. But not signing Wilson really isn’t the issue. Wilson did not simply rebuff the Giants, he rebuffed them for the f@#*ing Dodgers. Even if they weren’t the Giants rivals, this current incarnation of the Dodgers manages to make the Yankees seem like a loveable team. And the face of the 2010 Giants donning the blue and white just seems dirty and wrong. If he had signed with the Pirates, the team most heavily linked with Wilson outside of the Dodgers, there would have been little uproar from SF fans. Hell, the modern day Blackbeard signing for the Buccos might have been pretty fitting. But The Dodgers? Ugh.

Unsurprisingly, a quick scan of sports websites, the blogosphere, the twittersphere, or any other sphere pertaining to the web (is Facebooksphere a thing?) revealed that on the whole Giants fans were pissed off at baseball’s newest version of Benedict Arnold (it also revealed how many people are unaware that a traitor and trader are two different things.)

While it may seem that I would be the first to jump on the hatred bandwagon, I am not overly mad about this whole affair. Honestly, I’ve never quite understood why sports fans expect so much loyalty from their favorite players. We never judge a “normal” person for choosing a career path that comes across as disloyal. If your neighbor Billy accepted a new job at Microsoft after working at Apple for ten years, you would think nothing of it. We all make career choice that work in our best interests, and that is exactly what Wilson did. He currently lives in L.A, wants to play for a contending team, and wants to be paid a lot of money… signing for the Dodgers was the best career choice for him. So I personally think all the scorn and contempt thrown in Wilson’s direction is rather silly. Why the hell do we hold people who are really good at throwing and hitting balls to a higher standard than we do ourselves?

This does not mean that my opinion of Wilson is not unchanged. I believe that athletes who show loyalty to their team and fans should be admired. I’m simply stating that I don’t think that an athlete’s loyalty should be expected. So while many might boo Weezy when he returns to AT&T Park, I would prefer to cheer the beard.

Bill Ghostbustin' Ass Murray

Bill Murray recently gave an interview with GQ, where he discusses, among other things, the status of Ghostbusters III. When asked about the possibility of a third Ghostbusters movie, Murray responds in typical Murray fashion, saying, “It’s all a bunch of crock. It’s a crock.” But Ghostbusters III still has an IMDB page, and you should take anything Murray says with a grain of salt- it’s impossible to tell when he’s being serious or when he’s joking. So really, I have no idea what the status of the movie is. But as a pretty big fan of the original Ghostbusters, and as an even bigger fan of Bill Murray, I really hope Ghostbusters III comes to fruition (yes, I realize I just made a post complaining about sequels.)

Ghostbusters is really an awesome movie; if you think otherwise, I will fight you. It has been 26 years since its release, yet the movie remains incredibly popular. Bill Murray’s wisecracks, the unmistakable logo, the greatest theme song of all time (sorry Kenny Loggins) and a million other things keep the movie fun and relevant despite its age.

And it’s easy to forget that Ghostbusters was considered a groundbreaking film at the time of its release. There once was a time when movie genres were segregated from one another. Action/Adventure, Sci-Fi, and Comedy were not allowed to speak to each other. But then one day, in spite of what society told them, Action/Adventure, Sci-Fi, and Comedy all made sweet, sweet love and had a baby. They decided to name that baby Ghostbusters.

Seriously though, ignoring the creepiness of the previous paragraph, Ghostbusters did change the movie industry. Ghostbusters combined elements of comedy, sci-fi, and action in a way no other movie had done before. If it weren’t for Ghostbusters, movies like Men in Black, Independence Day, Wild, Wild West, IRobot, and Hancock would not exist (meaning Will Smith would be better known as a kid-friendly rapper than as a moviestar.) Ghostbusters has inspired dozen of imitators, but Ghostbusters will always be the first, and will always be the best.

But my reasons for wanting Ghostbusters III go beyond my love of the original movie. While the awesomeness of the original Ghostbusters is reason enough to warrant Ghostbusters III, there’s a much bigger reason why this movie needs to be made: Bill Murray.

Sadly, there are a lot of young people who think Bill Murray is some sort of artsy, serious actor. The Murray of old worked with the likes of Harold Ramis and Ivan Reitman. But the Murray of the past decade works with directors such as Sofia Coppola, Jim Jarmusch, and Wes Anderson. Murray’s recent turn as a dramatic actor has been met with critical acclaim and praise- it’s quite possible that Murray is as good of a dramatic actor as he is a comedic actor. But still, something about Bill Murray starring in artistic indie films seems off. Murray is arguably the funniest person alive, yet he’s stopped making comedy movies. Why quit something if you’re the best at it? Perhaps he has grown bored of comedies, or maybe he sees serious film roles as an exciting new challenge; I don’t know. But for entirely selfish reasons, I want Murray to make another comedy movie. This is a guy who helped SNL become a mainstay of American culture. He made it seem like joining the Army would be a fun thing to do. He was the funniest character, the borderline retarded (never want to go full retard) Carl Spackler, in one of the funniest movies of all time, Caddyshack. Murray bypassing comedies to do dramas is akin to Michael Jordan retiring from basketball in order to play baseball- it just seems wrong.* And this is exactly why Ghostbusters III is so important; it could be Murray’s triumphant return to comedy.

But in all likelihood Ghostbusters III probably won’t be made. If Murray doesn’t want to be part of it, there’s no way producers will go on with the film. And as of now, Murray would probably rather do another indie film than take another turn as Peter Venkman. And this isn’t necessarily a bad thing- Murray has proven to be a very talented dramatic actor. But nonetheless, I would rather see Murray with a proton pack strapped to his back than watch him star in another Wes Anderson movie.

* Interestingly enough, if Murray hadn’t helped the Looney Tunes beat the Monstars, Jordan would have lost his bet with Swackhammer (even in Looney Tunes Land Jordan suffered from a crippling gambling addiction), forcing him to become a full time attraction at Moron Mountain, meaning he never would have been able to return to the NBA.

An Overly Long Post About Inception and Movies in General

Take a look at the top 50 grossing movies of the oughts (is that the term we decided on?) A few things stand out about this set of movies. A majority of them are big budget films, most of them are pretty mediocre, and interestingly enough, almost all of the movies are either sequels, or based off of a pre-existing franchise. By my count, only 10 of the 50 movies were not based off some sort of pre-existing franchise. They are listed below.

Avatar

Finding Nemo

2012

Up

Kung Fu Panda

The Incredibles

Hancock

Ratatouille

The Day After Tomorrow

Madagascar

So with the exception of Pixar movies, there seems to be a lack of originality in Hollywood right now. In order to make a successful film, Hollywood filmmakers would rather churn out sequels or book adaptions than think of something new and original. Financially speaking, this is a smart thing to do. Why take the risk of creating an entirely original film that people may or may not like, when you can just make a movie based on an already established character or book? Movies like Spiderman or Harry Potter were pretty much guaranteed to make a crapload of money because both franchises already had huge, established fanbases. *

And this is big reason why Inception was so fun to watch. In an era where more and more films are becoming somewhat cookie-cutter, Inception strived to be fresh and original. Christopher Nolan succeeded in making a movie that is essentially a heist film, but still managed to explore something deeper - the possibility that maybe the world around us is not entirely real. It’s not as if this concept has never been explored in previous movies. Other movies, notably The Matrix, have also depicted situations where humans can unknowingly live in alternate universes, but Inception does it in a manner that feels different and unique, forcing us to ask some questions in the process. What if multiple people can live in someone else’s dream? What if we were the ones capable of creating alternate universes? What if there was no limits on the number of alternate universes that could exist? (Kind of a SPOILER alert: At one point in the movie, a couple of the characters are four dreams deep. At that point, my mind was already sufficiently blown. But what if they took it even further. What if they went to a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream within another dream? Hypothetically, they could have gone through thousands of dreams.)

But even beyond the whole alternate reality angle, Inception had a lot going for it. It never tried to get overly philosophical (like the 2^nd and 3^rd installments of The Matrix series), and instead focuses on keeping the plot engaging and exciting- there never is a dull moment throughout the entire movie. Dominic Cobb proves to be fascinating character with an intriguing backstory. Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page (Copenhagen?), and the rest of the cast did a great job. And there was an Indian guy, which is always a plus in my mind. And the special effects, to put it mildly, were f*cking incredible.

Which brings me to my next point about movies today. If you look back at the list of the highest grossing movies of the ought’s, you’ll probably notice that most of the movies were big budget films with a crazy amount of special effects. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing- I love seeing stuff explode as much as anyone. But it’s unfortunate that some filmmakers prioritize explosions and car chases above actual storylines (I’m looking at you Michael Bay.)

Take Avatar for instance. Most reviews for the movie were positive. But no one I know really loved the movie. Most of my friends agree that is was a pretty good movie that was awesome visually. But no one really says it’s a great story. Avatar had a budget of $237,000,000, which seems a little excessive for a movie that was good but not great. Kevin Costner made a movie with the same exact plot 20 years ago with a budget of $18,000,000. Disney made a movie with the same story as Avatar 15 years ago with a budget of about ten dollars. It seems odd that so much money can be spent to tell a story that’s already been told.

But don’t get it twisted and think that Inception went light in terms of budget. It cost $160,000,000 to make the film. But where Inception differs from other big budget movies is in how it uses special effects. Inception did not use special effects just because it looks cool and attracts large audiences; it used special effects to bring the plot to life. Christopher Nolan addressed the large budget of Inception, saying, “As soon as you’re talking about dreams, the potential of the human mind is infinite. And so the scale of the film has to feel infinite. It has to feel like you could go absolutely anywhere by the end of the film. And it has to work on a massive scale.” Nolan wanted to use special effects to portray the vast, infinite nature of dreams, because he felt as if this would enhance the plot. The story is the focal point; the special effects are secondary. Too often films have this the other way around - as was the case with Avatar. James Cameron used a mediocre story as a vehicle to showcase amazing special effects; Christopher Nolan used special effects as a vehicle to showcase a great story.

So if you haven’t seen Inception yet, go watch it as soon as you can. It is an entertaining movie that does not need to rely on a pre-existing franchise or special effects - something that has become increasingly rare in Hollywood today.

* This is not meant to say that sequels/ book adaptions cannot be good movies. The Dark Knight was both a sequel and a comic book adaption, but it was arguably the best movie of the past decade.

Belated Thoughts on "The Decision"

So apparently some guy named Lebron just signed a big contract to play basketball with the Miami Heat. You might have heard about it. And you may have heard that Lebron thought it was a good idea to hold a one-hour TV special to announce his decision, a choice that made the once likeable Lebron seem like a self serving egomaniac. To quote Drew Magary of Deadspin, “[Lebron] is a self-aggrandizing sack of shit.” (so tell me what you really think, Drew.)

But while it’s easy to label Lebron as another cocky athlete, is it fair to blame Lebron for acting in the manner that he did? Let’s look at some of the driving forces behind Lebron’s supposed cockiness.

Nike: I understand you’re motivated by one thing (money) and don’t care what measures you take to make it, but let’s clear something up. I am not a "witness". Someday, when I have kids, I will tell them that I “witnessed” the first time a black man became president of the United States. I will unfortunately tell my kids that I “witnessed” the twin towers collapsing. But I will not tell them that I “witnessed” Lebron James play basketball. The election of Obama and 9/11, for better or worse, are two moments that changed the world. Lebron James basketball skills, while very entertaining to watch, are not world changing. So while I consider myself lucky to watch James in action, I will not tell my kids that I “was a witness.” I will merely tell them that I got to watch a tremendous athlete

The Media: Another reason why Lebron’s head is currently the size of Mr. Met’s. Putting a High School Junior on the cover of the biggest sporting magazine in the world and anointing him the “chosen one” is never a good idea. Believe it or not, teenage prodigies don’t always meet expectations (see Adu, Freddy; Wie, Michelle.) And people who achieve fame as a child tend to not age well (see Bonaduce, Danny; Coleman, Gary; and pretty much every other child star ever.) And even if they do meet expectations, as Lebron has, they probably will develop a big ego in the process. Let’s put this in perspective. 17 year olds tend to get excited if their name is merely mentioned in the local paper. At 17, Lebron was on the cover of SPORTS ILLUSTRATED!!!!! That may lead to a slightly inflated sense of self-worth. Hey, at least SI hasn’t resorted to putting a High School Sophomore on its cover… oh, nevermind (interestingly enough, Bryce Harper is rumored to be a cocky douchebag… I wonder why?)

ESPN, you’re even more to blame. You might as well have created an entirely new channel devoted to Lebron. Remember how pathetic it was when you had Pedro Gomez stalk Barry Bonds? Well, you’re treatment of this was even more pathetic. Telling us that Lebron having lunch in New York is “Breaking News” is beyond pathetic. It’s an insult to journalism. Between soccer, baseball, golf, and tennis, there is enough real sports news to fill up the day. You don’t need to “report” on what Lebron ate for dinner last night.

Cleveland: I know it seems harsh to blame Cleveland, because Cleveland seems to be the major loser of the entire Lebron ordeal. But here's an idea. Don’t put a mural of the guy on the side of a building! Paying homage to an athlete is nothing new. Plenty of great athletes have been honored with statues… but generally the statues are placed in front of a sporting arena and not erected until after the player retires. Cleveland treated a 25 year old as if he was a city landmark.

Clevelanders (or is it Clevelandonians, maybe Clevelandians, Clevelandites?), you have other things going for your city. There is no need to cry over the loss of Lebron. You guys have the Rock n Roll hall of fame, and… you also have… ummm… well… this building seems sorta nice... and Drew Carey grew up in Cleveland... well at least you guys have a rich sporting history. Alright fine, maybe you guys don’t have a lot going for you. I’ll give Cleveland a pass.

Us: The media kept feeding it to us, and we ate it all up. We turned a blind side to the signs of arrogance, happily buying into whatever Nike and ESPN told us. We are so desperate to find a superstar athlete who is truly humble and likable, but has anyone considered that maybe it is our own fault that pro athletes act in the manner that they do? We live in a culture that mythifies sports and the athletes who play them. We treat athletes like gods, but we get angry when they start to act as if they are god. If we really want athletes to be likeable, we need to stop holding them to such ridiculous double standards. Either we continue to treat them like gods and deal with the cockiness, or we can start treating them like normal people

This post is not meant to be an excuse for what Lebron did. His hour broadcast was baffling, over the top, and basically a giant middle finger to the city of Cleveland. I am simply trying to look at things from Lebron’s perspective. And while it’s hard to portray someone who makes millions of dollars a year as a sympathetic figure, I do feel sorry for Lebron in a certain way. He seems to be a pretty nice guy who is fairly intelligent. But it is painstakingly obvious that he lacks any sense of self awareness. While most of us transition from our teens to adulthood learning who we are, Lebron entered adulthood trying to convince millions of people that he is one of the greatest basketball players who ever lived. His image of himself was entirely based off what others told him. And to me, that seems unfair.

Why You Should Read This Blog

You should read this blog because I ghostwrite for Jay-Z. Because Bruce Springsteen comes to me for life advice. Because Bill Murray wants me to direct his next movie. Because I have been profiled on 60 Minutes. Because I taught Buster Posey how to hit. Because I can beat Joey Chestnut in an eating competition. Because Morgan Freeman asked me to narrate his upcoming documentary. Because I am the reason why Bengie Molina was able to hit a cycle.

Believe it or not, nothing I wrote in the previous paragraph is even remotely close to being true. But that is the beauty of a blog- you can write whatever you want. And that is precisely why I have created this blog. My mind is backlogged with random thoughts on different aspects of culture and is in desperate need of some sort of outlet; a position I hope this blog can fill. Also, I have far too much free time on my hands and a blog seems like a good time waster.

Anyways, I hope to provide unique viewpoints on sports, music, television, or whatever else I choose to write about (hence the broad nature of the title of this blog.) If you feel as if you have anything to say about my articles, please go ahead and leave a comment or even send me an email. Any sort of feedback would be greatly appreciated.