Conservatives are in an uproar. The NFL, you see, has gone too far.
I wish I could tell you the uproar was over the NFL’s concussion issues or the terrifying realities of CTE, or the NFL’s domestic violence scandals or the NFL’s sexual assault scandals. You Google NFL and the words “domestic violence” or “sexual assault” and you will get a scary number of legitimate hits.
These are all serious issues; each and every one, and all worthy of an uproar.
But no. Conservatives aren’t angry about any of those “silly” things.
They have focused their rage on something truly important -- the NFL player national anthem protest!
You know the one I’m talking about. The one Colin Kaepernick started last year? Kaepernick, that outspoken, black, male, Muslim who rocks a huge afro (a veritable list of things that make white folks really uncomfortable). Well, as the story goes -- Kap kneels during the anthem, to raise awareness to social injustice and police brutality against people of color.
That’s why Colin Kaepernick knelt. That was last year. Conservatives were in an uproar last year too. But this time, it’s much worse.
Last week a few players knelt during the anthem in support of what Kaepernick began a year ago, which led President Donald Trump to say at an Alabama rally:
"Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out. He's fired! He's fired!'”
Okay. Whatever. Trump yells weird things that have nothing to do with government or his job is nothing new.
But man, did Trump’s comments get under the skin of NFL owners, coaches and players. All but two team owners issued statements denouncing Trump’s words and supporting players right to peaceful protest. The following weekend, hundreds of NFL players knelt during the anthem, while some players stood and linked arms in solidarity and one team did not even take the field until after the anthem ended.
The NFL didn’t line up in support of Kap but when Donald Trump calls NFL players, “SOB’s” suddenly, the shit hits the fan. Or, as former NFL great, Shannon Sharpe said on Fox Sports’ Undisputed:
“I’m disappointed. And I’m unimpressed. Because this is the tipping point. Of the 7,537 things that President Trump has said in the last 50 years, him (Trump) calling an NFL player an SOB is what brought the NFL, the owners and its players, together. And while some might be moved by the conscience of these NFL owners, it wasn’t their conscience that moved them. It was the cash.”
Sharpe points out that several NFL owners gave “...a million dollars for the inauguration of President Trump” even after they ignored all of The Donald’s racist and sexist comments throughout the Presidential campaign.
Sharpe continues, “And now they (NFL owners) seem to be shocked (at what Trump says about the NFL). Every author that’s written a book about President Trump, and they started writing books about him in the 1980s, they say he is exactly today as he was then.”
Perhaps Sharpe is right. Perhaps the majority of the League’s owners don’t give a rat’s ass about social equality and instead see free publicity for their team and therefore -- extra cash. Last year, when conservatives were in an uproar over Kaepernick’s kneeling protest, do you recall seeing and / or reading about any such wide spread NFL solidarity for him?
I don’t either.
But the solidarity is there now. And I’m happy to see it. It’s the right thing to do. Obviously.
But some folks are going crazy. As always.
How bout them super vocal, rage fueled Cowboy’s fans who screamed into the Texas winds they were “one hundred percent positive!” that “Boys” owner, Jerry Jones will fire any “ungrateful, disrespectful” player who knelt during the anthem?
Cowboys owner, Jerry Jones, kneels during the national anthem.
Is Mr. Jones doing it for cash, as Mr. Sharpe suggests, or in solidarity? Or both?
I don’t know. And I don’t really care. But I do know, despite world wide / US issues blowing up all week long -- hurricanes, war threats with North Korea, healthcare reforms -- President Trump had to weigh in on the NFL.
Again, and again, and again.
As President Trump leads the way, emboldened racist Americans step up across the country and voice their concern over these “ungrateful, disrespectful” -- NFL players. (And we all know that what they really mean is, “ungrateful, disrespectful -- n****rs!).
Like Paul Smith, a fire chief in Pennsylvania. He took to Facebook and called out head coach Mike Tomlin of the Pittsburgh Steelers. Tomlin’s Steelers waited in the locker room until after the national anthem ended and then took the field. Tomlin is one of the few black head coaches in the NFL. Smith writes on Facebook:
"Tomlin just added himself to the list of no good N****rs! Yes I said it."
How about John Valko, WI restaurant co-owner. Valko, again on Facebook, in a now deleted post, writes:
“Kill the idiot players. Execute them. They are nothing but garbage. The league is screwed up if they think it is their right. It is their duty to respect our country and our flag. They should go kneel in front of a freight train. Shame on these stupid misfits of society. They need to die.”
Even semi famous people are getting in it. Taya Kyle, the widow of “American Sniper” Chris Kyle told the NFL off, in a ridiculous condescending and naïve open letter. She writes:
“(NFL…) You were doing your part to bring people together and heal the world … You were doing your part celebrating each other based on skills, talent and a joint vision without regard to color and religion ... You were doing your part and we were doing ours. We showed up cheering and groaning together to as one. We talked in the concession lines and commiserated and celebrated our team together. Did it ever occur to you that you and we were already a mix of backgrounds, races and religions? We were already living the dream you want, right in front of you … Your desire to focus on division and anger has shattered what many people loved most about the sport. Football was really a metaphor for our ideal world – different backgrounds, talents, political beliefs and histories as one big team with one big goal - to do well, to win, TOGETHER … You dear NFL, have taken that. You have lost me here.”
Damn you, NFL players! You were just about to solve racism with your next Play Action Pass and you went and ruined it all with your fucking kneeling!
Look -- NFL players kneeling or standing during the anthem is not a federal issue. So President Trump can STFU about it. The NFL is a business and is not beholden to the Tweet Whims of President “Tiny Hands.”
If NFL commissioner Roger Goodell tells NFL coaches & players what they can and can not do during the national anthem, well, that’s one thing, because he’s their boss. And the boss usually gets a say in how his employees behave.
Well - Roger Goodell, the man in charge of the NFL, has come out in full support of players protesting during the national anthem. Sorry, Mr. President -- the boss has spoken. End of discussion.
But it’s not just Trump and mostly white private citizens that are in a tizzy, it’s also, mostly white conservatives politicians and pundits that are freaking out too. And all of them love to use the words, “ungrateful” and, “disrespectful” about mostly black, NFL players.
All of this is what led Trevor Noah of the Daily to Show to ask, “ungrateful to whom” in this delightful six minute Daily Show clip that you should totally watch -- “When is the Right Time for Black People to Protest.”
Conservatives -- enough with the “ungrateful” -- “disrespectful” BS! As Trevor Noah points out, “That’s some sneaky ass racism.”
Though it’s really Noah’s Dr. Seuss inspired closing lines in the above linked video that sum it all up rather nicely.
(Since most folks don’t click on links. I’ll recreate it for you here)
When is the Right Time for Black People to Protest?
By Trevor Noah (and probably Daily Show staff writers too)
“It’s wrong to do it in the streets.
It’s wrong to do it in the Tweets.
You CANNOT do it on the field.
You CANNOT do it if you kneeled.
And don’t do it -- if you’re rich.
You ungrateful -- son of a bitch.
Because there’s one thing that’s a fact.
You CANNOT protest if you’re black.”
President Trump continues to ramp up the war rhetoric with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Last week, GCN’s very own Anthony Varriano wrote about the “dick wagging” between the two leaders in his Opinion: Trump’s hands too small to handle North Korea alone.
Well, “Tiny Hands” Trump and “Rocket Man” Kim Jong-un are back at it. It began last week when Trump delivered his speech at the United Nations saying Kim is on a “suicide mission for himself” (if he continues to build and test bombs) then called Kim a “madman” and later said the US would “totally destroy” North Korea if it moved against the US or its allies.
Kim Jong-un responded by calling President Trump a “mentally deranged US dotard.” A dotard, if you do not know, is slang for an elderly senile person. Then, over the weekend, President Trump threw gasoline on the fire with a tweet claiming that North Korea, “wouldn’t be around too much longer.”
The school yard insults are beneath world leaders and if the stakes weren't so high I would be a lot more snarky about grown ass men behaving this way. Finally, after a week of the two leaders tossing juvenile threats back and forth, North Korea’s Foreign Minister said:
"Last weekend Trump claimed that our leadership wouldn't be around much longer and declared a war on our country...” -- “Since the United States declared war on our country, we will have every right to make all self-defensive counter measures, including the right to shoot down the United States strategic bombers at any time even when they are not yet inside the aerospace border of our country."
Dick wagging or not, these are dangerous words for world leaders to casually sling back and forth. I wouldn’t precisely say that Trump, “declared war” on North Korea but, in all fairness, there was a significant implied threat.
And if there is one thing that dictators do not respond well too, it’s significant implied threats.
I don’t want a lunatic like Kim Jong-un to have weapons of mass destruction. He keeps threatening to bomb and or attack the US and its allies. Which is why, President Trump, rightfully said that Kim was on a “suicide mission.” Because what other result does Kim expect? If a world leader claims they are making weapons of mass destruction and then openly brags about targets that can be attacked in the US and / or in US allied countries -- then the US has to take that seriously. It doesn’t matter if it’s only “dick wagging” posturing.
I wish we in the US and the North Korean’s both had more cool headed, thick skinned adult leaders than we actually do. But we have what we have. And like all cripplingly insecure men, our two respective country leaders are tossing juvenile threats and wagging the dog. Perhaps Kim doesn’t really plan to attack the US. Perhaps he’s just talking shit in order to look tough. It seems to have gotten to that point where it no longer matters what his intentions are. The US has to take him for his word.
Perhaps Kim wants a war with the US. I don’t know and I don't claim to know what that lunatic thinks. So what can be done?
So far, US sanctions against North Korea have proven to be ineffective because 75% of its exports go to China. The Chinese government could stop this war posturing if they stepped up and imposed financial sanctions of their own. And that might be happening as sources around the interweb claim, Top Chinese bank vows to strictly apply UN sanctions on North Korea.
This appears to be a step in the right direction. Let’s hope it stays that way. But with two explosive hot heads leading both respective countries, one just never knows.
UPDATED: This is an archived story and may be out of date. Peterson has since been traded from the Saints to the Cardinals.
Karma rears its lovely head.
Adrian Peterson wanted out of the Vikings franchise. His contract with the Vikings would have netted him several million dollars and, probably, a decent amount of playing time. But that wasn’t good enough for him. So he moved on. Peterson was the face of the MN Vikings for almost a decade and I was sad to see him leave, but it really was time for him to go. A few months ago I wrote about that very thing in an Open Letter to Bridgewater, Bradford and Peterson.
Even at the age of 332 (which is like 55 in running back years) Peterson thought he had a few more 1,500 yard seasons in him. He also though, as a free agent he would command nine to twelve million dollars per year.
And so he left the Vikings. He left the franchise that stood by him for nine season. He left the fans that adored him. He went elsewhere.
Okay. Well, this is the NFL and players move on. It happens.
So AP took a chance as a free Agent and the Vikings took a chance on second round draft pick Dalvin Cook.
Peterson's journey went exactly how everyone, except for Adrian Peterson, expected -- no one wanted to hire a 32 year old running back. Especially, not one that has had two reconstructive knee surgeries. And, of course, they most certainly did not want to pay him -- nine to twelve bloody million dollars!
The few meetings Peterson had with NFL coaches or owners went nowhere. Calls from interested teams were virtually non existent. The Patriots passed. The Seahawks may have been interested but -- no, never mind, they passed too.
It was kind of embarrassing. Peterson should have retired. But then, suddenly -- the New Orleans Saints offered Peterson a roster spot for about one tenth of his asking price and all NFL fans everywhere went, “Wait --- what? Who? Why? Peterson will never take a job with the Saints. He'd rather retire!”
Except -- nope. He would indeed take a job with the Saints.
But ... but .... but .... (you say).
I know! The Saints have built their offense on the throwing arm of Drew Brees. The Saints don’t run the ball! If they hire Peterson it will just be to use him as a play action decoy -- so Brees can pass.
As a New Orleans player, Peterson must know he’s only going to touch the ball about six or eight times per game, right?
Peterson has now played four games as a Saints running back and he is firmly set in place as the third string running back. That’s right, “third string.” Behind starter Mark Ingram and second string rookie back, Alvin Kamara. In four weeks as a Saint, Peterson has produced 81 running yards on 27 carries. That’s 3 yards per carry. So, obviously he's frustrated. But to be honest, both Ingram and Kamara are more productive than Peterson. And both Ingram and Kamara can pass protect -- which has always been one of Peterson's universally known weaknesses.
Peterson has politely voiced his concern to the press with his now infamous, “I didn’t sign up for for nine snaps (per game)” interview.
Well, Mr. Peterson, I don’t know what the New Orleans Saints staff told but, yes -- you most certainly did sign with Saints to get nine snaps per game. And you should be lucky to get that.
On the flip side of things, over the same four games, the MN Vikings started rookie running back Dalvin Cook. Cook amassed 354 yards on 74 carries for 4.7 yards per carry. Sadly, Dalvin Cook was injured in week four and will sit out the remainder of the season.
I’m almost certain Peterson could be far more productive in future games with the Saints, but he will never get the game time to develop into the threat he was in MN. Peterson is not an "out the gate" type of running back. Peterson is a slow burn. His uncanny endurance is legendary. He gets stronger as the game goes on. He needs twenty snaps per game in order for his per average carry to increase because he tends to pick up speed, vision and yards in quarters three and four. Peterson needs time. He needs snaps.
But they just don’t do things that way in New Orleans.
For now, Peterson is a non productive team member for the team that headhunted him and, at the time in 2009, his teammates -- The New Orleans Saints Bounty Scandal.
In closing, Mr. Peterson, if the only team that offers you a contract is the very same team, with the very same owner and the very same head coach, that offered players additional bonus money to injure star quarterbacks including, Mr. Peterson -- your QB1 at that time-- perhaps retirement is the better option.
But Peterson didn’t retire. He became a New Orleans Saint.
A New Orleans Saint with 81 yards on 27 carries.
Again -- something about karma and its ugly head.
If you like this you might like GCN's very own sports show, View From the Couch.
JJ Abrams taking over writing and directing duties on Episode IX from ousted helmsman Colin Trevorrow is not exactly surprising. Citing, “creative differences” Lucasfilm sent Trevorrow packing, which makes him the fourth time Disney has hired a director -- had said director work on their Star Wars project (for years!) and then fired said director. That’s six feature films, four fired directors and two fired screenwriters.
To be honest, the removal of a screenwriter is nothing new; however, the removal of a director is rare and the removal of a director after shooting some, if not most of the production -- is unheard of.
Unless, apparently, you work at Disney Lucasfilm. Where it happens all the time.
So what’s going on over at Disney Lucasfilm?
The simple answer: They keep hiring indie directors who are used to having enormous creative control. Those directors don’t do well when under the microscope of a colossal tent pole franchise construction where everyone wants a piece of the pie.
That being said -- four director replacements in six movies? Are we talking gross management incompetence or are all these changes justified? Or is it both?
Let’s take a look at the hit list:
Screenwriter -- Academy Award Winner Michael Arndt. Movie: Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
Screenwriter Michael Arndt, (Little Miss Sunshine, Toy Story 3), was brought on to Star Wars way back in 2012, and he toiled on the screenplay for almost a year and a half -- and never produced a single complete draft.
By the end of 2013, JJ Abrams had had enough, stepped in as writer but also hired screenwriter and Star Wars vet -- Lawrence Kasdan (writer: The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Raiders of the Lost Ark). Arndt was out and Abrams and Kasdan hacked out a first draft by January 2014.
It should be noted that Abrams has gone on record to say that while it’s true Arndt never finished a completed draft but Arndt did turn in plenty of notes, treatments & outlines and offered plenty of ideas and input that made it into the final Abrams / Kasdan screenplay.
Arndt discusses with Entertainment Weekly, some of his story problems and the ideas that did not make it into the final draft:
“Early on I tried to write versions of the story where [Rey] is at home, her home is destroyed, and then she goes on the road and meets Luke. And then she goes and kicks the bad guy’s ass, It just never worked and I struggled with this. This was back in 2012. It just felt like every time Luke came in and entered the movie, he just took it over. Suddenly you didn’t care about your main character [Rey] anymore because, ‘Oh fuck, Luke Skywalker’s here. I want to see what he’s going to do.’”
Fair enough. But still. If you work on a screenplay for a year and a half and don’t turn in a single complete draft -- you get fired.
I call this firing: Completely reasonable.
Director -- Josh Trank. Movie: Untitled Boba Fett feature film.
During the 2015 Star Wars Celebration in Anaheim, CA, Lucasfilm set up a panel for directors Gareth Edwards of Rogue One, Monster and Godzilla (2014) and Josh Trank of Untitled Boba Fett feature film, Chronicle and Fantastic Four (2015) to discuss their upcoming Star Wars projects. Mysteriously, Trank no showed. Edwards pushed forward alone. Soon there after we found out that Trank pulled out of the event a two days before when he realized he was getting removed from the Boba Fett film. And, sure enough, a week after the Anaheim celebration, Trank was fired from the Boba Fett feature film.
Trank’s statement at the time:
“After a year of having the incredible honor of developing with the wonderful and talented people at Lucasfilm, I’m making a personal decision to move forward on a different path. I’ve put a tremendous amount of thought into this, and I know deep down in my heart that I want to pursue some original creative opportunities. That said, the Star Wars universe has always been one of my biggest influences, and I couldn’t be more excited to witness its future alongside my millions of fellow Star Wars fans. I want to thank my friends Kathleen Kennedy, Kiri Hart, Simon Kinberg, and everyone at Lucasfilm and Disney for the amazing opportunity to have been a part of this. May the Force be with you all.”
Very polite. But the firing was not surprising. Do a quick Google search on Trank and Fantastic Four and you will find a slew of articles that detail Trank’s erratic behavior on the set of the much maligned F.F. film. It really was no shock to hear he had been fired. In fact, his juvenile antics, his chronic tardiness and absenteeism and, according to many cast and crew members, his unprofessional behavior on the set of the Fant4stic has all but effectively ruined his film career. Trank has had no major studio work since the F.F. and nothing mapped out for him on future charts.
With the horrible stories coming off the F.F. set, it’s not surprising that Disney had cold feet about the young director. The Boba Fett film died with Trank’s departure.
Okay, so -- several months of crazy, bad behavior by immature director and no one wants to work with him ever again?
I call this firing: Completely reasonable.
Directors -- Christopher Miller and Phil Lord. Movie: Untitled Han Solo feature film.
The co-directors behind the new Han Solo film were replaced after shooting, reportedly, almost eighty percent of the film. This is totally unheard of.
According to the Hollywood Reporter:
“Several sources close to the movie and others close to the directors tell EW that ever since filming began back in February, Lord and Miller, who are known primarily for wry, self-referential comedies like 21 Jump Street and the pilot episodes for Brooklyn Nine-Nine and Last Man on Earth, began steering the Han Solo movie more into the genre of laughs than space fantasy.
According to some sources, the split was a subtle one that became magnified over time: Lucasfilm and producer Kennedy believed Lord and Miller were hired to add a comedic touch; Lord and Miller believed they were hired to make a comedy.”
For a more detailed view, I wrote about it a few months ago. But, basically, the directors ignored the required tone of the film and began to make a screwball comedy. Some of the actors complained to execs and producers. Director were fired. Ron Howard was hired to finish the film.
Now, the director, not anyone else -- creates the tone of the film. UNLESS -- you are making a franchise picture with decades and decades of backstory and baggage. Then the tone is probably set in stone and with that in mind you do what the studio tells you too. On the other hand, the duo directors were well known for their highly improvisational film sets (both the modern 21 Jump Street films). It’s hard for me to fathom someone hiring directors that are known for improvising vast portions of their film and then -- fire them for improvising vast portions of your film.
I call this one: Partially reasonable.
Director: Gareth Edwards. Movie: Rogue One
Technically, Edwards was not fired from the set of Rogue One but he certainly wasn’t in charge of the reshoots -- of the film he directed. Instead, Tony Gilroy (writer/ director: Michael Clayton, screenwriter: The Bourne Trilogy) was assigned to retask Rogue One to make it less grim and give it an entirely new ending. There are enough stories leaked from the set and the editing studio to suggest that a full thirty percent of the film was rewritten and reshot, with the majority of the film’s storyline being rearranged in the final edit.
Disney never confirmed much regarding the hiring of Gilroy and on the movie's changes other than a generic, “All movies have reshoots,” but -- why would you not let the director of your film -- direct the reshoots? Of the film he directed?
There really is only one answer -- Disney was not confident Edwards was the right director for the job (or, perhaps, in the first place).
Word on the interwebs is that Edwards just went too far in making his gritty, realistic space war movie and ignored the principal reason he was there -- to make a Star Wars movie. So Disney brought in someone else to do it "right."
Edwards worked on this film for three years. I find it unlikely that, suddenly, at the very end of principal photography, execs at Lucasfilm were like, “Wait-a-minute! This isn’t what we wanted.” How the hell did it take execs two years of pre production, an entire year of principal photography and then multiple edits in order to figure this out? Besides, Edwards delivered the film -- he always told Disney he was going to deliver! From day one Edwards called it a “gritty, realistic space war film.” And then he gave Disney just that.
And then they gave his job to someone else.
I call this one: A mixed bag but probably; partially reasonable.
Director -- Colin Trevorrow, Writer -- Jack Thorne. Movie: Star Wars Episode IX.
Back full circle. Another director fired. Another screenwriter fired. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Trevorrow (Safety Not Guaranteed, Jurassic World) turned in multiple drafts but no one at Disney was satisfied with the work.
So they brought in another writer, English playwright and TV scriptwriter, Jack Thorne (Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, Skins, Shameless). When Disney decided to let Trevorrow go for “creative differences,” Abrams stepped in and teamed with screenwriter Chris Terrio (writer: Argo, Batman vs. Superman and Justice League), which means Thorne was let go.
Disney is being very tight lipped about all the changes up to and including the recent Star Wars Episode IX shake up. No one knows, yet, if any work from the Trevorrow / Thorne drafts will be kept or if everything will be trashed and Abrams / Terrio will start from scratch.
Another Disney-Lucasfilm dust up. To be honest, I'm sure there will be many more to come.
I call this one: Not enough information to judge. Yet.
Star Wars: The Last Jedi will be released December 15th, 2017.
Star Wars: Episode IX will be released December 20th, 2019.
With back to back hurricanes blowing up the south and another two heading towards the Caribbean and Veracruz, many are wondering how to help. The staggering cost to repair & rebuild is predicted to be as high as two hundred billion dollars.
Only wealthy governments and donations from tens of millions of people can come up with those kind of dollars. Donations to the Red Cross are the most popular way to assist but by no means the only way. The Texas Tribune put together a great list of organizations where you can volunteer time or donate money. The Red Cross is a great organization but it’s also very large -- which means bureaucracy, which means it’s not as speedy as it could be. And that’s why I like the Texas Tribune list. Your donations will go directly to the places that need it.
The Tribune list compiles dozens of local volunteer options covering need for lawyers, musicians, chefs and medical personnel; to places you can donate blood, or hospitals you can assist at or donate to, or local animal shelters that need help with displaced pets -- their list goes on and on. Even if you live far outside the disaster zones there are plenty of options to assist.
PBS news (online) has a similar list to assist hurricane Irma victims. And while there are plenty of food banks collecting non perishables and cleaning supplies, recovery experts all agree that donating cash, not goods, is best. Goods can clog up supply lines and likely go to waste, case in point -- after hurricane Katrina, National Guard destroyed tens of thousands of bottles of water because folks just sent too much of it.
Donating money directly to local food banks operating within the disaster zone is far more beneficial than donating perishable goods to an organization near you and having them ship it. The Texas Tribune link above offers several options for local food banks that accept online donations, the largest being Central Texas Food Bank, while in Florida they have the Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida.
In 2015, GCN’s very own Dr. Daliah Wachs contacted Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval to create a Nevada Blood Donation day to help the state raise blood and awareness. From Wikipedia:
“Uniting with United Blood Services and the American Red Cross, Nevada Blood Donation Day held blood drives across the state and its success prompted the campaign to continue in 2016. During this year, blood shortages were being reported nationally. Dr. Daliah approached Governors in all 50 states to help proclaim state blood donation days, and United Blood Services, the American Red Cross and blood banks across the US joined forces to help bring this national campaign to light. By September 2016, the majority of states had proclaimed state blood donation days.”
In the wake of Hurricane Harvey, National Blood Donation Week (NBDW) has been declared for September 4th - 10th with most states adopting Friday the 8th as their State’s National Blood Donation Day.
Dr. Dahlia writes, “It’s been amazing seeing both Democratic and Republican governors unite, following Governor Sandoval's lead. We're hoping to bring in thousands of pints of blood throughout the country. Thank you!!”
Research shows that one pint of blood can save up to three lives. To find a blood drive near you go to the American Red Cross “Find a Drive” link here.
And if one pint of blood has the potential to save three lives. Imagine what the whole country can do.
This fall, approximately one hundred million U.S. kids will attend elementary, middle and high school. Ahhh -- school. We were there once. We remember the collision of boys, girls, stress, homework, peer pressure, sports, academic clubs, social clubs, cliques, teachers and the number 2 pencil.
And, of course, we remember the dress code.
Dress codes have been a topic for public debate for as long as I can remember. All schools have some form of dress code, in fact many private schools have mandatory school uniforms. I believe it is safe to say that all dress codes are pretty universally gender biased and, frankly -- really odd -- The Atlantic -- Your 11 Weirdest Dress Code Rules.
Personally, I never had to suffer a strict dress code but many kids have it forced upon them.
Mandatory uniforms have issues as well but their are a whole lot of smart folks that believe a uniform honestly helps students and educators alike.
Let’s take a quick look at both options -- the mandatory uniforms and the more general used overly strict dress code and then finally, the school that gets it right.
Some of the most common Pros and Cons of a school mandatory uniform.
Keeps students focused on education, not on the clothing they wear - vs. - Crushes individuality and promotes conformity.
I’m not one to conform so I might be biased here but I am on the side of individuality. Looking back on my time in public high school I can’t imagine certain friends not in their heavy metal tee shirts or not being able to wear their skater punk gear or not rocking their mohawk or not dyeing their hair or not being able to wear their cheerleader uniform as their daily outfit.
The entire idea just seems absurd to me!
BUT -- if uniforms did indeed keep kids focused more on education and did indeed, significantly increase student grades and improve their quality of education then I could probably be convinced that uniforms are the way to go. That being said, it appears that modern research (within the last decade) has found the opposite.
One such -- a 2009 peer-reviewed study found, "no significant effects of school uniforms on performance on second grade reading and mathematics examinations, as well as on 10th-grade reading, mathematics, science, and history examinations... In many of the specifications, the results are actually negative.”
Ryan Yeung, "Are School Uniforms a Good Fit?: Results from the ECLS-K and the NELS," Educational Policy, Nov. 2009
School uniforms reducing peer pressure, shame and bullying by creating a level playing field in regard to clothing - vs. - School uniforms do not stop bullying and may increase violent attacks.
It would be great if school uniforms reduced peer pressure and shaming because Lord knows kids are cruel to each other and that bullying is a painful, real thing that affects hundreds of thousands of children.
Sadly, it appears as if the research suggest that uniformed kids do not experience less bullying and in fact, in several studies of specific districts, bullying and violence increase. A 2007 peer-reviewed study concludes, "school uniforms increased the average number of assaults by about 14 % [per year] in the most violent schools.”
J. Scott Granberg-Rademacker, Jeffrey Bumgarner, and Avra Johnson, "Do School Violence Policies Matter? An Empirical Analysis of Four Approaches to Reduce School Violence," Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, Spring 2007
Most parents and educators support school uniforms -vs - Students f**king hate uniforms!
Students do indeed seem to f**king hate school uniforms to the tune of 85-90 percent! Whereas the surveys I’ve read suggest parents and educators are less polarized but generally favorable to uniforms. Depending on the specific survey or research, parents and teachers are about 60-65 percent favorable.
Who’s right there? I don’t know. I would probably err on the side of -- let the kids and the parents decide what is appropriate for their child to wear or not.
And, of course -- The push for school uniforms is driven by commercial interests rather than educational ones.
Like many things in a consumer driven life, marketing and money are the sole reasons behind that thing existing. The school uniform business is a one billion dollar industry in the US alone. JC Penny’s and Sears spend millions of dollars in marketing for specific regions and target parents in order to get that school uniform business.
They even have lobbyists. In Washington. Working to keep school uniforms in place and in business. So, if you’re against school uniforms for your kids -- you have that working against you.
Perhaps late satirist George Carlin said it best, "Don't these schools do enough damage, making all these children think alike? Now they're gonna get them to look alike, too?"
Well played, Mr. Carlin.
What if my school doesn’t have a mandatory uniform policy but DOES have a ridiculously overly critical dress code policy?
Yes. I was just getting to that!
Schools who do not push a mandatory uniform usually have a dress code policy. A very strict dress code policy. Without a standard uniform, a lot of schools, it seems, want to over mandate the dress code policy to create -- well -- a uniform look.
Strict dress code policies are shockingly sexist. From overly strict (and sometimes racist) ways a young girl can style their hair to punishing them for wearing a skirt that shows **gasp** their knees! All because that would be too distracting for the boys. The typical story -- boys are not responsible for their rapey thoughts because girls just show too much damn knee skin!
Sadly, I write nothing new. There are quite literally hundreds of thousands of articles online about sexist school dress code policies and abominable behavior from adults enforcing punishment for violations. Here is a great piece on Time.com by Laura Bates, How School Dress Codes Shame Girls and Perpetuate Rape Culture. Bates is the founder of The Everyday Sexism Project and the author of Everyday Sexism. Her project collects testimonies from girls and young women from all over the world; sharing their experience of gender inequality.
There are so many stories of harassment, shame and punishment revolving around “dress code infractions” that Bates concludes, “At this point it starts to feel like such ‘codes’ are less about protecting children and more about protecting strict social norms and hierarchies that refuse to tolerate difference or diversity.”
So, what’s a parent and educator to do? Mandatory uniform or dress code policy. You get one or the other.
Well, the fine folks over at Evanston Township High School, in Evanston, Illinois have made national news by reworking their existing dress code. Evangeline Semark, Director of Communications for ETHS writes,
“This summer, a team of committed adults worked on revising our school's dress code. This effort was informed by the well-voiced concerns of our students and was in alignment with our equity goals and purpose. As we reworked the dress code, we also reflected on the stories of ETHS graduates who have walked our halls previously and experienced micro-aggressions (or worse) on a daily basis because of their personal style ...
A school can never consistently enforce some of the more nuanced, coded rules, so the result is too often a targeted policing of particular bodies (insert institutional racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, etc. here). I'm looking forward to seeing the interactions among school employees and teens at ETHS shift from "take off your hat!!" to "how are you today?!" We may not get it right all the time during the first year (adult habits), but this new dress code will lead to an important shift in school culture, and will help affirm the identities of all students while reframing the focus to how we as adults can inspire young people to learn, not control what they wear.”
That sounds great and I would be really happy to hear all of that if I had kids that went to ETHS. But it’s also very easy to say these things. Enforcement of said policy and violations is also important to the process. Lots of other sources have reported some of the great things about the ETHS policy but since I don’t have a maximum word count I’ll just reproduce the entire dress code policy including their enforcement policy. It’s only an extra page and a half.
From the Evanston Township High School Student Pilot Handbook:
Evanston Township High School expects that all students will dress in a way that is appropriate for the school day or for any school sponsored event. Student dress choices should respect the District’s intent to sustain a community that is inclusive of a diverse range of identities. The primary responsibility for a student’s attire resides with the student and their parent(s) or guardian(s). The school district is responsible for seeing that student attire does not interfere with the health or safety of any student, that student attire does not contribute to a hostile or intimidating atmosphere for any student, and that dress code enforcement does not reinforce or increase marginalization or oppression of any group based on race, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, cultural observance, household income, or body type/size. Any restrictions to the way a student dresses must be necessary to support the overall educational goals of the school and must be explained within this dress code.
Basic Principle: Certain body parts must be covered for all students at all times. Clothes must be worn in a way such that genitals, buttocks, breasts, and nipples are fully covered with opaque fabric. However, cleavage should not have coverage requirements. All items listed in the “must wear” and “may wear” categories below must meet this basic principle.
2) Students Must Wear, while following the basic principle of Section 1 above:
A Shirt (with fabric in the front, back, and on the sides under the arms), AND
Pants/jeans or the equivalent (for example, a skirt, sweatpants, leggings, a dress or shorts), AND Shoes.
Courses that include attire as part of the curriculum (for example, professionalism, public speaking, and job readiness) may include assignment-specific dress, but should not focus on
covering bodies in a particular way or promoting culturally-specific attire. Activity-specific shoes requirements are permitted (for example, athletic shoes for PE).
3) Students May Wear, as long as these items do not violate Section 1 above:
Hats facing straight forward or straight backward. Hats must allow the face to be visible to staff, and not interfere with the line of sight of any student or staff.
Hoodie sweatshirts (wearing the hood overhead is allowed, but the face and ears must be visible to school staff).
Fitted pants, including opaque leggings, yoga pants and “skinny jeans”
Ripped jeans, as long as underwear and buttocks are not exposed.
Tank tops, including spaghetti straps; halter tops
Visible waistbands on undergarments or visible straps on undergarments worn under other clothing (as long as this is done in a way that does not violate Section 1 above).
4) Students Cannot Wear:
Violent language or images.
Images or language depicting drugs or alcohol (or any illegal item or activity).
Hate speech, profanity, pornography.
Images or language that creates a hostile or intimidating environment based on any protected class or consistently marginalized groups.
Any clothing that reveals visible undergarments (visible waistbands and visible straps are allowed)
Swimsuits (except as required in class or athletic practice).
Accessories that could be considered dangerous or could be used as a weapon.
Any item that obscures the face or ears (except as a religious observance).
Dress Code Enforcement
To ensure effective and equitable enforcement of this dress code, school staff shall enforce the dress code consistently using the requirements below. School administration and staff shall not have discretion to vary the requirements in ways that lead to discriminatory enforcement.
Students will only be removed from spaces, hallways, or classrooms as a result of a dress code violation as outlined in Sections 1 and 4 above. Students in violation of Section 1 and/or 4 will be provided three (3) options to be dressed more to code during the school day:
Students will be asked to put on their own alternative clothing, if already available at school, to be dressed more to code for the remainder of the day.
Students will be provided with temporary school clothing to be dressed more to code for the remainder of the day.
If necessary, students’ parents may be called during the school day to bring alternative clothing for the student to wear for the remainder of the day.
No student should be affected by dress code enforcement because of racial identity, sex assigned at birth, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious identity, household income, body size/type, or body maturity.
School staff shall not enforce the school’s dress code more strictly against transgender and gender nonconforming students than other students.
Students should not be shamed or required to display their body in front of others (students, parents, or staff) in school. “Shaming” includes, but is not limited to:
kneeling or bending over to check attire fit;
measuring straps or skirt length;
asking students to account for their attire in the classroom or in hallways in front of others;
calling out students in spaces, in hallways, or in classrooms about perceived dress code violations in front of others; in particular, directing students to correct sagged pants that do not expose the entire undergarment, or confronting students about visible bra straps, since visible waistbands and straps on undergarments are permitted; and,
accusing students of “distracting” other students with their clothing.
These dress code guidelines shall apply to regular school days and summer school days, as well as any school-related events and activities, such as graduation ceremonies, dances and prom.
Students who feel they have been subject to discriminatory enforcement of the dress code should contact the Associate Principal for Educational Services.
GenCon. Sixty thousand attendees. Several thousand unique role playing games, table top board games and PC and console computer games. Several hundred vendors & dealers from all over the world running free demos of their games and selling more bloody games than you can shake a stick at. GenCon is the largest tabletop game convention in the world and this year marks its fiftieth anniversary.
But it wasn’t always the behemoth game convention it is today. In fact, Gen Con’s origin story is quite humble. And it all starts with the father of Dungeons and Dragons himself -- Mr. Gary Gygax.
Gen Con 0 - 1967 - Location: The home of Gary Gygax, Lake Geneva, WI. Approx. Attendance: 12
Gary Gygax is the co-creator of the well known role playing game, Dungeons and Dragons but a few years before he helped write D&D, he was known in the small, but fierce, miniature tactical war gaming scene. I don’t want to get bogged down detailing too much Gygax history, instead I want to focus more on the history of GenCon. But they do intertwine. Here is an excellent piece detailing Gygax’s life and the history of D&D -- Wired’s, Dungeon Master: The Life and Legacy of Gary Gygax.
GenCon, was named after Lake Geneva, where Gygax lived. To my understanding there are no known pictures of GenCon O where Gygax invited some friends over to his pad, and they played miniature tactical war-games. For those unfamiliar with the idea -- a game involving two six sided dice and a whole bunch of miniature soldiers. Players took turns moving the miniatures closer to the opposing player and then using dice rolls to determine if a soldier “hit” or “missed” with its attack. This process repeats until one side has no soldiers left.
The following year Gygax decided to shell out fifty bucks and rent a room in his hometown’s Horticultural Hall, charging folks $1 to attend. The first official GenCon was born! Gygax made just enough money from attendance to cover the cost of renting the hall.
(GenCon 1, 1968)
From then on GenCon increased in attendance -- almost every year. There was a dip in attendance here and there but for the most part, a steady incline. Through word of mouth, people came from all over WI and then from near by states -- to game. For almost the entire first decade of GenCon it was at the Horticultural Hall in Lake Geneva, but once or twice was held elsewhere.
It wasn’t until Gygax and Dave Arneson co-create Dungeons & Dragons, that the convention really took off. D&D wasn’t a typical miniature tactical war game. It had a lot of similar aspects - you roll dice to determine specific outcomes and there was a lot of strategy involved in the combat but there was a huge, important distinction between the two -- in D&D you got to create and play -- a character. You could create an elf, or a dwarf or you could become a warrior or a rogue or a magic user. And the more times you played your character, the tougher that character became! This idea of "a character" and the advancement of your character become the core of all role playing games to follow.
Gygax formed Tactical Studies Rules (TSR, inc) to publish the smash hit D&D, modules for D&D, supplemental material and even a magazine about D&D called, "The Dragon" -- later changed to "Dragon." D&D sold out again and again and again. And more people kept coming to Gary Gygax’s GenCon to play D&D. GenCon quickly outgrew the Horticultural Hall and for several years was run at the University of Wisconsin, Parkside. The attendance of the convention had grown to two, sometimes three thousand people. And not just to play D&D, there were other role playing games (RPG) that appeared -- Boot Hill (a western RPG co-created by Gygax), Champions (super hero RPG), Gamma World (post apocalyptic RPG), Star Frontiers (Space opera RPG), Top Secret (spy thriller RPG) and many others. (Yes, I've played them all!).
But D&D was always the largest, the most well know and, sadly, the most targeted. Religious organizations all over the country spoke out against D&D claiming it was the work of the devil and that it taught children how to cast magic spells and consort with demons and / or would possess your child. Fear mongering, religious silliness, all of it.
Dave Arneson, co-creator of D&D had a charming response to the controversy: “Invite parents to play. They’re going to be so bored. They will understand that anything this nerdy can’t possible lead to devil possession.”
Dave Arneson for the win.
But the bad publicity only got more kids interested and in the mid eighties D&D was so popular the number of folks attending the premiere D&D convention in the country, GenCon, doubled.
The University of Wisconsin, Parkside was unable to house so many attendees. A new venue had to be found. STAT!
Gen Con 18 - 1985 - Location: MECCA (Milwaukee Exposition & Convention Center & Arena), Milwaukee, WI. Approx. Attendance: 5000
Throughout its early years GenCon expanded into other states - GenCon South (FL), GenCon East (NJ), GenCon West (CA) and even to other continents but none of them lasted more than a few years. GenCon Midwest kept growing.
Enter MECCA. An actual convention center for a convention that started, figuratively speaking, in Gary Gygax’s basement. Now, with room to expand at the MECCA, attendance rapidly doubled from five to ten thousand.
By 1992, GenCon’s twenty-fifth birthday, I had finally heard about it. I had been gaming since kindergarten -- approx. 1978. I started with D&D, then moved on to the superhero role playing game, Champions, and then later in high school was introduced to the horror themed role playing game, Call of Cthulhu -- based on the writings of H.P. Lovecraft.
By 1993 I was attending GenCon. From that point on, year after year, friends and I would make the drive to beer scented Milwaukee for a week of games. It was glorious. Attendance at the con was now fifteen to twenty thousand strong. Then, in 1997 a company called, Wizard’s of the Coast bought GenCon from TSR.
By then, Gary Gygax was old and very ill and had not been in charge of TSR for a long time. So, he really had nothing more to do with the convention he created.
Wizard’s of the Coast was the company that created the extremely popular customizable card game, Magic: The Gathering. In 1999, Hasbro bought Wizard’s of the Coast. So now the multinational toy and board game company that created the iconic Monopoly board game, owned GenCon. BUT THEN -- in 2002, Peter Adkison, former CEO of Wizard’s of the Coast, buys GenCon from Hasbro. So the convention is back in the hands of a gamer. A very, very rich gamer. (Adkison continues to own GenCon).
The convention continued to grow and by 2002 it was clear that Milwaukee no longer had the hotel capacity to house the twenty-five or thirty thousand attendees.
It was time for GenCon to move. Again.
Gen Con 36 - 2003 - Location: Indiana Convention Center, Indianapolis, IN. Approx. Attendance: 25000.
GenCon moved to Indianapolis. The very same city home of the Indy 500, which boasts one hundred thousand attendees so, of course the city should be easily able to absorb GenCon’s "meager" thirty thousand gamers. And then GenCon expanded. Suddenly it was not only at the Indy Convention Center, it’s was also at all the surrounding hotels and halls and expo centers and every single scrap of open building space within a several block radius of the ICC.
GenCon Indy quickly went from thirty thousand attendees to forty and now sixty. Every August, sixty thousand gamers descend on Indy for one week to hang out with other gamers and play games. Sixty thousand people have put tens of billions of dollars, possibly more, into the Indy economy.
And it’s all because Gary Gygax started GenCon 0 in 1968. In his basement.
Gen Con 50 - 2017 - Location: Indiana Convention Center, Indianapolis, IN. Estimated Attendance: 65000.
Which brings me to the end. I am packing and will be off to GenCon soon. I have games to play. I have friends to see. Friends from other states that I only get to visit with once a year, at GenCon. In fact it’s safe to say that the overwhelming majority of friends I have is because Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson created D&D.
Most of the long term friends I have -- I met at gaming halls, or game conventions, or game days in the basement of a VFW, or in the gaming section at a bookstore or at an actual game store. Perhaps role playing games would have evolved, without Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. Perhaps they would have evolved another way from other people.
It’s very likely. But, it doesn’t matter because it did evolve from Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson and Dungeons and Dragons. And it's because of those three names that I’m a gamer. And that’s why I’m going to GenCon.
Gary Gygax died in 2008, Mr. Arneson in 2009, both from complications of cancer. I never met either one. But their legacy lives on. D&D is now in its fifth edition. It's published in dozens of languages all over the world. And it will be heavily featured this year at GenCon 50.
And I will be there, at GenCon -- where it will be just me -- and sixty five thousand of my closest friends.
Mr. Gygax, Mr. Arneson -- rest in peace.
And thank you, for the imagination. And the stories. And the memories -- past and future.
According to recent reports, IMAX will reduce the amount of 3-D films shown in their theaters. With second quarter earnings down a significant percentage from a prior-year period IMAX executives will restructure the way they present tent pole flagship Hollywood films.
In a conference call with The Wrap, CEO of IMAX, Greg Foster said:
“We’re looking forward to playing fewer 3-D versions of films and more 2-D versions … which customers have shown a strong preference for (2-D),” Foster added, mentioning that Warner Bros. “Blade Runner 2049” will be shown in 2-D exclusively at IMAX theaters when it opens in October weekend.”
That’s all well and good. But does it really mean that 3-D is dying, or dead?
Probably. More directors are shooting on the 70mm IMAX cameras and if the company itself is dropping 3-D in favor of 2-D then, yes, I would say there is a strong possibility that 3-D is going the way of the dodo.
I for one, am happy to hear this. I know you will be able to find plenty of love for 3-D, usually in today’s youth. And I will admit to watching a 3-D movie, from time to time -- but only once by choice. A couple of times someone bought me a ticket for a 3-D movie. I thanked them and watched said film in 3-D.
A couple of times I read movietickets.com wrong and didn’t realize I was showing up for a 3-D version and decided to see it so as not to wait for the next 2-D showing at a much later time.
I felt, much as the way you probably do -- for the added cost of the ticket price the 3-D experience is not worth it. The movies are too dark. Frenetic, hyper-edited action sequences become even more of a negative ADD experience.
The only movie I actively bought a 3-D ticket for was James Cameron’s, Avatar. I’ll get to that later.
But first ...
Just where did this obnoxious 3-D crap come from?
“The stereoscopic era of motion pictures began in the late 1890s when British film pioneer William Friese-Greene filed a patent for a 3D film process. In his patent, two films were projected side by side on screen (one meant for the left eye to view, one meant for the right eye to view). The viewer looked through a stereoscope to converge the two images. Because of the obtrusive mechanics behind this method, theatrical use was not practical.”
To be honest, I wasn’t expecting 3-D to have been around in 1890. Though, it really wasn’t until the 1920’s when a few directors and cinematographers tried to make the process marketable for a then modern audience. Three 3-D films from the twenties - The Men from M.A.R.S., The Power of Love and The Ship of Souls had limited runs. Nothing really peaked audience interest.
The thirties and forties showed little additional interest in 3-D films with each era producing only a handful of 3-D films. Even the arrival of Technicolor didn’t help. A few 3-D films were shot and printed in Technicolor but none of them screened in color and the use of color printing was only to help achieve the red / cyan (blue) 3-D coding effect.
In the early thirties polarized filters (which reduce glare) hit the market as a commercial product. This really helped with the 3-D process but again, wasn’t enough to peak audience interest.
It wasn’t until the 1950’s that 3-D exploded and the time between 1952-1954 was known as the “golden era” of the process. It all began late 1952 with the hit, Bwana Devil -- a drama based on the real life Tsavo Man-Eaters -- a pair of man eating lions responsible for the deaths of a number of construction workers on the Kenya-Uganda Railway from March through December 1898.
“As with practically all of the features made during this boom, Bwana Devil was projected dual-strip, with Polaroid filters. During the 1950s, the familiar disposable anaglyph glasses made of cardboard were mainly used for comic books ...
Because the features utilized two projectors, a capacity limit of film being loaded onto each projector (about 6,000 feet, or an hour's worth of film) meant that an intermission was necessary for every feature-length film. Quite often, intermission points were written into the script at a major plot point.”
To make a long story short -- 3-D suddenly boomed. In 1953, House of Wax, landed in the year’s top ten at the box office, the first time ever for a 3-D film. House of Wax also catapulted and forever typecast legendary actor, Vincent Price into the role of creepy horror film guy.
Alas, the “golden era” was short lived. Endless problems occurred with 3-D technology, the prints, and the time management to run the films. A few of the issues:
The silver projection screen was directional and caused sideline seating to be unusable.
The prints had to project simultaneously and remain exactly alike after repair or sync would be lost. If sync was off by even a single frame -- the picture was unwatchable.
Oftentimes theaters had to have two projectionist keep sync.
Mandatory intermission meant less features could be shown daily which resulted in lowered profit for all involved.
By 1955, 3-D films were gone from theaters.
Thankfully 3-D went away forever, never to return!
Ugh. I wish. There was an explosion of 3-D in the eighties and suddenly, horror films thought all “third” films should be 3-D -- Jaws 3-D, Amityville Horror 3-D, Friday the 13th 3 in 3-D -- you get the picture.
Disney caught on and released Magic Journey and Captain EO (starring Michael Jackson and directed by Francis Ford Coppola) in special venues at their theme parks. In the mid eighties IMAX began producing non-fiction films in their 70mm format and pushed as a key point for their 3-D films vs. traditional 3-D -- the IMAX process, then and now, emphasized mathematical correctness of the 3-D rendition and thus largely eliminated the eye fatigue that resulted from the approximate geometries of previous 3-D incarnations.
3-D was back and it was here to stay!
Except, no -- it wasn’t.
3-D, like the tide, waxed and waned all throughout the decade but for the most part had faded from mainstream use by the nineties. It’s true that 3-D stayed alive through special attractions throughout the entire nineties but just as the fifties, it mostly faded from mainstream cinema.
The next resurgence of 3-D began in 2003, with the release of James Cameron’s, Ghosts of the Abyss released as the first full-length 3-D Disney / IMAX feature and filmed with the Reality Camera System. This camera system, built by Cameron and Vince Pace used the latest HD video cameras, not film to produce the 3-D effect.
The film joined James Cameron, actor Bill Paxton and a team of the world’s foremost historical and marine experts as they journey underwater to the site of wrecked ship, the Titanic. The film was a colossal critical and commercial success.
And suddenly studios were interested in 3-D. Again. Studios began experimenting in releasing both a 2-D print and a 3-D print for their high profile products. The Polar Express (2005) was the first feature length animated film released in both prints with the 3-D version pulling in about 25% of the films total box office. Which was enough to raise 3-D interest from other studios.
Over the course of the next decade studios went 3-D crazy. Selected large budget films were released in both 2-D and 3-D, old films were re-released with a post production 3-D process and handful of films were specifically shot in 3-D cameras.
Which brings me to …
James Cameron’s, “Avatar.”
Much has been written about the herculean effort Cameron put into Avatar. Entire books, movies, documentaries and short films can be found. I offer only a few tidbits for context:
James Cameron spent twelve years developing technology improving 3-D cameras in order to shoot Avatar. He is the only director who seems to fully understand that the 3-D process makes your film darker. And so what did he do?
Well, he spent six months working with botanists, creating an ecologically accurate planet to set his story in. A planet that has glowing flora. So even when the 3-D process darkened his film for all those nights scenes the entire film is still brightly lit do to the glowing plants all over the planet!
I want to make that last point clear. He didn’t just want glowing plants all over the planet -- because that would be easy to accomplish. He wanted his planet to work. And so he spent months working with scientists to make sure the plants he showed would be one hundred percent ecologically accurate. He wanted the planet to be able to survive -- if it had been a real planet.
Which is amazing and it’s only a few of the reasons that Cameron’s Avatar remains one of the monumental directing achievements in all of world cinema.
Not that it’s without flaws. I’ll be the first person to admit that I think the script to Avatar is awful and the acting, for the most part, is adequate to incompetent. That being said, the film was a must see movie event in 2009. But you had to see it in 3-D. Cameron spent so long working in 3-D that he just seems to be the only working American filmmaker to just -- get it.
In fact, of all the movies that have gone on to gross a billion dollars only one of them is an original story idea -- James Cameron’s Avatar. All the other movies in the billion plus club are sequels and franchise films.
Which says something (probably that Cameron was the first and only person to knock the novelty 3-D process out of the park).
Which brings us to today …
The “Avatar” resurgence has faded. 3-D is dying. Again.
It had a good run. But IMAX is right. Consumers, by and large, greatly prefer 2-D movie events. 3-D comes and goes and comes and goes and it never amounts to anything more than a novelty. 3-D was huge in the early fifties but, because it was a novelty, was gone in two years. 3-D had a resurgence in the eighties but, because it was a novelty, was gone in several years. 3-D had a second resurgence with Cameron’s technology achievement in the early 2000’s but, because it’s a novelty, has faded and will probably be gone in another three or five years.
Novelties, it seems, make a lot of money in short bursts but audiences quickly get tired of them. 3-D may be fading but if history repeats itself (again), I can almost guarantee you we’ll see another resurgence of 3-D -- oh-- somewhere around 2040.
For better or worse.
Welcome to the dog park!
Your dog is going to love it here! No leash laws are enforced. We have a large fenced in areas for your dog to run around and roll in the dirt in equal measure! I promise you there will be an endless stream of dogs for your canine family member to socialize with.
Off leash dog parks are great but there are plenty of ins and outs that should be respected. I have a thirteen pound mutt named Frodo (pictured above). I am lucky enough to work at a place where I can bring him to the office every day. I am also lucky enough to have the gorgeous Alimagnet Dog Park five blocks from my work location.
I bring Frodo to the dog park a lot. As much as three times a day. Usually we get in a fifteen minute visit before work, a thirty minute visit on my lunch break and a thirty to forty five minute visit after work. Three times a day, five days a week (as well as a time or two on the weekends). Multiply that by the two years my little furry companion and I have hung out together. That, my friend, is a great many trips to the dog park (almost two thousand).
Which is why I have a lot to say about the topic. I see doggie malfeasance multiple times per week and it’s usually because the owner has done something dumb. I do not claim to be a Dog Whisperer but because of my extensive dog park visits I have a lot of common sense canine wisdom to offer. Most of it based on personal observation and some based on a copious amount of internet research. With that in mind, here are some doggie dos and don’ts while you and your canine companions visit off leash dog parks.
Do Not Bring Treats Into An Off Leash Dog Park!
Dogs like to know their place in the world. They like to know who is in charge, and if they are not the dog in charge it makes them comfortable to know their place in the doggie hierarchy. And this is important because the dogs that is in charge controls the resources.
At least that’s how it plays out in doggie world. Alpha dogs control the resources and then they allow dogs below them to partake of their resources. It’s the way of dog.
And now you’ve brought treats into the dog park. And it’s for selfish reasons -- you want the dogs to like you! Well, they will. They will swarm you. Dogs can smell your treat from a mile away.
The problem is that dogs with alpha personalities will want the treats (the resources) first. It confuses them if THEY KNOW they are the alpha dog and you are not recognizing it. And so you pass treats out willy-nilly to all the dogs you can reach. And so it goes -- Alpha Dog wants the treat and you give it to another dog. Alpha dog thinks, “The was MY treat!” This is a recipe for an instant dog fight.
This is an extreme example, it’s true. The overwhelming majority of the time you bring treats to the dog park, nothing bad will happen. Dogs will eat the treats, dogs will like you. But still, I’ve seen plenty of dogs fights over treats.
So there’s just no great reason to bring them to the dog park.
Pay Attention To Your Dog! All! The! Time!
Dogs are dogs. They don’t make good or bad decisions. They make dog decisions. You can not take your dog to an off leash park and then read a book, check your text messages or flirt with girls for twenty minutes all the while completely ignoring your dog and (more importantly) your dog’s behavior.
Your dog might be too aggressive. Your dog might be too submissive. Your dog might be getting bullied and is desperately giving you signals for help. Or, your dog might be the bully. But how would you know unless you pay attention
An off leash dog park is NOT a place where you can let you dog run wild with zero human supervision. You, the human, must monitor your dog at all times to watch for over aggressive or over submissive behavior. That’s one of your prime responsibilities as a dog owner.
If you notice “bad” behavior -- separate your dog immediately from the situation, calm your dog down and try again. Remember that young dogs will have a much easier time adapting to canine socialization than older dogs. Older rescue dogs come with canine baggage and a lot of times have been abused. So, while it’s true that dogs are social animals, some have been raised poorly and might not be able to handle an off leash park. But in order for you to know if your dog is right for the park, you have to pay attention to your canine, all the time.
So pay attention. And while you are paying attention ...
Pick Up Your Dog’s Poop. No, Seriously. Like - Every Single Time!
If you are not paying attention to your dog you will not notice when it poops. And it’s your responsibility to pick up after your dog.
And if you don’t want to pick up after your dog then don’t go to a dog park.
Watch Out For Dog Obsession.
I didn’t even know this was a thing until I started attending dog parks. Dogs can get obsessed with another dog. Like stalker, rapey obsessed.
I see it all the time. Usually the obsession happens with a dog smaller than they. Frodo, for some reason, gets easily obsessed with five to eight pound fluffy yorkies and / or fluffy tiny poodles. And when Frodo is obsessed with a tiny, fluffy pooch, Frodo will not leave that poor dog alone! Frodo will ignore all other stimuli and follow that fluffy dog and sniff them and chase them and wrestle them and nip play with them and chew on their ears and try to hump dominate them at all times. Now I know the signs to watch for and I pull him away immediately when I see the obsession set it. But for a good long while I deluded myself into thinking, “They’re just playing.”
Obsessive dog behavior is not healthy dog play. Dog obsession will not stop unless you, the human, does something about it. If your dog exhibits obsession it’s best to pull your dog out of the situation and / or leash your canine and go somewhere else for a while.
What To Do In the Face of Aggressive Dog Behavior
I see aggressive dog behavior all the time. Some of it is innocent -- an overly energetic dog plays too hard and accidentally hurts another dog. I have seen actual aggressive dogs -- a white German Shepherd ran through the dog park and attacked three or four small dogs while the owner frantically chased after the Shepherd. But exceptionally bad experiences, such as the German Shepherd one, are very rare.
If dogs exhibit aggressive behavior -- leash them and / or remove them from the area immediately. Within thirty seconds your dog will be back to normal. Aggressive dog behavior can lead to dog fights. And dog fights suck. To be honest, they don’t happen often and when they do it’s usually posturing and not an actually bloody fight.
Here is a video showing a dog park scuffle. As the video says, “Sounds bad. Looks bad. No dog was actually harmed.” Most dog fights aren’t actual fights, per se. They are more like dogs jostling for position. That being said, you can see in the video that one dog is standing on top of the other dog for like ten seconds as both dogs stare into each others faces. The owners, frankly, should have separated those dogs immediately. And it looks as if one of the owners was trying to do just that BUT was one second too late and the dog fight occurred.
Again, if you see aggressive dog behavior remove your dog from the situation immediately before it leads to something worse.
And, of course, if your dog was the attacked the other dog owner will still blame your dog for being aggressive.
And that’s because …
Dog Owners Are Crazy People!
It’s true. The only people crazier are parents blindly defending their children (when it is obvious their child is in the wrong). Dog owners are like that.
Dog owners will insist their perfect, loving, charming, beautiful, kind, mellow [Dog Breed Name Here] would never, ever cause another living creature any harm. Ever. And if their perfect dog happens to act aggressive towards your dog -- the owner will, one hundred percent of the time -- blame your dog.
If you happen to notice that your dog is getting into a lot of fights -- it’s probably not the fault of all the other dogs at the park. It’s probably -- your dog! So you should do something about that up to and including, not taking your dog to an off leash park.
Off leash dog parks are not for every canine. Some dogs, usually older rescue dogs are too scared, submissive or over protective. These poor doggies will run havoc at an off leash park.
Know your dog and act appropriately. The off leash dog park might not be for you. I have a friend who has the sweetest (fifty pound) rescue dog you can imagine. That dog LOOOOVES people. That dog, also, HAAAAAATES other dogs. My friend found out early on that his loving canine should not ever, ever, ever go to an off leash dog park.
It would be bad.
And to be honest, that’s kind of the hard part. Recognizing that your dog has issues. Yes, dogs are animals. But they are animals capable of a wide range of emotions and feelings. It’s up to you, the human, to pay attention to your dog, know its body language, clean up after your pup and to try not act like a crazy person who lives in dog aggression denial.
And now, if you'll excuse me, I must away and take Frodo to the dog park!