TricycleOffense.com » tcrawfor1984TricycleOffense.com

Alphas: Not The X-Men, But Worth A Watch

tcrawfor1984 — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 02:43:17 +0000

Anyone who watches the Syfy channel is familiar with a lot of their programming. One of their newest shows that is becoming a bit of a hit is Alphas. For those that have never heard of it, it is about a group of people with special abilities that seem superhuman. They work together to control their powers and help other Alphas who need it. The special team also works with government support to help capture Alphas who use their powers for violence and criminal activities.

Yes, it sounds familiar, especially if you know comics, grew up watching Saturday morning cartoons back in the 90s, or have watched any of the X-Men films. The truth is I was a bit hesitant to watch it because I have been let down by Syfy before with their movies and other programming. The ads showed these humans using superpowers, doing amazing feats, and all I could think of was a cheap remake of the iconic X-Men.

Of course, I’m a geek when it comes to this sort of thing, so I sat down and ended up watching the premiere. From the start, I was very interested. The show moved rather fast, being that it is only an hour long show, but it told a great story. From the start you are introduced to real people, who are trying to live normal lives. They are also working on a murder done by another Alpha, Hicks, who doesn’t even remember what he did.

The team is led by Dr. Rosen. He isn’t an Alpha; in fact he is the man that came up with the term. He is, however, a genius and psychologist. A great part of the shows involves him helping his Alpha team come to terms with their abilities. He spends a large amount of time working with them on their control and trying to help them adapt.

As they move through the story, you get a glimpse of their powers and how they use them. You also get the idea that being an Alpha isn’t exactly a blessing, all have these abilities at some cost. That is one big thing that sets this apart from a lot of the well known characters from the X-Men universe. Every Alpha has disadvantages when using their abilities.

One character, Bill, has superhuman strength. He gets it by controlling his fight or flight reflex for short periods of time. Unfortunately, every time he does this his heart rate goes sky high and throughout the show he is constantly worried of having a massive heart attack. He can pick up the end of a car and move it out of his way like it is just a trashcan. He can also run at a speed that is as fast as a moving car. The longer he does though, the more dangerous it is.

Rachel is an Alpha with the ability to concentrate any of her senses to extreme levels. However, when doing this she also blocks off her other senses leaving her vulnerable. She also deals with her senses constantly heightened, making it hard to concentrate when things like a fly is buzzing outside a closed window.

Gary is an Alpha with the ability to view and interact with electromagnetic radiation. In simple terms, he doesn’t need a computer to hack security cameras, read emails or sent texts. He can also gather and process data faster than a computer. In the modern world, this ability is actually very cool making him an indispensable member of the team. His downside is he is autistic, living with his mom who is usually kept in the dark about the seriousness of his job.

Nina is a woman that has the ability to “push” people. For a few minutes she can tell them to do anything, or get any information out of them. This ability is of course amazing, yet also has a drawback. The more Nina does it, the more she becomes addicted to it. An entire episode is devoted to Nina in the second season and how bad this can be for her.

Rounding out the team is Hicks. He commits a murder under compulsion. However, instead of being locked up, Rosen convinces the men in charge that Hicks would be better suited helping the team. Hicks is a dead eye, shown in the very first episode when he uses his ability. He also has amazing balance and heightened reflexes. His drawback is when he is under stress and can’t control his emotions, his abilities are erratic and seem to come and go when he loses his emotional cool.

Another big part of the show is how the team interacts with one another. Rachel is constantly remarking about dust and dirt and the team work to not let her overhear anything private. Everyone has to adapt to Gary, who has to have things a certain way. He also gets agitated if things get out of place in his timed day. Hicks and Nina go through a very up and down romantic relationship. It eventually leads to greater consequences in the second season. Bill and Gary also have a very comedic relationship. Bill is constantly teasing Gary with inappropriate comments, being arrested for impersonating a federal officer, and wanting to drive. It is definitely a big brother/little brother thing, but Gary ends up getting respect from Bill in the end.

The shows also tend to be like mini movies. Of course, they get into a main storyline through season one, and it continues in season two. Yet, you can watch any one of the episodes and get an idea of what is going on. The action tends to be realistic, and yes, guns are used quite a bit in the show for the sequences. There are special effects, but it isn’t overdone either. Overall, they blend into the shows and the story without being the main attraction.

When hearing about the show, it is easy to dismiss it as a “been there, done that”. I will admit in the beginning that was what I was expecting. The truth is that it stands on its own as an entertaining show. The idea isn’t brand new, but the acting, sequences, and storylines make it a fun watch. I encourage anyone who is bored on a Monday night to flip over to Syfy and give it a shot. It isn’t the iconic X-Men, but is definitely worth a view.

Encyclopedia Crawford Knows All: Some Random Questions About Star Wars

tcrawfor1984 — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:57:55 +0000

By Thomas “Encyclopedia” Crawford

There has probably been an article like this many times for the past several decades. The fact is that some of these questions have been answered by experts in the subject. There are actually experts in the area of Star Wars that far surpass anything that the average watcher could even imagine. These questions are posed as a casual observer who enjoys the movie, yet does not go too in depth. However, these are questions that should be debated even by the casual observers.

1. Did Han shoot first? This is one the more controversial points of the original movie. What the Special Edition version shows is that in the cantina, Han is confronted by the bounty hunter Greedo. After an argument, Greedo shoots and misses, and at almost the same time Han shoots back and kills the bounty hunter. To many people who see watch this, this seems fine, however, there is a discrepancy. The fact is that in the original 1977 showing, Greedo did not fire, and in fact Han Solo killed him in cold blood. For the 1997 re-release it was changed to show that Han fired in retaliation for being shot at. This is one scene of the movie that was changed and is still debated, though I think it shouldn’t be because if Solo had not killed Greedo, he would have been dead and a vital part of the Star Wars mythos would be lost.

2. Why doesn’t Chewbacca correct Han Solo when he says he doesn’t believe in the Force? Han and Chewie obviously have a good relationship. During Episode IV, Han jokes that the force is hocus pocus. During this, Chewbacca does not say anything to Solo. However, during Episode III, Chewbacca is an ally of Yoda and helps him escape from Storm Troopers trying to kill him. Why would he just let Han disparage the Force and the Jedi when in his past he was involved in the Clone Wars? This is most likely due to poor writing and trying to tie characters together but still the problem is obvious to anyone who has seen all the movies.

3. Why is Obi-Wan Kenobi so old in Episode IV? In the film Revenge of the Sith, Obi-Wan is mentor to Anakin Skywalker. He is also the man that (SPOILER ALERT. If you haven’t seen Sith yet, read no further.) defeats him at the end of the movie. The problem is that during Sith he is only in his early to mid 30s. In Episode IV, he seems to have aged a great deal. This is a minor problem, but still it has only been twenty years or so since the Emperor has taken control. In Episode IV, he looks to be in his early to late 60s. Solo even comments about how he is an old fossil. Perhaps it has something to do with living in the desert without enough sunscreen for twenty years. Again, this is probably due more to the writing.

4. Why is Anakin Skywalker such a whiny bitch? Okay, this seems unfair. But let’s be honest, anytime the first three movies are watched it is hard to think otherwise. It’s okay when he loses his mother to Sand People, and the reaction is completely expected. However, he spends Episode III whining and worried about his precious Padme. This is because he has a vision about her dying. This is the catalyst that supposedly drives him to the Dark Side of the Force. Yet, it is only a vision. All of his teachers explain that visions of the Force and the future are not set in stone. Yet this one vision drives him over the edge. It could be the writing or just the story. It could be that the writers wanted a quick and easy way of him turning that would really connect with the crowds. The fact is this could have been developed more and it’s possible that the prequels were not enough to show this and be convincing.

5. What are those little remote controlled cars on the Death Star? This seems like a stupid complaint, however, it has to be addressed. There have actually been skits about this on Family Guy and Robot Chicken. In Episode IV, small vehicles are moving around the walkways. They look like small remote controlled vans. The fact of the matter is that these things are never given a reason for being there. There is even a joke where Chewbacca howls at one, it stops, beeps, and quickly zips away as if it is a droid of some kind. Again, this is probably a stupid question, but surely many have wondered about it.

6. What is Anakin smoking at the end of Episode III? During the final climatic battle, Anakin and Obi-Wan talk a great deal. During the end of the movie, viewers see Anakin go from uncertainty about his role and Darth Sidious, to full out Sith Lord. Anyone who watches this can see Anakin go from not being sure, wanting to save Padme, to believing that he and Padme can rule the galaxy. This is a major leap, and one that seems completely ridiculous. He goes from killing Mace Windu, to swearing allegiance to the emperor. Okay, this seems fine because he can’t just jump back into being part of the Jedi Order. However, he starts spouting off about ruling the galaxy, being betrayed by Padme, and even the lies of the Jedi Order. Many can say he was seduced by the Dark Side and that the power went to his head. However, even for movie land, this quick jump seems like a leap from one end of the Grand Canyon to the other. At the end of the day, one has to ask: were drugs involved?

These are some basic questions that should be asked by anyone who sees the Star Wars films. However, a lot never really have been answered. It is true that some may seem silly, yet when looked at even by the casual observer, they are still pertinent questions that should have some form of answer to them. And this is just a small list. The fact is, there are many questions and problems with Star Wars that do not make sense. Go ahead, enjoy the movies and ignore these questions. Truthfully, they probably will not matter in the grand scheme of things. However, if you feel the urge, try and think about them. It might make the movies just a bit more interesting.

Encyclopedia Crawford Knows All: The Right To Bear Arms…Brought Up At A Cookout?

tcrawfor1984 — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:31:43 +0000

By Thomas “Encylopedia” Crawford

This isn’t a typical post. It is however one that falls under entertainment, as it is entertaining to watch people argue over things. As mentioned before, it is amusing to watch people argue almost to the point of fighting over things such as politics. As long as it remains civil, it is okay. This particular argument happened at a relaxed Sunday afternoon cookout between two individuals that will remain nameless, just call them Frick and Frack. The main point was gun control. It is most interesting that both had very good points, yet neither were able to back off or give an inch of concession. This small argument is actually a perfect example of the larger scale problem, that people are unable to give an inch, and yet feel that they will make a difference in the greater scope of things.

Frick is liberal. This is not meant as an insult. Frick is very passionate, and believes in fighting for the injustices that are abundant in the world. In a way, it is quite impressive, because Frick doesn’t back down an inch, and will throw down with anyone on any subject seen to be against Frick’s beliefs. Frick is actually very much in favor of gun control, and believes that the crime rate in America is directly linked to how easy it is to obtain firearms.

Frack, is young and full of energy. Frack may not be the most worldly, yet believes that lessons learned at a young age still are worthwhile. Frack, believe it or not, is not conservative. In fact, Frack makes it a point to say that government can’t be trusted, and doesn’t side with liberal or conservative beliefs. However, on the idea of gun control, Frack believes that every American has a right to own and bear arms. They are important to have not only for self-defense, but also as a way for citizens to protect themselves from a possible tyrannical government.

Enter the casual observer. This person has used many guns, and at times has used them for target practice and hunting. However, this individual is not an avid hunter and has only owned a few guns over the course of the years. This observer has never really thought about gun ownership or rights. After eating some good burgers and hot dogs, and drinking a few cold beers, this individual simply sat and decided to watch the argument take place between these two opposing forces.

The argument started suddenly and truthfully, enough alcohol had been imbibed that the exact beginning is uncertain. Yet the observer watched as Frick, laughed out loud, and called Frack crazy for beliefs about gun ownership. Frack replied that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guaranteed rights to bear arms, and that guns would remain in Frack’s possession. Frick countered that the original idea of the Amendment was to protect a state’s militia’s right to bear arms, and if Frack wasn’t part of a militia then the right wasn’t really there.

The argument went back and forth, and truthfully never had a serious conclusion. The main reason being that each of them, Frick and Frack, were so obsessed with proving themselves right that they didn’t take the time to listen to the other side. This is a common problem, not just at cookouts, but in general about this issue.

Gun control advocates often point to the wording of the Constitution, that the use of firearms for state militias means that only certain individuals have the right to bear arms. Gun enthusiasts often point to the rest of the wording, that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Both seem to make valid points with both of these arguments. As a casual observer should note, the Supreme Court of the US has found that citizens have a right to bear arms for personal self-defense with no connection to a state militia. This argument seems to go for the gun enthusiasts.

Another very intriguing argument made by gun control advocates is using other countries as a standard. One of the gold standards used is the United Kingdom. Gun control advocates often cite how their crime rates are lower and that in many areas police officers don’t even carry firearms because it is so hard for criminals to obtain firearms in the first place. This is surely a good call for stringent gun control, right?

The truth is, that this isn’t the case. If one wants to start comparing countries, one can start with Switzerland. In this country every young man eventually enters the military and receives training in marksmanship. After a certain age they leave the military, yet have the right to keep their firearms in home. This country has a large amount of guns, military issued, that are given to citizens and required by law to be kept and maintained for years during service and after. Obviously, gun control and crime don’t really play a major role, as Switzerland is known as one of the more peaceful countries to live in. Again, is this another check mark in the victory column of gun enthusiasts?

The fact of the matter is that no, it isn’t. People who believe in gun control and gun enthusiasts seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum. However, deep down, they believe in the same things. They believe that people have a right to be protected, and live their lives in peace. The major issue is that they have different ideas about the best way to provide that peace. It takes a casual observer with no serious beliefs on either side to see this. BOTH sides have the same goal, yet constantly scratch and tear at each other to prove they are right. This fight is what makes the issue clouded and insures that no real progress is made.

So, what is the answer? The answer is to actually stop TALKING, and listen to the concerns of other individuals. Believe it or not, this country was founded on people with differing views coming together to talk out their differences. Instead of clinging to a platform’s beliefs, open minds and ears can go a lot further to find solutions to real problems. This is advice that should be taken not only at the highest levels of government, but also at a Sunday evening cookout. It will help solve problems and it will help find solutions.

Thomas Crawford is co-founder and co-editor-in-chief of TricycleOffense.com.

Previously from Thomas Crawford:

What Is WWE Doing With Their Big Men?

tcrawfor1984 — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:29:41 +0000

By Thomas “Encyclopedia” Crawford

They are the outcasts, they inspire awe and fear as their massive size makes ordinary men and women look like children. Giants and monsters have been a part of wrestling since the beginning. In fact, many of the old time strong men and giants of carnivals were some of the main attractions of early wrestling. However, as wrestling has changed, so has the place of the monsters. They still are the unstoppable engines of destruction, yet now they have personalities. They dance, sing, and pat kids on the head making them smile. These two extremes, monster, and massive entertainer, are regularly seen in the wrestling world. In the WWE, the focus is on Big Show, Brodus Clay, and Ryback. The question is, what is WWE doing with these big attractions?

The first, Big Show, is the epitome of giant. Standing over 7 feet, and weighing around 500 pounds, this man makes professional football lineman look tiny. For the last 12 years this man has played the part of the unstoppable tank in the WWE arena. He has also been one of its biggest entertainers. He has danced, dressed in costumes, and lost matches due to his huge size and clumsiness. Within the last several months, he made a switch. He went from being an entertainer, to being the giant. He has been knocking people out left and right just for breathing too loud. His heel turn has been long overdue. As he lashes out against the crowd, telling them he isn’t an entertainer, he is a monster and he hurts people.

This was a great move by the WWE at first. However, there is a problem. Weeks leading up to PPV No Way Out, Big Show destroyed many opponents. He flattened his PPV opponent John Cena on a weekly basis with his massive WMD punch. John Cena deserved a victory at No Way Out, this can’t be denied. However, after weeks of showing Big Show as unstoppable, he loses to Cena after an impressive cage match. The WWE has taken the biggest, meanest Big Show that has been seen in years, lets him go a few weeks tearing it up, and then makes him lose to Cena?

Anyone who watches wrestling should be a little confused by this. Historically, a massive giant heel runs rampant for months, with a long buildup to a big time PPV event, a sort of David versus Goliath. Only after that buildup, is the hammer dropped and the giant defeated. This feud is still ongoing, yet there isn’t any excitement in it anymore. Big Show is back to beating Cena on Raw, however Cena has already beaten Big Show. Truthfully, this could have been written better, just to keep it interesting.

Moving to the next big attraction, Brodus Clay. This is a great character with a lot of personality. Anyone who hasn’t seen this behemoth of a man is missing out, not to mention missing out on his ring girls. He shakes, dances, and laughs at opponents who try and stop him. He has even brought in kids to dance with him after his victories. He is a classic example of a big man that is there to entertain.

In the beginning, Brodus was up against scrubs, and won usually within seconds of the opening bell. This is to be expected, as the WWE was testing the crowd reaction to his entrance and wrestling style. At first, this was okay, then it got a bit boring. The WWE seemed to not have a clue what to do with this fan favorite. They slowly put him up against better competition, but even those led to squashes. This includes the likes of The Miz, who really shouldn’t be in a squash match at this point in his career. The matches were not even interesting, as people knew the outcome because of his continued winning streak.

After this, Big Show and Brodus Clay got into an argument, which led to a match. The match never happened as Big Show attacked him before it started. Big Show made short work of Brodus Clay, as well as Kofi Kingston and R-Truth who tried to come out and help. This event tried to cement the invincibility of Big Show while at the same time keeping Clay’s win streak intact. In the end, Brodus Clay came out to stop Big Show from exiting the cage at No Way Out, and helped Cena obtain the victory. Clay’s win streak was ended by Big Show on this week’s Monday Night Raw SuperShow. The big question, what is the WWE going to do with Clay now? He no longer has an unstoppable win streak. Can they really start putting him up against scrubs again? This would be stupid and boring. They also can’t really make a Big Show versus Clay feud, because Show is still feuding with Cena. This might lead to better story lines for Clay, however only time will tell.

The last big man that the WWE has is Ryback. He stands 6’3, and weighs around 300 pounds. He sounds like a monster, yet if anyone has seen him they are even more impressed. The man looks as if he has been carved out of stone. He comes out, screaming for more victims, as he pummels opponents into submission. His speed and power are devastating as he almost takes opponents heads off with a simple clothesline.

When first seen, he is impressive. Like most new big men, the WWE started him on his round of scrubs to demolish. Much like Brodus Clay, this got very boring. Watching this mountain of a man destroy men half his size is only fun a couple of times. Of course, was WWE now going to put him in a main storyline and give him some competition?

Actually, no they haven’t. Instead, Ryback is still fighting scrubs. The gimmick now is that he is fighting two scrubs at the same time. It shouldn’t be a big surprise that he blasts through these tag teams with ease. As he stands over their carcasses, he shouts into the camera to feed him more. It is assumed he means more opponents. It has gotten to the point that the crowd now starts a Goldberg chant anytime Ryback has a match. Anyone familiar with the old WCW should know what this is about: the man with the unbeatable streak.

Honestly, this gimmick got old fast, as the two men are always local wrestlers who look like they might combine to weigh 200 pounds. Ryback smacks them around and then tends to pick them up at the same time for a slam. Ryback hasn’t been on the mic, as lack of mic skills may be a reason he hasn’t gotten into a major storyline. Though if anyone remembers the Samoan monster Umaga, he was no master of the microphone and still had great matches and storylines. Is the WWE still going to try and force feed this “monster” who doesn’t face anyone of value in the company? How many two-on-one handicap matches are they going to put together before pushing this guy to an actual feud? Hopefully, it will not last much longer. The man has the power and physique to be a force in the WWE. They should stop playing around and get him into the game.

These three men are the current monsters of the WWE. Big Show is the unstoppable force, Clay is the dancing entertainer, and Ryback is the newcomer with power and athleticism. The problem is that the way they are being used seems weird. Big Show shouldn’t have been beaten at No Way Out, in fact he should probably not have even been Cena’s opponent. Clay was on a winning streak and now has a sort of feud going on with Show, who is still feuding with Cena. He doesn’t really have a place to go or anyone to face. With his personality he should be in the limelight as a face with a good heel to feud with. Finally, Ryback is a beast. This can’t be denied, yet the lack of storyline or character development is painful. It is old and boring to watch a guy destroy unknowns for weeks and weeks on end. There is no feud in sight or even a move to higher competition for this monster. At this point, he is just a few minutes of filler on SmackDown in between the actual matches. The biggest question of all, with all of this talent, what is the WWE doing with their big men?

Thomas Crawford is co-founder and co-editor-in-chief of TricycleOffense.com.

Mountain Men: Interesting Concept; Take With A Grain of Salt Part II

tcrawfor1984 — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:39:53 +0000

By Thomas “Encyclopedia” Crawford

This show is a very interesting look at how some people can survive and thrive out in the wilderness. The danger is real for these men and women and they do put their lives on the line daily. However, there are some things that need to be understood. This show is entertainment, and therefore not everything is exactly how the show is promoted. The show promotes these people as completely independent individuals. It also builds suspense through narration and filming techniques.

The first part is very easy to see. The commercials, the intro credits, and even the music used seems to portray these men as individuals that have turned their backs on regular society. They have forsaken technology, money, and modern comforts to support themselves and live solely off the land with no help. This is very far from the truth. When looking at Tom, Eustace, and Marty, one can see they rely not only on technology, but other people to make their lifestyles work.

Within a few episodes anyone can see that Tom Oar works very closely with his wife to survive in Montana. Not only that, they do have neighbors that live a good distance away, yet are constantly working together to survive the harsh environment. Tom traps beavers out of a neighbors water hole so that his neighbor can have fresh drinking water. In return Tom not only keeps the beavers for their pelts and meat, the neighbor also takes him out on his boat duck hunting. When Tom gets lost, it his neighbors that go searching to find him and make sure he is safe.

Eustace is a mountain man that doesn’t go it alone either. He works with his friends on the land and the young interns to help survive. They work together to hunt for plenty of meat. They also work together to plant and grow enough food to help them survive. It is true they don’t seem to have an abundance of material comforts, yet would be a lie to say they don’t take advantage of technology. Eustace even goes into great detail about how some of his most important tools are the chainsaw and his rifles. Without these to make his work easier he would have a very tough if not impossible time making it in the wild. He also makes it a point to say that the team working together is key to their lifestyle.

Marty is quite possibly one of the bravest men in the show. He risks his life every time he gets into his plane to fly out to his cabin. He admits all it takes is for his plane to freeze up, or get caught in a sudden white out snowstorm and he’d probably not make it back. He also makes great use of technology. Other than the plane he uses his snowmobile to get his daily water several miles away, and to check his one hundred plus traps over a hundred miles. He is completely alone in the wild, and his only connection to the outside world is a small radio. It should be noted he actually lives in a normal home with his family in Alaska, with a lot of the regular comforts one expects. His jaunts into the Alaskan wilds are to make money, he uses the money from pelts to support his family. Marty actually makes it a point to say one of the hardest things is the isolation, and a man can go crazy spending too much time away from other people.

Okay, these men aren’t completely by themselves. They aren’t lone individuals that are completely cut off from society. In fact, they need society for many things, from selling their pelts to buying parts for machines that break down and bullets for their guns. They do live off the grid, and do face a lot of danger that the average person doesn’t deal with on any regular basis. However, the way the show is filmed does add more danger and suspense to the show. This is another aspect that needs to be understood.

Tom is out hunting, he finds some grizzly prints. He worries about how close it might be as he continues tracking the deer he has been hunting. The camera shifts from Tom’s worried face to a growling grizzly. As the narrator describes the resurgence of grizzlies in the area. Tom starts talking, saying a grizzly can kill a man in a heartbeat. As Tom looks around, he picks up his walking stick, and continues in tracking the deer. Tom calls out for his dog to remain close. The image shifts again, a grizzly in the distance, stalking some prey as it pounds the snow covered ground with its massive paws.

Marty has been checking his traps all day. Suddenly, his snowmobile breaks down. Nearing him, he can hear the call of a pack of wolves. Marty, starts to work fast, taking apart his machine and trying to find the problem. The camera switches to some wolves in the distance. As they prowl closer, Marty works to change the spark plugs in the engine. The narrator describes how Marty was once surrounded by wolves. The only way he survived was by firing off several rounds to scare them away. The camera zooms in on Marty’s hands, as he has to take his gloves off he explains how the cold is one of the worst parts of working on the snowmobile. The picture changes to more images of wolves, fighting and running, stalking their prey. The narrator explains that these wolves can get up to 145 pounds, and won’t hesitate to attack humans. Marty laughs, says he wouldn’t want to be caught in a pack’s sight without his gun, it could be some trouble for him. As the camera switches to one more shot of a pack, Marty fires up the snowmobile and zips away before they can close in for the kill.

These shots and the narration do add a lot of suspense to the show. They actually make the danger seem even closer than it is when filmed. During these episodes grizzlies don’t actually get close at all to Tom. There are periods where it seems scary, like finding grizzly prints not a hundred yards from his house. However, the actual danger is built through the storytelling of the narrator and the video slicing to growling grizzlies while Tom is walking. The same goes for Marty, one can hear the wolves, but never actually see the pack circling Marty closely. The danger is built up using the narration, Marty talking about his own experiences, and shots of wolves in the wild. Was a pack close? Yes, the way it was shot seems like there really was a pack of wolves within seeing distance. Were they actually going to come up and attack Marty, that is up to the imagination.

These men are not the “mythic mountain man” that live by themselves and survives only through their own skill and ingenuity. The fact is, that is a myth. Men and women need other people to survive. Are there men that really live completely alone and never interact with anyone from society or use any modern technology to survive? It is very possible, though the chances of them surviving long completely isolated is slim, it has most likely been done before. However, in the context of this show, this isn’t exactly the case for these men.

The camera never shows them fighting off a grizzly, or fighting a pack of wolves to survive. The camera and narrator tell a story that allows the imagination to create those scenes, and build the suspense. However, the threat of freezing to death, starving to death, or being attacked or injured without nearby help is very real. Even without the help of the camera and storytelling to make this point, it is easy to see.

Overall, the show is a good one. One has to take it with a grain of salt, because it is entertainment, and some of the dangers are more imagined and created to make it more interesting. Does it take away from the true dangers these men face? Not at all. Anyone can still watch this show and know that the storytelling and camera shots are meant to enhance it. These men are very self-reliant, tough, and not the typical American. A person can watch this and not help having respect for the lives they have chosen to live, and the dangers they face just to survive. They may not be the “mythic” mountain men, but they are strong willed and entertaining characters to watch. Even taken with a grain of salt, this show is enjoyable to watch.

Mountain Men: Interesting Concept; Take With A Grain of Salt Part I

tcrawfor1984 — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:39:11 +0000

By Thomas “Encyclopedia” Crawford

This is a new show on the History Channel about three men that live the mythic Mountain Man lifestyle. It follows three men, Eustace Conway, Marty Meierotto, and Tom Oar. Each man has carved a life for themselves off the grid, and out of the way of modern society. They each live off the land, surviving by their wits and using self-reliance to live life in some rough and harsh environments.

Eustace Conway lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains on some land he and his friends bought years ago. He did this after a vision that told him that he should live off the land instead of following a, “normal,” lifestyle. He hunts, grows his own food, and the only income he gets is firewood that he cuts himself and sells to pay liens on his land. He also takes on interns who are interested in learning to fend for themselves in the rustic lifestyle. It is a constant struggle as he tries to grow enough food, and hunt so he doesn’t starve during the winter months.

Marty is a man that started trapping at the young age of 8. When he was 25 he moved to Alaska, and has since become known as one of the greatest trappers there. He lives with his wife and daughter, yet spends weeks at a time in a one room log cabin 200 miles from civilization in Alaska’s northern range. The money he makes from trapping is what supports his family. Watch as he not only faces extreme cold, but also problems with his plane and his snowmobile. The most dangerous part of his daily life is avoiding becoming hunted. He jokes and laughs when he discovers that his cabin has been explored and inspected by a hungry bear while he was away. The show doesn’t hide the fact that the area he traps in is also filled with packs of wolves that don’t have a problem making Marty their next meal.

The last man is Tom Oar. He spent 28 years in the rodeo circuit. When his body started to give out he turned to trapping and tanning leather to support himself and his wife. For the last 40 years he and his wife have been working together to survive and thrive in Montana. This area is known as some of the harshest territory in the lower 48 of the US. Both Tom and his wife admit that they spend the entire year getting ready for winter, yet never seem to be fully prepared. Being that they are 100 miles from the nearest grocery store, they have to rely on trapping and Tom’s hunting skill to survive the harsh and long winters. One has to watch as Tom not only braves the cold and unpredictable winters, but also faces Grizzlies, not more then 75 yards from his home, and packs of wolves that aren’t afraid of humans.

This show is about self reliance and human ingenuity at its best. It shows the lives of three men that are completely different from the norm. These people are to be admired, because their daily lives would make the hardest worker in modern society collapse. Being a fan of this show and the men is easy, because they seem to be what every American strives to be, self-reliant in a modern world where that seems impossible. However, even though this show is interesting to watch, it is also entertainment. That is why it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Continued in “Mountain Men: Interesting Concept; Take with a Grain of Salt Part II”

Encyclopedia Crawford Knows All: Why Be Chivalrous?

tcrawfor1984 — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:30:28 +0000

By Thomas “Encyclopedia” Crawford

First, the name some of my postings fall under is Encyclopedia Crawford Knows All. Even though this is a site about entertainment, I have a pretty wide range of things I get to write about. This also includes history, weird and useless facts, and my own entertainment at people using sayings when they really don’t understand the meaning. Before you ask, yes, I’m a know-it-all prick, hence my friends poking fun at my posts with the name. This particular one was inspired by a conversation with an acquaintance.

During this conversation he brought up the fact that he was broke. I sympathized, because that is the usual state I find myself in. He also mentioned how he had to tell his girlfriend that they couldn’t go out to eat because he didn’t have the money. At this point I was joking and said she makes money, have her drop the money and take him out.

Even though I was joking, he took it pretty serious. Actually he scoffed, and said he couldn’t do that. He went on to explain that he believed that a man should pay for the woman. Before this goes any further, I’m not against this idea. On the other hand, if a woman makes money and wants something, why not buy it herself? Well, I joked with him some more, saying it was the 21^st century, and that did not have to be the case every time. Then he went on to say he believed in chivalry, and treating a woman with respect.

This is the point, I’m afraid, that my know-it-all jerk switch was flipped. I couldn’t help myself, and had to go into depth about how that statement was wrong on so many levels. I doubt there will be too many women reading this post, but if there are, I am all for treating a woman with respect. That is, I believe it is right to treat her like a person with the same dignity and respect that I would show anyone unless they gave me a good reason not to do so.

However, using the term chivalry is just plain wrong. There are several reasons for this. First, the term actually applied to knights, and encompassed there entire moral code during medieval times. It involved not just how to treat women, but how to treat the poor, bravery in combat, defending the defenseless and the church, honesty, and even how to prepare for combat and how to fight. This code of honor was so large and set their daily acts, yet for some reason the only thing people today equate it with is respect for women.

The second reason, and this is a big one, respect for women in medieval times was completely different from respect for women today. In medieval times, women were considered precious for their virginity, and kept as property by men. First, their fathers and then their husbands. They had no rights to own land, or even speak their minds. If a man wanted to beat them, or even kill them, there was no law put in place that could protect them from these crimes. If a woman did speak out, or want to have a say in how her life was run, many times she would have been considered insane, or a witch. If that happened she would have been put into a convent, or locked in an asylum, or worse yet, burnt at the stake for witchcraft.

I could go on, but the point should have been made. Women, during the age of, “chivalry,” were property and considered mindless creatures that only served the purpose of bearing a man’s children so he could pass his property and name down. Does that sound like respect? Of course it doesn’t. My big question to my acquaintance was, why use that particular word to describe his view of women? That word, chivalry, supports that very idea of women.

It’s okay, I knew how he was using the term. I was poking fun at him for using the term in the wrong way. As I mentioned, I can be a know-it-all prick. Yet now that you know the meaning of the word, will you continue to use it in the same way? I hope not, and if you do that is cool, but be warned there are a lot of people like me in the world that might correct you for their own entertainment. As for him, he just shook his head, laughed, and called me a jerk. That is what I get for being Encyclopedia Crawford Knows All. In closing, why would you want to be chivalrous? Why not just be a person that respects another, and treats them with dignity? It just makes more sense.

Will The Dark Knight Rise…or Fall? Part IV

tcrawfor1984 — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:54:08 +0000

Finally, I will get to my point of the title. Believe it or not, my title really has nothing to do with whether the movie will be good or bad. In fact, I believe it will be amazing. It will also conclude the trilogy, though it may not be satisfying to many. My thoughts are mainly of the major villain, Bane, and what will become of Batman in the movie.

If any of the previous posts have been read, you have to realize that I love The Dark Knight. I also loved Heath Ledger as the Joker. After the movie The Dark Knight, I was certain that the final battle would be between Batman and the Joker. The characters were both amazing, and their similarities and contrasts made for amazing scenes. However, this was not meant to be. Again, rest in peace Heath Ledger. You were taken too soon.

When I first heard about the last movie, I wondered who would be the main villain Batman would face. Harvey Dent was scarred and became Two-Face in Dark Knight. Any who have seen it should know that (SPOILER ALERT…for a 4 year old movie. You’ve been warned.) he was killed in the final scenes and Batman took the rap so that Harvey Dent could keep his reputation, thus giving Gotham a real hero.

My first thoughts truthfully were that Two-Face would be brought back, and his character would be Batman’s final villain. Unlike the Two-Face of Batman Forever, Aaron Eckhart was a very scary in the role. He was scarred and lost his love. With a push from the Joker he saw life as chance, using an old coin to decide who would live or die, including himself. I was certain that he would have miraculously survived, and Batman would return to regain his honor by defeating the coin toting maniac.

This was not meant to be. Two-Face is dead, and Batman is the suspected murderer. When looking at the teasers for The Dark Knight Rises, we find that Batman goes on hiatus for eight years, and returns to Gotham to face the character Bane. This is where my curiosity is piqued and at the same time, a bit worried.

Let’s start by going back to Bane, as he was shown in Batman And Robin. For a lot of people this was their first introduction to the villain. He was a serial killer that got transformed into a behemoth that couldn’t be harmed. Through experiments with a special serum and pump he was made super strong and nearly indestructible. He was also an animal that simply yelled and couldn’t speak any words. In short, he was a thug for Poison Ivy.

When I first heard they were bringing Bane back, I couldn’t help myself: I just shook my head. I was worried that they were going to bring back this howling giant that had no lines. They were going to make him the thug of another criminal, possibly an even lesser known criminal mastermind. In the end, he would be beaten by simply having his pump destroyed like in Batman And Robin.

Then I saw some of the first trailers. I saw Bane talking and master-minding what looked like his own escape from a jet plane. I saw Bane standing over Bruce Wayne, who looked defeated, and taunting him for his weakness. This Bane was not the dumb thug. This was the Bane I knew from the comics.

For those that don’t know, Bane came about in the comics in the early 90′s. He grew up in a prison, taught himself by reading every book he could get his hands on in the prison library, and speaks six languages. He was also given a formal education by a prison priest. Along with his education, he became hardened in prison, killing his first person at the age of 8. The workouts and fighting he learned in prison turned him into a formidable foe. That was before the prison put him into the experiment that gave him super human strength and resistance to injury.

In the comics Bane is actually one of Batman’s greatest foes. He is intelligent, and in fact to many a genius. He has a photographic memory, and has the ability to plan out traps for Batman. In fact, within one year of being in Gotham, Bane discovers Batman’s true identity is Bruce Wayne. One of the strangest plot lines is when Bane breaks Batman’s back, leaving him paraplegic.

Getting back to the movie, this is the incarnation of Bane to expect. Between planning his escape, and by looking over an unmasked Bruce Wayne and taunting him, it is obvious he knows his true identity. Just from watching the trailers one should realize that this Bane is one of the deadliest opponents that Batman will face, the man known in the comic world as the man that broke the Bat.

This leads to my thought: Will this be the rise of Batman, or the fall? Will this character break Batman, and end the trilogy with the world knowing he is really Bruce Wayne? Some of the trailers tease about Bruce Wayne saying he hasn’t given the people of Gotham everything he has to give. Will this be the end of Batman?

Part of me thinks this could be great marketing, and Batman will just win over Bane and ride out into the sunset. However, another part of me wonders, with the dark and edgy side this trilogy has aspired to, will it go further? Will the writers have the guts to go all out in this final chapter, and push the limits as to what can happen and has happened in the comic books? Truthfully, I don’t know, but this is the last Batman. The writers and Christian Bale have all admitted that this is the last chapter in the story. Part of me hopes it doesn’t end that way, but part of me would be satisfied knowing that this saga of Batman is over, and that they stayed true to the grit and realism that they have achieved.

Will The Dark Knight Rise…or Fall? Part III

tcrawfor1984 — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 05:22:31 +0000

The Dark Knight was astounding. I can’t really finish this post without going into detail about the brilliance of the acting, the great story, and the excellent character. Trust me, I will get to The Dark Knight Rises, however, I have to touch on The Dark Knight first.

This movie had Christian Bale continue as the character of Batman, and again he played a dark, brooding Batman that is a classic. It returned Michael Caine as the faithful butler and Morgan Freeman as well. A minor change was Maggie Gyllenhaal as the love interest of Batman/Harvey Dent, however this didn’t really affect the movie for me. It also introduced Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent and eventually Two-Face, and Heath Ledger as the Joker.

At first I was uncertain with Heath Ledger. The fact is I was sure he would absolutely suck. The man, may he rest in peace, proved me wrong. He was creepy, psychotic; the kind of man who you didn’t know what he would do next.

I was always a big fan of Jack Nicholson as the Joker. As much as I loved him playing the role, I have to admit Heath beat him out. Where Jack was a Joker that was evil, and killed indiscriminately, you could still get a laugh at his antics and lines.

I did not find myself laughing at all at Heath Ledger’s Joker. Where Batman was dark and brooding, silent and disciplined, the Joker in The Dark Knight was loud, outlandish, and made my skin crawl. There was no sarcasm, it was simply mayhem and words of insanity. Anyone who has seen the movie knows this simply from how he tells different stories of how he got his facial scars. The change in his tone, how he changes from smiling and cordial to deep bellows, is the epitome of psychotic.

In the original Batman, the Joker has a love interest. The Joker actually goes to great lengths to protect her. At several points he tries to win her affection. In The Dark Knight, one can tell that love is not something that Heath’s Joker understands. He may be attracted as he shows to Gyllenhaal’s character at one point, but love to him is hurting and causing her pain.

The best aspect of this movie is the clash between the characters of Batman and Joker. One can see that they both had serious traumatic experiences at some point in their lives that has driven them to the lives they live. Where Batman keeps his sanity by fighting crime, the Joker has embraced his dark nature and let it flourish. What is seen is almost a mirror, what Bruce Wayne could have become if he had let his childhood anguish consume him.

This is actually the way it is supposed to be between these characters. As it is mentioned Batman is not a stable hero. He has a lot of demons and fights them by trying to do good. In the movies, one can constantly see him toe the line between being a vigilante hero, and really letting himself go. He takes pleasure in causing fear in others, and in causing villains pain. It is only his discipline that keeps him from crossing the line.

The Joker does not have this problem. Where Batman is silent, the Joker makes morbid jokes. Where Batman tries to restrain himself, the Joker lets loose and hurts as many people as he can because it relieves his own inner turmoil. This clash between these two characters is what makes this one of the best hero versus villain situations in comics and film.

This movie was quite possibly the best Batman film I’ve ever seen. Even though I will always have a special place for the 1989 Batman, this one definitely tops it. I will admit after seeing it, I couldn’t wait for another sequel, because the chemistry between Heath and Christian was phenomenal. Unfortunately, that will never happen. After the sudden death of Heath Ledger, his brand of Joker will never be seen again. This alone causes me problems for the last movie. However, the rest will have to wait for my final thoughts.

Continued “Will The Dark Knight Rise…or Fall? Part IV

Will The Dark Knight Rise…or Fall? Part II

tcrawfor1984 — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 04:46:31 +0000

If you read the first part of this post you are probably wondering what the hell is going on. I’m talking about The Dark Knight Trilogy, but going back years and displaying my disdain for some of the older Batman movies. This was not a random tangent; it did have a point. It was meant as a foundation to further explain everything the current series has done right with Batman. As for the title, well that involves the main villain in The Dark Knight Rises. I will get to that eventually.

Like I mentioned earlier I was a bit interested when Batman Begins came out. At the same time I was apprehensive. After being let down over the years, I wasn’t sure that I could take another let down of one of my all time favorite characters. Luckily, I was not disappointed.

Batman Begins has an amazing cast including Christian Bale portraying a dark and conflicted Batman. A man who wants to do good yet is driven to vengeance for the death of his parents. He plays the character of a hero walking the line to perfection. It has Liam Neeson as Ducard/Ra’s Al Ghul, friend and trainer to Batman before becoming his enemy. The film also includes Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes (the love interest), Michael Caine as Alfred, and Morgan Freeman who is in charge of all the technology that Batman uses in the film. In the movie it also has Gordon played by Gary Oldman, who displays his acting ability of a good man trying to get by in a corrupt world and remain sane.

Batman Begins has a plot. A crazy plot of an evil man trying to destroy Gotham. The plot is rather fictional, however it does make sense in the context of the movie. The only person able to stop the man Ducard is his best student, Bruce Wayne. The plot was never an issue. What I loved was the return to the dark side of Batman.

A man that grew up after watching his parents murdered should not be stable and normal. Christian Bale gives us a character that is not. He is dark, brooding, and silent unless he is screaming at an enemy. The city is dark and dirty, with an authentic Gotham feel. Batman doesn’t make a grand entrance and announce himself to the bad guys. He hides in the shadows, taking them out, instilling fear and reducing their numbers with his quickness and fighting ability.

This was the Batman I grew to love when I watched the first Batman twenty years ago. This was the Batman that captured my attention in many comic books. Batman was back with a vengeance. Forget the cheesy lines, or the sarcastic Batman, this was the one man wrecking crew that Batman was and should always be whether in comics or film. At the end of Batman Begins, I was absolutely back to loving the character that had been recreated. It only got better with The Dark Knight.

Continued in “Will The Dark Knight Rise…or Fall? Part III