Avengers: Age of Ultron

Could Avengers 2 be a disappointment?
Let's talk about that.

With the Entertainment Weekly Comic-Con preview coming out about the new Avengers movie, I couldn't resist soaking up every detail that was revealed about the sure to be Blockbuster. When the first movie came out two years ago, the over saturation of how "awesome" the movie was made my expectations skyrocket leaving me slightly disappointed after I finally saw the movie. I still loved it, just not as much as I expected to. In turn, I vowed to not read or see anything about the second movie to prevent from the same mistake. But I'm a sucker. I have no will power, I probably should see someone about that.

I certainly don't pretend to be an expert about the Marvel universe, in fact, most of my information comes from Caleb (http://www.kayleberty.com). Before reading about Ultron, all I knew was that he was a big, bad robot. After I read about Ultron, all I know is that he's a big, bad robot. **Mild spoilers ahead if you're staying away from this type of stuff.** Basically, Tony Stark (Iron Man) built Ultron to give the Avengers a break from saving the day all the time (we'll get to how ridiculous this is in a minute, but bare with me). Ulton's job is to asses and use Tony's droids to destroy possible attacks. Ultron then concludes that human beings are the issue therefore they should be destroyed wherein the problem lies.

My first thoughts after reading this were "Why." Why is another robot bad-guy a good idea? I think Joss Whedon is brilliant and I trust him to make it work and yes I completely understand that Ultron is already an established villain. BUT, really? A robot that decides to destroy human beings? It just reminds me a little too much of that Shia Labeouf movie Eagle Eye. I love that Whedon is playing with the concept of humanity being the fundamental problem, which seems like a "Duh" revelation (because without us, what problems could occur?) but not everyone sees human nature as evil. The only question I have though, is if the Avengers plan to save us from robots, will they address the need to save us from ourselves? Will the conclusion be "Oh no, humans really are great, we are courageous, wonderful beings?" Because that would be a cop-out. Obviously I don't condone mass genocide but that needs to be addressed. I suppose we'll see where that leads.

Now on to the purpose of Ultron's existence. The Avengers need a break? Is that a bad joke? They sound like actors. I understand they make sacrifices and put themselves in danger for our safety, but that's their job. To protect us from threats, and since the destruction of SHEILD, it seems that the job falls solely on them. I get it, Tony destroyed his suits, Thor gave up the throne and Cap is out looking for Bucky, but that doesn't give them an excuse to just stop doing what they were put together to do in the first place. Clearly their relaxation time doesn't last long but that concept that the Avengers have turned into whiny babies that need nap time bothers me. (Ok, maybe I'm being a little harsh)

I guess I'll just have to wait until 2015 and vent some more about the movie. While I'm at it: Marvel, we want a crossover. I know you're worried about money but a couple Avengers show up in Spidey 3, Spidey shows up at the end of the Avengers and chaos that will make you even richer will ensue. Promise.

Last thing before I go, if you're still reading, hi and thank you. Go read Christine's blog http://glassonionblog.blogspot.com because it's awesome, it's got any category you would want to read about and she actually uses her labels. Comment below with any opinions, disagreements, or criticisms and whether or not you're looking forward to Age of Ultron.

2014 FIFA World Cup

Is soccer becoming an American sport?
Let's talk about that.

It's that time of year again, or as most Americans like to refer to it as "The one time we watch soccer." I will be the first to openly admit that I don't watch soccer unless it's during the World Cup. And even then, I generally won't watch the entire match. I know about Ronaldo and Messi but that's where my knowledge ends. Not to generalize, but I'm pretty sure that most Americans feel the same way no matter how big of a sports fan they are. Soccer has never been the most popular sport in America but this year's World Cup seems to have had an impressive impact on sports fans.

In 2006, I visited Italy, which also happened to be the year that Italy beat out Germany, the host team for the Cup, to win the title. The atmosphere during the games was something I had never experienced before. It was impossible to walk down the street without seeing the games on some TV, whether it was in a bar or restaurant or a young boy trying to find a signal with some spare wire.  It was contagious, even I wanted to stay glued to the TV. But as quickly as I was exposed to the soccer fever, it went away the moment I stepped onto American soil. This year, it seems to be a different story. The World Cup fever has spread like an epidemic, but whether it'll extend past the World Cup only time will tell.

The American team was brought to public attention before the Cup began when their coach, Jürgen Klinsmann (who managed the Germany team from 2004-06), did not put Landon Donovan on the nation roster. Donovan is easily the best American player but was kept off the team causing quite the heated controversy. Some speculate that it is because the two don't get along but Klinsmann claims Donovan just wasn't up to par this year. Regardless of Donovan's lack of involvement, the U.S. national team has received more attention this year in soccer than they have since the sport was first introduced. Now it's not in Europe do you see people huddled around the television watching matches. Below is a picture of people watching the Germany/U.S. match this past week which the U.S. team unfortunately lost. 

Americans have never been so invested. People have been taking days off from work to watch matches, something that would've been unheard of before. Whether it's the team's early success in the Cup or the soccer fever has finally moved to America, I don't know. I'm just glad it wasn't David Beckham that made us like soccer, it was actual Americans playing soccer that made us like soccer. 

So, to answer the first question, maybe. As I said before, only time will tell if the soccer fever continues but so far the outlook is bright. I'll certainly be keeping closer tabs on local teams. There's something very special about a total stranger moving out of the way so you can see the TV better, or a different stranger that can see the TV passing the score down to someone who just walked up. A unique unity emerges that only sports can forge. It's part patriotism and part entertainment. That moment when you start to care what happens, that moment when your heart skips a beat as the ball just misses the goal, that's when you know you're a sport fan. 

Seeing Shakespeare

Has every post-Shakespearean work been plagiarized?

Let's talk about that.

They hate each other at the beginning, but over the course of an hour, or a few hundred pages, they fall in love. Sound familiar? That's because it's literally every Katherine Heigl movie. Ever. It's also the storyline of practically all movies in the “Rom-Com” genre. But what's lesser known, is that this now-cliché plot was created by the great bard himself, William Shakespeare for his comedic play Much Ado About Nothing. Beatrice and Benedick find themselves thrown into numerous situations that eventually lead them to professing their love for one another despite having sworn to loath each other forever at the beginning of the play. Another example of this storyline showing up in more contemporary works is Pride and Prejudice (yes. Jane Austen is contemporary). Elizabeth and Darcy face the same storyline in the romantic tale that is constantly referenced by everyone… or maybe just me. But I don't think it's unreasonable to say that more people know about P&P than they do about Much Ado. So, why is that? Why is Shakespeare saturated in a multitude of mediums and people don't even realize it? How is it even possible that Shakespeare single-handily fine-tuned arguably the most used and well-loved plots to ever be heard?

First, I think we should look at what Shakespeare has done to answer the last question. He was able to tap into the fundamentals of human emotion. What motivates us, what angers us, what saddens us, what arouses us. Not only did he layer his characters with depth worthy of the complexity of the human mind, he was also able to manipulate his audiences' emotions to think as his characters think. He pushed boundaries, he was raunchy and political and controversial. To put it simply, he has mastered humans. No one could surprise him, Shakespeare was essentially the greatest psychologist that ever lived.

Now onto the Shakespearean works that seem to pop up everywhere. Before I start, I want to say that yes, people can be original. But their originality will in some way stem back to Shakespeare. So I guess what I'm saying is no, they're not original. #notsorry. But I digress, I've already discussed a few examples in literature where Shakespeare can be seen quite obviously (actually, I've only discussed one, but there are also five Twilight movies, stuff happens). Let's take the most obnoxiously large and ridiculously inflated movie we can think of for our next example – The Avengers. More specifically, Loki (and no, it's not because his face makes me swoon, he has really good character development and I swear, he's just misunderstood). Loki is probably more Shakespearean than Shakespeare himself. He was lied to as a child (mistaken identity), believed his birthright was to be king and went for it (grab for power), and is the antagonist for not one, but two Marvel movies. He's a “Shakespeare’s Greatest Hits” album personified. The beauty of Shakespeare is that everything is laid out for you. Sure, there's some cryptic, figurative language and a few ghosts but most of it is pretty straight forward. The reason he is so straight forward, is because he's relatable, or in other words, identifiable (which doesn't actually sound like a word but it is, I Googled it). Readers can identify that the emotions that course through them are the same that course through his characters.

Now I could write a whole blog post about why people watch movies, or read books, or actually turn on reality tv shows, but I'll make my explaination short – relatability (this one isn't actually a word, but it serves my point). At their core, television, books, and movies are all people responding to things. So why would people want to watch or read about that? Because it's relatable. Because they can observe how others react. We are all creatures of imitation. I learned a ton from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, for example if I ever see a suspicious ring, you can be sure as heck I'm going to throw it in a fireplace and hope some Elvish shows up. But on a serious note, that's why we study themes in school, right? To learn and make sure we understand what an author or director or screen writer or Snooki is trying to convey through their reactions to circumstances (although in Snooki's case, it's probably what NOT to do in most circumstances – kids, stay in school).

Now, what were we talking about?

Oh, yeah. Shakespeare.

So, no. Obviously not every work following Shakespeare's works are plagiarized. But it would do consumers good to take a moment and inspect the different media they are bombarded with each day and reflect on its connection to Shakespeare, because I can almost guarantee there will be one. It can be like a fun game that will annoy most people around you. But that's also the major problem, most of the time, people don't think about what they're absorbing because of how much they are forced to absorb from commercials, billboards, iPhones, etc. They don't recognize the wonderful roots that are planted in stories. Don't be one of those people, embrace your intelligence fellow readers, and comment below with your thoughts, jokes, concerns, disagreements, and basically anything you feel like saying. Nothing brightens my day than a nasty internet argument that's partial discussion but mostly abuse. (Kidding – stay classy people.)