ESPN's NBA's top 10 of all time: LeBron is 3rd!

ESPN has done it again. Create controversy in a theme that is supposed to be their every day bread and butter: Ranking all time greats.

Do you agree with LeBron at #3 in the all time NBA Greats?

After weeks of suspense and thrills, the sports network finally released their top 10 NBA players of all time, and just a few hours were needed to bring even their own analysts Stephen A. Smith, Skip Bayless, to contradict it. What follows is my breakdown of their top 10 list.

#10: Hakeem Olajuwon.

Hakeem The Dream

With Shaquille O'Neal himself, one of the biggest centers of all time himself, and also, one of the biggest EGOS of all time in the NBA, even bowing down to Hakeem's greatness and how he wasn't able to figure him out, I don't think anyone disagrees that Hakeem deserves to be mentioned in a top 15 list, with a lot of chance to be included on a top 10 list. Hakeem "The Dream" won two NBA championships, two NBA MVPs, two NBA Finals MVP,12-time all star games. Hakeem is the only player to average 20 points, 10 rebounds and two blocks per game, in his first 12 seasons. Plus, he was the leader of his team the Houston Rockets. Enough said, let's move on.

#9: Shaquille O'Neal.

Simply unstoppable

This is where I believe, ESPN analysts begin taking some sort of mind "performance-anti-enhancing" brain-pills. Apart from Kareem and Wilt, there hasn't been such a dominant force in the center position as Shaq in all of NBA's history, and Shaq's career was more prolific than Wilt's, championship-wise speaking. Therefore, a case can be made of him being second after Kareem. I'll quote ESPN's website:

"Most dominant ever? Not quite"

Excuse me, but if Shaq was not dominant, I think one of the two of us has problems with the definition of the word 'dominant'.

Shaq won four rings, is seventh in the all-time scoring list, and is the only player in NBA history to score 30 points on every finals game, on multiple finals.

Shaq is way, way up on my list, up to #5.

#8: Tim Duncan.

Respect 

If you had doubts, whether the ESPN analysts had been taking some "performance-anti-enchancing" pills, seeing Tim Duncan placed at #8 erase any doubts. I like how their website refers to their "Expert panel". I wonder what are these guys expert on? Because, they are certainly no experts in NBA.

First of all, Tim Duncan is a leader. He has been the driving force behind the Spurs, for almost twenty years. He's the Jordan of the Spurs, he's the Magic Johnson of the Spurs, he's the Diego Maradona of the Spurs (to put it in other context).

Second -and perhaps the greatest blasphemy from ESPN-, Tim Duncan is 5-1 in NBA finals, and... he could have been 6-0, had he beaten LeBron the second time they met in 2013. Tim Duncan beat in order:

The 99 Knicks of Pat Ewing and Larry Johnson

The 03 Spurs of Jason Kidd and Richard Jefferson

The 05 Pistons of the Wallace brothers, who were also, defending champions

He swept the 07 Cavs of LeBron. Repeat after me: SWEPT

The 14 Heat of LeBron and Wade.

That's it, he defeated LeBron TWICE. So how is Tim Duncan placed in a lower spot than LeBron? I'm telling you: performance-anti-enhancing pills, is the only answer.

Third. You want to discuss stats? We can, but you don't need to with Tim. Because he is a force. He is a clutch player, a defensive player, an offensive player, a franchise player, a leader. He is everything, he's the whole package. 

Tim Duncan, you are #4 on my list.

#7: Bill Russell.

I'm ok with Bill Russell at #7. Let's move on.

"I just want to see which of you
guys is gonna come in second place,
'cause I'm winning this"
 - Gotta love this guy!

#6: Larry Bird.

I'm ok with Larry Bird at #6. But read below, I'll move him up a spot.

#5: Wilt Chamberlain.

This is where things start to get tricky. What I'm going to do, is spread-out the rest of the list to make it easier to explain

#4. Magic Johnson

#3. LeBron James

#2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

#1. Michael Jordan

I rate Shaq over Wilt, because I will.... well... I'll quote Skip Bayless: "Wilt Chamberlain is the best one-man act of all time." That however, doesn't make him the best player ever. After all, we are talking about a team sport. I'll also rate him below Larry Bird, because well, it's Larry Bird. So that's why Wilt goes down two spots. Larry Bird was a better shooter period, and arguably the best clutch player ever.

Nice!

If you disagree with MJ at the top spot, you definitely are using the same pills the ESPN so called "Expert Panel" use, or probably something stronger. 

I know Mike, you can't help being the greatest!

The two greats together

Next Kareem at second. Some people rate Kareem second and Magic third, other people place Magic second after Jordan, but on top of Kareem. I really don't mind switching them, as long as they occupy spots #2 to #3. I can even relax if you want to play spots #2 to #5, as long as it's Kareem, Magic, Tim and Shaq we're talking about. But definitely not LeBron James.

LeBron at #3... is a big NO-NO. I like LeBron, I really do. I admire and respect how much of a complete player he is, and how fortunate we are to watch him play in this era. He has impressive, godlike stats. But... --and here it comes-... he fails in the key moments, and no one can argue with that reasoning.

Great players, legends, godlike sportsmen, are judged, ranked, rated and their legacy is built upon delivering the goods when it takes. LeBron is 2-4 in NBA finals, and as I said a few lines ago, should be 1-5. LeBron HAD to move to Miami and team up with an already NBA champion Dwayne Wade, to win his first championship. Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY in the top 10 list did such a lame move, and we can take a look:

Hakeem: leader of the rockets. Point made.

Shaq: signed with the up and coming new Lakers franchise. Point made.

Tim: really? Point made.

Bill, Larry, Wilt, Magic, Kareem, MJ: Point made.

To leave the Cavs and sign up with an already powerful team, who already had been champion was such a coward move, I lost all respect for LeBron as the leader he should have been. Plus, even after singing with the Heat he still lost in his first NBA appearance with them (second overall). How pathetic is that? He finally bounced back and won back-to-back titles, only to lose again back-to-back with the Heat against Duncan's Spurs and the following year against Golden State.

Come on man...

Stephen A. Smith said it best: Give me LeBron for the first 40 minutes of the game. Give me Larry Bird for the last 20 seconds.

As it is then, my list (as you should know I don't believe in "Top 10 lists" and just do "lists") ends up as follows:

1. MJ

2. Magic

3. Kareem

4. Tim Duncan

5. Larry Bird
6. Shaq

7. Wilt

8. Bill Russell

9. Hakeem Olajuwon

10. Kobe Bryant

11. LeBron James

The summarized explanation:

1. MJ (6-0 in NBA Finals. 6 NBA Finals MVP. 5 NBA MVP. Best player ever period)
2. Magic (5 NBA Rings. 3 NBA Finals MVP. 3 MVP Orchestrated showtime. Epitome of a PG)
3. Kareem (6 NBA Rings. Skyhook move. All time scoring leader. Best Center ever)
4. Tim Duncan (5-1 in NBA Finals -should be 6-0. 3 NBA Finals MVP. 2 MVP. Best PF ever)
5. Larry Bird (3 NBA Rings. 3 NBA Finals MVP, 3 MVP. Best clutch player and Best SF ever)
6. Shaq (4 NBA Rings. 3 NBA Finals MVP, 1 MVP. Unstoppable at Center)
7. Wilt (2 NBA Rings. Avg 30 pts 20 rbnds. Arguably, best solo act player in NBA history)
8. Bill Russell (11 NBA Rings)
9. Hakeem Olajuwon (2 NBA Rings. 2 NBA Finals MVP. 1 MVP. Redefined the Center post)
10. Kobe Bryant (5 NBA Rings. 2 NBA Finals MVP)
11. LeBron James (2 NBA Rings with 4 losses in NBA finals. 2 NBA Finals MVP. 4 MVP)

Other blasphemies in ESPN's list include Isiah Thomas at 26th: apparently the Expert Panel also suffers from brain damage. Maybe it's the pills?

Ok, I know Zeke is not top 10 material, but come on, he's definitely top 15.
And, over Pippen, Stockton, Malone, Barkley, Durant, Curry and Nowitzki

I don't have a problem with a great player ranked 26th, like for instance, in Baseball, they ranked Johnny Bench 26th, but had Steve Carlton at 25, Tris Speaker at 24th, Frank Robinson at 20th and Mike Schmidt at 16th, meaning, the closer the ranking gets to the top spot, the better the player is. 

But come on man, Thomas at 26th and John Stockton at 16th ! It doesn't end there. Steph Curry, Dirk Nowitzki, Charles Barkley, Kevin Durant, Karl Malone and... SCOTTIE PIPPEN are also ranked higher than Thomas. To quote John McEnroe, "you gotta be kidding!"

If you have any doubts or are unaware of Isiah's talents, I recommend you to watch this vid:

Nice try ESPN, better start advertising that you are hiring new Expert Panel.

H

Stairway to heaven Lawsuit

Today's post will be concise, as it tackles an issue I already talked about over a year ago: plagiarism in music.

Led Zepellin surving members, Jimmy Page, Robert Plant and John Paul Jones were deposed last week regarding the suit filed by lawyer Francis Malofiy, who represents 'Spirit', an American rock band from the late 60s who wrote a song called 'Taurus'. Taurus is an instrumental piece to which Stairway to Heaven bares a remarkable similarity, hence Malofiy claims Zepellin stole the main theme of Taurus and used it in Stairway without giving proper writting credits to Spirit. Malofiy is seeking at least 50% of all of Stairway's royalties, which amounts to half a billion Dollars (ouch!)

Before getting into the specifics of the case, let's take a look of the core problem.

This is Spirit's 'Taurus' which was written in 1968, and while listening to the first minute or so may be enough for you to judge whether it sounds similar or not, I recommend to listen to all of it:

...and well, if somehow you have been living in a cave in Afghanistan since 1962, or in an asteroid, and haven't listened to Stairway to heaven in your life, well, this is, Stairway to heaven.

Next, let's address this "giving proper credit" issue.

As I wrote in my post last year, theoritical music is both easy and incredible hard at the same time. There is only a finite amount of notes and the odds of two pieces sharing a few notes in their structure, is quite fair, meaning, it can happen every now and then.

The issue Spirit's lawyer is bringing here is not that Stairway to heaven sounds similar to Taurus. It's the fact that Taurus may have served as inspiration to write Stairway, and there was no acknowledgement of this by Zepellin. Let's take the following example:

Seven years ago, Madonna asked ABBA for permission to use the main theme of one of their songs. The song was 'Gimme, gimme, gimme'

... and the song Madonna wrote and eventually launched as a single, became Hung up

They both sound alike right? Well, of course they do! The main theme for both songs is the same!

Thing is, Madonna gave credits to ABBA as writers, as you can see here. So nothing's wrong in that case, because ABBA receives royalties and cultural acknowledgement that they were co-writers of Hung up.

Now, the case with Spirit and Zepellin is that well, a point can be made by Plant, Page and Jones, who declared earlier this past week that "their memories on the 60s and 70s were vague" (which kind of makes sense considering the amount of heroin and alcohol they did back then), and therefore, a case can be made by the fact that Stairway and Taurus sound the same simply because it is coincidence.

In the late 90s, American rock band Nerf Heder were also accused of stealing the main riff of a German pop song called 'Codo' written by German band D.O.F. Nerf Heder not only pleaded ignorance, but claimed that the fact that their song sounded like Codo, was simply, merely and entirely coincidental, and also, they had no idea the German band D.O.F. even existed! You probably haven't heard of Nerf Heder, but just click on the video and you'll get the picture. Check it out:

...and this is D.O.F.'s Codo, written sometime in the early 80s

Perhaps the most famous case of plagiarism in music is the one that involved The Rolling Stones suing The Verve, for "taking just four bars" of an early unknown hit-song written by the Stones called 'Last time'.

... which The Verve stole in the mid 90s and turn it into, well... if you do not know what song I'm talking about, you may have to reconsider your life. In that case, The Verve pleaded ignorance and got punished badly by it. Court sentenced and granted 50% sharing writing credits to the Stones and 100% royalties to the Stones. Keith Richards summed it all up better than anyone: "If the Verve can write a better song, they can keep the money." 15 years later, they haven't been able to write anything better than Bittersweet symphony.

So where does all of this take us regarding the Zepellin-Spirit issue?

In my opinion, there is no question that Stairway's intro sounds VERY similar to Taurus. It doesn't sound 100% exactly the same, but I would say there is about an 80% similarity between them. Being completely technical, both songs begin with an A minor bassline picking, that progresses descending a semitone for each beat all the way to D. Thing is, the baseline in both, acts as the main theme for the song.

Now, does this mean Zepellin actually stole Spirit's Taurus to write Stairway?

Well here's the thing: Zepellin members can plead ignorance and swear it is just a plain coincidence, like Nerf Heder did with D.O.F. An undeniable truth that every respectable musician (including myself) knows, is that an A minor descending bassline as a main theme for a song, is a very common musical structure in rock and even in pop. But that's not the only aspect where Stairway and Taurus are similar.

The phrasing -meaning, the way the guitar strings are played throught the descending progression- is 95% similar. Make no mistake on that.

The beating -meaning, the tempo in which the phrasing is played- is... 100% similar. Make no mistake on that.

And then, there's the KO punch.

Nerf Heder can claim ignorance on D.O.F. and can kind of get away with it. I mean, what are the chances of a teen pop punk band from Santa Barbara, California, knowing about a German pop band from the the 80s? I'm not going to say really low, but they're definitely not very high either. It's a 50-50 shot in my opinion.

But, can Zepellin claim they had no idea of the existence of Spirit? I mean, after all, why would a British rock band care about an American rock band, especially at the peak of British Invasion phenomena!?

Well, thing is... Led Zepellin not only KNEW about the existence of Spirit, they actually TOURED with them in their early unknown years, in which Spirit were more famous than Zepellin !!! And yes, Spirit played Taurus several times during these tours with Zepellin. So there goes your chance of pleading ignorance. Also, let's not forget Zepellin has already been found guilty of plagiarizing 'Dazed and confused' from Jake Holmes...

...and turn it into Dazed and Confused

In my opinion, Zepellin is guilty of at least, subconsciously plagiarizing Spirit.

But, considering Zepellin has already a previous case on plagiarizing, and the fact that they toured with Spirit in their early years, they are guilty of plagiarizing Taurus and turning it into Stairway to heaven.

Cheers!

H

(Here's my previous blog on the same matter)

The cell phone addiction

Over the past weeks, a couple of my friends have been... how can I say this... complaining about my lateness in answering their calls, texts, whatsapps, IMs, twitter/instagram/facebook updates and pretty much any call of attention ths is controlled by perhaps the most important device in our lives in current times: the cell phone.

Also, what is the deal with people who call you and for whatever possible reason you can't answer your phone, so they get a missed call. So what do they do next? They call you again right away! As in to say, "Hey it's ME calling, PLEASE answer!" Next thing you know, you have like 9 missed calls on your phone!

Seriously, what's the deal with that? Can't people understand that when one cannot answer the phone, it's PROBABLY because one cannot answer the phone at that precise time? The fact that you call me nine or nineteen consecutive times is not going to make me answer the phone, if in fact it's not possible for me to answer the phone.

Anyway, while there may be some true to that sometimes I do not answer within the next five minutes (or seconds), I couldn't help but ask myself the inevitable question:

Am I really not answering as fast as I should, or are my friends falling for the 'Cell Phone Addiction'?

Let's begin by defining this concept.

The 'Cell Phone Addiction' is a phrase I came up with after watching my two friends over the course of five days, throughout various activities (watching movies, playing cards, cooking, taking care of their garden, driving, going grocery shopping), during which at all times, they had immediate response to any contact message recieved by their cell phones. I'm talking about less than ten seconds to any sort of contact (like I said before, call, IM, whatever).

By the way, I had to research before publishing this entry about the phrase 'Cell Phone Addiction', only to discover it is so real that people are actually going to rehab for it, and whether if you call it dependency or full blown addiction, the way people are using phones is taking a psychological toll. (This paragraph is taken from this source http://www.shape.com/lifestyle/mind-and-body/cell-phone-addiction-so-real-people-are-going-rehab-it )

Anyway, resuming my post, the routine would go like this:

If they were watching a movie, they would have their cell phone next to them, in regular volume, meaning not silenced/muted.

If they were playing cards, they would have their cards, and their cell phone next to them, sometimes answering to any contact during their turn, and other times with their cards in one hand and their phone in another.

If they were driving, and their phone rang, they would keep driving, pick the phone and answer it.

...and so on with the other scenarios, including having dinner, waiting for the garbage truck to come, watching a sunrise or a sunset, going to the beach, tanning in the beach, it goes on and on and on and on. Some people go as far as sleeping with their phones next to them and complain if they get a notification in the middle of the night that of course wakes them up. I started looking at the situation, pondering many thoughts into it and tried to come up with somewhat of a reasonable explanation. The only answer I could come up with, comes up from a funny 8th grade anecdote from mid-school.

I'm an atheist, but I was raised a catholic and attended a catholic school. When I was in the eighth grade, puberty was hitting on my friends and on me, while at the same time we were being lectured in catholic education, of all the infinte bad things that could get you into hell, one of them being masturbation. Fortunately, the priests of our school were a bit more current/modern than what old-fashioned catholic priests are, and they treated students with a more leveled approach, than the old "me teacher-you student" approach. So one day, a group of friends who were a bit frightened of going to hell, decided they had to ask the priest if masturbating was bad. Me being an atheist didn't really care, but I hopped on because I wanted to see the answer of the priest.

And now... cell phones too

I specifically remember that when asked the question, he laughed out loud and said something within the lines of:

"Come on! That's ridiculous, masturbating doesn't get you into hell.

and he followed with

"Look boys, some of the stuff that's in the bible isn't meant to be taken literally, as well as some of the stuff that is taught in class."

Which made a lot of sense. What made even more sense, was his next lines:

"Masturbating doesn't get you into hell, because it's a natural thing that comes with our species. It's natural to do it and that's it. Now... if you become addicted to it, then we have a problem. Like, if you're at school and you have to masturbate, or if you're at work and you have to masturbate, or at a line at the market, or in traffic, and so on. But in that case, still the issue is not the act of masturbating per se: it's the fact that you have an addiction, meaning that you are unable to carry on with your day without it"

Fast forward to present day and my friends, and I couldn't help but remember the example the priest gave. After all, it applies perfectly. No matter what activity are they into, or the context they are surrounded by, their cell phones are next to them, and their response time to any beep emmited by the phone is immediate.

Moreover, when engaged in a chat with someone, say via whatsapp, they would complain how that person would take several minutes to respond to a chat, having seen the double blue checkmark.

"He left me double-blue checked! How dare he?"

Other times they would see the pre-message, but not login to whatsapp, on the pretext of

"I can't login, because if I do, people will see I'm online and haven't answered their messages"

I guess by now you pretty much give their picture. Now I'll paint my picture.

When I open my house's door and arrive at home, I have a large couch to my left, in my living room. I normally throw, first my keys and next my cell phone. I do this because I like to wash my hands, wash my face, take off my shoes, get myself into comforable clothes, and so on. I do this because I place more importance in taking care of myself, than taking care of the world (make that, my phone's contact list) which I can do at a later time, preferably, after I have settled myself in my home.

Which group do you belong to?

If I'm at work and I'm doing work-stuff, I'll normally keep focused on my work-stuff. I don't check my phone unless it rings or beeps, and it's a call or an IM, and there are times when I even do not answer, if I'm doing something very important or urgent. Needless to say, I'm referring to non-clients calls/IMs. The reason  I do this is quite simple: work pays my bills, answering non-clients calls/IMs won't. If I have nothing to do at work, work is slow, or I am on a break, of course I answer them.

Can you go over the hour without checking your phone?

When I'm driving, well, let me start by saying I do not consider myself a good driver. It's not like I'm fair bumper car, but let's just say I rather pay attention to the road than to my phone. It's as simple as that.

I'm somewhat of a bit competitive person, so when I play cards with my friends, I pay attention to the game, even when it's not my turn. I like to win, therefore my phone is a distraction. Sometimes I even leave my phone in the car. It may be a bit extreme, but I like to keep concentrated.

Now let's talk about the whole WhatsApp's double blue check / online thing.

Read ... AND IGNORED !!! IGNORED !!!

I currently have no blocks or filters on my WhatsApp: anyone can see my last online time, my double blue checks, my picture, and so on. I understand the fact that there are people who deserve or expect an immediate response, but let's face it: how much is the percentage of this group ? My opinion is that the answer to this question depends on two variables:

1. How important is your relation with that person: it can be a client, a close relative or close friend?

2. How much relevance does your answer hold to that person?

There are few pleasures a relationship values as sitting on a table to share with the person you enjoy spending time with. And yes, I meantyour partner, not your phone

The trickiest here is variable #2. The reason why I say this is because after looking at my friends, I have come to the conclussion that a new trend in politeness and manners has started in our society. I call it the 'Manners in chatting' and there are two groups of people in this trend.

Group #1. People who believe manners in chatting are the same as manners when facing someone face-to-face.

Group #2. People -like me- who think these two as not the same.

The implication is: if live conversation and online chatting manners are different, then there has to be some sort of manual of etiquette regarding manners with your cell phone -which there isn't-. How can one act correctly with your contact list  if there are no cell phone etiquette rules defined ? Especially when you consider how many tweaks and plugins available out there to break/avoid them, such as the one mentioned:

• Last seen online
• Double blue checkmark.
• Double checkmark
• "Writting..."
• A new plugin for WhatsApp that will show what the person on the other end is writting when the "Writting..." message is being displayed
• Check-in location

Great survey analysis

Regardless of how you view it, or if you identify with group #1 or #2, I believe the Cell Phone Addiction issue is truly real. There is simply no excuse in my mind that can bear anyone going five minutes without checking their phones, especially if it's a non-suitable environment like the ones I exposed earlier. Likewise, the situation applies for your phone beeping/ringing and you picking it up (it's basically the same thing as checking your phone).

Moreover, if you are a cell phone addict, it becomes harmful for your social environment to threaten them expecting them to behave exactly as you. The best thing you can do, is admit you have a problem of depency and expect to spread your problem to your social surrounding. Next comes, working on a solution to get rid of you addiction and enjoy the pleasures of life, the pleasures the world has to offer, away from your phone's social network updates.

Some tips include

1. Monitor your cell phone usage: it may be groundshocking, but when you find out you have been using your phone for more than 50 a day, you may think twice.

2. Create no phone time zones: yes, give yourself a period of time when you simply do not check your phone. Cook, eat your meal, whatever you do, just put it away and let it ring.

3. Turn your phone off when driving: as I said before, safety comes first. Whatever happens when you are behind the wheel, there is little you can do to change it (unless you are a disorganized person who planned accidentally or not, to have a cell phone checkpoint in your car)

4. Find a friend you can talk to who is not a cell phone addict: perhaps that person will have a thing or two to teach you about enjoying things in life that are not cell phone related.

5. Turn your cell off when sleeping: pretty much similar to #3. Of course, some conditions and exceptions apply. Like for instance if you are a father/mother, waiting for your daughter to ring you to inform she arrived safely at her date destination, or if you are waiting for them to get home, that's completely valid. But if your daughter is in another country, there is not much you can do about anything that happens to her and you'll have to live with that. What may happen is that you make bad decisions based on poor judgement, worsening the situation.

6. Think and measure the need to answer: ask yourself questions such as 'do I really need to call/text this person right now?' or 'do I really really need a response from him/her?', 'Is this a life-threatning situation or is a mudane event that can be taken care of later?'

7. Find a hobby: perhaps you are using your phone as a mood baromether, which means you feel better when you have it and when people respond quickly to your texts, and you feel pissed off when you don't have it and people do not answer to you.

8. No devices at meals: period.

9. Don't use your phone as an alarm clock: get an actual alarm clock and leave your phone downstairs.

I think those are good tips.

Lastly, I would like to say, I do not have all answers, and as I stated at the beginning, my responses may be a bit more delayed than normal. I may (and that is a huge may) give you that. The other extreme of not answering your phone at all is not good either. What I will say is that I feel one must learn how to balance and more importantly, manage their relationship with their phone, and more importantly, to let your contact list know of your principles and behavior when it comes to handling your cell phone social life.

H

The Oscars-Star Wars controversy

Last year I posted this entry, in which I wrote a somewhat detailed analysis of times the Academy (the Oscars) kind of messed up either nominations or winners of the award. I wrote it because like I said back then, time has proven that Oscar's don't mean that much when we talk about true trascendence of a film, an actor or a director. This year though, ironically my post is meant to defend the Academy on what I think is one of the most absurd controversies seen in show-business.

Will, Jada and Jaden just can't
keep away from the headlines

As the 2016 nominees were announced early in the week, a few headlines were filled by well-known celebrities such as Spike Lee, Jada Pinkett Smith and Mark Ruffallo, criticizing the lack of diveristy of the Academy, as no african american artists were nominated in any of the top categories. I titled my blog "The Oscars-Star Wars controversy", because at the same time thousands of fans are bashing the latest Star Wars installment on grounds of how it feels more like a politically correct remake of A new hope, than an actual continuation of the Star Wars saga. So what is the relation ?

Being one of the thousands of fans who feel dissappointed by The Force Awakens (as you can read my Episode VII blog), I couldn't help but to question myself and my beliefs regarding the review I gave to TFA, after seeing it break almost every single box-office record, earning an 8.4 rating on IMDb, and reading so many postive reviews from several critics, and even Hollywood celebrities such as Kevin Smith. I wondered whether if I was wrong in thinking TFA was a dissappointment instead of being an actual great Star Wars film. I had to go see the film again, but before doing so, I read and went over almost every single review (and video review) available. I also read the dozens of fan-theories trying to explaing the 942 unanswered questions in TFA, from Rey being Luke's long lost daughter, to Rey being Obi-Wan's granddaughter, passing through Rey being the actual chosen one to bring the force back in to balance. None of the reviews I read, or the theories I went through, or anything I came in contact with, could make me change my opinion about TFA.

Even George Lucas has expressed dissatisfaction with the new direction of "his baby"

After once again analyzing Ep VII, I couldn't reach any other conclussion other than TFA is nothing but what I call "A-Safe-Bet."

The explanation for this term follows suite: My guess is that when J.J. Abrahams and Disney were handed the assignment of making Episode VII, the project overpowered them and they simply didn't know what to do. They probably found themselves cornered with the dilemma of either developing something new or to stick to a winning formula, the latter being the chosen alternative, or as I like to call it, "A-Safe-Bet." Nothing could go wrong if they simply remade A new hope and tweak it a little bit for the new millenial target. Moreover, Abrahms and Disney went for the expanded Star Wars fan base, by developing "A-Safe-Bet" in a "Politically Correct" movie, an expression that has gained quite a trend in the past years. Fpr those unfamiliar with the expression, being PC means to try to please everyone, while missing to please the actual target you should. In TFA's case, they tried to please all demographics, but not the actual true Star Wars fans.

Doubt it ?

The force feels "forced" on this one 

Rey: the female hero, following the Hunger Games trend to please teen females.
Finn: african american star.
Han Solo: old school.
Kylo Ren: emo/goth.
Poe Dameron: the level headed.

So what does this have to do with the Academy this year?

The Oscar nominees for best actor, actress, supporting actor, supporting actress and director, all fifteen are caucasian (or simpy said, white). Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith have complained the Academy should be ashamed for not including any African-Americans. Knowing the I have almost 0% of PC, in my humble opinion, this has no sense whatsoever, and only adds more negativity instead of being beneficial to our society.

First of all, the Academy Awards (the Oscars, for that matter) were perhaps described best by the late great George C. Scott as a "two-hour meat parade, a public display with contrived suspense for economic reasons", also adding that the politics surrounding the awards was "demeaning." Like I said earlier, time has proven on several occasions that Scott's affirmation may be quite on the money, with movies, actors and other artists that would have likely entered oblivion, had not been nominated, yet alone even won the award.

Seriously. Without googling, can you tell if this won an Academy Award? If so, how many and which year?

In a world living in the year 2016, where globalization is more and more a main protagonist in our lives, less and less regionalization becomes a decisive factor in culture -including cinemas-, and the Oscars are no exceptions. The golden statue has been losing the essence of capturing interest of movie enthusiasts, while other international festivals have been gaining more and more notice, such as Cannes, Sundance, Las Palmas and London Film. Needless to say, and to quote Tug Speedman in Tropic Thunder, there is a lot of marketing and politics in being nominated for these awards.

Then, what is the big deal if the Academy didn't nominate African Americans?

I would like to believe that the Academy at least tries, to nominate five of the best performances for each category, whether if they are Caucasian, African American, Indians, Spanish, French, Chinise, Japanese, Norweigans, or Hispanics. Of course, Hollywood most likely will not be including in their nominees any Indians, Japanese, Chinese or Norweigans, it's ridiculous, why would they?

One of the most brilliant exchanges of the satirical masterpiece "Tropic Thunder" deals with the "how to get nominated to the Oscars" issue, and moreover, "how to win it by never going full retard"

And that's precisely my point with this year's fuzz.

Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett complain the Academy has no diversity. This means that they would be somewhat "satisfied" if the Academy would include African-Americans in their nominations. This begs to ask the question: How many African-American's are enough so that Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith feel content with the Academy's diversity ? Two out of five ? Three out of five ? Of course the number doesn't matter as it is not a question of percentages. That approach is simply ridiculous. Spike and Jada are talking about the Academy being "politically correct", pretty much like TFA is.

But let's forget about TFA and the Oscars, and let's use two completely different scenarios to wrap up this whole mess.

Scenario #1: Southpark Episode 7 - Chef goes nanners.

Southpark's is known as a series with a very satirical yet down to Earth approach to most of the subjects its deal with. In Season 4 Episode 7 (hahaha, ironically, episode 7), two secondary characters Chef and Jimbo, develop two opposite opinions on the subject that the town's flag depicts four white figures hanging a black one on a gallows. Chef (being African American) believes the flag is racist and should be changed, while believing the whole town is racist if they don't think so. Jimbo on the other hand, believes the flag should not be changed, being it somewhat of an honor to the history and tradition of the founders of Southpark.

Southpark's town flag

The whole episode goes over and around the fact that the school children, specifically the main protagonists (Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman) should sort this out via a school debate, with some of them agreeing to keep the flag and others agreeing with changing it. However,when the day of the debate arrives, it is discovered that surprisingly the group that agreed to keep the flag as it is, did so without perceiving that the person being hung was African American, but instead, a human being, meaning they didn't pay attention to the race of the person. Chef is touched (as well as Jimbo and the other adults atending the debate) by what the children point, so the adults reach a compromise of ethnic diversity, changing the flag by now having the four people of all races (including an African American). The moral of the episode is the fact that anti-racism makes people racist, therefore make them perceive things according to your own race, therefore leading to more racism.

Southpark's new town flag

Scenario #2: The NBA MVPs

If you look at a list of the NBA MVPs in the last 40 years, you'll probably won't be surprised that finding a white player is not as frequent as the days with full moon. In fact, the last 30 years have seen only three white players, that's 1/10. Is the NBA not diverse enough ? Oh wait, I know what some people will say. "Well, have you seen that Woody Harrelson movie, "White men can't jump?", to which I would reply "Oh my..." So let's go to a recently announced award, FIFA's Ballon d'Or, won last week by Lionel Messi a record fifth-time. In the last 30 years, only two black men have won the award. So Spike: Is FIFA also not diverse enough?

Judge for yourself. White man can't jump too good ? Or NBA is bad at white diversity ?

Here's the thing, Spike and Jada: NBA MVPs are won by the Most Valuable Player of the season, regardless of he's white, black, chinese, or even if his team won the NBA Championships or didn't win it. Same goes for the Ballon d'Or.

Maybe the same thing happened with the Academy this year? Maybe, unfortunately, the Academy couldn't fit any leading black actors with better performances than Bryan Cranston, Matt Damon, Leonardo Di Caprio, Michael Fassbender and Eddie Redmayne. Jada thinks the Academy has no diversity ? Well here's a thought: why don't you get your agent to get you a good script with a great role, good enough to be better than Cate Blanchett's, Brie Larson's, Jennifer Lawrence's, Charlotte Rampling's or Saoirse Ronan's ? Spike thinks the Academy has no diversity ? Well here's a thought: go get yourself a script (or even better, you develop one), so you can be nominated as best director, as you once were, instead of rambling on on how the Academy is not diverse.

Again, I will repeat this. I'm not taking sides with the Academy, but I can't get over the fact that, man, Meryl Streep, like it or not, has 84 Oscar nominations because, well, she's perhaps the greatest actress of all time. She's so damn good, that even in a movie as banal as Devil Wears Prada, the woman got nominated ! I wonder what would make Jada happy. Maybe see Jaden Smith nominated for his awesome performance in the Karate Kid ?

The goddess of acting. She could earn an Oscar nomination by playing a McDonalds cashier. Make that a drive through McDonalds cashier. 

I'm not a huge Fox follower, but this Stacey Dash interview hits the nail on the head.

I like the part where she especially mentions Obama being President and funded by Hollywood. What more true than that ?

So sum things up, this is where it all comes to.

The Force Awakens went through the road of being PC, and it deservedly got slammed by true Star Wars Fans.

The Academy didn't go through the road of being PC, and it undeservedly, got slammed by the media !

... which means, whichever route you choose nowadays, you'll likely be slammed for your decisions and your actions, deseverdly or undeservedly.

Cheers !

H.

Understanding Venezuela's 2016

After the recent trounce of the socialist government in Venezuela in the National Assembly elections, several of my foreign friends have asked me about the repercussions and implications the astounding results have for 2016, given the severe crisis the country has been for the past years. Some call it a devastating night, some call it the first ray of light. I call it: the greatest test in the country's history.

To understand politics in Venezuela, one must understand basic politics in other democracies and add a little tweaks here and there. School teaches us that in most democracies, governments have three branches of power: executive, legislative and judicial. This approach is a bit dull and confusing, so the simplest way to do it is by using the famous three brothers analogy, which I will use in this article. 

Imagine you have a family with three brothers. We'll label them as oldest, middle and youngest brother. The reason there are three is that they can cancel out one another, kind of like rock-paper-scissors. 

The three branches of government: Youngest brother, Oldest brother and middle brother

The middle child is the judicial power. Normally he gets overlooked by his oldest and youngest brother. The judicial power is comprised by a supreme court and inferior courts. Its job is to verify everyone is "following the rules", including the older (legislative) and younger brother (executive).

The oldest child is the legislative power. He is the most experienced and wise of the brothers and he's the one who sets the rules (laws). At times he is overshadowed by the youngest brother, because he takes a lot of time to set the rules, especially if the amount of seats in the assembly (or congress) is insufficient to "get things done". The most efficient set up for the oldest child is to have 2/3 of the seats represented by a party.

The youngest child is the executive power, and just like the being the youngest, he is the spoiled one, or for that matter, the one that gets most attention by everyone. Originally, the constitution made him the "little" brother in order to diminish his power in comparison with the middle (judicial) and older (legislative), but more importantly, to stay away from the monarchy government. However, the executive power, namely the president, has grown in power due to all the attention and popularity he gets. After all, he is seen as the face of the country. IE: Putin in Russia, Obama in the US, and so on.

The idea is that the three brothers are independent from each other and should work in favor of the country and not for themselves. However just like sometimes brothers don't cooperate between them to help the family, something similar happens with government branches.

Having that said, to understand the situation in Venezuela we have to build a bit of context.

Marco Perez Jimenez is regareded by some as the best president Venezuela has had, in terms of national improvement, country infrastructure evolution and first world mindset.

After deposing of dictator Marcos Perez Jimenez in 1958, Venezuela entered the so called 4th republic, which was an almost 40 year period in which the two most important parties split all powers. We'll call them the white party and the green party. Other minor parties were skimming around, like the orange, yellow and the socialist parties, but their participation was null. During this period, the economy of the country was somewhat erratic, good for a few years, then bad another few, then good again, then bad again. Most historians agree that while Perez Jimenez was a dictator, he was on track to establish Venezuela as a first world country, had he kept in office. Since busted, the country in essence began a gradual-slow but steady walk on losing track of Perez Jimenez path, and as years went by, it appeared that Venezuela was headed closer to become a third world country, than the world super power Perez Jimenez had envisioned. This was backed up by countless cases of corruption, unsolved legal cases and the unexisting appearance of a "new light" to guide the car back to the track where it was, heading for glory instead of misery. The people of Venezuela became increasingly frustrated with both the white and green parties, and that's when Chavez came into power, winning an election by captivating the population and by promising to slay any remainings of the white and green parties, who had been deceiving the country for 40 years. Dissappointed as they were, venezuelans voted in three elections to give Chavez's socialist party complete power of all branches of the government. To further extent, Chavez created two more branches, which he called the electoral branch, and the moral branch, both of them filled with socialist party members. 

Chavez got to power by bringing hope to the people, or at least by telling them there was hope.

For over fifteen years, the white and green parties were diminised to the point of their almost complete erradication, as the government held a stronger grip in the branches of power. However the last two years after Chavez passing away and Maduro becoming the president, has seen Venezuela go through the worst crisis imaginable in the country in its history. The most calling aspects of it are:

• Shortage of products, including basic products (food, health, hyginie), which has generated countless (and useless) controls to access the few available products, at ridiculous prices. 
• Hyperinflation, which the Central Bank stopped posting economic indicators a while ago.
• Currency exchange control with four different prices to obtain US Dollars, and none of them being easily accessible by the population, opening the door for a 1000% more expensive US Dollar obtainable in the black market
• Insecurity and crime rates soaring, with the Department of State and Justice also stopped posting crime indicators a while ago.

This whole mess got into a huge boiler and boiled on December 6 last year, where the population voted in 112 seats of 165 possible to a coallition formed by the all the opposition parties to the government. So how did this happen ? Well if one looks at it objectively, it's basically the same story that brought Chavez into power in the 1998 election, without the fact that back then, there were no shortages and there weren't any hyperinflation indicators. There was a currecy exchange control that had been recently modified, but it wasn't as bad as the current one; and insecurity, well... that theme has always been an issue in Caracas since say, the 80s. In essence, the same impulse that manifested by people being fed up with the past, generated a vote for "something different". Note that I wrote "something different", and I didn't write "something new". 

Lawyer Henry Ramos Allup is the new president of the National Assembly. He has been a long time white party deputy. He is well respected and well educated in Venezuela's law and politics. Some people refer to him as a "good ol' fox" due to his quick deliver. Others consider him "old-school", "more of the same" and other similar qualifications.  

Some analysts call this impulse "grounded-vote" (as in, you are grounded, so you have no other choice).

So where does this "grounded-vote" take Venezuela?

The next months will definitely be crucial and the margin of error is minimum, due to the desperate situation the population lives on a daily basis. The older brother has the complicated job of reformulating the rules, resetting the rules, or creating new rules; whichever posture results in a benefit for the country. Add to this that sadly, the most important demographic of the country (recent graduates, young executives) have only one thing in their minds: migrate. This means, that the more capable force of the population is deserting the country and leaving the less experienced and less qualified people to run the country (no offense, but it's true). And let's face: for more than 50 years, Venezuela has proved to be not so good at managing themselves, while having experienced and qualified people running the country. So what can be expected if there is less ?

After barely digesting their astounding victory, the opposition has yet to lay down a plan of the urgent measures that have to be decided within the next months to reactivate (more like, resucitate) the country. There are several censorship issues, several prisoners of the government who are asking for amnesty, and so on. I myself am completely convinced the country right now needs three things:

1) Dismantle the currency exchange control system.

It has been proven three times in Venezuela's history (and additional times in other countries), that currency exchange controls simply DO NOT work. It doesn't matter if it's a band system (hello, Great British Pound 1992?), a fixed system (hello, Zimbabwe?), you name it. To surpress and asfixiate the current flow of supply and demand for foreign currency, does nothing good to the economy of the country.

The currency exchange system must be dismantled. The sooner the better.

2) Reactivate local production and distribution of goods.

When you have a country that produces trillions in electronic technology and shipyars, or with an economy so diverse you don't know where to build your next artificial island, then you can consider importing goods. Otherwise, you must incentive local production of goods. There is simply not enough for the population and this has to end right now. Imports are an alternative and another way to supply the country, but cannot be the cornerstone of the population, especially if there is a currency exchange system that blocks imports.

Goods must be brought to the people by whichever means necessary.

3) Develop a true anti-crime force.

Few things in life are as demoralizing as knowing that you have to leave from wherever you are, because you are afraid something might happen to you on the streets. Despite having local, municipal, state and national police forces, none of them have been proven to be effective against the absolute dominance that organized (and disorganized) crime has in the city. 

Venezuelans must have the right to feel safe in their own soil.

The desperation level of the population may lead to other potential goals, such as impeaching Maduro or even having him removed from office as soon as possible. However, I believe, there is no better marketing to remove someone from office, than to having your own results speak for themselves and speak for yourself, as to prove how qualified you are to do a better job than someone who currently isn't. Anything unnecessary, unneeded, uncalled for, as much as of anyone strongly interests is, is and will be a simple deviation of what the real task on hand is and must be. Moreover, it will be judged as a waste of time and a waste of trust the venezuelan people placed on the new assembly.

And that is why the opposition must not screw this up at all.

Maduro (a bus driver) follows an embarrasing list of successive poorly educated venezuelan presidents (academically speaking), preceded by Carlos Andres Perez (high-school graduate), Chavez (Lt Cnel) and Maduro himself, only interrupted by Rafael Caldera (lawyer).

Mental note (for everyone): always elect as president someone who at least went to graduate school.

Finally, I have to say that regardless of whatever the new older brother the family has, little can be done if the people do not help their own home. Rules and laws may be set, fixed, edited, improved, but the population must follow and obey them, not look for the way around them. It's like that inner wish everyone has to beat the red light: drive pass it just to be 5 seconds earlier, or obey it and add your small contribution to a functional society. 

It's as simple as that.

Star Wars The Force Awakens

What can one say about a movie that has been in the works for over ten years? Wait no, more... over 32 years. What is there to say to the continuation of The Return of the Jedi, and the Original Trilogy ?

Believe me there is not much good to say.

Let me start by saying that my expectations were pretty low on this, to the point of considering it a success if it was slightly better than TPM (Ep I). Now as I sit and write this, I can say it was a good thing I did, Star-wise speaking. So, here goes my full review of The Force Awakens.

Spoilers alert.

TFA is actually a very good movie, if (and that is a HUGE IF) you  take it out of the Star Wars universe context. The problem is, TFA is INSIDE the Star Wars universe context. Remove it from the context it is set in, and it is actually a very good film with, good plot, good acting, and everything else. So what is the problem with TFA then? I have two major concerns which I believe two of the greatest flaws of the movie, and I have one minor concern, which I would concede given that it is so hard to produce the perfect product everyone was expecting with this film. So let me get into each one of them one at a time:

My first major concern: Why kill off Han Solo ?

This is a complete and utter regrettable piece of #@%$ decision made by whoever came up with this idea. Why kill off not only the best character of the series, the most witty, the clever one, the scroundel, the most likeable, but also the best actor in the series ! It would have been more believable, dramatic and intense to kill off Leia. Why ? Because she's a woman, she's Kylo's mother, she's fragile, she's related to Luke, she's meant to be a Jedi, so it would have had a huge impact on the audience, plus let's face it, Carrie Fischer is not as good an actress as Harrison Ford. The few minutes Fischer was on screen as Leia, it was like "meh"... but Harrison on the other hand, as soon as he showed up on screen he stole the show on every scene he was in. The minute he stepped foot on that platform, you knew what was going to happen with him. Killing Leia instead would have been completely unexpected, out of the line, daring and surprising, maybe leaving the door  open to bring her back on Ep VIII as ghost. But Han ? Snoke already hinted that Kylo had to kill his father for some issues we are never aware of (as it's a norm in all films of the franchise to leave interesting context behind and not to talk about it), so having Leia coming as a mother to try to "bring her son home" would have been more effective as to have Kylo complete his journey towards the dark side to the point of no return, and even to redeem himself for the pathetic excuse of light saber duels that eventually followed, almost defeated by a stormtrooper and defeated by a teenage girl, which brings me to my next point:

My second major concern: Kylo Ren was a MONUMENTAL failure as a villain.

He starts off great, as anyone could picture a sith could be: heartless, capable and ruthless. He's the Anakin fans (at least I) were expecting to see in the PT. I will dare to say he starts off so great he looks more menacing and intimidating than Vader on Ep IV. But then somehow through the movie he was continually forgetting about the powers he had in the first scene where we see him stop laser bullets in mid-air, force-choke people, use mind force, manipulate telekenesis and in essence look so bad-ass. He forgets them to the point where he almost loses a duel against a STORMTROOPER/JANITOR and then right away gets easily defeated by the above-mentioned teenage girl in a way that was actually believable (two kids clumsily waving lightsabers at each-other). Speaking of these duels, I thought lightsabers were only for Jedis. Since when do Stormtroopers/Janitors and Scavengers can hold and use lightsabers, let alone be able to defeat a Sith who has been training for years on the art (apart from being strong with the dark side of the force ? During the process of forgetting about his powers, Kylo also managed to lose his cool looking mask and showcase that we were wrong thinking he is an actual villain as he turned out to be a childish young man with serious anger issues. See the difference: when Darth Vader was unsatisfied with the progress, he killed the soldiers and admirals in a cool and threatening manner. This kid however destroyed his own computer instead. What was the deal with that ? Also... what was the deal with the mask ? Vader HAD to use the mask because of health issues, but Kylo doesn't even have to use the mask AT ALL. He's sort of a "Vader wannabe". So, to sum and screw things completely up, we are introduced to a Sith knight who wears a mask but actually doesn't really need to wear it, then the Sith knight takes off his mask in the middle of the movie, which is WAY TOO SOON. So the mask is only used for intimidaring purposes ? OK, well in that case at least show us someone, who looks really bad and determined. But what the heck have I seen? I have seen a kid who looks like professor Snape in his twenties!!! This weak looking child with shovel face. That act completely removes his aura and I wasn't able to look at him the same way any more.

MONUMENTAL FAILURE.

The minor concern: Do we really need more of this teen female heroes ? 

I mean don't we have enough already ? I'm not anti-feminist or whatever, but the teen female hero thing is getting really old. I guess it's ok... as it's a matter of tastes.

The rest of the movie can be argued about back and forth, including stuff like:

• The beginning was a bit rushed, kind of battling his way into the movie rather than going for slow introductory character development.
• The main weapon is... a death star on steroids ! (which ironically is easier to destroy)
• The jokes were fine, although Finn jokes were a bit too many.
• The supreme leader looked more like Lord Voldermort (which makes sense as Kylo looks like Snape).
• Why why why keep hiding stuff ? Why keep leaving the best parts of the story unexpained and given just a bare mention ? Why not start focusing on the INTERESTING parts of the story that have to be explained, like how Kylo was seduced by the darkside,  what is his issue with Han, why Luke failed as a trainer, how did the orange thing find Luke's / Anakin's original lightsaber, etc... so many things to develop. Hollywood directors NEED lessons from Chris Nolan or at least should be forced to watch Batman Begins before embarking on a project of such magnitude as this one.
• I liked how the old characters were slowly introduced and not thrown in all of a sudden. Maybe Han/Chewie's first appearance is a bit forced, but it didn't bother me. Like I said, Harrison is such a good actor, he eventually took over his part as Solo so well, you just can't dislike him at all.
• Before writting this, I read a couple of reviews to see whether if other people shared my thoughts and I found out a lot has been said about TFA looks more like a remake of Ep IV. The more I think about it, the more I find myself agreeing with the statement.
• ...and last but not least the Stormtroopers blaster aiming hasn't improved in 30 years.

Finally where does it stand vs OT and vs PT

Needless to say that after all this slaughtering, it has no chance against any of OT films. Now against PT:

Time is making TPM be left in oblivion, as it has too much political non-sense and jar-jar binks in it. Plus, add in an annoying Jake Lloyd, and you have the perfect recipe for cinema disaster. TFA is better than TPM by a longshot.

AOTC...has too many Titanic-alike love scenes, and then of course there is Hayden's wooden worst performance of all time. He IS NOT the young Anakin Star Wars fans pictured. And there is still the boring politics and questionable plot decisions. TFA is better than AOTC.

ROTS is a complete disaster with so much going on about everything, but somehow managed to be the best of the PT. Hayden keeps being the problem, as well as the script, and Yoda (along with the entire Jedi Order) turn out to be a major dissappointment. Is TFA better than ROTS ? Because if it is that means TFA is better than the entire PT. At this time I will say yes it is. A straight fact? Kylo Ren to me looks more like the Anakin I would have expected to see in the PT.

TFA is better than the PT because it has a better molding and a better setup. Plus you can't go wrong with Harrison Ford, sorry about being so repetitive about it, but he makes the movie feel right. The first act the movie is really good. Kylo is in full swing and like I said before, he's as menacing as you can get from a Sith. The moment he takes off his mask is when things start going very wrong in the film. The death star on steroids is like meh... it's not an original idea, but I can live with it. But the step of humanizing a Sith as they did with Kylo is unforgivable; at least as early as in this movie. It would have been better if they had Kylo keep his mask and take it off somewhere durnig Episode VIII, but having it done now, it kind of takes something away from his aura. It seems like they're trying to make up for the terrible Anakin we had on the PT. Add to that the fact that he was nearly beaten by a stormtrooper/janitor, he was soundly defeated by the Katniss Everdeen of planet Jakku, and the result bad taste that TFA leaves in your mouth is as sour as the grapes of wrath. To add more, supreme leader Snoke at the end says "bring Kylo Ren, I must complete his training". No @#$% ! He almost got his ass kicked by a stormtrooper/janitor who has had years of training in cleaning toilets (you can buy them on Wal-Mart) and he got his ass handed to him by a girl who just hit puberty a month ago, and had her first contact with the force about eight hours ago. You are damn right Kylo needs more training! Plus he needs a psychologist to fix his anger issues.

The only remarkable thing this film achieved was shatter all the box-office opening weekend records, which makes for a successful ROI on everyone involved in putting money on playing with the high expectations true fans had on getting a great Star Wars movie we have been waiting for 32 years, and are still waiting for.

TFA is a glorious victory for Hollywood and a sad defeat for all true film makers and fans.

There you have it. Star Wars TFA in a nutshell.

6 out of 10.