Another Summer, another reason to pony up cash at the local cinema (not to mention outrageous prices at the concession stands). This year is going to be pretty interesting, compared to last year's Sequel-fest. There's a lot of interesting films making their way to theaters this Summer, (unfortunately, some that I'm looking forward to don't look like they'll be making their way to my small town in the middle of nowhere). So here's a list of a few movies being released this season that I think deserve some mention [Summaries courtesy of IMBD.com]...
Son of Rambow (5/2):
[Set on a long English summer in the early 80's, Son Of Rambow is a comedy about friendship, faith and the weird business of growing up.]
Ok, so this film already came out earlier this month. I saw the trailer for this a few months back and thought it looked really cool. It's these kinda unpopular kids who see 'First Blood' and want to make their own sequel to the movie, and they start getting more recognition by their peers. Seems pretty feel-goodish.
The Tracey Fragments (5/9):
[15-year-old Tracey Berkowitz is naked under a shower curtain at the back of a bus, looking for her little brother Sonny, who thinks he's a dog.]
It's sad to see a movie that looks promising getting bad reviews from critics. Ellen Page plays Tracey in a movie that looks very dark, and quite original.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (5/23):
[Famed archaeologist/adventurer Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones is called back into action when he becomes entangled in a Soviet plot to uncover the secret behind mysterious artifacts known as the Crystal Skulls.]
Soviets instead of Nazis? WTF?! I was not looking forward to this movie, but my love for Raiders of the Lost Ark, along with liking Shia LeBeouf as an actor, is going to drag me to seeing this movie in the end.
War, Inc. (5/23):
John Cusack takes what works for him in his typical love story movies, and uses the setting of a Middle East nation, as Cusack plays an assassin hired to kill an oil minister. It looks absolutely ridiculous and Hillary Duff plays a sexy Middle Eastern pop idol. What's not to love?!
The Happening (6/13):
[A paranoid thriller about a family on the run from a natural crisis that presents a large-scale threat to humanity.]
Marky Mark takes lead in this M. Night Shyamalan film about a mysterious phenomenon causing people to kill themselves. Looks spooky, and loads of fun! A GUY FALLS IN FRONT OF A COMBINE HARVESTER, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!
The Incredible Hulk (6/13):
This is a title I'm unsure about. I'm not a fan of The Hulk, but a total do-over of Marvel's 2003 crapfest is a plus. That, and I have a slight man-crush for Edward Norton. >_>
Get Smart (6/20):
[Maxwell Smart, Agent 86 for CONTROL, battles the forces of KAOS with the more-competent Agent 99 at his side.]
I remember watching this show on TV Land. It was like James Bond, if Mel Brooks put his spin on it. Actually...that's really what the show was: Mel Brooks' take on secret agents. The movie has Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway. Should be a good combo.
Wall-E (6/27):
[The year is 2700. WALL*E, a robot, spends every day doing what he was made for. But soon, he will discover what he was meant for.]
Pixar. Need I say more?
Wanted (6/27):
["Wanted" tells the tale of one apathetic nobody's transformation into an unparalleled enforcer of justice...]
Over-the-top action movie with Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman. Funny thing is James McAvoy, the nobody in the movie, is practically one in real life. This movie could be promising for his career.
Hancock (7/4):
[A hard-living superhero who has fallen out of favor with the public enters into a questionable relationship with the wife of the public relations professional who's trying to repair his image.]
A washed-up superhero movie? Sounds intriguing. I'm still iffy about how the movie will be, but the concept itself sounds cool enough...
The Dark Knight (7/18):
[Batman and James Gordon join forces with Gotham's new District Attorney, Harvey Dent, to take on a psychotic bank robber known as The Joker, whilst other forces plot against them, and Joker's crimes grow more and more deadly.]
I'm a little ashamed by the fact that I didn't even have to look up the release date for this movie. I've been waiting for July 18th to get here for so long! If you can't tell, I'm really anticipating this film! It'll be amazing!
Midnight Meat Train (8/1):
New York photographer stakes out a serial killer who kills his victims on trains at night. Seems like a good thriller movie to me.
The Pineapple Express (8/8):
[A stoner and his dealer are forced to go on the run from the police after the pothead witnesses a cop commit a murder.]
Stoner Flick with Seth Rogen and James Franco. Not a movie for the intellectual mind, but if you can dumb it down for a couple hours, it seems like it could be funny.
Tropic Thunder (8/15):
[Through a series of freak occurrences, a group of actors shooting a big-budget war movie are forced to become the soldiers they are portraying.]
Big 'Apocalypse Now'-type movie being filmed, actors (Ben Stiller, Jack Black, and Robert Downy Jr. (who undergoes cosmetic surgery in the film to play the black role)) get involved in actual warfare situations, but think they are in a controlled environment. Zoolander meets Hollywood.
Hamlet 2 (8/22):
[In this irreverent comedy, a failed actor-turned-worse-high-school-drama teacher (Coogan) rallies his Tucson, AZ students as he conceives and stages a politically incorrect musical sequel to Shakespeare's Hamlet.]
Silly business. Nothing more.
A good list of films, plus many more coming out if you none of these picks interest you. Enjoy your Summer at the movies!
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
RamblingSimon Rants About: Michael Hollick
In the New York Times yesterday, they had this article about Michael Hollick, the voice actor for Niko Bellic, the lead character in the new Grand Theft Auto 4 video game by Rockstar Games.
Because I know nobody and their nonexistent grandmother's are going to click that link and read it for themselves, let me just summarize it. In a nutshell, Michael Hollick got paid $100,000 for his role for 20 weeks of work. Now that the game has grossed over $600 million in the last three weeks, Hollick and other voice actors from the game are coming out to express how upset they are over the fact that they are getting no residuals or royalties from this boom.
For once, I'm not siding with the little guy here. I'm fearing the worst: I might be becoming conservative and pro-big business.
There was no way of determining the commercial success of the game over a year ago when contracts were drawn up. Had the game sales been mediocre, Hollick probably wouldn't have his panties up in a bunch about this. Instead, he's like every other greedy bastard out there who wants another buck. The guy got ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS for talking! I make $7.50 an hour serving food to the general public! No sympathies here. They all signed contracts saying they'd get paid this much a day and not make royalties or residuals. It should have been negotiated beforehand.
Yes, the game is worth much more than $100,000 and had they predicted such huge turnouts he should've been paid more, but that's just it: that's indeterminable! Now that it's a huge success, you can't expect Rockstar Games to willingly pass out free money to voice actors. Yes, some of the money goes into undeserving corporate pockets, but most of that money goes into research and development, to make bigger and better games so corporate pockets can be filled again LATER! Gotta think long-run in that industry...
I'm aware that voice actors do get screwed over in their business, but I also enjoyed Grand Theft Auto 3, when the main protagonist was SILENT. I have yet to play GTA4, but unless his voice is like a gift from the heaven's, I'm doubting it was extremely important to have it, minus making it easier to progress through the game's main storyline. Voice actors are good to have, but they DO NOT play as integral of role to the game as elements such as gameplay and graphics.
This is NOT a personal attack on Michael Hollick or any of the other voice actors. I agree they got screwed over, considering the success of the game, but their contract said nothing about residuals. It sucks, but you guys signed it. Even if it couldn't be negotiated, do you REALLY need more than $100,000, Mr. Hollick?
Because I know nobody and their nonexistent grandmother's are going to click that link and read it for themselves, let me just summarize it. In a nutshell, Michael Hollick got paid $100,000 for his role for 20 weeks of work. Now that the game has grossed over $600 million in the last three weeks, Hollick and other voice actors from the game are coming out to express how upset they are over the fact that they are getting no residuals or royalties from this boom.
For once, I'm not siding with the little guy here. I'm fearing the worst: I might be becoming conservative and pro-big business.
There was no way of determining the commercial success of the game over a year ago when contracts were drawn up. Had the game sales been mediocre, Hollick probably wouldn't have his panties up in a bunch about this. Instead, he's like every other greedy bastard out there who wants another buck. The guy got ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS for talking! I make $7.50 an hour serving food to the general public! No sympathies here. They all signed contracts saying they'd get paid this much a day and not make royalties or residuals. It should have been negotiated beforehand.
Yes, the game is worth much more than $100,000 and had they predicted such huge turnouts he should've been paid more, but that's just it: that's indeterminable! Now that it's a huge success, you can't expect Rockstar Games to willingly pass out free money to voice actors. Yes, some of the money goes into undeserving corporate pockets, but most of that money goes into research and development, to make bigger and better games so corporate pockets can be filled again LATER! Gotta think long-run in that industry...
I'm aware that voice actors do get screwed over in their business, but I also enjoyed Grand Theft Auto 3, when the main protagonist was SILENT. I have yet to play GTA4, but unless his voice is like a gift from the heaven's, I'm doubting it was extremely important to have it, minus making it easier to progress through the game's main storyline. Voice actors are good to have, but they DO NOT play as integral of role to the game as elements such as gameplay and graphics.
This is NOT a personal attack on Michael Hollick or any of the other voice actors. I agree they got screwed over, considering the success of the game, but their contract said nothing about residuals. It sucks, but you guys signed it. Even if it couldn't be negotiated, do you REALLY need more than $100,000, Mr. Hollick?
Sunday, April 13, 2008
RamblingSimon Rants About: Relationships
Ok, so it's not truly about 'relationships'. I'm not that much of an angsty, cold-hearted bastard to be claiming that relationships are stupid/shallow/designed to fill the needs of the individual/unnecessary...
Alight, I am enough of a bastard to claim that, but my true rant isn't about that. I'm really here to discuss an important matter that most girls need to learn: GET OVER YOUR GODDAMN EX-BOYFRIENDS!!!
In the last week, I've ran into not one, not two, but THREE girls who got dumped. Terribly sorry for them; being dumped does suck. However, these girls have been utterly depressed since their breakups. Now, at this point, you must be thinking, "RamblingSimon, you villainous twit! Are you saying these poor girls shouldn't be down-in-the-dumps from being dumped?!"
My response to it is that typically, these girls should have been allowed by me to be mopey and whiny and then find a shoulder for emotional support, but none of these three deserve the opportunity.
Focusing on two of the people, my managers at where I work, they got into big fights with their boyfriends and then the boyfriend split ON THE SAME WEEKEND! It's quite a tear-jerker, since they have been dating them for years. The part that boggles my mind is that BOTH OF THESE GIRLS bitched constantly about their boyfriends' douchebaggery for as long as I've worked with the two, and now the two girls can't sleep or eat. I've met one of the girls' boyfriend. He's a societal reject with pink hair, black clothes, no job, and bums money off my manager to support his drug habits. He ended up calling her one night and saying that he was with some other woman in their house. Her first reaction was that she wanted to kill.
Good instinct to have. Unfortunately, all of her anger was, for some reason, set upon the girl that was "coming to their house and stealing her man". How the fuck can someone's mind be warped enough to not feel angry at the guy who's used and abused you for years and tossed you aside for some piece of ass with three children?! Are both of these women just so psychologically fucked up that they need a complete asshole to run and dictate their lives?
Really, move on with your lives. It didn't work out. I know you think the guy is a sweetheart somewhere deep down, but if all of your friends are telling you that the guy is a no good loser, I'm not typically fond of masses of people trying to sway my opinion, but this might be one of those times that you should listen since your brain has turned to creamed corn.
Alight, I am enough of a bastard to claim that, but my true rant isn't about that. I'm really here to discuss an important matter that most girls need to learn: GET OVER YOUR GODDAMN EX-BOYFRIENDS!!!
In the last week, I've ran into not one, not two, but THREE girls who got dumped. Terribly sorry for them; being dumped does suck. However, these girls have been utterly depressed since their breakups. Now, at this point, you must be thinking, "RamblingSimon, you villainous twit! Are you saying these poor girls shouldn't be down-in-the-dumps from being dumped?!"
My response to it is that typically, these girls should have been allowed by me to be mopey and whiny and then find a shoulder for emotional support, but none of these three deserve the opportunity.
Focusing on two of the people, my managers at where I work, they got into big fights with their boyfriends and then the boyfriend split ON THE SAME WEEKEND! It's quite a tear-jerker, since they have been dating them for years. The part that boggles my mind is that BOTH OF THESE GIRLS bitched constantly about their boyfriends' douchebaggery for as long as I've worked with the two, and now the two girls can't sleep or eat. I've met one of the girls' boyfriend. He's a societal reject with pink hair, black clothes, no job, and bums money off my manager to support his drug habits. He ended up calling her one night and saying that he was with some other woman in their house. Her first reaction was that she wanted to kill.
Good instinct to have. Unfortunately, all of her anger was, for some reason, set upon the girl that was "coming to their house and stealing her man". How the fuck can someone's mind be warped enough to not feel angry at the guy who's used and abused you for years and tossed you aside for some piece of ass with three children?! Are both of these women just so psychologically fucked up that they need a complete asshole to run and dictate their lives?
Really, move on with your lives. It didn't work out. I know you think the guy is a sweetheart somewhere deep down, but if all of your friends are telling you that the guy is a no good loser, I'm not typically fond of masses of people trying to sway my opinion, but this might be one of those times that you should listen since your brain has turned to creamed corn.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
RamblingSimon Reviews: Life is Beautiful
For the longest time, this space has been used to show off my cynicism, my hatred for mankind, and my snobbish witty bastard side. I guess all good things do come to an end...
Don't worry, this post is the only thing being altered, not my oh-so-lovable personality or future rants. The reason this change is taking place is because tonight I saw the 1997 Italian film 'Life is Beautiful'. I was naturally skeptical when my roommate told me of this wonderful Holocaust film, mostly because he's a hardcore indie pop fan, rendering his opinion utterly useless. However, when I actually watched the film, something amazing happened...
I couldn't find anything to really hate about the film!
The first half of the film takes place in Italy in the beginning stages of WWII, focusing on Guido Orefice (Roberto Benigni - Oscar for Best Actor for said role), a Jewish man who moves into the city to open up a bookstore. On numerous occasions, he encounters a woman named Dora (Nicoletta Braschi), whom he admits his love for, but finds out at a big reception that she is to be wed. The first half of the film becomes a very slapstick romantic comedy of Guido trying to win over Dora, usually with amazingly clever ploys and expert timing.
The second half of the film takes place years later, when Guido and Dora have a son together, Joshua (Giorgio Cantarini), whom is about five years old at the time. Dora comes home on her son's birthday to discover Guido and Joshua were taken away to the concentration camps. Unlike most Holocaust films, this one takes a completely different angle with how the story is told inside the camps. The entire time Guido and Joshua are in the camp, Guido continuously makes up stories to protect his son from the hellish truth that they could be killed off at any moment. Guido's quick-wit explanations to Joshua, such as telling him they are playing a game and can win a brand new tank if they earn enough points by doing certain tasks, keeps the audience feeling that even the most depressing scenario can be happy and uplifting.
I might still be on the buzz from the experience, but I think that this is by far the best movie I have seen in the last year. The ending leaves you experiencing a range of emotions, but ultimately satisfied.
Let's put this simply: if you enjoy watching films at all, this is a must-see.
4.5/5
And just so I can be a bastard one last time: the film is in Italian, so there are subtitles, unless, of course, you watch it dubbed. However, if you are not a fan of subtitles or prefer an English dub to watch a film, I think you suck as a human being and deserve to be shot out of a cannon and into a brick wall at point-blank range.
Don't worry, this post is the only thing being altered, not my oh-so-lovable personality or future rants. The reason this change is taking place is because tonight I saw the 1997 Italian film 'Life is Beautiful'. I was naturally skeptical when my roommate told me of this wonderful Holocaust film, mostly because he's a hardcore indie pop fan, rendering his opinion utterly useless. However, when I actually watched the film, something amazing happened...
I couldn't find anything to really hate about the film!
The first half of the film takes place in Italy in the beginning stages of WWII, focusing on Guido Orefice (Roberto Benigni - Oscar for Best Actor for said role), a Jewish man who moves into the city to open up a bookstore. On numerous occasions, he encounters a woman named Dora (Nicoletta Braschi), whom he admits his love for, but finds out at a big reception that she is to be wed. The first half of the film becomes a very slapstick romantic comedy of Guido trying to win over Dora, usually with amazingly clever ploys and expert timing.
The second half of the film takes place years later, when Guido and Dora have a son together, Joshua (Giorgio Cantarini), whom is about five years old at the time. Dora comes home on her son's birthday to discover Guido and Joshua were taken away to the concentration camps. Unlike most Holocaust films, this one takes a completely different angle with how the story is told inside the camps. The entire time Guido and Joshua are in the camp, Guido continuously makes up stories to protect his son from the hellish truth that they could be killed off at any moment. Guido's quick-wit explanations to Joshua, such as telling him they are playing a game and can win a brand new tank if they earn enough points by doing certain tasks, keeps the audience feeling that even the most depressing scenario can be happy and uplifting.
I might still be on the buzz from the experience, but I think that this is by far the best movie I have seen in the last year. The ending leaves you experiencing a range of emotions, but ultimately satisfied.
Let's put this simply: if you enjoy watching films at all, this is a must-see.
4.5/5
And just so I can be a bastard one last time: the film is in Italian, so there are subtitles, unless, of course, you watch it dubbed. However, if you are not a fan of subtitles or prefer an English dub to watch a film, I think you suck as a human being and deserve to be shot out of a cannon and into a brick wall at point-blank range.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
RamblingSimon Rants About: The Person I Hate
Today, my hatred for one person has grown significantly.
Before moving off to college, I can honestly say I have never hated anyone. I've found people to be arrogant, annoying, rude, lazy, and make choices I didn't agree with, but, at most, I've only somewhat disliked them.
When I moved off to college, I met someone on my floor who I could not bare to tolerate. At first, she was okay, but since my roommate liked her, I had to hang around her more. One night, we ended up playing basketball together, and she just drove me absolutely nuts to the point that I had to walk away, else I would headbutt the sidewalk to ease the pain her voice caused my ears.
Since that point, I've never been able to say a nice thing about her. I'm pretty civil around her, but I've been known to subtly make comments that translate into, "I HATE YOU, I HATE YOU, I HATE YOU!!!"
A lot of this has subsided, but today, her Facebook status of her being sad because she chose friends who don't drink...it makes me hate her even more for caring about something so trivial over her friendships. It seems so superficial to me, really. She has no respect for her friends and their choices. It really bothers me.
Maybe it's a bit mean to hate people. Maybe 'hate' is too strong of word. I mean, it's not like I would feel better if something happened to her. I would probably show the same amount of sympathy as I would anyone else. Being around her just drives me crazy. She's unfunny, unintelligent, annoying, brutal on my ears and...just plain dull. Every time she opens her mouth, I want to stick something in it just so nothing can come out of it to make me think, "does she even listen to the things that she says?!" I'd hate her less if she had a redeeming quality.
Still looking for that...
Before moving off to college, I can honestly say I have never hated anyone. I've found people to be arrogant, annoying, rude, lazy, and make choices I didn't agree with, but, at most, I've only somewhat disliked them.
When I moved off to college, I met someone on my floor who I could not bare to tolerate. At first, she was okay, but since my roommate liked her, I had to hang around her more. One night, we ended up playing basketball together, and she just drove me absolutely nuts to the point that I had to walk away, else I would headbutt the sidewalk to ease the pain her voice caused my ears.
Since that point, I've never been able to say a nice thing about her. I'm pretty civil around her, but I've been known to subtly make comments that translate into, "I HATE YOU, I HATE YOU, I HATE YOU!!!"
A lot of this has subsided, but today, her Facebook status of her being sad because she chose friends who don't drink...it makes me hate her even more for caring about something so trivial over her friendships. It seems so superficial to me, really. She has no respect for her friends and their choices. It really bothers me.
Maybe it's a bit mean to hate people. Maybe 'hate' is too strong of word. I mean, it's not like I would feel better if something happened to her. I would probably show the same amount of sympathy as I would anyone else. Being around her just drives me crazy. She's unfunny, unintelligent, annoying, brutal on my ears and...just plain dull. Every time she opens her mouth, I want to stick something in it just so nothing can come out of it to make me think, "does she even listen to the things that she says?!" I'd hate her less if she had a redeeming quality.
Still looking for that...
Saturday, October 6, 2007
RamblingSimon Rants About: How to Spot a Zombie
In today’s world, zombies, also referred to, in some cases, as “The Living Dead”, are a problematic group for the human race, both in regards to an individual’s safety and the functionality of an entire society. A zombie comes into existence when a recently deceased person is brought back to life in the original body, although the means in which this is done is not entirely determined. What has been concluded from decades of research, however, is that these creatures are violent and hazardous to human life. Since zombies are reanimated human corpses, differentiating a living person and a member the living dead can be difficult sometimes. Thankfully, there are telltale signs that help distinguish if a human is really a zombie, many of which that have come to light for many people thanks to the films of zombie documenters such as George A. Romero.
The behavior of a zombie is very distinctive. Members of the living dead are known to be very aggressive, which has been cited in nearly every documentary covering the subject, such as Romero’s informative film, “Night of the Living Dead”. These creatures have an undying tendency to hunt for human flesh and brains. Rather than satisfying hunger, the reasoning for this seems to stem from more primitive instincts. The mind of a zombie seems to focus only on the hunt, losing all recollection of its former life, personality, and memories. It also seems to forget how to complete simple tasks. A common example is as basic as opening a door, which is replaced with the action of constant banging, hoping that instead, the door will break down or open automatically. As a zombie outbreak commences, zombies tend to only work individually at hunting down innocent bystanders. As time progresses, and more people become zombies (almost at an exponential rate), the zombies will start grouping together to form large hordes. The hordes, however, lack teamwork, and the zombies continue to work at an individual level.
One of the best ways to tell if someone is actually a zombie is to merely look at the person. No matter how long ago the person ‘changed over’, there are key elements in appearance that give the zombie away. One of the first noticeable changes is in the facial region. Members of the undead tend to show an expression depicted as “vacant, with a hint of sadness” in the 2004 mock-documentary film, “Shaun of the Dead”, noted in many cases due to a lack of conscious thought. Zombies also tend to have a change in eye color, going from normal pigmentation of the pupils to a more glassed-over look, to the point where the eyeball seems almost transparent. In overall appearance, a zombie will tend to look like a fresh human corpse, since, essentially, it is one. A zombie will also typically appear to be untidy and scruffy, as seen on their own clothing, stained mainly in dirt or the blood of their victims.
One issue of that has stereotyped the undead for years is their movement capabilities. Since the 1960’s and 70’s, with the release of Romero’s four documentaries over the living dead, it has been highly believed that all zombies are very sluggish and would only gain a small burst of energy when lunging at its human prey. Since then, however, there have been new citations that have proven this claim to be untrue. In 1983, the undead were shown to be able to move rhythmically and in perfect choreography with each other in the 14-minute mini-film, ‘Thriller’. In 2004, Zack Snyder released his own documentary, ‘Dawn of the Dead’. The zombies depicted in the film shared many elements that were cited in many of the early ‘Romero Zombies’. The one highly noticeable difference, however, was the zombies caught on camera in this film were far from ‘sluggish’. These zombies were capable of running long distances to catch up with their victims. A sort of evolution took place for the walking dead since the 1960’s and 70’s, almost as if they were trying to catch up with today’s fast-paced society.
The zombie menace could strike at any moment. They could already be among us. Being able to tell the difference between friend and foe is the best way to survive the outbreak. Knowing what the enemy looks and acts like is a key element to staying alive. The best ammunition in this case is knowledge.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
RamblingSimon Rants About: The Flying Car
Flight - the dream of any land dweller with an active imagination on a beautiful Saturday afternoon just staring at the blue sky, watching the birds go by, wanting to go where no man has gone before...well, go where Icarus had gone, but not melt your wax wings and plummet to Earth.
Wouldn't it be awesome to have a flying car!?! To be able to fly yourself? To be able to not feel the limitations that gravity has on you? To look like a total badass hovering above the ground as you pass everyone stuck in a traffic jam on the express lane?
Too bad. I'm here to crush your childhood fantasies.
It'd be nice to own one of these luxuries, but let us think realistically for one moment. First, safety. Now, I can guess that at least one or two of my readers have been in a motor vehicle on the road before. Just a hunch. Anyways, we are always told to drive defensively. You know why? It's because you are supposed to assume that everyone around you is a terrible driver. If you make an hour commute every single day, you are almost guaranteed actually spotting one of these people. People are naturally stupid and irresponsible. Give a person a new axis to roam on and you are giving the bad drivers the upperhand to kill. Get a drunk teen in a flying car, the kid is gonna wind up in the second story of someone's home. Nobody's going to be safe.
Secondly, regulation. Pretty much, you are putting the public on free roam. How can you possibly keep order without a systematic approach to keeping the airway in check? It works for airlines because flights can easily schedule when they are coming and going. A metropolitan area, on the other hand, would be a bit trickier. By rush hour, everyone is trying to travel and there's no way you can get from Point A to Point B without a case of Flying Rage.
Lastly, cost. Let's ring up the bill, shall we? A flying car would prolly cost around $100k when first made 'AFFORDABLE' to the general public. After that, you have to buy fuel, which it would use more of to propel it vertically, and at a much faster rate than a standard automobile. These are only DIRECT costs! Don't forget you are still a taxpayer who owes the federal government money to be able to regulate air transportation with new construction and outfitting the police force with both ground and air vehicles.
Yeah, reality sucks. Let's go back to what we were thinking of...
Ahh....
Wouldn't it be awesome to have a flying car!?! To be able to fly yourself? To be able to not feel the limitations that gravity has on you? To look like a total badass hovering above the ground as you pass everyone stuck in a traffic jam on the express lane?
Too bad. I'm here to crush your childhood fantasies.
It'd be nice to own one of these luxuries, but let us think realistically for one moment. First, safety. Now, I can guess that at least one or two of my readers have been in a motor vehicle on the road before. Just a hunch. Anyways, we are always told to drive defensively. You know why? It's because you are supposed to assume that everyone around you is a terrible driver. If you make an hour commute every single day, you are almost guaranteed actually spotting one of these people. People are naturally stupid and irresponsible. Give a person a new axis to roam on and you are giving the bad drivers the upperhand to kill. Get a drunk teen in a flying car, the kid is gonna wind up in the second story of someone's home. Nobody's going to be safe.
Secondly, regulation. Pretty much, you are putting the public on free roam. How can you possibly keep order without a systematic approach to keeping the airway in check? It works for airlines because flights can easily schedule when they are coming and going. A metropolitan area, on the other hand, would be a bit trickier. By rush hour, everyone is trying to travel and there's no way you can get from Point A to Point B without a case of Flying Rage.
Lastly, cost. Let's ring up the bill, shall we? A flying car would prolly cost around $100k when first made 'AFFORDABLE' to the general public. After that, you have to buy fuel, which it would use more of to propel it vertically, and at a much faster rate than a standard automobile. These are only DIRECT costs! Don't forget you are still a taxpayer who owes the federal government money to be able to regulate air transportation with new construction and outfitting the police force with both ground and air vehicles.
Yeah, reality sucks. Let's go back to what we were thinking of...
Ahh....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)