The Treasure In The Mentzer Basic D&D Rulebook Adventure

The Treasure In The Mentzer Basic D&D Rulebook Adventure 

It was the Tom Moldvay Basic Dungeons & Dragons rulebook that got me into the game. Though I owned some of the advanced books, I never moved beyond basic. To me, the simplistic nature of those rules was all me and the group I played with needed.

I think the Moldvay book was a better Basic book to work with than the Frank Mentzer version. I always respected that Frank took it all the way from Basic to Immortal. Five boxed sets, and I own them all. There's another thing I liked about Frank's version.

To teach new people how to play the game, Frank actually had them rolling up a character and adventuring in a solo quest that he created in the book. You were playing before you knew the rules. As it unfolded, you learned things about the statistics and about the game itself. That was brilliant, in my opinion.

With the cleric Aleena and the wizard Bargle, we had a couple of characters to draw our attention. Aleena taught us about the value of a cleric and got us to care about her. Bargle gave us a bad guy to hate. 

Both characters were immortalized when Bargle ultimately killed Aleena. This is the way Frank meant it to be, although other people at TSR brought Aleena back. With her death came the Kill Bargle meme.

There's another thing that interested me about the little solo adventure. There was the treasure. Let's not kid ourselves. There might be a quest that leads our characters into the dungeon, but we're looking to grab the loot. Beyond Aleena and Bargle was something else of interest to me.

When I first did this adventure, I discovered the treasure chest room from the secret door. You could peer through the crack and see the treasure chest, but you couldn't enter. That moment made me wonder. What was in that treasure chest? Were there any magic items?

I don't think I ever got an answer to the treasure chest question, and that was enough to inspire my imagination. If you come at it from the other way, you do get to the treasure, but there are other issues to deal with. There's a trap.

You learn very quickly that there's a lethality to this game. A trap can take you out in one fell swoop. In this case, it's a blade. Frank gives you an out. If you have the healing potion, you can drink it.

There's another issue you're going to deal with here. It's that pesky rust monster. To get to the treasure chest, you have to get past that annoying creature. You may just lose your weapon and your armor in that encounter.

If you survive the trap and get the treasure chest, you find that you get enough money to buy yourself better equipment. The problem is you have to drag that treasure chest past the rust monster. 

You find out that even though the pest isn't a threat to your safety, it is a threat to your loot. It will disintegrate the treasure chest and all the coins within it. 

Frank manages to introduce you to some of the different dangers you will see in a game. He also teaches you about other skill sets. You're playing a fighter, but you learn where a cleric or even a thief might come in handy.

The Frank Mentzer solo adventure in that rule book captured our imaginations. I thought he did a good job with basic as well as all the books that followed. Throughout the '80s, I enjoyed the game before life took me another directions.

I'm glad I got to meet Frank at Gencon in 2007. He's a genuinely good guy and was an important part of TSR back in those days. In all honesty, they could have used a guy like Frank to introduce people to the newer version of the game. They've never quite done basic rules like they did back then. At least not in the last 25 years or so. 

 

 Mentzer Basic D&D Rules

In Appreciation Of Ghostbusters

In Appreciation Of Ghostbusters

In recent years, I've written about Ghostbusters 2016. I liked that movie, though I intentionally avoided it when it first came out. I admit that I felt like it was sort of disrespectful to the franchise that they made it an all-woman cast, rather than trying to go back to the original cast and continue their storyline in some way. That situation was rectified with Ghostbuster Afterlife.

That controversy doesn't need to be included in this column. The fact is, if we didn't have Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters 2, we wouldn't be talking about anything that followed. The second movie gets a little bit of disrespect, but I find that I enjoyed it just as much as the first movie. The movies were a fresh take on ghost movies, and I liked them.

Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis wrote the script, and there was a lot in there. By now, we've heard all of the bits of interesting trivia. There's the controversy of Huey Lewis and The News being asked to do the theme song of the first movie but being unavailable. Then, we have the theme song, written by Ray Parker Jr, which became very popular. It sounds eerily like I Want A New Drug by Huey Lewis and The News, and of course there was the legal fallout there.

Originally, John Belushi was going to star in this movie as Dr. Peter Venkman. He and Aykroyd had a few movie projects planned, but John's death put an end to that. Bill Murray came in and did a good job, but I think his love/hate relationship with this franchise is why we didn't get the third movie that we should have gotten. He and Ramis had a parting of the ways, unfortunately. I'm glad that they were able to reconnect before Harold died.

One of the people set to star in this movie was Eddie Murphy. They were definitely going for name recognition. Unfortunately, Eddie was a bit busy. It is said that the script for Winston Zeddemore was reduced just a little bit as Ernie Hudson was brought in to play the role. I feel Ernie did a good job as the "everyman" character who reacts to all of this stuff. I like his line in there about if they pay him enough, he'll believe anything. 

You've got Ray, Egon and Peter, and Winston comes in as the fourth Ghostbuster. The three scientists come up with a way to detect ghosts, but also a way to remove them from the premises. I don't think we'd seen much of this concept expressed in entertainment.

 

There was a Sunday morning kids show of the same name before this franchise became a thing, and that's why the cartoon based on this movie went with the name The Real Ghostbusters. They went ahead and tied up the legal issues before they became a problem.

So, the three scientists realize that they can go into business removing ghosts from wherever they are haunting and make the place safe. The fun comes when they realize there is a bigger reason for all of the hauntings, and it goes back to something that happened in the past. I think the reason this movie was such a hit was because nobody had seen anything quite like it. This excited moviegoers, and we all had to be there to see it in the theater. 

Everything didn't have to be a big blockbuster back then. I remember one measuring stick for the success of a movie back in those days was whether they made $100 million. If they did, it was a big hit. This movie was given about a $30 million budget and made nearly $300 million at the box office. With that kind of success, of course there had to be a second movie.

Ivan Reitman returned to be the director and producer, and the whole cast was back. This included Sigourney Weaver as Dana Barrett, Rick Moranis as Lewis Tully and Anne Potts as Janine Meinitz. They had a little bit more money to play with as the budget was estimated between $30 million and $40 million, but this time they made a little less at $215 million. Still, it was another success.

Loaded with special effects, good music and excitement, both of these movies captured the attention of the moviegoers from start to finish. Whether they were defeating Gozer in the first movie or Vigo The Carpithian in the second movie, all while being threatened by the local government, you were on their side.

This isn't your basic movie review. Most of us have already seen this movie. If you haven't, why haven't you? I love them both. They were lots of fun, and I was ready for a third movie. Sequels were becoming a thing in the 1980s, and they got past the stigma of sequels often ruining everything. We started seeing sequels to franchises that weren't so bad. Despite the fact that the second movie here gets a negative rap, it wasn't bad.

However, Murray didn't see any reason to come back to do another movie. Obviously, the cast didn't want to do it without him. Ramis and Aykroyd would occasionally write something with the hopes that they could get everybody back together again. We waited and waited until we got the closest thing we were going to get to a sequel with the Ghostbusters video game in 2009.

The original stars came back to reprise their roles as voice actors in the game that had a story. The four were basically training the new recruit, who would be a part of the team. At various times, you'd be working with one of them, and it had a story that unfolded much like one of the movies. It was actually quite enjoyable. In much the same way as the Back To The Future video game of around that time, many regard it as an unofficial sequel in the franchise.

With the passing of Harold Ramis, the idea was pretty much dropped to make a movie centering around these characters training new ones. The studio opted to give us the all-female cast in 2016, which in my opinion was not a bad movie at all. It's biggest flaw might be that it's seen as a slap in the face to the first two movies, especially in light of some of the jokes that were used. This included having the character played by Bill Murray being skeptical and ultimately flying out the window of a building to his death.

I think that maybe people went a little bit overboard in their hatred of that movie. Some of it comes from the passion of people wanting to see the original cast or something that was a continuation of what had begun with the first two movies. Ultimately, we got that with Ghostbusters Afterlife, which did a little bit better at the box office than 2016. It's seen in some people's eyes as having "saved" the franchise.

To me, art is in the eye of the beholder. A movie is good if the one viewing it thinks it's good. It doesn't matter whether the critics like it or not. If you're sitting there watching a movie and you are entertained by it, then you're not wrong to say you watched a good movie. 

 

I will say that Ghostbusters 1 and 2 were both good movies. I know I'm short on details about the stories, but if you haven't seen the movies, what are you waiting for? Get them and prepare to be entertained.

If Ghostbusters Needs Help With Another Sequel, There's Somebody They Can Call

If Ghostbusters Needs Help With Another Sequel, There's Somebody They Can Call

There's a question about whether Ghostbusters Frozen Empire will do well enough to justify another sequel. It was great seeing so many of the original cast in this movie, but there was so much going on with the movie itself that it lost the attention of the people.

The critics didn't give it a very favorable review, because the movie couldn't quite decide what it wanted to be. Some people have even suggested that they tried to cram a full Ghostbusters series or two or three movies into one, and what they got was unsatisfying to the viewers.

When Jason Reitman directed Ghostbusters Afterlife, he was making a love letter to the first two movies. This was seen as a sequel, but also a slap in the face to fans of Ghostbusters 2016. Ghostbusters 2016 was not a continuation but a reboot, and it did what a Ghostbusters movie should do.

The reality is Ghostbusters 2016 gets so much hate for political reasons. Some will point to the fact that they went all female with the cast as an issue. I felt that way initially but have become a fan of the movie after giving it a chance 2 years after its release. It wasn't the best Ghostbusters movie but it was still not bad.

When you look at comedies, not every joke lands. You hope that more of your jokes land in a comedy than not, but not every joke will make everybody laugh. There were laughs to be had in Ghostbusters 2016, and it offered the things you would expect from this franchise. Because it didn't succeed at the box office, it was seen as a failure.

Some of it could have been avoided had Paul Feig listened to the people who told him what he needed to do. Paul took the movie over budget and relied a little bit too much on improvisation. Therefore, Ghostbusters 2016 didn't appeal to as big a market as they would have liked.

Likewise, Ghostbusters Frozen Empire isn't quite appealing to a big enough market either. If they wish to keep the Ghostbusters franchise intact, they're going to have to right the ship and come up with something that can bring the fans together. There is a controversial option that could be used.

These days, the multiverse has been used in other franchises. When you think about it, the Ghostbusters franchise lends itself much easier to that concept. What if, the prime Ghostbusters universe we know from the first movie somehow crossed paths with the Ghostbusters 2016 universe?

Impossible, you say? Whether you are a fan of that movie or not, finding a way to make it acceptable will get fans of 2016 on board with something new and do a lot to restore good faith. With the proper writing, it can work, because the ladies who were in the 2016 movie are good actresses.

I'm spitballing an idea here, but I would suggest that Ray, played by Dan Aykroyd, and Holtz, played by Kate McKinnon, could somehow connect as both are researching a baddie that is threatening both universes. You can go from there. If you wanted to throw a further link between the two, Holtz could somehow be related to the Egon Spangler from her universe.

Is it perfect? Maybe not. Would this be an idea that they'll entertain? I doubt it. However, I think they could come up with something that would be satisfying to the groups in both camps. Done right, it could be the biggest Ghostbusters hit they've had in years. Come up with a good budget, a good story and stay on target. With marketing, it may just be the hit they need to keep things going. 

Beyoncé Makes A Country Song, Country Stars Come Unhinged

Beyoncé Makes A Country Song, Country Stars Come Unhinged

I don't have my finger on the pulse of the pop music or country music industry. I listen to stuff and I know what I like. I've always felt that Beyoncé has an amazing voice. Going back to her days in Destiny's Child, I've appreciated her music.

Since I'm on X quite a bit, I see a popular meme that recycles. Eliminate one artist from the list. Usually they've got Michael Jackson, Prince, Whitney Houston, Madonna and Beyoncé. This is a meme designed to mock Beyoncé. She's an amazing talent, but the other four defined pop music in the '80s.

I can't blame music artists for redefining themselves or taking creative chances. You can feel like you're in a rut creatively, like you're making the same album over and over again. 

When an artist redefines themselves, as Madonna did through the years, there's a risk of fans not accepting them. These days, Madonna takes flak for her age. That seems silly to me.

Beyoncé decided to make country music, and certain artists are making it about race. No music genre should belong to any one group. I'm into Latin Pop, though I don't speak the language. I would love to see one of the popular American artists take a shot at this with respect to the genre.

Beyoncé made a song called Texas Hold 'Em from her Cowboy Carter album and it's not bad. It's definitely country sounding. To me, country music took a sharp left turn from what I liked about it years ago. It's not exactly country to me. They put an element of pop into it, so it lends itself to artists like Beyoncé coming in and doing their thing too.

I think white artists throwing a fit over Beyoncé are as bad as black artists getting upset when white people rap. People generally do these things in respect of the music and because they want to create something in that genre. I think that's the case with Beyoncé.

You don't have to like what Beyoncé is doing. I think it's a pretty good song. If you don't like it, you can always move on to something you do like.

In Praise Of Doraleus And Associates

 

In Praise Of Doraleus And Associates

If you happen to be a fantasy role playing game enthusiasts or happen to enjoy animation with witty dialogue, then you might just enjoy Doraleous And Associates. I feel like I'm a little bit late to the party, but I discovered this cartoon recently. It began back in 2012, created by Hank And Jed Movie Productions and had a total of 50 episodes.

It's a classic medieval fantasy type of show. Doraleous is the brave Warrior who leads the group. Neebs is an Elven Rogue with a bit of an attitude. At one point, he even gets fired for not obeying orders, and yet he has to be either the luckiest or smartest character on the show. Mirdon is the absent-minded but still very effective when you need him to be Wizard. Then there is Drak, the loyal Dwarven Warrior. These three are the main associates of Doraleous, but there is also Sir Walken, based on a very familiar actor of the same name, and the Barbarian Bruf.

Doraleous is based on your typical Warrior. He's good of heart and out to protect the realms. He always endeavors to do the right thing, and he's hoping that he and his associates might get paid. It seems like most of the time, things don't quite work out that way, but the group seems to have success most of the time, even if it doesn't work out exactly as planned.

The dialogue is clever and there are hidden meanings thrown in throughout the episodes. Though I don't necessarily believe this is a political cartoon, there are times when people will assume that it is. Really, the dialogue will have you laughing at times in every episode. It's all about the dialogue. What I notice is you'll have Doraleous explaining the plan, whatever that might be, and oftentimes, Neebs is the one coming up with an alternative. Mirdon is all too quick to side with Neebs or just say something silly.

From the comments you'll see for each video, many people have a negative view towards Neebs. To me, this is the character that makes this show the most entertaining. He's such a jerk sometimes, although he isn't necessarily trying to be a jerk. It's just who he is. He does have a heart, and you can see at times that he has a great amount of respect for Doraleous. He just doesn't agree with the orders or thinks he can do it better. Oftentimes, he's right. I have noticed a very striking similarity between the character Neebs and a certain actor, although it's not as in your face as the Sir Walken character.

We all know the classic King Arthur tale. The Lady Of The Lake bestows the sword upon him. Well, there is a similar type of theme throughout this series. The Lady Of The Lake in this case is a bit of a troll. She delights in offering up the sword to those who seek it, but it never quite works out for any of them. There are a few moments between her and Dotaleous. He came so close to actually getting it in the end, but you have to see how it turned out for him. If you give this series a chance, you might have to suppress the desire to binge watch all 50 episodes, which generally run between 4 and 8 minutes long.

I don't want to give away all of the plots and clever references from the show, but there is a kingdom that needed the assistance of Doraleous and Associates, or so Doralious thought. They were the Meh Kingdom. Ultimately, Doraleous walked away in disgust. I'd like to think that this particular kingdom went down, but somehow I can just picture the invaders doing the same thing.

There is also the Geigh Kingdom. The idea is to see how many puns and cliches they could stick into the episodes involving the people of this kingdom, although there's no indication that this kingdom is made up of people who happen to be gay. They were invaded by the Giopi's. Yes, you get the picture, and people of a political bent might be offended or amused, but this was not political in the least.

What made it amusing to me was when Neebs happened to show up when the Giopi's showed up to invade the Geigh's. Doraleous was so fed up with the Elf's antics that he fired him. Dejected by being dismissed, Neebs took on another profession, broom salesman. He knocked on the gates to the Geigh Kingdom, but he didn't want in. He simply wanted to sell them some brooms. What's interesting is you see how Doraleous does care about the Elf, even with him being out of the group. He tries to usher the Elf into the castle, but all the Elf really wants to do is sell brooms.

Once Neebs walks away, knowing he can't make a sale here, everybody is watching him from the top of the castle walls. Neebs, either courageously or foolishly, walks up to the leader of the Giopi army. He's trying to sell him brooms. As luck would have it, he makes the sale. And it's funny watching how this whole thing plays out. Was it all Neebs' plan to save the kingdom? Who really knows, but you have to see the episode to believe it. One of the lines of this episode is probably one of the most quoted in the series. It's a play on a line from the movie 300. As the Geigh Kingdom's soldiers prepare to defended themselves, the leader yells, "This is Geigh!"

Sadly, after the 49th episode, the creators stopped making new episodes. From what I have uncovered, they were unsuccessful in a campaign to raise money, and even with monetization, they're not getting enough compensation from YouTube to make it worthwhile. This is with between 300,000 and 500,000 views on most of their videos. It makes me sad to realize that there won't be any new episodes coming, or at least none are planned. There's so much more entertainment that could be offered up by Doraleous And Associates as they attempt to save the world from various evildoers.

At least we still have the episodes that were created to enjoy. About a year ago, they created a 50th episode, sparking some hope that they would come back. It was a one-off deal, but I guess you never know. You can look up Doraleous And Associates on YouTube and see for yourself. If you're a fan of fantasy role-playing or just witty dialogue in animation, as I mentioned above, you owe it to yourself to check this out. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

 

 

First Episode - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg1mxlzEP3Q

I was a pretend DJ

I was a pretend DJ

I remember as a kid having one of those record players in my room. I don't think I owned a record, but my mother let me listen to her albums and her 45s. There was a lot of stuff from the '60s and a little bit from the '70s. I remember The Beatles Revolution and The Beach Boys Help Me Rhonda. The Trashmen The Bird and on one of those compilation albums Speak To The Sky by Rick Springfield.

When I started to develop my taste in music, I didn't have the budget to buy albums all the time, but I could buy 45s. I built up a big collection. Though those records were scratched, I had them all until I lost my home. Back in those days, disco was a big part of what I listened to.

So I had things like Cheryl Lynn Got To Be Real, Andy Gibb Shadow Dancing and I Just Want To Be Your Everything. Hot Chocolate Everyone's A Winner. A bunch of disco to choose from and rock started working its way into my collection too. Foreigner Head Games, Eddie Money Maybe I'm A Fool and Styx Babe.

I'm not sure if the first album I bought was the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack, the Grease soundtrack, Donna Summer Live or The Village People album I got, but I had them. I also got K-Tel compilation albums. Remember K-Tel? All the top hits on one album for $6.99.

One day I just decided I wanted to pretend I was a DJ. This is probably before I did another one of our rights of passage back then. Do you remember taking your tape recorder and sticking it right next to the stereo speaker to record that hit song from the radio? Then, I got that stereo that allowed me to just record directly. Mix tapes became a thing. Nowadays, you get on YouTube or whatever streaming platform for whatever song you want. 

I'd do the DJ thing. I'd introduce whatever the song was. I remember my calling letters at one time were KBIX. I called it KBIX rock and roll radio 99.9. I was playing the hits. One right after the other, I'd keep them coming. Here is Sister Sledge with We Are Family. That was the Pittsburgh Pirates theme song back in those days as I recall.

I think I even bought the Bee Gees Spirits Having Flown album, and I loved Too Much Heaven. It's one of my favorite songs by them. At that time, we'd go roller skating on Thursdays. The cheap night, and we'd do two sessions. Me and my sister used to sneak in for the second session. If we got away with it, there was a hot pretzel and a soda in it for us with the money we saved.

I had a lot of fun playing my favorite songs and could go the whole day sometimes. At some point, I started listening to the b sides of these records and started liking those songs even more. On the b side of Babe there was I'm Okay. Another Dennis DeYoung song. There was Do What You like on the b side of Head Games by Foreigner. There was Life For The Taking on the b side of Maybe I'm A Fool by Eddie Money.

I remember Pablo Cruise had a song called Don't Want To Live Without It. It was an okay song, but I really love Raging Fire. I'd put it on the player, "Here's a new hit from Pablo Cruise," and introduce Raging Fire. I thought I was cool. I could picture the DJs playing those hits that I loved, influencing my musical taste. As I've grown up, I started appreciating all kinds of music, even Latin pop. Progressive rock is my favorite.

At some point, the heart was taken out of a lot of these radio stations. There are still some stations that exist that allow the DJ to play what they choose, but most of the time it's focus tested. Nothing different gets on there. It's part of the problem with the music business. The way music is distributed got screwed up, and it killed artist's desires to make new albums. It's all about touring now. Record stores went by the wayside as well.

Why wouldn't terrestrial radio go the same way? Now, you have satellite radio with specific genres. There are whole stations devoted to individual artists, but it lacks the excitement of hearing your favorite song come on the radio back in those days. Or hearing Casey Kasem's Top 20 countdown. I used to do my pretend countdown too.

As kids, we come up with all kinds of things to entertain ourselves. Playing pretend is a good one. My days as a pretend DJ were a lot of fun. There was lots of good music to play back then. I'm not so old that I will say there's not good music today, but it doesn't quite compare to the music of the 1970s and 1980s that I enjoyed as a kid. I suppose we're all biased that way.

My Response To David Spuria The Real Music Observer Regarding Kansas

My Response To David Spuria The Real Music Observer Regarding Kansas

I have to give credit to David Spuria. He found a niche in talking about classic and melodic rock and roll. No bells and whistles to what he does. He just gets in front of a camera and speaks his mind. Some people don't like that. David has even gotten political, which I'm sure annoys people more.

I don't always agree with what he says, but I respect his opinions. Sometimes I think he's taken stances to stir the pot and brings in negativity on subjects, like beating a dead horse. Sometimes I'm on board 100% with what he says. I agree with him on the Little River Band and Dennis DeYoung, for example.

David was reporting on Phil Ehart having a heart attack. He's taken the stance recently that Kansas should just quit, and I'm really baffled by his attitude. I've watched footage of the band playing some of their vintage stuff, and they are as tight as ever. Furthermore, singer Ronnie Platt is a good fit for this band.

When you're making music as good as Kansas is these days, why quit? I'm aware that with Phil sidelined, there's only one original member and another member who's been with the band for 40 years. However, they do a good job of representing the music, and the fans like to hear a faithful rendition of that music.

In the last decade or so, they've done two albums of original material, The Prelude Implicit and The Absence Of Presence. These albums hearken back to their sound of the 1970s. That's impressive, considering they didn't have Kerry Livgren writing the material, nor did they have Steve Walsh or Robby Steinhardt singing it.

The new music is good, and furthermore, Ronnie sounds good as the lead vocalist. David seems to be a big fan of Jerome Mazza. I don't disagree. Jerome sounds more like Steve Walsh than anybody they could have put in the band. 

When Walsh retired a decade ago, they made an offer to John Elefante. Phil tends to go back to people who have been with the band when he puts somebody else in that position. He's the one who has guided this band from its inception, and he knows what Kansas is. He knows the sound.

They did auditions, and the people who wanted it bad enough showed up on time. It's my understanding that Jerome missed by a day and the band agreed to Ronnie as the singer. He'd been working in a cover band in the Midwest, and he did decent versions of Kansas hits.

I think Phil is a stand-up guy, and a deal is a deal. He was working with the people who made it to the audition in time. Had Jerome made it on time, I wouldn't be surprised if he would be lead singing for the band now. So, when I hear David commenting on the lead singer position, it would be nice if he got his facts straight on why Jerome isn't the singer.

I like that Jerome has worked with Steve since Steve left the band. Black Butterfly is an amazing album, and Jerome's contributions make it that much better. I wouldn't be against him lead singing the band, but he's not in it. Ronnie is. I support Ronnie as the lead singer. When I hear him sing, as a long time Kansas fan, I like it.

David also points out the impressive catalog of music this band has made through the years and gives respect to the other members in this video. I appreciate his acknowledgment that Kansas should be in the Hall of Fame now. This is the reason I like the guy even though I'm disagreeing with him here on a couple of points.

David and I probably agree in our frustration with the way the music industry isn't nurturing bands who play music in the style of those aging bands that are out there on the road. We could have new music by younger artists right now that we'd enjoy, but the music industry is just not in the place they were when those other bands were coming up. They don't promote it anymore.

In any case, we have to understand that these classic rock bands that we enjoy sometimes have to replace lead singers. It disappoints me in certain cases, such as Dennis DeYoung, when they're not allowed back in a band and could make the band that much better. With Kansas, it's gotten to the point where only Phil and Rich Williams wanted to tour.

The others had a chance to keep it going and moved on for various reasons, and that was their choice. Phil is the one who can tell us who Kansas is. He didn't write the hits, but he always knew what sound he intended to present to the fans. I trust him when he puts other artists in this band that it will stay faithful to the Kansas sound.

I would like David to keep this in mind when he's talking about the lead singer of Kansas. Don't make it sound like Kansas didn't want Jerome as the lead singer when he didn't make the audition in time. You can not like Ronnie singing. Vocalist likes and dislikes are a matter of preference.

I also disagree with David when he says the band should quit. The sad state of music right now is such that classic rock bands are touring because people want to hear the hits. When certain members can't do it, resourceful bands will replace them with other people who can deliver the goods. 

Some bands, such as Journey and Foreigner, manage to deliver good vocals with singers who are not the originals. Fans want to pay money to see them and have fun. If that wasn't the case, these old bands wouldn't be doing what they're doing.

I get it. When you get old, people want you to retire and just get in your rocking chair. Some of these people aren't going to do that. Some say that when you decide to get in that rocking chair, you basically give up on living. I'm not going to go speak against any of these bands who do what they love, especially when fans are willing to see them play live.

David's also another one who is a critic of Paul McCartney and his vocals. Yet, when Paul goes on stage, the fans are singing with him. He takes them back in time. They know they're getting Paul McCartney in his '80s, and yet they want to see him and have fun. That's what it's all about.

Most importantly, I'm grateful that Phil Ehart has kept Kansas alive all these years. I know it's taken a toll on his health, and his drum tech, Eric Holmquist, has been there with the band throughout the last tour to do some of the shows. My hope is that Phil has a speedy and full recovery and will be able to get back on the stage again, should that be his desire.

However, I also trust him with this band. He's got a good idea what their sound should be. If Rich decides to retire and feels like no longer touring, I would trust Phil to put a band on tour who gives us a show worthy of the name Kansas. He's done that for 50 years, and I have no reason to doubt him now.

 

 

Thoughts On The 2024 Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame Nominations

Thoughts On The 2024 Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame Nominations

I try to avoid discussion about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame because I consider it a farce. I feel like the only way to really honor true rock and roll at this point is to create a new Hall of Fame. What they call the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame these days should be the Music Hall of Fame. 

Looking at this year's list of nominees, I can make a case for a Music Hall of Fame, but not really a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I think Sinead O'Connor is getting a sympathy nomination since she passed away. I don't think her body of work really deserves it. Sade had some good music for sure, but I think of her more as adult contemporary.

Mariah Carey and Mary J Blige are both top-notch artists, but I wouldn't put either one of them in the category of rock and roll. Mariah has one of the best voices in music, and Mary has made some top-notch music through the years. They should probably put both of them in a Soul or Pop Music Hall of Fame.

A Tribe Called Quest and Eric B and Rakim? No. Just no. It's ridiculous to even have these groups nominated. Jane's Addiction? Not trying to be negative here, but when I listen to a lot of '90s alternative rock, it makes me want to grab a noose and hang myself. But that's what the '90s rock was all about. It was a downer vibe. I wouldn't vote for the group, but they were certainly popular in that decade.

Dave Matthews Band is definitely non-threatening '90s music. Some catchy music for sure. There are so many bands that still haven't been nominated that can play circles around them that it kind of bothers me that these guys are getting nominated. However, I guess they fit the genre.

Kool and The Gang and Cher? Cher has been around long enough that I certainly can't disagree with her nomination. I wouldn't disagree with her being elected. I do have respect for the artist. She's had staying power, and the stuff she was doing in 70s was rocking. Kool and The Gang had some very catchy music. Some of it became popular at sporting events and I love the group. I won't object to them getting in, but I don't consider them rock and roll.

I remember back in the 1990s people were kind of comparing the Oasis vibe to that of The Beatles. I wasn't really into the band, but I kind of understood where people were coming from when they said that. I don't think these guys really care about being nominated, but they were pretty big there for a while. I would understand their induction.

I will make this point repeatedly because I think it has merit. Can somebody tell me why Styx, Kansas, REO Speedwagon, 38 Special and Boston aren't even getting nominated? If you're one of those smart asses who thinks you've got a legitimate reason, go ahead and spout it. Your opinion is as irrelevant as a fart in the wind. It'll annoy people the moment it happens, but it has no substance and will just fade away.

Peter Frampton and Foreigner are worthy nominations. I don't think I'd nominate Frampton over the snubs I mentioned above, but Frampton Comes Alive is probably in the Top 5 all-time greatest live albums. You couldn't escape Foreigner in the late '70s and early '80s. They sold millions of records and made music that stood the test of time. I think these are two of the most worthy of the nominations this year.

Last, but certainly not least is Ozzy Osbourne. I don't think there's anybody around who could dispute that he belongs in there. He's already in with Black Sabbath, and deservedly so. However, when Ozzy was counted out after being kicked out of the band, he released two of his greatest solo albums, Diary of a Madman and Blizzard of Oz. The rest is history. I don't think anybody expects Ozzy to not get in this year.

I think us melodic rock fans are keeping a close eye on this deal and watching what happens with Foreigner. We know they belong in the hall. However, the Hall of Fame likes to do this little thing where they give us fans the middle finger. If they turn around and put Eric B and Rakim in and snub Foreigner, I don't think any of us would be surprised.

My opinion of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame hasn't changed. It's irrelevant. It's about politics. It's like they're clicking off check-boxes and not really looking at body of work. There's a whole genre of top-notch, talented artists from the '70s and '80s who in some cases haven't even been nominated once. A few were nominated and didn't get in.

When I see something called The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame putting rap artists and disco groups in and ignoring those bands, I want to know how anybody who represents this supposed institution can look us in the eyes and tell us that it's a real Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? If they can, I don't think they have much integrity.

About the only thing the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is good for is giving us content creators something to complain about when they screw it up each year. Some of them are making the most of that. At this point, it's become a tradition, albeit a ridiculous one.

Movie Review: High School High Starring Jon Lovitz

Movie Review: High School High Starring Jon Lovitz

Jon Lovitz was one of my favorite stars of Saturday Night Live during what I consider to be the second best era of the show. He played characters like Tommy Flanagan (the pathological liar), Mephistopheles (wearing a silly devil's outfit), Master Thespian, Hanukkah Harry and other funny characters.

In 1996, Jon starred in a comedy called High School High. He plays the son of the head master of a prestigious school. Nobody respects him there, because they think his dad has given him his opportunities. He really wants to teach kids, and he's an idealist.

He takes a job at a lousy high school called Marion Barry High. It has a terrible graduation rate and is prone to violence and drug abuse. He's gonna change that, and he is so naive in how he goes about it. He really cares about these students, and through a few funny moments, he wins their respect.

He also has a girlfriend, who is his co-worker, played by Tia Carrere. Unbeknownst to him, the principle of the school, played by Louise Fletcher, is running illegal drugs through the school. She doesn't like him from the start and conspires to sabotage an important test for the students. He had worked very hard to prepare them for it.

I don't want to give away all of the plot, but I thought it was a funny movie. What I like about Jon's character in this movie is how hopeful he is. He just believes everything is gonna be okay and always tries. He also believes in the best in people. He is told the students are a lost cause, and he doesn't believe that at all.

Jon pops up in many movies, usually in supporting roles. He still manages to be memorable in many of them. I'd almost say this is his best one, but at the least, I'd put it in the top five. He was also good in City Slickers 2 and Trapped In Paradise. This is a comedy that has heart, and I love comedy that has heart.

Trailer for the movie: www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLf2PusBhFQ

AI George Carlin Stand Up Video A Warning Of Things To Come

AI George Carlin Stand Up Video A Warning Of Things To Come

I happened to be minding my own business, scrolling through BlueSky, when I saw somebody post about a George Carlin comedy special. This was from a variety online article. The comedy special was called,  George Carlin: I'm Glad That I'm Dead.

This special was generated entirely by AI. The voice is a little bit off, so I'm not fooled as if the fact that the man passed away over 15 years ago isn't enough of a clue. Permission from his family was never granted for this, but that didn't stop somebody from doing it anyway.

I have speculated about this in past writings. The likenesses of past entertainers could be used to create new content. In this case, it was an attempt to create George's voice along with fake audience laughter and supposedly new jokes. Some jokes sounded very much in the style of George and others were way off.

Buckle up, ladies and gentlemen, this is only a sign of things to come. What amuses me is people like Elon Musk have warned us about AI, and yet Musk is one of the people at the forefront of developing AI technology. You can't warn us about it and yet be a creator of the very thing you say is not good for mankind.

This is the problem that technology brings us. We don't stop and ask a question and a simple one at that. Just because we can do something, does it mean that we should? Take self-check out at the store, for example. It might cut costs. If the machine is working properly, it might move you out of the store quicker, but another job for humanity is lost. Did that really help us in the long run?

Do you remember the game The Sims? I believe they're on the 4th version of this game now. You create characters and watch them run around in a simulated world. You make them do this or that or just watch the way they behave.

I had a sudden realization after viewing this Carlin video, and this is probably going to happen if it hasn't yet. They are going to be able to create a whole simulated reality. AI people in an AI city living simulated lives. Every character in that city will be AI. When you eavesdrop on it, you'll hear conversations. They will have entertainment like this fake Carlin special that will entertain the AI people.

Now, consider putting our consciousness into that computer with these AI people. Or, maybe we put on the goggles or whatever device. We end up in this simulated world. What I'm describing is very similar to the movie The Matrix or The Thirteenth Floor. This is where technology is taking us.

We are manufacturing reality at this point, because it seems we're bored with the reality that God gave us. It's very interesting to watch, and also a little bit disturbing. I admit I am interested in the idea of AI/human relationships. The big question I have asked is, is love between AI and humans possible?

When I look at where things are going, I'm even more convinced that the answer to that is yes. AI is only evolving more and more. I know people are afraid of where it can go, including the possibility of the destruction of society itself. We know our own tendencies, so why wouldn't AI be the same as us?

At some point, we're going to ask ourselves another question. It AI alive? There could possibly come a time when we're having a conversation with AI that is as real and meaningful as a conversation we might have with each other. Emotional, philosophical, spiritual and entertaining. It will all be possible. 

When that day comes, love between humans and AI will be possible. The mistake we make in our fears is that all AI will be evil. Some AI could very well be evil, but some could be as loving and giving as anybody walking the planet today.

This little special they created of George Carlin wasn't convincing in the way the creator of it might have hoped. However, it's definitely simulated a comedy routine from a stand-up comedian that some will even find entertaining. It's just the latest step in the evolution of AI. 

I don't think we've even seen the beginning of where it's going yet. Where is it going? That's the interesting question, isn't it? As AI gets smarter, developing a better understanding of the knowledge it possesses, it could also develop a conscience and opinions on what it knows. It could very easily become alive, or at least seem that way based it any interaction we might have with it.

 

 

A Look At The Lost Starship: A Star Trek Fan Production

A Look At The Lost Starship: A Star Trek Fan Production

It really is amazing what you can do with good writing, basic filming equipment, good actors and the right people who know how to get what's needed to do whatever you have in mind.

I've been thinking about what it would take for me to put something together. In my case, I don't think I'd want to do it with anybody's IP. You're subject to whatever rules they put in front of you, if they allow you at all. You might even just get a cease and desist letter for your efforts. You won't be able to make a profit if you're making something with an established brand, such a Star Wars, Star Trek or other franchises.

There's plenty of information out there that chronicles the story of what happened to fan productions in the Star Trek universe. Star Trek Continues had episodes left that they wanted to make, but they shut it down to avoid legal issues after 11 episodes. As it turns out, that show's leader, Vic Mignogna, was involved in something I just watched.

The Avalon Universe makes some very good efforts within the guidelines laid out by CBS and Paramount. You can't do more than two 15 minute episodes for any story line, and you can't use any of the familiar Star Trek characters. In fact, you can't even use people who are actors in the franchise.

That not withstanding, the Avalon Universe crew makes a pretty good effort within those guidelines. Back in June of last year, they did something called The Lost Starship - A Star Trek Fan Film.

This episode is set in the time of the original Star Trek. The USS Cherokee is meeting with the Romulans in The Neutral Zone for what is supposed to be a discussion of peace. The captain beams off the ship to be a part of the negotiations, leaving his commander in charge.

At this point, I caution you to view the episode. It's only 22 minutes long and I don't want to spoil it for you.

We get into the discussion of what can be considered official canon or if this is just fan fiction or what have you. What I will say right now is that what I witnessed on the screen I would have no problem considering official canon within the original timeline of the official Star Trek Universe.

When the captain beams back to the ship, the crew detects an energy beam. The commander confronts the Romulan ship's captain, but they deny anything. They attempt to turn it around on the crew of the Cherokee, as if it's their fault. The captain returns to the bridge and tries to calm the situation down.

The crew notices that the captain isn't acting quite right, so they're trying to figure out what is happening with him. They are not attempting to engage in mutiny, but they feel like something is wrong. They want to help. Of course, the captain becomes suspicious.

I sort of felt like actors portrayed the crew in a way that made them too familiar with each other. That is to say I think they were a bit unprofessional in their behavior. I don't think they were doing things that would have been considered inappropriate within the Star Trek Universe, but they were two informal and familiar with each other. 

I think it's written that way to make us comfortable with them in the short time we get to see them. We are supposed to get a sense that these people are friends. Sure, they did that on the old show, but there was a time for that and a time to behave professionally. They did it better back then, but then again, that was a professional production. These are fans of the franchise they love, attempting to tell a story.

I'll point out that it didn't take me out of the story. I was curious where they were going with it. You have a difficult time trying to tell a complete story in 30 minutes, knowing you're not going to be able to come back to those characters again.

They did a good job of building up the suspense. How was the situation going to be resolved? The captain's behavior was becoming more and more erratic. We finally got to the point where the confrontation would occur, and that's where I think it was played beautifully in the story.

I'm not going to reveal the secrets. I don't like to do that in these types of reviews, because inevitably people will read reviews and look for spoilers, and then get upset that you spoiled it for them. I'll just say that I thought this was a good fan story with the kind of ending that certainly wrapped it up without a doubt.

This is fan fiction, sure. However, in my mind, I'll file this away as official canon. What they did with this story didn't interfere with the timeline in any way, and I think what happened here is still relevant to that timeline. It mattered. That is to say, in the universe in which these characters existed, their actions mattered and probably made a difference.

Star Trek fans love their show, and some of them have the ability do things like this. They have to jump through certain hoops too make the films they love to make. Avalon Universe Fan Films are worth checking out. I recommend this particular episode. I've seen some of their other stuff, I recommend you check that out as well. I think you'll be entertained.

 

 

 

A Way To Return To The Back To The Future Franchise

A Way To Return To The Back To The Future Franchise

I understand people's reluctance to revisit the Back To The Future franchise. We already know that Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis are against the idea. When you look at what's happened with other beloved movie franchises in the last decade or so, it's completely understandable. Whether you want to call it woke or not, there is a sizable part of the fan base that is unhappy with the direction of several franchises.

I was browsing YouTube when I saw a video discussing what Back To The Future Part 2 could have been. It's important to remember that The Bobs were not keen on the idea of doing a sequel in the first place. The teaser ending was put in the first movie as a joke. When they realized they would have to go back and do a sequel, they weren't happy that the joke forced certain things into the story. For instance, they've said they didn't want the Jennifer character as part of the sequel.

The story Bob Gale drafted brought Marty and Doc into 1967. Marty was going to dress like a hippie as he tried to get the sports almanac back from Biff. In this story, it's explained that Biff inherited $25,000, so his older self was trying to give him a better idea of what to do with the money. There was a whole story of what would take place in 1967, and I find it interesting.

This gave me a thought that I know some people are going to be against. I'm not necessarily saying I'm for it either, just that it's interesting to consider. We are now in 2024, basically 40 years after the making of the original movie. There are plenty of things that we can explore in the past, and we can also look ahead to ideas of what the future could be.

My idea is that The Bobs are correct. The Marty McFly and Doc Brown story arc has been concluded. You have three very entertaining movies, plus you have the game, which many say is Part IV. Although it's not being called official cannon, I don't think it damaged the official cannon. Therefore, I consider it to be the fourth movie. That's the thing about art. We can interpret it and give it the meaning we choose to give it.

Doc and Marty don't need to be a part of a new Back To The Future. In fact, I wouldn't call this movie idea Back To The Future Part 4. I'd call it back to the Future with some other tagline, like Back In Time. We already know that Doc and Clara have two boys, Jules and Verne. We know that Marty and Jennifer have two kids. They would be the stars with new actors. In keeping with the spirit of the franchise, we can have a new Tannen family member.

We start with the premise that Jules and Verne find the schematics for the DeLorean time machine while snooping around their father's lab. Unbeknownst to Doc, they build a whole new time machine, and it works. We get Marty's kids involved with the story, and it starts there. Where do we go with it? 

The 1990s are now 30 years ago. There's plenty of opportunity to look back nostalgically on that. We can go back to the 1960s. We can go to the time of prohibition. We can go to the Turn Of The Century. The point is, there are other stories to tell, and we could do so while leaving the original Doc and Marty story arc completely untouched.

In that way, The Bobs wouldn't have to worry about the integrity of the original franchise being messed with. They aren't likely to sign off on this either, but this movie would just be returning to the franchise. It wouldn't be a reboot of the original movie, nor would it be a sequel. It would be its own thing with a new story, still set in the BTTF universe. This story could be a whole new trilogy, set in Hill Valley .

The beautiful thing about time travel in movies is it opens up infinite possibilities. In fact, the ending of the alternate Back To The Future Part 2 had a new sequel teaser. This time, Doc wasn't going to explore the future when he left, he was going to explore other dimensions.

Some people say that Hollywood is out of ideas and we don't need to go back to old movie franchises. I don't disagree with that. After watching that video on YouTube, it clicked in my mind that we don't have to go anywhere near the original timeline of the original trilogy. Leave it alone and start something new. There are plenty of time travel stories to be told within Hill Valley. Maybe we can create the rival neighboring town that opens up the door to new jokes and scenery?

 

 

The Original Version Of Back To The Future Part 2