Ghostbusters 2016 Was A Victim Of It's Own Budget

With Ghostbusters Afterlife doing moderately well at the box office after it's first two weekends, Ghostbusters 2016 is being brought into the discussion by both haters of that movie and fans who are bitter that the new movie was made. The haters will point out that the success of Afterlife proves that nobody wanted the other movie. They say the fans wanted a continuation of the original story. I count myself among those people, but I'm honest enough to admit one thing. Ghostbusters 2016 didn't succeed at the box office because it went over budget.

The Ghostbusters 2016 movie didn't have the original characters. It had many of the original actors making cameos in different roles. What it did have was characters busting ghosts. It continued the premise that was established. It didn't really offer anything unique to the franchise. What it did was give a new generation of fans the opportunity to have some Ghostbusters they could call their own. It told an adequate story and had good enough special effects. It would have been considered a success if it had stayed within a reasonable budget.

Movies these days suffer from the idea that everything has to be a block buster. Everything has to make a billion dollars globally, or it's somehow not a legitimate hit. The Ghostbusters IP is recognizable, but two things should be understood. This was never really a franchise in the same vein as Star Trek or Star Wars. It had a couple of good movies that made money in the 1980s. It had a good premise, but it wasn't really a franchise. We went over 25 years before the 2016 movie was finally made.

Sony saw dollar signs and felt it was a guarantee regardless of who was cast in it. However, was a Ghostbusters movie with any cast going to make a billion dollars at the box office? In my opinion, no.  However, a movie that resonated with the fans could have taken in $200-$300 million if done correctly. Perhaps it could have done a little more. The 2016 movie made $229 million during it's theatrical run. The latest movie might surpass that total. However, it's Budget was $75 million, meaning it will be considered a hit and a money maker if it does surpass the total of the 2016 movie.

The reason the 2016 movie is considered a failure is because it cost $144 million to make. It's common knowledge that you need to double your budget to break even, and tripling that is generally seen as being a success. The 2016 movie cost more than it should have. When Dan Aykroyd was criticizing the box office disappointment in a 2017 interview, he pointed out how it came in over budget. Re-shoots were needed. To me, that speaks more to the failings of the director than the stars of the movie, who didn't really do that badly in their roles, in my opinion.

If they made that movie for $75 million and pulled those same numbers at the box office, it's a success. There's no reason to think the movie wouldn't have been as good for half of what they spent on it. The people who didn't like it for whatever reason still wouldn't have liked it. However, it would have tripled it's budget. It would have succeeded. We might be talking about its sequel now, rather than Afterlife.  That didn't happen because the first movie cost too much to make. It was a victim of it's own budget.

It may be a moot point to say this. Then again, a Ghostbusters multiverse may make it possible. However, a sequel to the 2016 movie could be a box office success.  Whether it was Paul Feig being given one more chance to direct it or not, the studio could make money on a sequel with the female cast all reprising their roles. Two important things needed for that to happen are a good script and a tighter budget. Some people would come unhinged at the mere mention of a sequel, and the fact that it could be successful would really set them off. This is all a moot point as it's not likely to happen. Then again, you never know.

Ghostbusters Afterlife Upsets The Critics And Fans Of Ghostbusters 2016

Ghostbusters Afterlife is finally out, and the critics seem to want to cry about it. They are using buzzwords like "fan service" and "nostalgia" as if they are bad things. Once upon a time, movies used to be made to entertain people. Movies that made a bunch of money generally did so because they entertained the people enough to make them want to spend money to see them. Over the last decade or so, beloved franchises have been used to push narratives and ideas that were never part of the franchise to begin with.

Some will cite the Ghostbusters 2016 movie as ground zero in the trend of woke remakes. Others will say it started before then, but there was certainly much controversy surrounding the 2016 Ghostbusters movie. For the record, I enjoyed the movie, although I avoided it like the plague when it was released. I didn't like the idea of swapping the gender of the lead characters, because it's my belief that it wasn't done to make a good movie but rather to earn woke points. I dislike that notion in the strongest possible way.

I didn't pay attention to what was happening on social media back then, although I heard bits and pieces of it. With the election happening in the United States at that point, the Ghostbusters movie seemed to be used to make political statements. If you liked the idea of this movie, you supported Hillary Clinton. If you didn't like it, you were a Donald Trump supporter. I don't particularly care for breaking it down that way, but that's the way it seemed. I also don't believe all of the criticism of the movie was fair, but the way the movie was marketed gave the fans of the first two movies the ammunition they needed to put it down.

In my opinion, if you can go into the Ghostbusters 2016 movie without paying attention to any of the noise surrounding it, you'll see it wasn't that bad of a movie. Yeah, some of the jokes didn't land, but overall the movie wasn't that bad. I gave it a positive review. When I say that, I still believe that the original Ghostbusters and its sequel were superior movies to this one, but that doesn't mean the movie wasn't enjoyable. However, all of the talk on social media surrounding this movie just served to make it about more than what was happening on the screen.

 

My Original Review Of Ghostbusters 2016

To understand how we got to that movie, we have to look at the efforts to make a sequel. Multiple scripts were written, but generally there was one holdup that kept the original cast from getting back together and doing it one more time. Bill Murray wasn't on board with it. They kept going back to the drawing board until the studio executives decided to reboot it and go with an all-female cast. Rather than acknowledging the first two movies, this movie was its own thing. Nobody who loved that movie seemed to be bothered by that fact, but many of those fans are crying over the fact that their movie isn't being acknowledged by the new movie.

When Ghostbusters Afterlife was announced, there were some negative things said on social media about it. It's just fan service was one thing that was said. Another popular complaint was the idea that the fans who wouldn't give Ghostbusters 2016 a chance or who were critical on social media were being rewarded for their "bad" behavior. 

Leslie Jones came out on social media and slammed the idea of this movie. While I understand people coming after her for expressing her opinion on the matter, I firmly believe that she and her cast mates have every right to say what they will. Some of the criticisms against them in 2016 crossed the line, in my opinion.

That not withstanding, Jason Reitman was the one directing Ghostbusters Afterlife. This movie can be seen as a love letter to the first two movies. He's picking up the directorial duties from his father (Ivan Reitman), and he's continuing where the storyline left off after the second movie. Obviously, this means introducing new characters who have a connection to the original characters. The movie isn't set in New York, and there are other changes. However, it's done in the spirit of the first two movies. This is a direct sequel to Ghostbusters Part 2, and long time fans will maintain that this is all they wanted from the franchise.

The sad reality is the third movie should have been made years ago. The feud between Bill Murray and Harold Ramis obviously didn't help. However, Murray had a love/hate relationship with the franchise as it was. While he seemed to enjoy the first movie, he wasn't particularly fond of the second one. At that point, he moved on to other things and wasn't even thinking of returning. Because of that, the window to making a proper third movie closed. It's impossible to get the original cast back together with the passing of Ramis. Furthermore, Rick Moranis hasn't been too keen on doing much acting due to things happening in his own life that necessitated him focusing on family. 

The bottom line is money talks. If it's not profitable, most Hollywood studios aren't keen on making a movie in the first place. They obviously felt like there was money to be made from the Ghostbusters name, so the geniuses at the studio went with the 2016 reboot and the all female cast. They had an opportunity to make a big enough profit to warrant a return with a sequel to that movie. Unfortunately, they didn't make enough money. Given enough time, it might have been possible to return to the Ghostbusters 2016 movie with a sequel, but the movie Jason Reitman is directing was never going to be that movie.

While people can complain about it, the bottom line is this was the only way forward if the studio was going to attempt to make any money from the Ghostbusters brand. At the end of the day, that's why they make most movies. It's too early to know whether Ghostbusters Afterlife is going to make money, and I'm not even sure what the story will be about as I write this. From the things I've been hearing, I think there's a good chance that this movie will be profitable, and that might even spark talks of a sequel with the new stars and even some of the original stars coming back again.

I know the Ghostbusters 2016 crowd will lobby for the ladies to come back, and long time fans of the franchise will gleefully say that this is never going to happen. To them I respond that never is a long time. While I don't think a movie that focuses only on the ladies will be made anytime soon, that doesn't mean that their characters couldn't be included in a Ghostbusters sequel if Ghostbusters Afterlife proves to be a success. In this day where we talk about alternate universes and those types of things, anything's possible. Somebody In Hollywood may even be drafting ideas to make it happen.

I don't hide the fact that I'm not enamored with the woke Hollywood trend and the damage it's done to long time franchises that I've enjoyed. I don't think it's a good thing. I don't believe that Ghostbusters has been damaged enough to ruin it, but Ghostbusters Afterlife needs to be a hit. I'm hoping this movie is successful. I don't care about fan service or nostalgia, because if it's written well enough, it adds to my enjoyment. All I really want from a movie is to sit down and enjoy it and not feel like I'm being preached to or treated like I'm a bad person if I don't enjoy the story.

Kathleen Kennedy's Disney Contract Quietly Renewed?

It's being reported through various sources that Kathleen Kennedy's contract at Disney has been renewed. Kennedy was pretty much the hand-picked successor of George Lucas to guide the Star Wars franchise into the future. I don't believe that George would have wanted Kennedy to be in charge of Star Wars had he known what direction she would take things. This has been the source of a bitter divide in the Star Wars fandom. Whether you are on one side of that debate or the other, I think most people would agree that the rift in the fan base is not a good thing.

There are fans of the original Star Wars trilogy who feel very strongly that the storyline has been ruined thanks to Kennedy, and there are those who feel the Disney Star Wars trilogy sequel did justice to the franchise. Again, this is a matter of opinion. It could be correctly pointed out that the profit margin of those three movies as well as Rogue One were huge and signaled success, but others will maintain that the storyline has been severely damaged.

Whether you like the Disney era of Star Wars or not, it's successes and failures can be put squarely at the feet of Kennedy. She might not have been involved in every creative decision, but she's the one who made the ultimate decisions. Give her credit or give her the blame, whatever your view might be. There are going to be people who claim that the renewal of Kennedy's contract is an endorsement of all of her efforts. That may be true, but it may be more nuanced than that.

Kennedy is not just some Hollywood chump. She's been involved in some of the biggest movie successes in the history of cinema. I don't care that some of those successes might have been attributed to other producers. She was involved in those projects as well. In the business world it would be disrespectful to say that she never brought anything to the table. It would also be disrespectful to publicly fire her, shame her or otherwise because a segment of fans weren't happy with the Star Wars trilogy sequel.

What's the point here? If she has been renewed, that can mean several things. Based on the successes she's had throughout her career, she's earned the respect of going out on her own terms. Therefore, one final renewal of her contract isn't a big surprise. Does that mean she's being rewarded? This depends on your perspective. Financially, the Star Wars trilogy made money. That's a fact, whether you liked the stories or not. Facts exist despite your feelings.

On the other hand, the storyline of Star Wars has been damaged, and there's no getting around that fact. You can like those movies. That's a matter of opinion. Same can be said if you hate those movies. The original six Star Wars movies told the story of the Skywalker family in which Palpatine was ultimately defeated when Darth Vader came back to the light and joined his son. At that point, the story was done. One can even argue whether the prequel trilogy needed to be made or not, but one can't argue against the fact that the story fit into the larger story.

It's basically been shown that there was no road map to where the Disney sequel trilogy was going. From one movie to the other, the directors seemed more interested in doing their own thing and one upping each other. Therefore, you had plot threads established in the first movie that were basically ignored or destroyed in the second movie. To try to save the trilogy and make an attempt to stick the landing, Palpatine`s character was brought back as the main bad guy in the third movie. The ending served to upset the long time fans as well as some new fans.

Long time fans were upset because Palpatine had been killed at the end of Return of the Jedi. The story was over. By bringing him back and having all of the Skywalker family dead, it's pretty much shown that Palpatine won. His granddaughter lived, but the Skywalker family was all dead. Newer fans were unhappy, because they enjoyed the romantic undertones of the Kylo Renn/Ray relationship. They didn't get the payoff they wanted in the end, and that led to some very unpleasant scenes witnessed in some movie theaters.

If this was viewed as a success, it's a certainty that an Episode 10 would have been planned. It would be on the drawing board, and we'd be getting updates. Weather a 10th movie was announced or we were just getting hints and rumors, the ball would be in motion. Why wasn't it? Kennedy was at the helm of this ship. She's deserving of any credit when it comes to the profit margin, and she's also deserving of the blame for storyline issues that have damaged the franchise.

This brings us back to the question. Why is she being rewarded if it was a failure? One should consider that her lifetime of work in the industry and the fact that each of the three trilogy sequel movies made 1 billion dollars or more at the box office is reason enough. Even if the storyline didn't go where a segment of the fan base wanted it to go, the cash registers were functional and profits were made. We are talking billions of dollars of profits from the billions of dollars of investment Disney made to buy Lucas Films from George Lucas. It wasn't a financial failure.

That's not to say that Disney itself is happy with her leadership. They may not want Kennedy to be making the big decisions in regards to the Star Wars franchise, but they can't publicly shame her and call her out on the problems with the story itself. What they can do is halt production of a 10th movie as long as she's the one in charge. Some will say her contract renewal is rewarding failure, and some will say she deserves it. The bigger question to ask is one that the people who didn't enjoy the sequel trilogy are asking right now.

Does this mean that Kennedy is in charge of Star Wars going forward for the next few years? At the moment, some projects are being canceled and others are being delayed. It's almost as if Disney wasn't happy with the direction the franchise was being taken. Kennedy may be back, but that doesn't mean she's going to be making the big decisions concerning where this franchise goes in the future. The indicator of what sort of power she holds is simple enough. When the 10th movie is announced that continues from where The Rise of Skywalker leaves off and Kennedy is the one making the calls, you'll have your answer. Until that time, everything is talk.

It's a sad time that we live in where people who are fans of long time franchises are not happy. They've looked at several different IPs and watched them get taken in a direction that goes contrary to what made these things popular in the first place. This has caused a divide in the fan base of these franchises, including Star Wars. People are picking sides and hurling insults at each other. People are trying to position themselves to be the ones who are right in the argument. It's sad that the majority of the people aren't just sitting back and talking about the product that was produced. It's almost as if being a fan doesn't just mean enjoying something anymore. You have to take sides and almost get political about it.

Kennedy had an opportunity to do good things with the Star Wars franchise. George Lucas even handed her a treatment of where the sequel trilogy would have gone under his leadership. Suddenly, people are pointing out how George was so wrong about everything. The reality is we wouldn't be talking about Star Wars in the first place if not for George. He must have done something right, but everybody now thinks they know better. Kennedy chose to use Star Wars as a platform to make her own political and social statements, rather than telling a story that united the fan base.

Therefore, this is more credit that she deserves. She might deserve credit for the profits being made at Disney via the Star Wars franchise. She might also deserve blame when it comes to where the story ended up going. Unfortunately, you have to point a finger at her when it comes to the divide in the franchise. She stirred the pot on this. Some will label the people who don't like the current franchise with negative political descriptions. This has nothing to do with politics. It's about whether people enjoyed the movies or not. Love it or hate it, Kennedy was in charge, and she deserves the blame here as well.

What The Sequel To Ready Player One Could Have Been

I'm aware that Ready Player One is a book, and it's a book I haven't read. I saw the Steven Spielberg movie, and I definitely approved. Movies about virtual worlds and artificial intelligence are interesting to me, and it has a lot to do with the idea that we're heading in that direction with the technology we have. Ernest Cline rose to prominence as an author because of this book, which immediately got optioned as a movie. In fact, there was immediately interest in a sequel to the movie, and Cline started writing the book. 

The book came out, and critics haven't been very kind to it. I'm not going to comment on it as I haven't read the book. It would be unfair of me to negatively review content of a book I haven't read. I'm basically coming into this franchise via the movie, and I'm also aware that sometimes movies don't follow what's written in the book. It's those pesky creative changes that are made sometimes in the name of the belief that what's written in the book won't translate to the screen. I have read a synopsis of what took place in the sequel book, and to me I can't help but think there's a missed opportunity. 

At this point, I'm going to give the warning of spoilers. Most likely, anybody who cares enough has already seen the movie or read the books or both. However, if you intend to and haven't, there might be spoilers beyond this point. I also advise you to check out the movie, the book or both if you haven't. I can vouch for the movie, and it's definitely good. 

After our heroes achieve their final goal in the quest and get control of OASIS, there is an important scene where Wade meets a representation of OASIS Creator James Halliday in his childhood bedroom. I'm pretty sure it's been explained that this is just a computer-generated program. He has long since passed away. I'm a fan of artificial intelligence stories, although I don't think AI has any role in this particular movie. One could argue, however, that the James Halliday Avatar is AI.

During the course of the movie, Wade pays visits to the museum that serves to document every moment in the life of Halliday. This is a way for people to get clues as to how to solve the quests and win the prize in the end. It's mentioned in the movie that most people don't even bother to go there. What would be the point? There's no coolness factor in going to a museum that shows moments that played out in the life of the creator of OASIS. Only his biggest fans would even bother, right? 

Let's stop and think about this for a moment. The movie takes place in 2045, which is only a little under 30 years from the time when the movie came out. Even a game such as the one depicted in this movie is going to be a big deal. It won't be treated like it's nothing. People are living their lives in this world to get away from the depressing real world. However, the fact that all of Halliday's big memories are meticulously recreated this way would still be a big deal 25 years later. Think of the technology involved.

Think about how much programming Halliday had to do to create this museum that shows his whole life for all to see? That's not some simple work. You're basically seeing the big discussions and decisions that were made in his life that led to the creation of OASIS. You see the triumphs and you see the big mistakes he made. It seems like near the end of his life, Halliday was more regretful of the decisions that led him where he ended up than he was proud of his creation.

In a way, OASIS is it's creator. His memories are all inside of the creation via the museum itself. I'm sure most people don't even think about that as they're watching the movie. It's just the backdrop of the story as a certain problem is being resolved. However, it's also a strong hint that all of the intelligence and maybe the very essence of the creator of OASIS is inside of this game. It may not be his actual spirit, but all of his memories are there. 

We move ahead to the end where Wade comes to get his prize. At this point, he's interacting with the avatar of the creator of OASIS. That avatar is answering his questions, and that has led to people wondering if he's dead at all. Obviously, he had a funeral and was buried. In movies, that can always be explained away that somebody faked their death to get out of the spotlight. We're not questioning that in this article. We will accept that at face value, but the real question is in regards to the avatar of James Halliday. 

Is he alive in an avatar? Without question, all of the memories of his life were uploaded into the program, and it wouldn't be a far stretch to assume that those memories are in that avatar. He's simply living a life of quiet solitude within his own game. Nobody cares to look for him, and he's probably hidden away from everybody at this point. However, I think it's a fair question to ask if he's alive in that avatar, and there are multiple ways of looking at it. 

The first is that he did upload at least a representation of his consciousness into that avatar. It is a part of him. He is in a sense alive. Or, the avatar is simply a collection of his memories without his consciousness. That still doesn't negate the possibility of artificial intelligence achieving consciousness and becoming alive. To me, that's the real follow-up story. It doesn't seem like artificial intelligence is much of a thing in the universe laid out in Ready Player One.

Before going to Ready Player Two, a sequel could have been titled Non Player Character or something of that nature. It could have explored what was going on with James Halliday. Was this his essence or a collection of his memories? Was this avatar alive within the computer program? At some point, it's determined that it is alive, and that raises big questions. OASIS is going to become even more popular with certain powers that be who would want to control this new discovery. 

Consider the possibility that consciousness is uploaded into a computer program. We're talking about a shot at immortality, especially to those who are not necessarily believers in life after death. They'd want want to cheat death. There are actually people seeking to upload their consciousness into computers, so this isn't a far-fetched discussion. People are having that discussion in the real world, and we also have shows like Upload that delve into this topic.

The sequel to Ready Player One could have gone this way, and I think it would have made for a much better follow up. People were already asking questions about Halliday when they saw the scene at the end of the movie. You could have had some entertaining game moments depicting game quests and cool graphics. You could have crammed in some fun nostalgia, as the books and the first movie liked to do. Then, you could have gotten to the heart of what's going to become an even bigger discussion in our world in the years ahead. This is the discussion that talks about the possibility of life being created inside of a computer program.

I find the story of Cline to be fascinating. Mostly because he's made a major splash, and it seems to have happened overnight. He had a very interesting concept with Ready Player One. I think at the time he started working on the sequel, there was pressure to create something that could be made into a movie. Sometimes an author needs a moment to breathe without pressure, allowing for the creative energy to flow through them naturally. 

From what I have read of the sequel book, there could still be a possibility of exploring some of this topic in another book, but there's the danger of the franchise running out of gas before they get the opportunity. I think the idea I'm talking about here would have been a better way to follow up the first book and movie. It wouldn't be about repeating everything done in the first movie and trying to put a new spin on it, but they'd still be working within the franchise framework. I'm still looking forward to seeing the follow-up movie, and I might pick up the books eventually.

Speaking In Code To Avoid Censorship

I'm noticing a trend on social media, particularly on YouTube. People are now speaking in code in order to avoid censorship through AI and the algorithm. When you use certain words, apparently they have ways of shutting you down, and you could ultimately be suspended. This is where technology is taking us.

One of the content creators I enjoy on YouTube covers music. The problem is, what's happening in the world right now is crossing paths with the music industry in a significant way. Concerts are being canceled due to the health concerns brought about by the pandemic and the reactions to it. Last year, we weren't able to have concerts at all. This year, we can have them, but you have to follow their rules to do it.

Anybody asking questions is basically being told to trust the science. The problem is, what science are you supposed to trust? Do you go around and research what different scientists are saying and come to your own conclusions, or do you merely listen to the scientists they parade out on TV? Who has the authority here? Who do you trust?

The person covering music would rather talk about music. He covers a style of music that doesn't get much recognition these days. He likes to tell us about the new bands that are out there playing that style, but of course most people went to listen to the old bands play the old songs. What's gotten his attention is some of those old band members who are giving people medical advice, and he disagrees with them. 

My concern is that we ought to be able to have a discussion about things without mincing words. We should be able to say what we mean, not get cute by saying terms like "do the thing". One of the principles our country was founded upon is the freedom of speech. If we can't talk to each other and make ourselves clear, we're not getting the full picture when we make our decisions. We're given propaganda and told to accept it.

It didn't start with the current pandemic situation that we're going through. It started before that. It was used to stifle certain political opinions that some people couldn't handle. Because people are actually generating significant revenue making videos on YouTube, they're not taking a stand against what's going on there. At least ways, they're not doing it in a meaningful way. Instead, they are speaking in code in order to sneak past the censors.

This does make me wonder about something. At what point do we say enough is enough and stop bowing down to the censors? At what point are we free to give our honest opinions? Nobody says I'm right simply because I believe differently than you do. It's just what I believe and the way I live my life. You may see things differently. We are coming to a point where if you don't believe, think and do as you're told, you are deemed a threat to society. Is speaking in code really the way to fight this?

The Defining Moment Of Luke Skywalker In The Star Wars Trilogy

The Defining Moment Of Luke Skywalker In The Star Wars Trilogy

I've heard debates about who is a "Mary Sue" type of character in Star Wars. Obviously, Rey is the one character people bring up the most. I'm not going to get into that, or how the Disney Star Wars sequels served to undo the great moments that occurred in Star Wars before they got a hold of the franchise. Luke Skywalker is no Mary Sue, and I can prove it with his defining moment. This was in Return of the Jedi, and Luke had to do something he knew could get him killed.

Luke wanted to save his father. This meant he was going alone to confront him on The Death Star. Not only would he face Darth Vader, but he would also face Emperor Palpatine. Luke was out matched. He simply didn't have the training or the ability to defeat them by himself. He didn't go there to kill anybody. He went there to bring Anakin Skywalker back to the light, and all he had was the belief that he could do it.

The problem was Anakin had been on the dark side for so long. Darth Vader was ruthless, and nobody wanted to cross him. As powerful as Vader was, Emperor Palpatine was even more powerful. He pretty much controlled and manipulated Vader. His reasoning for wanting Luke on The Death Star was because he wanted to turn him to the dark side as well. Skywalker was aware of that, but he was also aware that there was still good in Darth Vader. He believed his father was still there.

It's hard to imagine the courage that Luke had. Many of us fantasize about being in moments like that. Luke knows that he may not return from this mission. All he has to go on was is faith and his love for his father. It's hard to imagine that he would believe that strongly in a man that he never really knew. Of course, he's also trying to do this for the rebellion, but this is a family matter. He wants to save his father.

We see the scene play out. Luke and Vader are trading blows. Luke stands toe to toe with him, but he has a stronger will. He will not bend to the dark side. As proof of that, when he gets the upper hand on his father, he refuses to deal the death blow. He will not kill his father. Vader understands in that moment, because he failed that test years ago. Luke has a strong enough will to deny what The Emperor asks of him. He will not kill his father, and so The Emperor decides he must kill Luke

If Luke is wrong about his father, he's dead now. The Emperor will easily dispatch of him. Seeing his son in agonizing pain as Luke calls out to him, Anakin Skywalker finally emerges. He will not allow The Emperor to kill his son. Though he still believes it's too late for him, he does what must be done to save his son. It's a sacrifice that ultimately ends Vader's life, but Luke Skywalker lives. The Emperor has been defeated.

This was no Mary Sue moment for Luke Skywalker. This didn't require amazing skills with a light saber. It didn't require brute force. It required the risk and potential sacrifice of his life. Luke may have believed he would succeed in his mission, but he had to know that he could fail. He had to know that this might be the end of his life. For him to step up and do what needed to be done and to risk it all for his father and for the rebellion, makes this the defining moment for Luke Skywalker in the original Star Wars trilogy.

I think this is part of what made the original trilogy so amazing. It wasn't just the special effects, but the story being told. As much as George Lucas tried to recapture that in the prequel trilogy, he didn't quite get there. It's still a good trilogy in many ways, but it doesn't compare to the original despite looking better visually. By the time Disney got around to the story, the heart and soul of Star Wars was gone. There really was no big moment like this scene on The Death Star with Luke and Vader. Furthermore, the scene at the end of the Disney trilogy serves to almost destroy Vader's sacrifice and gives the ultimate win to The Emperor.

The Importance Of Panozzo Brothers To Styx

I was listening to one of Dennis DeYoung's interviews. One thing about the former lead singer and founding member of the band Styx is that he's charismatic, funny and an entertaining guy to listen to. Despite the fact that he's released two albums in the last two years, you can tell he's very keen on reuniting with Tommy Shaw and James Young for one more tour with the band Styx. 

I think one thing fans of his would like if there is no reunion is for him to play some of his new songs live and change things up a bit. When you understand that he's basically touring for nostalgia's sake, it's obvious that this isn't something that's likely to happen. I'm beginning to wonder if there's a possibility that he could get Chuck Panozzo to appear with him and his band for some shows. I get the feeling that it's possible.

When Dennis talks about the magic created by the classic lineup of the band, he points out the importance of the roles that James and Tommy both played in making the band who they are. One of the stories he tells is how the other band members wanted to continue to tour as Styx after Tommy Shaw walked off of the Kilroy Was Here tour. The other three members were keen on doing it, but Dennis felt Tommy brought something to the band that couldn't be replaced. 

When you listen to his interviews, Dennis talks about the importance of songs, and he definitely doesn't short change the abilities of either Shaw or Young. What he isn't doing is talking about the importance of Chuck Panozzo on base or John Panozzo, who has since passed away, on drums. He talks about how the songwriters are more important members of the bands, and I can understand that. However, the non-songwriters frequently contribute something to the formation of a song, even if they don't get credit. 

When you look at a band like Kansas, for example, it wouldn't exist today without founding drummer Phil Ehart. He was the glue keeping that band together from the moment it was formed, and he's the person who assembled all of the talent to make the band in the first place. Founding guitarist Rich Williams has been there with him the whole time, but these two performers didn't write any of the songs the band is known for. They did contribute something here or there, and the band Kansas simply would not exist if it wasn't for them.

I don't know the dynamics of the band Styx, so I'm not sure how songs were formed and what little contributions were made by people who may not have had writing credits on songs. Did Chuck add a baseline that the writers didn't have in mind? Did John change things up on drums in a way that they hadn't planned? Are there any lyrics that the two might have contributed to a song? I don't know. When they talk about those days, they don't really get into what Chuck or John brought to the band. 

I think it's rather funny that Styx continues the narrative that Chuck Panozzo and John Panozzo formed the band Styx. It's laughable, because it's highly unlikely that we would have heard of either one of those two had Dennis not heard them practicing one day. This is when The Tradewinds were formed, and they were a cover band. Even Dennis wasn't the Dennis that we know today. However, it is fair to say that the band wouldn't exist without John or Chuck. They were the inspiration for DeYoung to pursue the dream of creating a band and making music.

With John and Chuck, Dennis learned about playing gigs and they became better musicians. Dennis learned about crafting good songs. The importance that Chuck and John Panozzo have on the history of Styx is undeniable. This band wouldn't have existed without them. I would also go so far as to say that kicking Dennis out of Styx might not have been possible if not for Chuck voting with James. At that point, Tommy didn't have a say, so Chuck was needed in casting the vote to move ahead without Dennis.

In my opinion, any band that becomes famous is the sum of the whole. Many times, there might only be one chief songwriter who crafts the songs. Sometimes there are two. There may be one lead singer or two. The singer and the songwriter are generally the ones who get all of the credit for the fame a band achieves. In some cases, the lead guitarist will get that love, and oftentimes the bass player and the drummer might not get any credit. People sometimes assume that you can put anybody on base and drums and achieve the same results.

Styx was the sum of all of their parts, and they all were important to the band's success. In the case of this band, it wouldn't have been formed without Chuck and John, and they were there as it evolved, got the record deal and achieved the fame. I count myself among the fans who would like to see a reunion of the classic lineup, but the reality is we will never get a complete reunion. This is because John Panozzo has since passed away. I have a feeling that John may have played a more important role in this band than we've been led to believe, but I'll save that speculation for another time.

Closed For Storm Documentary Is Worth Watching

 

I watch quite a few independent content creators on YouTube. Among the things I enjoy are the urban exploration videos about abandoned malls and other places. I also like looking at the history of things that started out with so much hope and ended up going away. Some of the stories you see are heartbreaking. 

One of the content creators I enjoy is Jake at Bright Sun Films. It was probably through him that I saw a video talking about Six flags New Orleans. It's heartbreaking to see what remains of the place after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans hard back in August of 2005. After the hurricane went through, there was so much devastation. Some people still haven't fully recovered, and it's been 15 years. 

There was a restructuring of the corporation, and Six Flags used the hurricane devastation as an excuse to bail out on the New Orleans location. Maybe that wasn't evident at the time. Only a week before the hurricane hit, the park was open and it was business as usual. It seems pretty obvious now that the corporation behind the theme park was looking for a way out, and the devastation caused by the hurricane was a good excuse. This is only part of the story that is touched upon in this documentary. 

It seems to me that the amusement park was built on a dream and the belief that it would help elevate the surrounding community. The vision was to make it a tourist attraction. The park really didn't have much of a chance. It was only in operation for about five years. The people behind the idea in the first place all went bankrupt of left, and it eventually ended up in the hands of Six Flags. The sad reality is there was no plan for how to proceed after the devastation left by the hurricane.

This abandoned theme park obviously struck a cord with Jake. He does 15 to 30 minute video documentaries on YouTube, and they're quite good. If you check out his page, I'm sure you're going to see one topic or another that would interest you. When it came to making his foray into a full-fledged documentary, he knew that it had to be about Six Flags New Orleans.

This is no expanded YouTube video. The production quality is much better. The camera work, editing and even the soundtrack are very well done. The documentary takes you from the idea of an amusement park in East New Orleans to the realization of the dream. You see actual footage of the park being opened. You hear the story of the original investors pulling out or going bankrupt and Six Flags taking over. You see the optimism surrounding Six Flags being involved with this park.

What I like is that not only do you see the effects the hurricane had on the amusement park, but you get a glimpse of just how hard it impacted the city of New Orleans itself. They make a trip to the park to look at it as it stands now, and It's haunting to see some of those images. From there, we hear what they've been trying to do with this location since the hurricane hit, and it's enlightening. It's amazing how slowly the bureaucracy moves. 

There are so many points I could cover here, but I find it better to recommend viewing the entire documentary. I was moved by the lady who went on a crusade to bring the amusement park back again. They were taking proposals, and after nine years of making her effort, it's sad to see how it all went down in the end for her. You'll see where everything is as of 2020 when the documentary was shot.

I'm in full support of the independent content creators that are out there. This includes people who make entertainment properties via YouTube and other platforms, but also people who make mini documentaries. This is where Jake started with Bright Sun Films, Closed For Storm takes his passion for documentaries to the next level. I hope he continues beyond this project, because he truly has a knack for what he does. I would recommend this documentary to anybody.

 

Closed For Storm Home Page

 

Bight Sun Films YouTube Page

Something To Consider About David Lee Roth

There's a bit of controversy about David Lee Roth being removed from the current Kiss tour. Gene Simmons hasn't come right out and said that Dave can't sing, probably because he'd be opening up a big can of worms regarding the vocal abilities of Kiss. This gives me pause to forward an observation about Roth. 

Billy Idol did an EP prior to releasing his self titled debut album back in the early 1980s. There's a whole interview on one side that he did with Martha Quinn of MTV. He talked about Robert Plant and Mick Jagger, and he said something interesting. I don't recall his exact words, but he said that Robert Plant can sing and Mick Jagger can't. Why does he listen to Mick Jagger? Because he can't sing and he sounds great. 

For long time Van Halen listeners, here's a good question for you. Name the great Roth vocals on any Van Halen song that would hold up against the best vocalists in rock music history? I'm waiting. My answer is he was never a great vocalist. Some might say that's blasphemy, but I'm going to be honest here. 

As a vocalist, he was okay. I'm not saying he didn't sound good enough on many classic Van Halen songs. The bottom line is I can admit Sammy Hagar was a better vocalist than Dave, but I'd rather listen to Dave's Van Halen any day of the week. Basically, I'll paraphrase Idol when I say Roth can't sing and he sounds great, or he did back in those days. 

When everybody was throwing a fit about Dave during his Vegas residency, I listened to his vocals. They weren't great, but they were hardly screechingly bad either. They weren't what they would have been 30 years ago, but even 30 years ago they wouldn't have been earth-shattering. I don't think he butchered his songs, and the people who paid to see him got exactly what they wanted to see.

I know it's not a major revelation here, but people are paying for nostalgia. My generation has the disposable income and will pay more for concert tickets. Many people want to be taken back to the good times in their past, and that's why so many artists in their 60s and 70s are still out there touring and playing the classic hits. Even if they don't have all of the old band members, people will still come out and watch them perform.

You can name the band from the 1970s and 1980s, and if they're still out there touring it's because they're making good money doing it. Record sales aren't going to be that great at this point, and going into the studio to make new music isn't going to make them money. If they do make new music, it's because they feel that creative itch or they want to give their die hard fans some new music to enjoy.

This brings me back to Diamond Dave. The reality is people want to see the spectacle of his show. They want to hear him attempt to belt out those classics from back then, but they also want to see what's going to happen next. Dave was always about the show itself. When you put a microphone in front of him for any given interview, you never know what he is going to say. When he goes into one of his dialogues between songs, people are curious what he's going to say next. 

People might go see Journey because Arnel Pineda sounds reasonably close to Steve Perry and isn't a bad singer. They might go see Styx because Tommy Shaw still sounds about the way he did in his glory days and they'd see Dennis DeYoung in his solo tours for the same reason. When they go to Dave's shows, they're going to be entertained by the overall spectacle of it, not necessarily just his vocal stylings. Most long time fans of Roth's will admit he was never that great of a vocalist to begin with.

Looking Back At The Beginning Of MTV

 Looking Back At The Beginning Of MTV

Music videos were around before MTV ever existed. Bands did them to promote their latest albums and hits, and these videos would play on TV's at record stores, among other places. Some would say The Monkees were doing music videos on their old TV show. In fact, Mike Nesmith was an innovator of the concept.

He produced some music videos and had an executive test market them on Nickelodeon TV. There was positive feedback to that, and the executives started getting the idea that they could make a good 24 hour music video channel for TV. Nesmith was offered a stake in this, but he walked away after being paid for the work he did.

The battle was uphill to secure the money and get cable operators to include the channel once it launched on August 1st of 1981. They brought in five fresh faces to be the first video jockeys, who would introduce the videos. There were technical glitches in those early days, but that wasn't the big problem.

The record companies were reluctant to share videos of their artists, and many markets weren't willing to air the channel. They just took what they could get and built from there. Songs from lesser known acts, such as The Buggles, Bow Wow Wow and Billy Idol, and a few videos from better known artists like Pat Benatar and Rod Stewart played in the early days.

They sent one of their people into the markets where the channel aired to get some positive feedback. The people loved the channel, and record stores reported that records for artists whose videos played on MTV were selling off the shelves despite no radio play.

As for getting cable distributors to add the channel, MTV created the clever "I want my MTV" campaign, which got people to call their cable provider and demand the channel. Getting new and better videos became less of a problem when the big artists started complaining to their record companies about not being on MTV.

Many of those artists were part of the "I want my MTV" commercials that included a who's who of the biggest names of the time. By the mid 1980's, the channel was profitable and growing bigger. They even withstood a challenge from Ted Turner to compete with MTV with a channel of his own.

However, MTV was eventually bought out by the Viacom, which was one of the big cable outlets of the time. Viacom is one of the biggest media conglomerates of today with MTV, VH1, CMT, Spike, Comedy Central and Logo among their many channels. For a while, MTV was still about the music.

Eventually, shows like The Real World aired on MTV, and music videos appeared less and less. Within the last ten years, music videos have faded along with the phrase "I want my MTV." It seems nobody cares about the music anymore, but you can still find people wanting their old MTV back. Forums and YouTube comments are filled with people missing the channel that used to be.

For More On The Story Of MTV's Early Days: www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2000/11/mtv200011?printable=true&;currentPage=allPittman

 

 Old MTV And A Look At Ten Of The Best Videos From The Mid 80's

Back in the 1980's, "I want My MTV" was a popular phrase. They had the brilliant idea of taking songs and making music videos as a way to promote them. MTV would play video after video with music news breaks at the top of the hour. Plus, there were concerts.

The music video wasn't just some new concept from the 80's. Many bands were doing video's in the 70's, which would be played on the TV screens at some record stores to promote these albums. The idea of a music video channel was a joke to some, but that joke became very popular.

The down side was the fact that some popular bands from the 70's couldn't adapt to the new format and faded in the 80's. Some talented artists who didn't have the look fell by the wayside, while some attractive artists who didn't have as much talent flourished.

The original VJ's (Video Jockeys), they were Martha Quinn, J.J. Jackson, Alan Hunter, Mark Goodman and Nina Blackwood.

There were some clever videos and some very good ones too. Bands would hire producers to make these videos as good as possible. Michael Jackson's Thriller is probably the most well known music video of them all. Of course, the "King Of Pop" had other nice artistic statements, such as Beat It and Billy Jean.

There were some good ones and some funny ones. Here's a look at ten I remember. You may recall some good ones from the past too.

David Lee Roth - Just A Gigolo: DLR got the idea of going solo after his success with this video and his version of California Girls. This video pokes fun at other music videos of the time.

Twisted Sister - We're Not Gonna Take It: The perfect song for people fed up with being pushed around and told what to do. Featured the guy from the ROTC scenes in Animal House, as did the band's I Wanna Rock Video.

ZZ Top - Legs: This band had a few videos during that time that featured their red hot rod car and beautiful girls. Very popular at the time.

Aha - Take On Me: This video features a very clever animation scene in it where they are running from the bad guys.

Queen - I Want To Break Free: This one was banned from MTV for the artistic dance segment during the musical interlude. The band was in drag for this video.

Madonna - Like A Virgin: Somehow Madonna singing this song was controversial at the time. She always found a way to stay relevant from the time she came out with I'm Burning Up. Say what you will, but she was very smart with her career.

Huey Lewis & The News - If This Is It: The band was very popular in the mid 80's and had a lot of fun with their videos. This one featured a beach scene with everybody except Huey buried up to their necks on the beach.

Van Halen - Hot For Teacher: Sit down Waldo! This band's biggest hit album was 1984, and this was one of three videos from that album that were very popular from this high energy band.

Duran Duran - Hungry Like The Wolf: The band became popular in the states on the strength of videos like this one and Rio. This one featured scenes in the jungle and on the river, and, like many other videos, had a beautiful woman.

Weird Al Yankovic - Eat It: Weird Al made his career making fun of some of the biggest video hits of the time, including Michael Jackson's Beat It. He was so popular that MTV even gave him his own special, Al TV.

The Biggest Reason Dennis DeYoung Won't Be Back In Styx Anytime Soon (Revisited)

The music of Styx brings back a lot of happy memories in my life. When I was a kid collecting 45s, one of the first records I bought was Babe. I loved that song, and the b-side I'm Okay is one of my favorite all-time songs from the band. I have fond memories of hanging out in front of my house with my tape recorder playing of a copy of my brother's Paradise Theater album. My sister and I would listen to that album all the time.

My cousin and I used to rock out to the band. We'd sing songs by Styx as we walked down the street, but none more special than Come Sail Away. That was kind of our song. I remember driving down the road with him with no stereo in the car, and we'd sing that song. It's even more of a fond memory to me as my cousin is no longer here.

Another fond memory was finally getting to see these guys play live back at the Return To Paradise Theater tour. They came to my hometown, so there was no question we were going. I didn't necessarily think it was going to happen again. Dennis DeYoung, James Young, Tommy Shaw, Chuck Ponazzo and Todd Sucherman were on stage together. Sadly, original drummer John Ponazzo was too ill, and he would die that year.

I really felt like Styx had some momentum going. I knew fully well that the music industry had changed. Grunge basically was used to destroy the style of rock music that I loved, at least as something in the mainstream. However, you still had bands like Aerosmith making it up the charts. I felt like as Aerosmith was playing out their run, a new band from their era could have resurgence. After hearing Styx on tour, I felt like they could be it.

After doing another tour, they did Brave New World, which is very much an album of missed opportunities. Most of the band's successful albums that would sell million copies had the guidance of DeYoung, and this one didn't. There was already a rift developing between the band due to Dennis being ill. Tommy and the others were recording in one place, and Dennis recorded his contributions at his home studio. It's an uneven sounding album with some good moments, but it wasn't going to be the album that brought these guys back on top again.

I think Dennis is very much open to coming back and doing one more tour. I don't think he's even looking to be back in the band. However, touring with them one more time and coming full circle is something that appeals to him. I also think it would be good PR for the band. There's a rift between the fan base of people who support the current band versus those who support Dennis and his band. There are people who can appreciate both, but there are many who have chosen sides. Dennis doesn't like seeing that, and he feels this would be a way to put an end to that.

However, I don't expect this to happen anytime soon. I'm going to dismiss many of the BS narratives that we've heard since the band kicked Dennis out. It's been proven that he does indeed want to tour, even if not as much as the other guys. It's been proven that he does want to and can rock. It's been proven that he can write a good rock song. None of the stories that have been told make a lot of sense, and it really doesn't matter. The reality is Styx is on a different trajectory than Dennis.

Dennis is an artist and knows how to create a good song. However, he's also a businessman and has let his music make him a rich man. What he's discovered on his most recent tours with the band he has backing him up is that people enjoy the nostalgia. They love hearing the hits that they remember when they were younger. Since he's added August Zadra to the band, they even get to hear the Tommy Shaw songs being performed by somebody who actually does a pretty good job. He may not be Tommy, but he's not bad.

About 15 years ago, Dennis recorded 100 Years From Now. The album had some really good moments to it, but guess what? None of the songs on that album are being performed in his most recent tours. He's done 26 East Volumes 1 and 2, but he's not touring as he waits to see how things turn out on the other end of this pandemic. What do you think the odds are that he's going to be performing much of the material that he recorded on those two albums on his next tour? There are some really good songs, and some people would classify them as vintage Styx sounding moments, but Dennis is a smart man.

There's a reason why so many bands from the 1970s and 1980s can still tour heavily and make money. Their catalogs of hits are well known and appreciated by the older fans. This is because of the promoting of those albums via radio play, MTV and what have you. They are ingrained in the minds of the people. Therefore, when you see the bill that says Dennis DeYoung and The Music Of Styx, you're going there to hear the old hits, including many of the songs that Styx won't even perform anymore. If you work in too much new stuff that nobody's heard, it could negatively affect ticket sales.

Now move over to Styx. This band has tried to break out of the image of being the band that made those hits in the 1970s and early 1980s. It's not that they don't perform some of them, although there are many songs they don't want to touch anymore. The only reluctantly added Mr Roboto to their setlist because concert promoters wanted the song. The same promoters are the ones pushing for Dennis to come back to the band, which isn't likely to happen anytime soon. You have to understand that Tommy, James and the band have worked hard over the last 20 years too forge a new path.

I would say that Cyclorama and Big Bang Theory were not successful, and the material from those albums didn't get played much. One of those albums was a cover tunes album anyway. They've recorded much of their older catalog, and Lawrence Gowan is singing the Dennis stuff. Lawrence ought to be a prime example of why this band isn't looking to do anything with Dennis. He does the Dennis DeYoung stuff, but he sounds nothing like him. The band didn't care to get somebody who sounded like him. They wanted somebody who could play keyboard as well and gave off a more "Rockstar" vibe, which Lawrence does very well.

In the last 5 or 6 years, however, this band has gathered a little momentum as Styx of the current age, not Styx of the past. I think they are trying to do a little bit of what Tom Petty spoke of. He would record new albums, but he would insist on playing songs from those albums. He wanted go grow as an artist. You'd hear most of his big hits, but you were going to hear the new stuff he was creating at the time. I think this is where Styx is as a band, and you can tell that Tommy and the guys were very excited when they did Mission To Mars a few years back. Some of those songs are still being played on the tour today.

Unlike Mission To Mars, however, Crash Of The Crown doesn't really sound like your typical Styx album. It doesn't sound like vintage Styx. It sounds Styx for sure, but it's the band as they are in 2021. They are doing a few different things. I think they intentionally recorded shorter song so they could include more of them in the current set list, while still playing some of the Tommy Shaw standards that people expect. However, the bottom line is they are moving ahead as a band and trying to be accepted for who they are now, not so much who they were back then. Bringing Dennis back at this point would derail the current plan for the band.

While Styx is in the mode they are currently in, there are no thoughts about bringing Dennis back. Set aside anything the guys have said about him in the last 20 years, because none of that really matters. What matters is they made a couple of albums in recent years that they are very proud of, and they want to perform that stuff live. Lawrence Gowan is very much involved in those albums and what they are, and they're not interested in sidelining him after 20 years of service with this band. That's just not where they are in 2021.

Dennis is in nostalgia mode, so he'd be up to getting on stage with the others and performing those classic hits. It's just not going to happen anytime soon. Even if he were to get into the studio with these guys and record a new Styx album, there are problems with that. First of all, that would mean they were abandoning things the way they have been in recent years and sidelining Gowan. Secondly, they aren't going to suddenly go into the studio with Dennis and ignore what they have created recently. They want to tour behind this music, sell some album copies and some concert tickets, make new fans and perform as a current rock band act and not just a nostalgia act.

It's unfortunate that the time may never come when Dennis, Tommy and James get on the stage together. Even if they get inducted into the Hall Of Fame, you may not get these guys to perform any songs together. For those people wanting to relive the glory days of sticks, the best they can hope for is watching Dennis go back on tour in 2022 with the band he's assembled. They do a faithful interpretation of what long time fans know and love. Having August Zadra do the Tommy Shaw songs certainly helps. My hope would be that Dennis can sneak a couple of his newer songs into the set list, because I think they deserve to be heard live and very much sound like classic  Styx.

The Styx fans who have ridden the wave with Tommy and James or just the new fans who have come along don't really care if Dennis is back in the band. Many of these people don't care that Dennis has recorded some good new new music. They are interested in what this band is doing now and are willing to pay to see them. Styx tours heavily as they are now than they would if Dennis were in the band, but they're also a generating quite a bit of revenue.

There's an energy with them now that is undeniable. When Tommy Shaw said he just wants to be happy in his interview with Dan Rather, what he really should have said is he wants to look ahead to the future and not dwell on the past. Since he was so key in getting Dennis out of the band in the first place, why would he even think about bringing him back? Plus, I believe he truly doesn't like DeYoung and hasn't for years, even going back to before the Return To Paradise Theater tour.

What Will Amazon Do With Its Lord Of The Rings Series?

A few years ago, Amazon announced that they acquired the rights to the Lord of the Rings and would be doing a new series on their streaming service. The word was they were committing to five seasons of this series. The interesting thing is that the Tolkien Estate still retains the rights to The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and the History of Middle Earth books, which detail the happenings in Middle Earth prior to the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.

People were speculating as to why Amazon was looking to remake The Lord of the Rings so soon after Peter Jackson's three blockbuster movies. However, this wasn't the game plan. Readers of the Lord of the Rings books will note that at the end of The Return of the King, there is the appendices. This is a timeline of the history of Middle Earth, and it also shows the family tree of some of the important families featured in The Lord of the Rings.

The appendices serve as the launching point for stories. The writers of this new series are not allowed to draw from anything specifically written about in the other books that isn't mentioned in the appendices. They are also not allowed to create any story that goes against what is officially considered Middle Earth canon by the Tolkien Estate. Despite these limitations, there's still quite a bit to work with when telling a story.

One shining example is in unofficial fan film that was created about a decade ago called Born of Hope. This was the story about Aragorn's grandfather and his father. It's basically a story that tells how the rangers in the land of Arnor survived after their kingdom fell. It serves to tell about the birth of Aragorn and how the baby was ultimately sent to Rivendell to be cared for by Elrond. It doesn't take away from the official canon and fills in a few of the blank spaces.

Some important occurrences in the history of Middle Earth are highlighted in the appendices. Some of those stories link together pretty well. There are enough story ideas to work with to paint a good picture. Rumor has it that they will be telling the story about the creation of the Rings of Power and the Fall of Numenor. This means they are heading into uncharted territory. There has never been any proper on screen depictions of these stories.

I am excited about the possibilities of what this series can bring, but I am also a little bit apprehensive. Considering how other beloved franchises have been used for the woke agenda, I am hoping that this will not go down a similar path. My hope Is that the people writing the scripts have a love and appreciation for the work of JRR Tolkien and will show it the proper respect. What I'd really like to see is parts of The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales made into proper movies. Christopher Tolkien never wanted to see that happen, and I can't say I blame him. However, the Tolkien Estate may see things differently now.

40 Years Ago, People Wanted Their MTV

It's the 40th anniversary of the launching of MTV, otherwise known as Music Television. The channel still exists, but it's anything but a music video channel these days. It's sad that reality TV replaced the music, but I have to admit I had a bad feeling when they put that crap show known as The Real World on the air. Even sadder is that nobody has come along to do what MTV used to do, because I believe it could still work. You have so many channels these days, why wouldn't there be room for this? 

Back in those days, the cable box was just making its way into people's homes. I don't know if we had the cable box when August 1st, 1981 came along. It might have been a few months after when I became aware of this channel. The music industry freaked out about it, and the record labels didn't want to support this upstart channel. They thought it would hurt their own bottom line. However, record sales started to go up for the artists who did put videos on this channel. Suddenly, the labels wanted in on the deal.

There is speculation about where the concept for Music Television really came from. Was it Michael Nesmith who deserves the credit? He was on the Monkees long before he started playing with the music video concept, and certainly segments of that show took on the appearance of MTV music videos. Actually, bands would do promotional videos long before MTV became a thing. Those videos would play at record stores as a way to entice people to buy their records. Whenever the case, the rocket launched and the first song on the air was Video Killed The Radio Star by The Buggles. The music industry wasn't quite the same.

Radio stations had DJs, but MTV had VJ's. They were JJ Jackson, Martha Quinn, Nina Blackwood, Mark Goodman and Alan Hunter. These guys and gals would introduce the newest videos. They got to interview the artists and even check out some of big concerts. What an exciting time it must have been to be on the ground floor of launching this channel. This is before Viacom got their hands on it and pretty much turned it into crap. We were getting music videos. If there was nothing on TV, you could just flip to the channel and kill a couple of hours enjoying some music and some cool videos

There were many promotions that they did. there were lots of contests that they had, but they had the campaign to get the channel on various cable systems. Back then, some of those cable carriers were reluctant to put a channel like this in their lineup. Hence, "I want my MTV" became the catch phrase with Billy idol and other artists saying the phrase. For all of the criticisms of this channel, there really was nothing like it. We were introduced to music we might not have otherwise heard, some of it good and some of it bad.

One of the big critics of the channel was Frank Zappa, and it's very interesting to go back and listen to some of the things he said about the music industry and the world in general. He wasn't that far off the mark. His concern was that MTV was all about style over substance. How you looked was more important than how well you could play or the songs you created. True, there was some garbage on MTV, but there was good music being created and shown to us. It's sad that artists like Christopher Cross didn't catch a break on MTV because he didn't have the look. Some of the top '70s acts didn't quite make the transition and missed the wave that MTV rode In on. 

I could easily get into talking about the different artists. Billy Idol, Pat Benatar, Duran Duran, Twisted Sister, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Van Halen, Prince, Genesis and so many more. If you were there, you know. You probably enjoyed this channel. It changed the music industry, and I don't necessarily think it hurt it. Music was immensely popular in the 1980s and records were selling off the shelves. Concert tickets were selling out, and MTV had a hand in all of that. 

As we went into the 1990s, things started to change. The channel became less about music until it was ultimately phased out of the lineup entirely. They created MTV2, but even they phased music out as did VH1. It boggles my mind that there is no channel doing what they did when we have so many channels to choose from. You can't tell me that there's not enough room for one channel that does this. Better yet, why doesn't Viacom make a Classic MTV channel that shows things as they aired all those years ago? It's just a time that has gone by, but those of us who saw it in its infancy can attest to how cool MTV was. I can't believe it's been 40 years.

Dennis DeYoung Should Have Replaced Tommy Shaw In Styx After The Kilroy Tour

I'm going to do a little bit of speculation on the history of the rock group Styx. There may be an even bigger article coming. In that column, I'll speculate on how certain members of the current band Styx really feel about Dennis DeYoung and why I'm led to believe that. In this article, I want to talk about why DeYoung should have replaced Tommy Shaw in Styx after the Kilroy Was Here tour.

 

As somebody who considers Styx one of my all-time favorite bands, it makes me sad to see what's currently happening with the key members of the group that I loved. Sure, I always leaned towards Dennis DeYoung in this group. However, I appreciated what everybody brought to this band. Although I think they wouldn't have been as big a band or maybe even existed without Dennis, you can't argue the edge that James Young brought to the act, nor can you ignore the fact that Tommy Shaw brought the band to a whole new level when he joined.

I don't want to talk too much about what should be covered in another article, but I will say that Dennis has spent the last 20 years disproving the narrative that the other band members have been trying to create. From the position that they are in, they can just keep moving forward and define Styx however they choose. They own the band name. From Dennis's perspective, It's not just about him proving that what these guys have said is wrong. You can tell that he is deeply hurt by the things that took place after the second reunion tour of the band in 1997.

DeYoung never thought it would come down to this. How could he? There wouldn't even be a band if not for Dennis. He formed it with John and Chuck Panozzo. They were a very different band in 1962. They weren't the rock band we came to know. This was a group that did cover tunes and played at weddings and other venues in the Chicago area.

At some point between then and the time 10 years later when they became Styx, they became a rock band. They were still playing cover tunes and figuring out who they were as a band. Up till that point, nobody who's currently performing live with the band was even in the band. By the time they got their first record deal with Wooden Nickel, James Young had joined.

DeYoung played an important part in creating the sound of this group. It wasn't that he did everything, but from the moment they recorded the song Lady, he understood what this band was meant to be. He also understood that he wasn't the only reason they sounded the way they did. He understood the part each member played in that sound. When it came to writing and creating the music, he understood what James brought to the deal.
 
When Shaw came along after they got their second record deal with A&M records, he knew exactly what the new band member brought to the act. They already knew what their sound was. Tommy's contributions were the songs that he brought, not necessarily the shaping of the overall sound of the band. They already knew who they were by then.

Fast forward to the Kilroy Was Here tour. It's my belief that Tommy was already very unhappy with this band before they even recorded that album. I personally believe it started going downhill for him the moment they did Cornerstone, but I'll talk about why in another article. Dennis clearly had a vision for Kilroy Was Here, and I think the themes of that album are very important. Musically, it left Tommy unsatisfied, and he wanted out. Dennis has even admitted that everybody else was still good to go. They wanted to continue with a big stadium greatest hits tour and live album before heading back into the studio a year or so later.

Dennis has even mentioned that he promised Young that they would do the stadium tour after Kilroy, but Tommy left at that point. It was pretty clear that James, Chuck and John still wanted to continue, but Dennis didn't want to. He was looking at the band dynamics and who they were. He believed that fans would not accept this band without Tommy bringing what he brought to the show. Therefore, the three other remaining members could not convince DeYoung that it was a good idea to tour. Did he make the right decision? Here is where I will engage in some speculation.

Other bands had replaced lead singers for whatever reason by then. Kansas had replaced Steve Walsh and still had some chart success with a new lead singer. AC/DC had to replace Bon Scott and ended up having the biggest chart success they'd ever had. There were cases of bands moving forward without key original singers, and they were able to sell concert tickets and create new music.

Considering the minor success Styx had about a decade later with Edge Of The Century and the fact that Tommy wasn't involved in that album, I'd have to believe that this band would have been okay for at least a few years. It's my belief that Dennis should have replaced Shaw at that point, and there's a few reasons I believe this.

I have to agree with critics of bands when it comes to replacing singers and not trying to get somebody who sounds like the guy everybody loved. I think Lawrence Gowan is a fine keyboardist, but he sounds so different than Dennis that he becomes distracting when you listen to him singing anything that Dennis recorded with Styx. He doesn't do him fair justice. When Journey replaced Steve Perry, they at least made an effort to bring in somebody who sounded like the guy. Say what you want about Arnel Pineda, he's a reasonable vocal facsimile of Perry.

Dennis was right about what Tommy brought to the band, and simply putting a guy in there that could sing decently and play guitar would not have worked. However, we witnessed over the last decade that DeYoung understood that in his own band. They finally play Styx songs that were made famous by Tommy, and the guy they have singing those songs, August Zadra, does a good job of making the song sound close to what long time fans remember. There's only one Shaw, but I'm saying that DeYoung did a reasonable job of bringing somebody into his band who could sing those songs.

The first order of business would have been going out on the road and playing live. That was the plan. The band could have taken as long as they needed to bring in a guy who could sing the Tommy Shaw songs faithfully enough and play guitar. Then, they go out on the road. We're talking 1984 at that point, and I think it would have worked reasonably well for the guys. There's probably a live album at that point and maybe even a concert that would have appeared on MTV. Then, they go back into the studio with the new guy, unless Tommy decides at that point that he wants to come back.

It's possible that Tommy sees that the guys are touring and rocking out more than they did on the Kilroy tour, and he wants back in. Maybe not. If not, the band records another album, and they possibly have a little bit of success. Maybe they don't reach the triple platinum status of before, but gold or even platinum is possible.

With their status, they can go back out on tour and make money, and the band still continues. Another tour and another album? That's just possible. All the while, the door is still open for Tommy to come back, but what if the new guy actually does such a good job that they don't need Shaw to come back into the band? Again, this is just speculation.

DeYoung tried to wait Tommy out and did his own solo stuff. It should be pointed out that Dennis really made no attempts in any of his solo work to sound like Styx until he did 100 Years From Now about 15 years ago and then his latest two albums. This is because he wanted Styx to be done by the band, not just himself. While he disbanded this group for about 8 years, he waited for Tommy. Tommy had no incentive because he was still making records and touring. He wasn't doing as good as he had with the band, but he was still doing okay throughout the 1980s.

What going back on tour does is keeps the other band members happy. The other three members probably pointed out that they were there before Tommy for a while and felt that they were as much the band as he was. If it didn't work out, which I doubt would have been an issue, they could have given it up a couple of years later.

However, what if Tommy looks over at the band and decides he really wants to come back? It's very possible that after a tour and another album with somebody else, Tommy is brought back in and we get the lineup of the band that we all know and love. Dennis isn't seen as the bad guy for putting an end to the band for so long, and who knows what songs they create at that point?

The other thing about DeYoung bringing this band back is the other three members are happy and they continue on in the newer incarnation. There's not eight years of idle time that builds up any sort of animosity from those members. He can at least claim that he tried as requested if it doesn't work out, and it's not going to damage the reputation of the more popular songs from the band.

The other thing it does is keeps the band under the guidance of Dennis. This slightly different history makes it less likely that he gets kicked out of the band when it eventually happened, and he doesn't have to go through the last 20 years trying to defend himself and figure out what went wrong.

I dislike the idea of replacing popular members of bands when they are still available. If somebody actually doesn't want to come back, that's another story. Perry doesn't want to be in Journey, so that's not going to happen. DeYoung very much wants to be in Styx, even if it's just for one final tour. He's been wanting to do something with the guys for a while now, but they won't hear it.

DeYoung is powerless to do much about it at this point except for explaining his side of the story in interviews. Had he went ahead and done the stadium tour after Kilroy, it's just possible that he'd still be in the band to this day. That's my take as an observer and a fan of the classic line up of the band.
 

Original Kansas Violinist Robby Steinhardt Dead At 71

I just got word that original Kansas violinist Robby Steinhardt has passed away. He was 71 years old. People probably don't think about the violin as an instrument in rock music, but Robby probably did more to change that perception than anyone. The sound of Kansas was unmistakable. The violin set Kansas apart from any other band and played a big role in helping take them to stardom. It still boggles my mind that this band hasn't been inducted into the Hall of Fame yet.

One of the first albums I bought as a kid was Point Of Know Return. Who can forget Dust In The Wind? It's not only one of the greatest songs a rock band has ever recorded, it's something that's part of pop culture for the ages. Robby's violin solo set the song apart, and he also did backing vocals. Throughout the first seven albums of the band, he got to sing lead vocals on several songs. He helped give this band an edge.

I can remember thinking about the album cover of Point Of Know Return and the song Dust In The Wind, but I devoured the music. When I saw the picture of the long haired guy with the beard, I was mesmerized. Steinhardt was always my favorite member of this band. He sang lead vocals on maybe Kansas's hardest rocking song during the classic run of the band, Lightning's Hand. I understand his favorite song in which he sang lead vocals was Miracles Out Of Nowhere, which was certainly a good song.

Some of my favorite songs featured him either doing lead vocals or sharing the lead vocals with iconic lead singer Steve Walsh. I loved All The World, which is still one of my all-time favorites from the band. Sparks Of The Tempest, Apercu, Child Of Innocence, Down The Road, Hopelessly Human. I'm getting a bit choked up thinking about Robby and what his role in Kansas meant to me as a fan. Listen to his violin work on songs like Chasing Shadows, The Pinnacle and Nobody's Home, but he could also rock out, as evidenced with songs like Apercu, Down The Road and Bringing it Back.

As with any band, tensions heat up and the dynamic changes when somebody leaves. The band was in the midst of recording what became their eighth studio album, Vinyl Confessions. In fact, the album was pretty much recorded when Walsh decided it was time to leave. He didn't like the religious message lyricist Kerry Livgren was putting in the music. As the lead singer, he felt he would be seen as preaching to the fans. Steinhardt tried the soldier forward and did the original lead vocals for Crossfire, though the John Elefante version is what we eventually got. 

Truthfully, you could see his role diminishing in the band after Point Of Know Return. Yes, he still had a vocal presence and his violin was present, but his lead singing opportunities dwindled. I think he lost interest in the band after Walsh left, and he sort of unceremoniously walked away at the end of the Vinyl Confessions tour. We didn't hear much from Robby for a long time, and the band became much different without his presence. 

They went through the remainder of the 1980s without a violinist before David Ragsdale convinced them they needed to bring it back in the 1990s. Ragsdale is certainly a fine violinist and has done a good job of carrying on the legacy of this band that Robby helped create.

We probably wouldn't have heard anything from him, but the band dynamics of Kansas changed again when Ragsdale left at the end of the Freaks Of Nature tour. When Phil Ehart wanted to revisit the classic hits with a studio album recorded with the London Symphony Orchestra, he got an idea. He had seen Steinhardt perform with the band Steinhardt-Moon, and he sounded great. Phil was able to convince him to come back, and they recorded Always Never The Same. It's all the classic songs with a few new ones, and you get the London Symphony Orchestra.

Though Steve Walsh had the passion and still sang as hard as ever, his voice clearly wasn't what it was in the glory days. However, Robby sounded like he did back then. I'm fortunate that I was able to see the band on the Point Of Know Return 20th Anniversary Tour. Even more so, Robby's manager Nick Fakouri was arranging for fans to get to meet him backstage. I went to two shows one weekend and got to hang out with him, talk for a moment and got autographs and pictures. It's truly a treasured memory for me, moreso because I got to share it with my sister, who has since passed on. 

What Robby was able to bring to the band was his stage presence. He was always the guy who introduced the songs back in the glory days and bantered with the crowd a little bit. This is the role he filled for the next decade or so. Robby got to exercise his vocal chops on the last studio album that featured all of the original members, Somewhere To Elsewhere. Distant Vision is a song that stands out to me. However, Kansas was touring pretty heavily. As the first decade of the 2000s was close to winding down, you could see that the road was not agreeing with him. Ultimately, he left again as Ragsdale rejoined the band.

I think there were certain members of the band who were hurt by his departure and maybe even felt he was abandoning them. I remember reading a few things, but it's not worthy of getting into the details. The bottom line was Robby's health wasn't so good. I do believe he would have been ready to get back up on stage with the guys for the 40th Anniversary Show they had planned, but there was bad news. He suffered a stroke and was unable to be there. Much like Livgren when he had a similar health issue, Steinhardt battled back.

You could tell that he still had the passion to be involved in music, and he was hanging out with the guys of Stormbringer and occasionally playing and singing with them. At first, you could tell he was still suffering the effects of the stroke, and it was a bit sad to watch. What it did illustrate, however, was his desire to do what he loved to do and his determination to get better. Gradually, you could see him getting healthier and stronger. He was again playing the violin and singing, and I'm sure the fans who came to see him in Florida and surrounding states enjoyed his performances.

By all accounts, Robby was one of the nicest guys you would want to meet. He was friendly and outgoing as a person. I can only go by my interaction with him. When he came back to the band, you could tell he was happy to be there again. I was not aware that his health was in decline again, and I don't have all the details. I understand he was even recording new music again, which is nice. Maybe we'll get to hear that as I'm always curious what band members record when they are out on their own. 

Robby Steinhardt will always be one of my all-time favorite musicians. He was an important part of why I have become a lifelong Kansas fan. Some of the songs he sang and played on are my favorites to this day, and I'm glad that he was able to touch my life and others with his music. There's not much else that I can say about this other than the fact that he will be missed. I think we should all appreciate any of the classic groups and artists that are still out there performing while we still have them. My condolences go out to his family.

Journey Debuts New Song

This is a fun time to be a fan of classic melodic rock. Artists from back in the 1970s and '80s are releasing new music. Most notably, Styx released a new album, Crash Of The Crown. Dennis DeYoung released 26 East Volume 2. There are some really good moments on both of those albums that will have you remembering the music industry the way it used to be when record labels let good bands develop.

Journey just released a song called The Way We Used To be. I totally understand Neal Schon wanting to get back to creating new music. Neal is a very creative musician, and it has to be difficult to just go out on tour playing "The Dirty Dozen" at the Journey shows. 

It isn't a question of not liking those songs. It's just that most musicians want to keep creating new stuff that they can put alongside of their big hits. I know that Neal is probably the driving force of the band at this point in getting into the studio and recording. More music will be forthcoming.

Like many fans of the band, I love the underdog story of Arnel Pineda being brought from the Philippines into this band. We've seen a few stories over the last 15 years or so of singers and musicians being discovered based on YouTube videos they created. Arnel was belting out songs by Journey and other great bands and doing a remarkable job of emulating the original vocalists. He could reach for those highs. I think he may be the best singer in Journey since Steve Perry.

Arnel is so humble. You get the feeling that he is thanking God everyday for the opportunity he's had to tour with this band and record new music through the years. I think anybody cheering against this guy might be taking it too far. There's also the comparisons between he and the guy who originated the vocals as done on the classic Journey songs, Steve Perry. 

Steve has said repeatedly he has no intentions of ever returning to this band and even gave Pineda his blessing. Being the humble guy that he is, Arnel has even suggested he would get out of the way if Steve wanted to come back to this band.

In listening to this new Journey song, I get a distinct 1980s vibe from it. Musically speaking, it stacks up against the music created back in those days. Neal and the guys crafted a good song, plain and simple. Arnel lays down the vocal tracks, and it's not like they are bad. He does a solid job of singing and doesn't ruin the song. I do have a criticism, but it comes from a place of not disliking Arnel and actually wanting to see him succeed. I'm not trying to compare him to Perry or any other vocalist.

Let me just say that Steve Perry raised the bar so high with his vocals while he was in Journey that most who try to fill his shoes will fail. Or, they'll blow out their voices. Steve's voice doesn't even sound the way it did back in those days, and he came to a realization that he needed to sing and record differently after a while. When you listen to his newer music off of the album Traces, you hear a good vocalist, and it's still Steve. I like those songs and how they represent who he is now. Steve would obviously have a difficult time ever trying to come back and recreate what once was. 

What Arnel did when he joined the band was give them an opportunity to keep playing those songs with vocals that are pretty darn close to what Steve offered. Plus, you had a very energetic singer on stage trying to put on a show for the fans. When it comes to getting into the studio and recording new music, I can't really talk about most of the stuff Pineda has done with Journey. I haven't heard a lot of it, so what I'm going to say here only represents the song The Way We Used To Be. 

Back in the days when vocalists like Steve Walsh, Steve Perry, Freddie Mercury and Lou Gramm were making a name for themselves, they were interpreting those lyrics. Sometimes they wrote the lyrics, and other times they were singing somebody else's words. However, the vocals that they laid down on those songs were their interpretations.

These legendary singers made those songs their own. They didn't merely sing the words that were written. It was about vocal phrasing, when to take it up a notch and really pack a punch with the vocals. They knew when to turn it up and when to tone it down, and that's what made them legends. 

When it comes to any classic song that Arnel may sing, be it from Journey, Chicago, Styx or what have you, he knows how to sing them. The singers who originally recorded those songs showed him the path and where to really show off his vocals. I don't get the feeling that Pineda knew what to do with this song. He didn't really reach for any big moments that would be tied to him and put him on the level of a great vocalist. I hear adequate singing here, but it's nothing that jumps out at me. 

I don't think it's fair to compare this guy to Steve Perry for many reasons, and I would never do that. When I'm making this comparison with great vocalists, all I'm saying is I want to hear Pineda take a song and make it his own. I want to see him make a song that vocalists 20 years later will hear and try to emulate what he did. 

This song vocally did not impress me, but it's only one song. It's not about him being a bad vocalist. I think he's good, but I don't think he reached for the moment and made it his. I look forward to hearing what he and the band do next and if he reaches for a truly amazing vocal moment. I hope he does

My Thoughts On The Series Upload On Amazon Prime

When I first saw the announcement of the series Upload on Amazon Prime, I couldn't help but do an article with my thoughts on the show's premise. I'm not really in favor of the idea of uploading your consciousness into a computer before you die. It comes from the transhumanist movement and the idea that somehow you're going to cheat death. It's the age-old quest of mankind to replace God. One of the concerns I voiced was that you would be giving up your free will and your soul to whoever it is that runs the computer program, but I'm not going to get into that discussion here.

I finally sat down and watched the entire first season of the series. Let me just say, it's very good. I don't think this is a series that takes itself too seriously. They have a premise, and they are trying to have some fun with it. The lead character dies, and he has to make a snap decision at the very last minute to either upload his consciousness to the computer or die and experience whatever it is we experience after death. What I find interesting is that we learn as the series goes on that maybe he wasn't really going to die. Maybe he was pressured into it.

Our lead character Nathan Brown, played by Robbie Amell, is in a relationship with Ingred Kannerman, played by Allegra Edwards. It seems like it's more physical than anything else. We learn more about his life as the season goes on and he gets used to the simulated afterlife of Horizen. We quickly learn that this is where people who have the money go in their effort to cheat death. Life is made quite comfortable and cozy for them. They don't have to worry about anything, or so it seems. 

We do learn that it's not cheap to live in Horizen. I like watching Nathan's friend Luke, played by Kevin Bigley. Because of his military service, Luke was able to be uploaded there, but based on the fact that he continues to try to cheat the system, you get the impression that he doesn't really have a lot of money to enjoy some of the perks that come with living there. Some things do cost extra.

As the events unfold, we learn that somebody wanted Nathan dead. His death was definitely not an accident. Furthermore, his fiance understood this. Remember I mentioned that his decision to upload was kind of pushed on him, and maybe he would have survived his injuries? Well, his fiance Ingred was encouraging him to consent to being uploaded. Apparently, she felt this was the best way to keep him safe. Once uploaded, Nathan realizes that Ingred has control over him in this simulated afterlife. He can't do anything without getting her permission.

In Horizen, you get an angel. This is the person who tends to your needs. If you have a problem with how things are going, you can contact your angel. Nathan's Angel is Nora Antony, and I think Andy Allo does an excellent job in the role. We learn that she doesn't really have very much money, but she aspires to have her ailing father Dave Antony, played by Chris Williams, uploaded to Horizen. She's trying to use whatever influence she has as an employee of the company and what money she has saved to get him uploaded there when he dies, but he wants nothing to do with it. As the season goes on, you start to wonder if he's part of the movement to destroy Horizen. He definitely has more of a story that will probably be told in the second season.

An angel and their client are not supposed to get intimate or too familiar with each other. The company has rules against that. Of course, the series would be very different if Nathan and Nora didn't have romantic possibilities. They do get closer as the season goes on, but it doesn't end exactly how you might hope. People are anxious to see the second season, which began filming at the beginning of the year. Nora's coworker Alesha, played by Zainab Johnson, is the angel for Luke, and this leads to some of the funniest scenes of the season. There's an adversarial thing going on between these two, but it makes for some entertaining situations.

In the first season, they did a good job of establishing the mystery. Why did somebody want Nathan dead? What was it he was working on before he died? It turns out he was working on uploads for people who didn't have the money to go to Horizen. Obviously, the competition doesn't want that to happen. Where is the profit in that? All of this is plausible. If and when uploading is rolled out in our future, it's going to be the rich and influential who have the first opportunity, if you want to call it that. The poor will be left out. No matter what the technology is, the poor are the last to see any of it until the cost is driven down.

Of course, we do get an example of how poor people might be uploaded into the simulated afterlife. At a point, Nathan gets tired of Ingred controlling his life and rationing him money when she thinks he needs it. He decides to go to a place called 2 Gig. This is where people use a monthly plan. They get a basic room with white walls and a bed and a table. When they use up their 2 gigs of memory, they simply freeze until the next month. The people who have lived there for a while have learned to do almost nothing so that they can be conscious for the whole month. That's not a very appealing way to live, and it serves as the backdrop for how the first season ends.

Among the noteworthy people in this show is Nora's boss Lucy, played by Andrea Rosen. She's a career woman who doesn't cut her employees any slack. You get a sense that she's a lonely woman, but it's hard to be sympathetic towards her with the way she's depicted in the first season. Nathan's cousin is Fran Booth, played by Elizabeth Bowen. She takes it upon herself to investigate Nathan's death, and there are some entertaining scenes with her. Sadly, it didn't go too well for her. There are some good performances by other cast members, but I can't ignore A.I. Guy, played by Owen Daniels. He's a bit annoying, sometimes funny and sometimes creepy.

We see a lot of little jokes about how the afterlife is, but I'd love to see a few things explored a little bit more. For instance, the people who are uploaded are not supposed to be involved in the living world. They're not supposed to be involved in anything business related or financial, although I get the impression that people like David Choke, played by William B Davis, might stick his nose in matters of the living. This character is based on David Koch. He's kind of a jerk, but he does give Nathan some useful advice from time to time.

It still begs the question, what is the economy of the after world? While they may not be involved in finances in the living world, there is a currency of some sort in the afterlife of Horizen. Luke, Nathan and young Dylan, played by Rhyes Slack, use it when they go off grid to take care of a couple of things. They go to a place where you can get just about anything you want for a price, which leads to a comedic situation for poor Dylan. There is a contest later in the season where the winner gets so many tokens, while their angel even gets a little bit of money too. 

Basically, I can see them setting up a scenario where the less influential are left having to work and wait on the more financially secure people in this after world. For example, somebody wanting to be conscious for the entire month who lives in 2 Gig might have to get a job to make that happen.

It still doesn't sound at all appealing to me. I'd rather go to wherever it is after this existence and experience what I'm meant to experience. However, as a series, there's no denying that this setting is fertile ground to tell a good story. I must admit that Greg Daniels had a good idea when he created this series. The first season was better than I was expecting, and I look forward to what they have planned for the second season. 

I know the story will have some interesting twists and turns when Season 2 premieres, but I'd like to see the simulated world of Horizen explored a little bit more. Overall, I would recommend it. Season 1 is 10 episodes, and if you're a fan of science fiction with a dash of comedy and a little bit of romance, you might just like it. It helps that they have good writing and a good cast. You can catch all of the episodes on Amazon Prime.