Terrorism

 

The dictionary defines "terrorism" as: The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political gains.  Google's explanation of the term goes a little deeper, saying: Terrorism is the use of fear and acts of violence to intimidate societies, governments or against an ideology. Many different types of social or political organizations may use terrorism in an attempt to achieve their goals. Google then goes on to explain; People who do the terrorism are called terrorists.  That part could have gone unsaid as the first thing that came to mind was 'DUH!'.

Now I could go on in this piece to point out instances of terrorism that proved itself pointless and alike, but everyone knows much of the big events and don't need my fat ass reminding them of that.  Plus, when I really sat back and thought about it, I had to admit that I didn't actually know that much about what terrorism was and is.

This all began this morning.  I've been watching a lot of video game play through's as of late on the YouTube.  A lot of war and shit like that, usually from the perspective of American servicemen.  I thought why aren't other world Armed Forces represented in the video game world.  They could make campaigns from an Australian perspective.  Or British or Israeli or...  Then I thought ISIS?  Without glamorizing the latter, video game makers could just make them all goofy and stereotypical. Design them to be stupid as f*ck.  Then again, in the social climate that our society lives in, some asshole would claim to be offended, to which I say: Unless you're a terrorist, yourself, who gives a shit?! I laid in bed, 6:30am, thinking about this stupid shit.

How would I define terrorism, based on the limited knowledge that I possess?  Essentially, it's a group of people who frown on another group's happiness and joy, who feel it necessary to shit on those freedoms by blowing shit up and inflicting fear.... Or terror.  In the simplest of terms, they're a bunch of assholes.  And poorly dressed ones at that. That last part is purely my own belief.  I'm not very stylish, myself, and shouldn't cast stones on poor choices of apparel.

The dictionary defines the word "contentment" as: A state of happiness or satisfaction.  Based on personal observation only, looking at the state of many Middle Eastern countries who are bombarded with Acts of Terrorism on a nearly daily basis, don't appear to be very happy places, but I imagine the peace loving citizens make due in the environments in which they live.  Plus, the shitty state of their country may be due to the terrorist factions continually blowing shit up.  I don't know.  It's pretty f*cked up.

Looking upon these words, it becomes pretty f*cking clear that the events that unfolded on January 6th, 2021 in Washington, DC and the attacks on the State Senate, appear to be, by all definition, an Act of Terror, but I could be mistaken on account that the government refused to punish the instigator of that terrorist act.

Goes without saying.  This kind of bullshit needs to end.  Not just the terrorism expressed by pajama wearing assholes who blow shit up in hopes of nailing 40 virgins in the afterlife (& let's be honest, that bullshit isn't happening), but the homegrown terrorists, too.  Redneck assholes holed-up in shanties and log cabins throughout Montana and all those other scarcely populated areas.  Or those gangland idiots who runs the streets of our major metropolis' with a gat in their hand or an AK.  Just a distasteful lot, all of them.

I don't have a means to an end.  No magic ideology that everyone can get behind in a sense of global unity.  That will never happen except in the science fiction movies and that's all FICTION.

The dictionary defines "science fiction" as: Science fiction (sometimes shortened to sci-fi or SF) is a genre of speculative fiction that typically deals with imaginative and futuristic concepts such as advanced science and technology, space exploration, time travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life.  Perhaps in a parallel universe, but I doubt I'll ever see some sort of World Peace in my lifetime.  I could add the definition of "World Peace", but I think that's just a pipe dream.

RoboCop 2014

I attended a matinee showing of the new RoboCop movie yesterday afternoon.  There's been a lot of speculation surrounding the newest edition to the franchise.  Many die hard fans are questioning why the classic movie needed a reboot.  Why is the new RoboCop black, instead of the classic grey of the original?  Many superficial queries like this, most of which are unfounded and based on theory and not on actual experience from watching the motion picture itself.  I read several reviews made by private citizens on the website where I got my show times from, many of which contained the information that they had not yet seen the movie.  I question the validity of such remarks and inquire how it is that people believe they can make an educated review on a motion picture that (at the time) had not yet been released?  Furthermore, I wonder how anyone would derive any value from these reviews based on speculation, rather than based on witnessing the film first hand?

Admittedly, I was one of these people when I first learned that RoboCop was getting a reboot.  I would hardly call the original film a "classic".  It was a decent sci-fi adventure when it was originally produced, more than twenty-five years ago, but I would hardly consider it classic.  However, as with all popular films, a reboot or retelling, is almost inevitable, these days.  Past films like True Grit, Planet of the Apes and most recently, Batman and Total Recall have all been reintroduced into the culture as retelling's of the originals.  Even George Lucas did this a few years ago with his Star Wars franchise, only instead of redoing the movies in their entirety, he instead opted to add stupid shit to them, thus making a mockery of his name and forever placing a blemish on the true sci-fi masterpieces.

As for this newest version of RoboCop, for those attending the movie believing it to be a remake of the original, are going to be disappointed greatly.  Even the way that Detective Alex Murphy loses his life is completely different from the original, and there's a great reason for this change, which I will share in a moment.  However, if you go into the theater with a sound (and open) mind, you will come away from the movie quite pleased.  For RoboCop, 2014, is NOT a remake, but a reinterpretation of the original story line.

The gist of it is the same, in that Detective Murphy is killed and is reanimated as the robotic crime fighter, known unconventionally as RoboCop, but beyond that, I like the changes that the film makers brought to life.  They've presented the RoboCop from a much more human point of view, even throwing a question out to the audience of whether or not it is right to fool with Mother Nature in reanimating that which, beyond all accounts, should be dead?

The story told in the film was pretty cut and dry, except for the finale, which confused me some.  They elude to some kind of secret, but fail to elaborate, so the conclusion seems almost fabricated and thrown together as a last resort.  Like the director, Jose Padilha, figured that as long as the sequences were tied together with some extraordinary special effects, that audiences will be fooled into loving the film.

This is not the case.  Up to now, it seems like I'm singing the movie's praises, but in the end I have to admit that it's not a fantastic movie.  I do love the changes to the RoboCop itself.  It's a better actor (Joel Kinnaman) portraying the RoboCop.  It's more believable that the RoboCop would speed all around Detroit on a motorcycle than squeezing his robotic fat-ass into a cramped Ford Taurus (est. RoboCop, 1987).  Alex Murphy, after his metamorphosis, is more human that machine.

The only fail the movie has for me is the overall story line.  It's a bit weak and shallow, not to mention confusing and contrived.  Based on my FOUR STAR RATING SYSTEM, I give RoboCop (2014) THREE STARS.

As for why the origin of Detective Alex Murphy's death was changed so drastically, I theorize that it's based on the rating of the film.  The original RoboCop possessed an R-rating.  The film showcased female nudity, strong language and grotesque and violent images, which included Murphy having his hand blown off by a shotgun and one of the villains (literally) melting from overexposure to nuclear waste.  The newest rendition possesses only a PG-rating.  There's no nudity.  No strong language and impressive but not over-the-top violence.  This allows children to attend then run out afterwards to pick up the new RoboCop action figures.  Film making, after all, is more about business and the almighty dollar, than it is about entertainment.