V.egetarians' E.nvy G.oes A.nother N.otch

I have absolutely nothing against vegetarians. If that's what you want to do with your life, I say good luck and Godspeed. The following is NOT meant to be a rant against vegetarians. If anything, what I'm about to say helps them assert their identity even more.


Food: Real

Well, that being said, let me get one quick complaint out of the way first. Whenever you eat with vegetarians, you always have to go their way. You have to get the vegetarian appetizer, the vegetarian pizza, whatever. You always have to bend to THEIR ideas about food and right and wrong, even in the most casual situation. Plus, there's nothing worse than a lecture about why YOU should be a vegetarian. Could there be another situation that more makes you want to kill yourself? As if, after hearing their self-righeous drivel, you will say "You're right! I've been wrong all along! Bacon really tastes BAD!" I hope, for their sake, no well-meaning vegetarian proselytizes to a group of animals. It will be the worst animal slaughter in history.

What I want to say concerns the "imitation real food" trend of late. Fake bacon, fake turkey, fake burgers, etc. This proves that vegetarians want to be like the mainstream of society, i.e., omnivores. On some level, besides jealousy, they know what they are doing puts them in sort of a kooky box. They don't want to be seen as "those nutty vegetarians", despite the fact that the choice is solely theirs. That's why their "bacon" assumes the form of real bacon, their "burgers" look like real burgers, and every other fake food they have churned out of their fraud factories resembles - physically resembles - food made from animals.

I can't help but wonder why they choose to do it this way. They could obviously make the food look like anything. If, hypothetically, hamburger patties were blue and star-shaped, fake vegetarian burgers would be blue and star-shaped. If bacon, in the real world, was yellow and square, fake bacon would be yellow and square. The meat versions are the originals. They came first. The manufactured vegetarian versions are the imitations. They came second.


Food: ????

The fact that the makers of the fake versions of the food chose to put their twisted mockeries of bacon and hamburgers into the same size and shape as the originals shows that they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be vegetarians and hold on to their moral superiority, and also eat "bacon", "turkey", "hamburgers", etc.

The consumers of this fraudulent material also seem to have no problem with the resemblance to the foods they are copying. They want to say "hey look! I'm eating a hamburger!" It's not a hamburger. It's a LIE!!!!

My question is, if they have the power to make their imitations look any way they want - which they clearly do - why not make the food look DIFFERENT from the originals? Why not show a little creativity? You want to be a vegetarian, you want to have your own little niche, you want to be original, different, your own sector of life just for you, you want to be in control when vegetarians and non-vegetarians eat out together in a mixed setting...well then prove it. Stop aping the food styles of those who you deem to be morally below you.
Aren't I right? Why go down in the moral sewer with us meateaters in any way, shape or form?
But, at any cost, you must have your "hamburgers" and "hot dogs" made out of God-knows-what.

I say, vegetarians, assert your independence. Don't be like meateaters at all. Stop imitating what we eat. This may sound a bit silly, but...make up your own food! Stop using ours, that WE invented, as your template. All the while scolding us with your other hand.

I believe God made us meateaters because meat tastes good, it doesn't make us sick to eat, it has proteins and other benefits, and we have incisors and other sharp teeth to handle it. The DAY meat stops tasting good, I will stop eating it. Or, if it converts to fake meat.

Media Arrogance and Childishness is Actually Dangerous!

The arrogance of the democrats and liberals is actually dangerous to us all. They are INVESTED in defeat in Iraq. Because even though they voted to send our troops there, they are now saying the war is lost. After they sent them there, they are bleeding away all their resources. THAT should be a crime. Not all of course, I'm specifically talking about scumbags like John Murtha and Harry Reid, and their mouthpieces like the repellant Keith Olbermann (more on him later). They had all the same information as President Bush about the reasons for the war, and now they call HIM a "liar". And they've been pounding this drum of "defeat, defeat" for so long, they will look like fools if (or should I say WHEN) we succeed. Thusly, their own conceited, vain, elite arrogance is more important to them than the lives of our brave soldiers and the success of the mission. Just disgusting. If it was in a novel or movie, you'd never believe it, thinking it too impossible that they could be so self-centered and blind. Their selfish attitudes do nothing except give aid and comfort to the enemy (I'm pretty sure that IS a crime - yet they somehow believe BUSH is the bad guy, some nuts even believing that he should be impeached!), thinking that if they just hold out for ONE MORE DAY, they may be able to carry on, possibly even succeed (I'm just telling you what they must be thinking). I mean, it saves them time, money and effort when our side is the one that is not all together, and even within the USA, certain factions are undermining the troops.

The media is the same way. They are invested in defeat as well, for no other reason than, should defeat occur (God forbid), that will simply reinforce what they've been pushing for years (interesting how it hasn't happened yet.) -- Once-great papers like the New York Times are now nothing more than a bunch of second-graders burning to say "I told you so". If it were socially acceptable, The headline would read "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah". Instead of being fair and balanced, the Times is just a liberal mouthpiece, whose stories in every section only reinforce the liberal attitudes of its owners and operators. That's not a NEWS paper. That's just a one-sided rag.Yes, you've made it perfectly clear that you want Obama to win. So much so, you've minimized his flaws and scandals, and when there are none about John McCain, you've MADE THEM UP! That is boldfaced one-sidedness. They're not even TRYING to hide it anymore. I'm pretty sure that's not the job of an institution that claims to be fair. I guess the WHOLE truth isn't "fit to print". No wonder it has lost all that money and its stock price has plummeted. I guess preaching to the converted only gives you half an audience.

On TV, if you classify MSNBC as "TV", you've got Keith Olbermann, a one-note, humorless dispenser of snarky Bush-bashing (big surprise) comments. He always has this annoying little smirk on his face, like he is so much better and wiser than his material. That is clearly not the case. For some strange reason, I'm guessing just to be different, the camera always seems a bit too close to his face. That may be different, but it's certainly not better. I mean, I don't know whose decision it was that we should all be CLOSER to Keith Olbermann's face, but the cameraman might want to think about dialing it back a few notches. He is quite the hunk, but still...
And what gives HIM the right to deem who is the "worst person in the world"? Who is HE exactly, anyway? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! (he apparently believes this is such a witty concept, it is also the name of his book.) Funny how the people he deems to be the "worst in the world" are always either Republicans or somehow involved with Fox News. (Disgustingly, even the promos for the show are laughably pathetic: "We're going to make fun of Bill O'Reilly, Coming up next!"...O'Reilly has NEVER ONCE mentioned Olbermann on his show. EVER! Yet Olbermann's entire career is predicated on O'Reilly-bashing. I believe that's what you call "sour grapes".)
My explanation here is purely psychological. He, and the rest of MSNBC, are angry, and, dare I say, bitter, that Fox News is successful and they aren't. So this childish vitriol comes out. We mustn't be jealous when our fellow networks become successful. This is a hallmark of a desperate, lesser mind. So...I see a theme developing. Those in the media are AGAIN overgrown children, forever stuck in the schoolyard: "Billy got an A on his test and I got a D. I hate Billy!" seems to be the working credo of MSNBC. (And what a success it is! Most people don't know the network exists.)

I would also submit that all this hatred of President Bush and his constant bashing is media-driven. Those "elites" in the media hate Bush, so, in their insecure, short-sighted arrogance, they want everyone else in the world to hate him too. Think about it. If you have control of all the media outlets, you can present the notion that Bush is bad. If that's what you choose to put out there, it is hard to escape, because there is a lot of media and a lot of demand for it. If it is what you are constantly fed, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and somewhere along the line it becomes "truth".
Think of it this way: take away all the media in the world and their constant drumbeat of Bush-bashing. Would there be such a negative public outlook of him? I think not. I'm not saying he's perfect -- far from it -- but I doubt we'd be surrounded by this insane, baseless HATRED of the man. I suppose after the Times gave away those CIA secrets, they weren't satisfied, so they must fan the flames of what they themselves started.

I wonder if the weasels at the Times and MSNBC and all the other corrupt media outlets have ever THOUGHT OF, much less personally thanked, even one of the brave soldiers who are sacrificing everything for our freedom. Even the media's freedom to bash Bush and the war! Somehow, I doubt it.

We Live in a Looksist Society

While people in society are concerning themselves with racism and sexism and other "ism"s, I submit to you there is another "ism" that deserves attention and outrage as well. That is what I have dubbed "Looksism".

People that are not good looking, such as myself, have noticed a peculiar trend in society. We are uniquely positioned, as outsiders looking in, to notice this trend. Women and Men alike get all sorts of little breaks in life, and are given slack in every area imaginable, simply because, as Dennis Miller puts it, they "hit the genetic 'pick six'".

Good-looking people are treated as royalty in our society. Because they are celebrated in every venue imaginable, from billboards to magazines to TV to movies and beyond, every place that humans go, they see good-looking people and cannot avoid it, so we are FORCED to have a reverence for them, we are subtly brainwashed into it from an early age so we don't notice any bias at all. All this because people in suits realized they can make money selling their products because a good-looking person hawking the product will result in more sales. That's how much power they have. We will buy something with our hard-earned money just because a good-looking person says we should. Really they are just a front for a company saying we should, but no one digs deeper than the surface.



And the surface is important, isn't it? As the saying goes, "beauty is just skin deep". Skin is thin, so that's not very deep at all. If you took a beautiful person and ripped their skin off, they would look really gross and their so-called "beauty", which rests solely on that gossamer surface, would disappear rather quickly. So their skin IS important, very much so.

People with no talent, skills or abilities can make millions of dollars and have great, glamorous lives simply because of the way they popped out of the womb. It is wrong of society to reward this on the level that it does.
People just treat good-looking people better, on every level you can imagine. Clerks at stores are just nicer to them, potential mates bend over backwards for them, parents dote on them, in no area are they EVER exposed to the way normal, or ugly people are treated. Because, from birth, they know no other way, they develop this bubble of false self-importance. That's the best way I can describe it. I'm not talking about arrogance and conceit, although many have these qualities, but not all. I'm talking about a certain unconscious misunderstanding of life and interpersonal relationships that is warped from day one because they are one of society's chosen darlings.
Imagine a lifetime of getting to slide when the cops pull you over, at late fees at the video store, overly attentive service at stores, etc., (there are many other instances like this, these are just some that I can think of right now), plus a constant barrage of compliments and people going out of their way just for you. If that's ALL you knew your whole life, your outlook would be skewed, to say the least. You'd be in that bubble I spoke of earlier. I suppose it only ends if they live long enough to get old, then beauty fades and so do all the breaks. But they've had so many their whole lives, it doesn't really matter at that point.



I hope all this doesn't sound like whining, because that's not my intention. I would just like for someone of beauty to live as one of us "normals" for a year, and see what their formerly-charmed lives would be like without all the breaks that they get that they have come to take for granted. Ideally, we should be living in a meritocracy, not a "beautocracy". Because of they way they happen to have been born, the lucky ones, the beautiful people, can call the shots. They can live the way they want to live and even bend people to their will. All this without any actual worthwhile skills or talents. But no one ever said life was fair, and the way society bows down to, and revolves around, the people they deem beautiful at that moment, proves this beyond doubt.

TV shows currently on the air that I like, Part 2

CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM

Larry David is a genius and one of my personal heroes. His comedic brilliance shines through every episode. His ability to take the minutia of life and spin it into plots is brilliant enough, but when events that happen at the beginning of the episode tie into and dovetail with things that happen at the end, and all the while the performances, without scripted dialogue, are chock full of great lines, you realize you are in the presence of true greatness. I've laughed so hard and so long at episodes of this show, that I've started sweating, like I was getting a workout, and I had to go take a shower afterwards. David's sensibility clearly hasn't changed since Seinfeld, but if anything it has improved, and the fact that the show is on HBO means he has even greater freedom. God Bless Curb Your Enthusiasm!



THE SOUP

The E! Network stays afloat with this silly, cynical and hilarious pop culture commentary show. Joel McHale is very funny and likable, and the format is easy to like and understand. It really is the only show of its kind that I know of that is truly unafraid to go hard on the celebrities, yet is still funny and has a brightness that never feels TOO mean-spirited. Chock full of biting sarcasm aimed at today's stupid, vapid celebrity culture, what's not to love?



DEXTER

Original, intriguing and creepy, Showtime, and now CBS' DEXTER is another must-see drama. It seems like only on the pay channels can truly worthwhile, challenging content flower into existence. The show is moody, even philosophical, and Dexter's ruminations on life give it that extra, intelligent dimension. Since Dexter has no emotions, he must fake his way through life. I can relate to that aspect of him. I especially appreciate Dexter's relationship to his sister. I wish I had a relationship with my sister that Dexter does with his. Sure, she may be a bit too good-looking to be on the police force (not that there aren't pretty cops, but come on, in real life she would be modeling, not busting bad guys.) But hey, it's TV and she is a great actress, so all is well. It also combines some of the best aspects of horror movies (there have been outright references to George Romero's MARTIN, as well as THE LAST HOUSE ON DEAD END STREET and the GUINEA PIG series, among others.), and one of my favorite sub-genres, the revenge thriller. Because Dexter is a killer, that, only after careful checking, kills the bad guys, these two things can come together. I guess CBS is trying to shake its image of a network that only the elderly can appreciate, but with this and CRIMINAL MINDS (which I'll discuss later), it's now the serial killer channel. That's quite a turn. I wonder what Andy Rooney thinks?



PENN AND TELLER'S B.S.

Speaking of Showtime, here's their other great show. I've been a fan of Penn and Teller since I was a kid in the 80's. But I prefer this angry, sarcastic and highly enjoyable show better than their magic. When Penn goes off on one of his angry rants about some ridiculous subject or other, the show is at its best. But then sometimes Penn will go into his "soft voice" when talking about something sad, and that really shows his range. I am a huge fan of societal criticism, and this show is one of the best at doing that. I don't agree with 100% of Penn's points, but you don't have to in order to enjoy this hilarious, and pointed, show.



CRIMINAL MINDS

We'll finish this installment with another CBS show. I've only seen the Mandy Patinkin shows, so I can only comment on those. He is quiet and intense, and, if nothing else, the strength of this show is its ensemble cast. Each has their own likable attributes. Hotch is the no-nonsense Joe Friday of the modern era. Reid has an undeniable quirky charm, and I especially liked the plot arc in season 2 where he develops something of a drug problem. JJ is the good-looking girl, Shemar Moore is the good-looking guy, and Garcia is the brains behind the operation (her quirkiness leads me to believe a romance could develop between her and Reid. Wouldn't we all like to see that?) The diverse ensemble cast, mixed with what can be extremely brutal and disturbing subject matter, and the way the team comes together to solve the problem, makes for compelling viewing.



STAY TUNED FOR PART THREE OF THIS ONGOING SERIES!

TV shows currently on the air that I like, part 1

THE SIMPSONS

It is impossible to estimate, much less overestimate, the impact The Simpsons has had on my life. In society, it has changed the way people think about comedy, and for me it has subtly influenced the way I act, talk, even think. Let's not forget I have been watching the show -- without ever stopping -- since 1989, when it debuted, and even before that when they were the little vignettes on the Tracey Ullman show. Some people stop watching shows, take breaks from them and come back to them, etc...I have NEVER stopped watching the show since I was nine years old. I taped them on VHS tapes before the DVD's came out, and always watch the repeats on syndication when I can. I could go on talking about the show forever...It has provided so many laughs, tears, thoughts, social criticism, feelings...but mainly LAUGHS over the years, it is a part of my life that would be unthinkable to separate from me.




FAMILY GUY

On the commentary to one of the seasons of The Simpsons, the writers and producers mentioned how Fox wanted more and more Simpsons episodes per year, and more clip shows. The talent involved with the show couldn't meet Fox's demands. I believe Family Guy is how Fox was able to get the amount of "Simpsons" episodes they wanted, but under a different name. I mean, how big is the difference between "Homer Simpson" and "Peter Griffin"? Besides the soundalike name, they are both overweight oafs that are none too intelligent, and have a wife with a somewhat scratchy voice that acts as a stabilizing influence on the family, a son, a daughter, a baby, and a dog. Sure, the dog and the baby talk. That's about the only difference. Since The Simpsons have gone in every possible direction with the show except outright mean-spiritedness and total raunch, inevitably, that's the only choice Family Guy had to go in a different direction than The Simpsons, so, of course, they took it. I believe it weakens the show and makes the characters, especially Peter, less sympathetic. The writers don't seem to care.
But all that being said, I still have seen every episode of the show, and I watch the repeats, because it can be a very funny show and I like the references. Because of the randomness of the humor (which, unlike South Park, I have no problem with), I just take each joke on its own individual merits. I don't watch the show for its plots. In summary: You can't possibly deny the show is a complete and total Simpsons knockoff, but it has its own individual virtues that must be taken on a joke-by-joke basis.


ALL THREE LAW AND ORDER FRANCHISES

Not much I can say here except that the shows, especially the original, have a certain addictive quality. The plots are always intriguing and I believe the show has lasted as long as it has because of the "ripped from the headlines" aspect. This ensures, as long as there are news stories and people are commiting crimes and/or doing stupid things, the show will survive.
As far as Criminal Intent, it is much more character-driven and both D'Onofrio and Noth have their own styles and differences and that keeps the show interesting. D'Onofrio's outrageously brilliant acting carries many of his episodes and his complex, sensitive character transcends the traditional "cop show" idea. Noth is more a straightforward jaded tough guy, but he also has a hidden sensitivity and a complex past. They are like two sides of a coin. Incidentally, I can also say my favorite episode of the show is the one where Goren goes undercover in the mental institution. The fact that an episode of this magnitude came so far in the run of the series, gives hope for the future of the show. The episode is absolutely brilliant, and should have 30 more minutes added to it and released as a movie. This also furthers my theory that in this day and age, TV is better than movies.
SVU is the darkest and most brutal of the shows. It appeals to me on that level. I love the character of Stabler, I wish I could be more like him personally, but the rest of the cast is great too, and runner-up high marks go to Ice-T whose street curtness is always welcome.



SOUTH PARK

When South Park first came on the air, I watched it and enjoyed it, and appreciated it as an animated show that The Simpsons paved the way for, but was very different and not a knockoff like Family Guy. After the first season, I felt, unfairly, that it was coasting on a one-joke premise. I eventually came back to the show and discovered how great it is. Despite it being hilariously funny, it also has an underlying moral sense, which it desperately needs, because if it didn't have that, all the raunch would seem aimless and rudderless. But despite some dirtiness, the show really has a heart of gold and even a very winning sweet side. This mixture of moral, humor, social comment, sweetness and raunch is a totally winning combination. It's a lot like an underground comic that made it to the mainstream. But better. My favorite episode is the "Batdad" one. I feel all the best attributes of the show come together in this episode in a brilliant way.



STAY TUNED FOR PART TWO OF THIS GREAT SERIES!

A Continuing obsession with 80's toys

When I was a kid, I had a large toy collection. I was very lucky. I don't have any of the toys any more. Despite all warnings that I might regret it, I insisted that I sell them all at one or possibly more tag sales. I stupidly and childishly thought I would rather get rid of them to get the money for something else, which, somewhat ironically, is long forgotten. I honestly don't remember what it was that I so desperately needed the money for, but, looking back, it certainly wasn't worth it to get rid of all my toys. At the beginning of the last post, I mentioned some of the heavy-hitters of the 80's toy world:

Transformers:



G.I. Joe, He-Man (see top of blog), and a constant obsession, NES. But what about some of the other contenders for your parents' hard-earned money?

First I will mention Madballs.


Madballs came in two forms that I can remember. First was ball form, obviously. Those were just little balls you could, I guess, throw, but fashioned in the grotesque manner as was somewhat popular at the time, lead in this area by the immortal Garbage Pail Kids. (Even though GPK was a reaction to the trend of Cabbage Patch Kids and their omnipresent cuteness, they spawned their own rip-offs, such as, if you can believe it, "Trash Can Tots.")
Madballs offered the luxury of not just having a Garbage Pail Kid in 3-D that you could touch and hold, and, of course, THROW, but...they were BALLS! They are spherical objects! How great!
After the romance wore off with "Fist Face" and "Aargh" in their Ball form, Madballs were retooled into a more sensical action figure form. They were short, squat plastic action figures, with good detail as I recall, and as an added bonus, you could pop the heads off the figure. At least you could with the Oculus Orbus figure, which was the coolest in my opinion. Why don't the toys of today have detailed veins that that toy did? It must be the PC takeover that was a reaction to things like Madballs and GPK. First came the watering down: My Pet Monster - then the total eradication of gross toys. Sad, sad, sad.

That brings us to another aberration: Food Fighters. I love the creativity that went into the manufacturing of toys for children back then. How did anyone come up with this? Apparently the higher-ups at Mattel agreed that giving food items Military stature was the surefire blockbuster they've been waiting for. Because that is the concept in full:



I don't know about you, but I have always dreamed of seeing a chicken leg fight a highly decorated hot dog.
Now you can. Genius. I'm NOT being sarcastic. That is pure genius I tell you. I would also like to add that it was really ahead of its time: it predates the band "Foo Fighters". In fact, when that band came on the scene, I thought it took its name from the toys, but for some inexplicable reason (perhaps legal), they left off the "D".

Another toy (?) (at least they were made of plastic) that was ahead of its time, was M.U.S.C.L.E. (Millions of Unusual Small Creatures Lurking Everywhere).



They were little, 2 inch pink men, ostensibly wrestlers that you could pit against each other. They did eventually come in other colors, such as blue or red, but these tiny little figures only ever came in one color at a time. They couldn't really DO anything, meaning their little arms and legs couldn't move, and they weren't amenable to accessories, but they predated Pokemon in the "gotta catch 'em all" category. (The origins of the toy are, unsurprisingly, Japanese.) The idea was to collect 'em all. Not a new concept by any stretch, but with Muscle, they really hammered it home with posters, checklists and many pictures of all the wrestlers, which inevitably led the kid to dwell on the ones he didn't have. One of the ways they were packaged was stuffed into a little plastic garbage can. Once again, the theme of grossness and garbage rears its ugly head. I wonder how Julia Kristeva could apply her theory of Abjection on 80's children's toys?
Muscle men were charming despite (or perhaps because of?) their limitations, and, inevitably, they were made into an NES game in October 1986.



We'll end today with another tiny toy. But these li'l guys could do much more than Muscle and were a lot cooler in their design, painting and overall execution. These guys you WANTED to collect and didn't need to be cajoled into it. They even had tiny weapons. I'm talking about Battle Beasts. They had little holograms on their chests that you had to rub with your thumb to see if they had a logo of fire, wood, or water. Sure, it was just a dressed-up version of rock, paper, scissors, but so what? The dressing was cool.
Again, further showing evidence of the Japanese obsession with tiny things, this toy also has its origins in the land of the rising sun.



If you made it through this whole post, thank you very much. If you have any suggestions for further obscure toys that warrant highlighting, feel free to contact me. Thanks again for reading.

The greatness of VHS

Growing up in the 80's was, looking back, a really incredible time. I could talk endlessly about the toys, such as G.I. Joe, Transformers, He-Man, Thundercats, Go-Bots (we mustn't forget the knock-offs, and the knock-offs of knock offs, such as the Rock Lords)...and those are just some of the more well-known. Perhaps we'll get to Silverhawks another day. Actually I'll probably do blog posts about all these toys at some point in the future. Just the idea that you'd be GOING to Child World would send one into a passionate delirium. (Or Toys "R" Us, which in my case was in a different town, but as I recall, had a better selection of NES games, not that I had that many back then. I guess that makes it a rarer, and thus more precious treat, right?)

But, saving toys for another day, there was another exciting place that was colorful and fun and exciting to go to in the Eighties. That, of course, is the video store. To see all those bright, colorful boxes next to each other on the shelves, each inviting you to explore what may or may not be worth your (or your parents') money. That was all part of the fun. It was a gamble. When video stores hit their stride in the 80's, before the age of soulless Blockbusters and Hollywoods came and destroyed them, Mom and Pop video stores appeared. Demand to fill shelves was paramount. So videos of wildly varying quality appeared on a dizzying variety of video labels, both good and bad. CT's own Vestron, Lightning, Gorgon, Mogul, King of Video, and of course, the mighty Media label, among many, many others, ruled the video roost. Their wares were EXCITING. In the age before the internet, no one really knew what these movies were or where they came from. This blend of excitement, lurid box cover art, unknown quantities, the gamble of good and bad, gory or not, all put together in one place for your browsing enjoyment was INTOXICATING. But that's all gone now.

Big-box, clamshell, standard slip case -- they came in many forms. Interestingly, at the end of VHS, the only two people still using big-boxes were porn movies and children's movies...something to think about. Perhaps one causes the other? (Speaking of porn, they led the way with the VHS revolution. The major studios felt it was stupid and a money loser. It wasn't until VCX and others started releasing movies successfully on VHS that the majors caught on and followed THEIR lead. I bet you didn't know that. The VHS revolution, which changed the world, is largely because of them. So from now on, I know a technological innovation is valid if the porn industry is behind it.)

There is a great website - critcononline.com -- which talks about this in much greater detail, but basically he says VHS is only going to go up in value -- if not monetary value, sentimental value. The following is a random selection of some lesser-known titles.



This is a typical example of a video on the great, and highly collectible Paragon label. They always had a ton of their trailers before the movie, and a recognizable graphic of the Paragon logo floating through space at the beginning. I absolutely love ARTWORK on video boxes. Today, it's all boring photographic close-ups of the stars' faces. Back in "the day", there was a skilful artistic dimension to marketing the movies. This one is great because not only is it a Paragon, but the artwork is amusing and reminiscent of one of my other great loves, Garbage Pail Kids. Another note: The movie, as I remember it, is fairly mediocre, and Lee Van Cleef never spins his arms around in a circle killing people. But wouldn't that be the best movie ever? What COULD live up to that promise?



Chock full of funny and memorable lines, Elves features Dan Haggerty at his best.



Now on DVD, the puzzlingly, yet oddly poetically titled "Neon Maniacs". The title and box, as was often the case, is better than the film.



Also known as NeCRAPolis, this terrible outing has tantalizing box art as well.



It's strange what happened to Beta. In the 80's, the trend was for things to go smaller. Beta supposedly had higher resolution, and was smaller in size, yet it bit the dust. I think it was a corporate thing though, not a consumer decision.




The end of the trend: Artwork ceased, towards the end of the 80's and into the 90's, and photos of 1. Guys in funny windbreakers on snowboards 2. Guys lifting their legs comically and 3. Joe Buff, replaced paintings. Now look at society. Do you like where it has gone from there?

Yes, I know I could have picked much better examples of VHS boxes and films, and perhaps I will in the future, but this is just to show that even THESE films are worthy of mention in this context. And we haven't even scratched the surface. Sure, I love the DVD format a lot...perhaps too much. But, how quickly we forget. We should always remember the greatness of VHS.