Cartoons and Culture Shifts

I wanted to address something that I'd been thinking on some recently. Those who know me (or even those who've read this blog before) will know that I watch cartoons. And not just cartoons geared towards 20-somethings (Seth MacFarlane's shows immediately come to mind), but those cartoons that still make up the bulk of Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon's programming--though I'm well aware that many of their offerings are shifting away from that model and more towards the Disney Model of live-action, "culturally" "diverse" teen dramedies. Granted, much of what I still watch comes down to shows that would have been on when I was the target age, but still (see Spongebob, the show that never dies).

Anyway, I think I initially fell victim to the thought that a lot of us have as we age, that the things we grew up with were "best" and somehow inherently different than those of the younger generation. It's the same logic that leads newspapers to write every couple of years about how the newest generation is the worst one yet. By their count, the Greatest Generation was just that, and by now we're down to young adults who can't tie their shoes. But cheer up Millenials and Gen Yers, in a few decades you can all point at the newest generation coming-of-age and lament how terrible they are. But I digress. This sort of resistance to acceptance of new things beyond our own formative years extends into all aspects of pop culture that we consume, most notably with music but also, as I'm focusing on today, with TV programming.

I like to think I'm somewhat impartial, at least more so than average. So I wanted to give some new cartoons a chance, even though my inclination would be to pshaw on anything that I haven't watched before (one of human nature's biggest ironies is its ability to judge the quality of something without ever having encountered it, apparently). I have to admit that this post is really only about one cartoon in particular, but I like it enough to defend all that is new through this blog. Anyway, that cartoon is The Amazing World of Gumball, found on Cartoon Network. After watching one episode, I actually found I enjoyed it (Step 1: give something new a chance!), and after a few episodes, I found myself wanting to watch as many as I could. It's really very clever and--surprise--not much different from the shows I would have watched growing up (this is a fairly representative clip of the show, for those interested).

The Gumball title sequence

The point of this is twofold. First, shows may change over large periods of time as the culture itself changes (for example, Looney Tunes obviously had a different culture to them than today's shows), but I would argue that the age of the Nicktoon (i.e. 1991 and on) began a new generation of cartoons we still see today, and within that generation cartoons tend to have a certain stylistic similarity. I don't think, on balance, today's cartoons meant for 7-10 year olds are any different than those made in 1993, at least in level of sophistication or general humor. Gumball contains the same number of jokes that are meant for the grown-up audience that Rocko's Modern Life would have had 18 years ago.

Second, I think the bias we all have for things that we grew up with, even when they're substantially similar to things that come about once we're adults is easier to overcome than one may think. Obviously, the longer a person goes without encountering an "update" on a cultural area they knew growing up, the more likely they will be to have severed all connection between the two and simply reject the new version outright (I'd call this the "get off my lawn conflict"). But so long as we occasionally refresh our views of a cultural area during our lives, I think we can maintain the connection with the updated version and appreciate the evolution of the thing, rather than see it as an abrupt change. This is why those of us who grew up with some form of computer technology are not subsequently baffled by new technological developments, even as we reach adulthood and on, rather than suddenly being lost in new technologies as we age. Having maintained that connection as technology progressed allowed us to see the evolution and build on it, rather than suddenly waking up to a whole new world.

Obviously there's a bit of a gap between keeping up with cartoons and keeping up with world technology, but I think the idea is the same. No, you don't all need to quickly watch episodes of Gumball to avoid falling behind in the development of culture (though I do recommend the show), but we should all consider that, while the world does change and generations do have their differences based on the climate of their formative years, most things change in an evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, fashion. If we keep an eye on something as it changes, we won't feel so hopelessly lost in our old age (and will potentially avoid the "get off my lawn conflict").

Review: Rockstar Energy Drink

I'm beginning to wonder whether all energy drink manufacturers come together in order to standardize "energy drink taste" before rolling out a new product, or whether it's something in the taurine, ginseng, and guarana blend that makes them all taste essentially the same. Here, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I said before how I like the taste of Red Bull. While I was less thrilled with the various Monster products, I think Rockstar decided to lean more towards the Red Bull formula. Thus, I like the taste of Rockstar. I'm not entirely sure how to describe the taste, because generally it's hard to describe the taste of a thing without comparing it to something else ("buttery like butter!" "like a candy apple!" "a lot like eating an old dishrag!"). However, I will say it tastes...carbonated, for one (but only "lightly carbonated"). It's a little sugary, but not like drinking a bottle of Mountain Dew. Aside from that, it's just standard energy drink fare. I've created a short flowchart to decide if the taste of Rockstar is something you might like:

1) Have you ever had one of these types of energy drinks before?
          a) If no, then I can't help you. Maybe compare it to soda generally?
2) If yes, did you like the taste of that one (assuming it was the normal flavor, not some crazy alternate variation--I'm looking at Mountain Dew's monthly output of "special editions" here)?
          a) If no, then you won't like this one, I'm sorry.
3) If yes, then you'll probably enjoy this, it's pretty standard.

I hope that was helpful in deciding whether to purchase a Rockstar energy drink the next time you want a bunch of caffeine but don't want coffee. That's really all there is to it.

Verdict: 7/10.

Because that review was so unsatisfying, I thought I would take a moment to comment on the marketing strategies undertaken by all of these energy drink companies. They all seem to cater to extreme sports and guys with flat-billed hats and skater shoes. I suppose caffeine has been linked to increased performance while exercising (just don't overdo it and have your heart beating so fast it can't handle the actual workout), but I feel they may be overdoing it on the "extreme" side. The one area where I appreciate it is in motorsports, because I tend to be a fan. In that area, however, Red Bull seems to dominate, at least among the ones I watch. I suppose Monster and Rockstar sponsor rally events, but Red Bull appears in both NASCAR and Formula 1, even fielding a championship team in the latter. Maybe that's why I like Red Bull the best? Is their advertising subliminally affecting my enjoyment of the beverage? Whatever the case, I wonder what would happen if these energy drink manufacturers tried to go the route of the "Five Hour Energy" deals. The commercials for those "shots" tend to feature working adults who need a boost at the office, rather than a 16-year-old kid para-hangliding off of the side of Taipei 101 (yes, I fabricated that scenario). Does that strategy lead them to be more accepted by those same working adults? Or do they advertise to that demographic because the idea behind the product already appeals to them? I'm not sure which it is.

Review: Taco Bell's Doritos Locos Taco



Mmm



Heroes in a half shell!  Wait, that's Ninja Turtles.  Tacos in a half-Dorito shell!  Similar, but Michael Bay isn't trying to ruin the latter.  (Although, the Doritos Locos is like an explosion in my mouth - Michael Bay style - so again, similar enough.)

In case you haven't heard yet, the Doritos Locos taco is real, and it's exactly what it sounds like.  It is a regular Taco Bell taco supreme* (ground beef, lettuce, cheese, tomato*, sour cream*) in a shell coated in Doritos cheese-dust (original flavor, Nacho Cheese).  I guess it's "Locos" because it's so crazy of an idea!  And it rhymes!!

The taco itself is point number one in it's favor - it's a taco supreme (which I prefer), so you have a better basic taco to begin with, and also more flavors for the Doritos to interact with.  Particularly the 'smoothness' of the sour cream playing off the [slightly] tangy/'biting' cheese-dust.

As far as price goes?  It's not too bad I suppose.  Honestly I don't remember - I got it in the Doritos Locos 5 buck box - but let's be serious...this is Taco Bell, you can go in with $5 and dine like a king.

My biggest fear was that the Dorito taste would be too overpowering.  Fortunately, they managed to balance that out just right - the shell isn't exactly a Nacho Dorito chip.  Like I mentioned above, it has a "cheese-dust" on it that reflects a Dorito, but it's not quite as powerful.  [It's different than their volcano taco since the volcano is strong and spicy and your tastebuds are much more focused on that than the other ingredients of the taco.  It can be a little overwhelming.  (Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the volcano taco, too.)]  That's fortunate for two reasons.  One, you don't want it so strong that you think you're just eating Doritos as a side with your taco - ie, two strong and different flavors that don't mix.  You want the taste of Dorito to be a supplement to the taco, there to enhance your taco experience.  And it does.  And two, I think that the Doritos taste can be too much to handle in large quantities.  I can only eat so many Doritos before I start to feel a little queasy.  Fortunately, you can order multiples of this taco if you so desire: you'll be full due to the taco-ness well before your system would start rejecting the Dorito flavor.

All in all, this is a positive addition to the Taco Bell menu.  If you're a fan of Taco Bell in general, give it a shot.  Is this the end-all be-all of tacos?  No.  Is it a good addition to the Taco Bell line-up and your repertoire of go-to menu items?  Yes.  We'll see how long it lasts.

So there you have it, a quick overview of the Doritos Locos taco.  Recommended by myself and some random twitter-ers on the box/cup. 

Now your Taco Bell experience can be: Come for the Doritos Locos, stay for the food-to-price ratio (so good, so cheap!).  (Leave with the Taco Bell-exclusive Baja Blast Mountain Dew.)

And to let you know: as a basis for my review, I am grading it as a taco, as compared to other tacos / Taco Bell items.  Not as a stand alone food against every other edible out there, because surely it pales in comparison to steaks and pastas, etc.  (Well, I suppose that's dependent upon the level of a certain illicit drug in your system.)

So, to recap:
Positives: taco supreme, good taste / good flavor blend, not overwhelmingly Dorito-y, not too expensive. 
Negatives: I don't know...it has a tendency to break apart, but what hard taco doesn't?  And it gets your fingers cheesy.  I just don't like giving out perfect scores - sorry every professor I ever had.

Verdict: 8 out of 10

Review: Monster X-presso Hammer

After finding relative enjoyment in my last Monster beverage [read the review of Monster Java Loca Moca here], I decided to pick up a new coffee-themed Monster drink this morning. Actually, I didn't bring my coffee tumbler but I still wanted a caffeinated drink this morning, so I had to spend something like $3 instead of the 15 cents or whatever a single pot of coffee costs to make. Blame the high cost of living.

Monster X-presso Hammer

So what do I think of X-presso? Well I appreciate the slender can design, as it reminds me of my favorite energy drink, Red Bull. However, the taste is, well, like espresso (with foam--be aware that Monster X-presso has a very foamy texture) but with a little something extra. That something was also present in the Loca Moca I tried a few weeks ago, and I'm assuming that's the Monster, there to justify marketing this as a Monster product and not just another Starbucks Doubleshot. Whatever the case, it's decidedly out of place in an otherwise very coffee-y drink.

On the plus side, I was able to get used to the Monster taste after a few swigs, and by the time I was nearing the end of the can I could hardly tell it wasn't a Doubleshot. Whether that's good or not is up for debate, because if there isn't a distinction between the two, I'm betting most people will just grab the Starbucks.

Like other Monster beverages (and energy drinks on the whole), X-presso has a laundry list of vitamins and supplements on the back, many of which sound like rare tropical diseases. I'm also continually disappointed in how Monster refuses to print the caffeine content on their cans. If soda companies can do it on their standard products, I think a company peddling high-caffeine drinks should.

However, the distinction I just made may be the reason in itself--maybe Monster doesn't want us to be aware of how fast our hearts will be racing by the time we finish the can. Fittingly, Monster does print the following on the can: "CONSUME RESPONSIBLY - MAX 1 CAN EVERY 4 HOURS WITH LIMIT 3 CANS PER DAY." Is this a morning drink or a bottle of Tylenol? The can's warning continues: "NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CHILDREN, PREGNANT WOMEN, OR PEOPLE SENSITIVE TO CAFFEINE." Well, if my heart isn't racing from the caffeine content itself, it sure gets going reading the CYA disclaimer on the back of the can. Admittedly, Monster may be responding to the litigious nature of our society, but the fact that such a response is thought to be necessary causes at least a little concern.

On the whole, I find Monster X-presso Hammer to be a decent espresso drink, though the odd hint of Monster flavor and the overly creamy texture leaves something to be desired. I would try it again, but I don't think it's worth the $3/can.

Verdict: 5/10

The Full Metal Jacket Effect

R. Lee Ermey as Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in Full Metal Jacket

I recently re-watched Stanley Kubrick's Marines and Vietnam War masterpiece, Full Metal Jacket. As I watched the first section of the movie (I like to think of it as two separate movies rolled into one--training and the war), I was quickly reminded of how I felt when I watched it the first time: it in no way made me want to join the Marines. It in fact had a negative effect, leading me to determine that if that film were my only window into a portrayal of life as a Marine-in-training, I would think anyone who agrees to do so must be crazy. I have subsequently dubbed this effect the "Full Metal Jacket Effect," which I will define as the net decrease in desirability of picturing yourself in the same setting as the characters in a [military] movie. I confine it to to military movies only because I have to stop it somewhere, right? Otherwise this would be a post encompassing every movie ever made--so let's stay on topic.

Conversely, the Full Metal Jacket Effect can be seen in its inverse, consisting of movies that lead to a net increase in desirability of being in a similar military situation as the film portrays. One would think these would be harder to find, because a good, knowledgeable director will do his or her best to make war seem as "hellish" as possible. War never changes, right? Even so, these do exist, maybe because of the movie's ability to glorify the courage or nobility of actions taken by its actors.

Whatever the reason for the FMJ Effect and its inverse, I wanted to highlight a few movies that fall on each side of this continuum, with brief commentary of each. I will warn you that they may contain spoilers (though for ones that cover true, historical events you should have already come across spoilers in high school history class). I will rate the following movies on FMJ Effect scale from -10 (highly negative) to 10 (highly positive). Keep in mind this is a select sampling, not meant to include all relevant films that exist or even all that I've seen.

"Full Metal Jacket Effect" Most Negative (-10)

Saving Private Ryan (-9)

1998

It's hard to argue against this portrayal of World War II being one of the more brutal watches among military movies. It is probably the realism and gore that make Saving Private Ryan such a negative on the FMJ Effect scale. I would wager very few people would be interested in suiting up and jumping on a lander to storm Normandy after watching the movie. I would argue that Saving Private Ryan is one of the most thorough war movies out there, covering much of the atmosphere of life in the European theater through the eyes of a small squad. It also includes Vin Diesel in a role where he's somewhat less of a "retarded chimp" than you'll find in his other movies.


Full Metal Jacket (-8)

1987

I struggled with the distinction between this and Saving Private Ryan. In the end I had to place Full Metal Jacket as slightly better on its own scale, if only because most of what was repellant about this film took place in the controlled environment of Parris Island, during basic Marine training for the soldiers that would eventually make their way to Vietnam. However, even though (most) people didn't die during the training segment, Sergeant Hartman (played by R. Lee. Ermey, who, like Samuel L. Jackson, is in everything) does a fantastic job helping the viewer realize that even training is no picnic. Stanley Kubrick goes further, however, and does a great job of showing the disconnect from societal norms that soldiers may face in the field after long deployments.

Black Hawk Down (-5)

2001

Black Hawk Down recounts the "true" events of the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia that unfold after a Black Hawk helicopter is shot down over the city and survivors of the crash await rescue. I put the word "true" in quotation marks only because there are apparently a bevy of criticisms of the film's veracity and impartiality. At any rate, Black Hawk Down falls on the negative side of the FMJ Effect scale because it shows what can happen when soldiers find themselves exposed on the wrong side of enemy lines. Oh, and speaking of "enemy lines," that's a nice segue into our next film.


Behind Enemy Lines (-2)

2001

Behind Enemy Lines is a fictionalized version of events that occurred during the NATO Bosnian peacekeeping mission. I used this movie because it involves Navy pilots instead of ground troops, and I wanted to have a few varying military perspectives represented. However, Owen Wilson's character quickly becomes a ground troop himself when his plane is shot down and he is forced to spend the next several hours running around Bosnia in an attempt to reach the extraction point. Because of the extreme, perpetual danger his character faces throughout the movie, Behind Enemy Lines has to fall on the negative side of the FMJ Effect scale. However, because it's Owen Wilson in the role, and because his nose is so curious, a lot of the feeling of danger and reality is lost when I watch this movie. That's just the way it is. (For a more thorough portrayal of Navy piloting, go see Top Gun, though I'm sure you already have.)


Neutral (no "Full Metal Jacket Effect") (0)


Body of Lies (3)

2008

This one isn't really a "military movie" per se, because it deals with the CIA. Even if I wanted to stretch the definition of military, I don't think I could bring in clandestine CIA operatives, because they receive an entirely separate budget, etc. etc. So why did I include this movie, and why is it on the positive side of the FMJ Effect scale? Candidly, I included it because it's one of my favorite movies, especially dealing with wartime topics. I just love it. As for why it lands on the positive side of the scale, well, aside from the occasional torture scene, Leonardo DiCaprio makes being a clandestine operative seem pretty awesome. So long as you know what you're doing, I suppose. I also want to direct your attention to a similar movie that I like almost just as much: Traitor. Watch it--especially if you're as big of a Don Cheadle fan as I am.


The Hurt Locker (7)

2008

I'll be honest. I would never actually end up in the military, no matter how "cool" a particular movie can make it seem (save for the possibility of doing JAG, but we'll save that for the next movie). However, The Hurt Locker does a great job of making it seem pretty cool. I choose this scene to demonstrate the movie because it illustrates both the terror and mindless boredom that can come with scenarios that arise under deployment--all wrapped in one! Overall, the main reason I loved this movie and rate it highly on the positive side of the FMJ Effect divide is the sheer badassery demonstrated by the main character. Unfortunately, as I would never possess such qualities, I probably shouldn't go wishing for such a role just yet.

A Few Good Men (9)

This one's not entirely in line with the others for two reasons. First, it takes place on a military base and entirely away from combat, and two, the military members I look to in the movie happen to all be JAG lawyers rather than enlisted soldiers. While JAG members have to go through basic training like any other soldier, they will spend their military days trying cases rather than taking bullets. I know it's unfair to compare that to other military films where soldiers are losing limbs, but I credit A Few Good Men with my (slight) interest in joining the JAG Corps. Besides, it introduced one of the most famous lines in movie history.

Inverse "Full Metal Jacket Effect" (10)

Note that I didn't include a film on either the full -10 or 10 side of the scale. That's not to say one doesn't exist, but I would call any movie that receives a straight 10 to be a very effective recruiting video, and any one that receives a -10 to be a strong historical documentary (if it's done properly, it should probably make us want to avoid being in such situations ourselves). There's also no "0" movie, though I'm sure there are many out there that include military scenarios but elicit no response in its viewers either way.

I'm aware there are dozens of other military movies, and many of them are subjectively "better" than the ones I've chosen to include on this list. However, I didn't want to make a post that was itself 10 pages long, nor do I have the will to do so right now. If you're hurt that your favorite movie isn't on here, go ahead and include it in the comments below, and give it a rating on the Full Metal Jacket Effect scale if you'd like.

Review: Java Monster Loca Moca

I'm currently drinking a 15 fluid ounce can of Loca Moca Java Monster coffee + energy. Because we've recently started this blog about everything and nothing, I thought it would be appropriate to write up a short review of my feelings on the beverage. So here it is.

The lineup. Today's subject is right in the middle.

First, know that I am somewhat of an avid energy drink fan. I haven't had dozens of them and I don't drink two a day or anything, but I will occasionally indulge, and I tend to enjoy the taste of them. I particularly like Red Bull (not the sugar free kind), a drink which I've heard many people refer to as tasting like "cough syrup," so take my review of this Monster drink with whatever salt grains you like.

I also enjoy coffee, and usually don't put too many flavor-adjusters in it (a little milk or half and half, sometimes a packet of Splenda). The point is, while I think Starbucks' frappuccinos are delicious, I don't need to have candy-in-a-cup to enjoy my coffee.

Thus, when I picked out Java Monster Loca Moca, I wasn't sure what to expect. Normal Monster tastes decidedly "okay," somewhere in between Mountain Dew and medicine (I do see where people are coming from when they complain about energy drinks' taste). But Java Monster doesn't have any of the carbonated taste that typical energy drinks have. Unfortunately, as a mix between coffee and an energy drink, it is a jack of all trades (and hence a master of none). The coffee taste is muted, which may be good for those who don't particularly like coffee--but then, why would you choose an energy drink that is part coffee in the first place? I, however, found that the mix wasn't all too pleasing. It reminded me of Starbucks' frappuccinos you can buy at the grocery store, but the taste was a little off (that's the Monster in it, I'm sure). The other part--and this is more my own shortcoming than that of the drink--is that I'm not the biggest fan of the "moca" portion of Loca Moca. Perhaps "Mean Bean" or "Big Black" would have been more my speed? (Stay tuned.)

From an energy standpoint, Java Monster says it has "half the caffeine of regular coffee" but "[t]wice the Buzz." Apparently "buzz" is now a proper noun? I didn't see any sort of trademarking in their statement, so I guess it's not a proprietary statement, but we should be aware that Buzz is now more than just a state of being caffeinated, at least as far as Monster is concerned. But I digress. I did some quick research on Java Monster compared to coffee in order to check their statements, and they're pretty accurate. According to energyfiend.com, whose veracity I cannot verify, Java Monster contains 160mg of caffeine per 15oz can. Coffee of the same quantity contains an average of 270mg according to WolframAlpha. Thus, while it is not quite half the caffeine of coffee, but rather somewhat more than half, it does indeed contain less caffeine than a similar quantity of coffee.

The jury is still out on the amount of Buzz one can find in regular coffee.


Verdict: rent, don't buy.*


*Jokes, of course. I would give Loca Moca Java Monster a solid 5/10 with 10 being coffee-energy-drink heaven and 1 being actual cough syrup (well, Robitussin at least--have you tried that bilge?). In summary, it's something to try if you're a fan of Starbucks' grocery store offerings or need a little jolt but don't want to commit to a cup of hot coffee or some refreshing exercise. Just don't expect it to change your life.