The Real Problem With The UFC

I went out with a buddy of mine to catch UFC 113 last night at a local bar. It was definitely an entertaining night of fights, with the highlight being a reborn Mauricio "Shogun" Rua knocking out Lyoto "The Dragon" Machida in decisive fashion for the Light Heavyweight championship. I'd never followed Shogun's career in Pride, so I'd only ever seen him as the struggling fighter battling injuries in a loss to Forrest Griffin, and victories against who many people thought were two past-their-prime fighters in Mark Coleman and Chuck Liddell. But watching him completely obliterate a previously unbeaten Lyoto Machida in their rematch from a close fight in October was amazing to watch. I definitely understand now the love that Shogun's gotten from fans of Pride.

Now, on the flip side, many people think that the lowlight of the evening was the boring grapplefest between Josh Koscheck and Paul Daley, where Koscheck essentially laid on top of Daley for 15 minutes when he wasn't milking an injury from an illegal knee thrown by Daley that didn't even seem like it connected. The only moment of interest came after the fight when a frustrated Daley earned himself a lifetime ban from the UFC after throwing a sucker punch at Koscheck after the fight was over. While I agree that this was not mixed martial arts at its best, there was a far worse problem to be seen. What's worse is that it happens at every single UFC fight, and I can't help but wonder why UFC president Dana White allows this atrocity to continue. I'm talking, of course, about the ongoing presence of this man:


Bruce Buffer is, without a shadow of a doubt, the worst sports announcer I've ever seen in my life, and I feel like I'm living in Crazytown because no one else ever seems to mention it. Every single thing he says or does is an obvious attempt to cash in on a potential trademark, and it only serves to distract me from the actual reason I'm watching, which is the fights. I realize that a mere announcer should not be taking away from my enjoyment when he is only on screen for maybe 5% of the night, but I think that just goes to show how terrible he is if he can fuck up my viewing experience with only 5 or 6 minutes that are disbursed throughout the event. Let's break down his nightly routine so that hopefully I can prove how talentless he is.

1. "Ladies and Gentlemen, WE ARE LIVE!"
So, what, was the show somehow not live before this point? Was the crowd somehow watching a recorded show in person? I know, he's trying to indicate that the show has gone live on television and get everyone pumped that it's time for the main card, but honestly it's pointless. If we're watching on TV, then we know the show has gone live on TV because we can FUCKING SEE YOU. And as far the crowd goes, does it really matter if the show is live on television at this point? "Whoops, better put my dick away so that no one sees it on TV!" It's just one of the many things that Buffer does to bring attention to himself because he knows that when you get right down to it no one gives a shit about him.

2. "The Buffer 180"
If I try to describe this motion, I'll probably suffer from the typing equivalent of gagging, so just watch this clip (0:25).



Why is that little choreographed back spasm at all necessary? I doubt even the dumbest of mouth breathers watching at home is going, "Hey look he's getting ready to point at the guy on the right and....oh, shit! Psych! He totally pointed at the other guy instead! Classic!" But yet again, Buffer needs everyone to look at him, so he does "The Buffer 180." I hear that at UFC 100 he actually pulled out "The Buffer 360." So, essentially, he did a pirouette in the middle of the octagon. Super. If only he could have slipped and face planted in front of a few million people. That would have actually been entertaining.

3. "It's Time!"
This is Buffer's key catchphrase, and it's pretty much the epitome of all that is wrong with his style and delivery. In order to fully see just how awful it is, you need to first see Buffer's more-talented half brother, Michael, do his catchphrase:



That segment is thirteen years old and it's for a professional wrestling organization that doesn't even exist anymore, and I still want to watch it just because of that announcement . It's naturally catchy, it rolls off the tongue, and Michael has the pipes to pull it off almost effortlessly and without drawing needless attention to himself. Now, let's watch Bruce's abortion of an announcement:



First of all, "It's Time" is just a dumb thing to say. Unless Bruce followed "It's time..." with "for me to get the fuck off the stage!" it's vague and pointless. Plus, it doesn't exactly lend itself to the long, overblown delivery that Buffer gives, so it inevitably sounds forced. Not to mention the fact that Bruce is in full-tilt Michael Buffer imitation mode, which one would think would be a little easier to pull off since they're related. But really he just sounds like shit and I always have to go into the main event of the night a little bit pissed off. It's not right.

So is it just me here? Like I said, I never hear anyone else say anything about how awful he is. In fact, some people really seem to like him. But then again people also like the John Madden so I find it hard to accept the general consensus when it comes to taste in sports personalities. And let's be clear; I'm not expecting any kind of grass roots campaign to expel Bruce Buffer from the UFC. After over 113 events I'm not thinking he's going anywhere any time soon. I just would like to hear a few people agree with me so that I know I'm not going completely insane. I just can't be the only ones who see Bruce Buffer for the attention-seeking twat that he is.

Take the Edge Off with Extras

This week's edition of Take the Edge Off may not actually introduce you to something new, as I'm sure most folks have heard of Ricky Gervais' HBO series Extras, but I want to talk about it anyway because there may be a few of you out there who haven't seen it yet, and even if you have you could do with a few clips because it's just too damn funny not to watch now and again.

Now, most people think of Ricky Gervais and they think of the UK version of The Office. His writing and portrayal of middle-management schmuck David Brent ushered in the "awkward moment" era of comedy that focuses on squeezing every painful moment from the consequences of a misspoken word or poorly thought out idea. Of course, we here in the U.S. have embraced (or stole, whatever) this style of comedy with actors like Steve Carrell, Paul Rudd, and Ben Stiller, so Gervais is most often referenced for his influence from The Office. My problem is that The Office can be just too painful at times. Those uncomfortable moments just drag on for what seems like an eternity, and while it's usually hilarious I can only watch a person completely humiliate themselves as David Brent does for so long before it get's to be unbearable.

That's why I prefer Extras. Gervais plays Andy Millman, a starving actor who scrapes by as an extra in various movies while trying to make his big break, and to be honest he's pretty similar to David Brent in that he keeps finding himself in the most uncomfortable situations. But in Extras, the situations are just too over-the-top to be painful, as opposed to the "it could happen to you" faux pas scenarios you find in The Office. I mean, it's hard to imagine yourself in this situation:



Plus, you have to love any tv show that brings on a special guest with the sole purpose of making them look like world class douche bags. It kind of works as a humility barometer to see which actors/actresses will go on the show and play whacked-out caricatures of themselves. Kate Winslet, for example, is a real "goer" when it comes to phone sex, Daniel Radcliffe will hump your leg if given the opportunity, and Orlando Bloom is actually very insecure about his looks. The best guest spot, though, is given by Patrick Stewart, who I actually kind of hope is really like this:

And then, last but not least, there's Darren Lamb, Andy's agent played by actor/writer Stephen Merchant. I mean, there is honestly no way for me to describe him and do him justice, so I'm just going to let the character speak for himself (warning NSFW due to brief pen nudity....you'll see)



Now, like any good British comedy series, Extras only lasts for two seasons and, for some reason, a Christmas special. So if you Netflix it you won't have to take too much time getting through it. If you've never seen it before let me know what you think. If you have seen it before, well just watch it again dammit.

Oh, and by the way, do you think Chris Martin realizes that he pretty much is as much of a putz in real life as he is on the show?

Great Weekend Fun!

Great news, everyone! It's time for the 72nd Dadvale Regatta! And you know what that means: Kelly Drive will now be closed for not one, not two, but three entire days! Now we get to look forward of a three-day weekend's worth of detoured traffic clogging up all of the other roads where I live! Now, I know that in the past I've complained about regattas in Philly and their arrogant need to shut down an entire major road, but this event just seems so important!

First of all, we all get the privilege of watching true athletes in action.



Plus, upper-middle class couples can enjoy picnics by the waterfront without all that pesky traffic ruining their good time!


And, perhaps most importantly, families get to enjoy some much-needed quality time!



So who cares that the other thousands of people who couldn't care less about rowing have to eat shit for the entire weekend? Right?



/suddenly doubles over in agony
/begins to transform in elaborate An American Werewolf in London-style sequence

I WILL FEAST ON YOUR SOULS! YOU WILL ALL BE DEVOURED FOR ETERNITY! TORTURE! PAIN! DEATH!

/looks down at abandoned picnic

Ooo, potato salad.

AAAAHHHHHHHHH!

Oh sweet Jesus what in the hell is that! Kill it! Burn it! Send it back to hell!

Ok, so in real life, this naked mole rat isn't all that big and appears to be pretty harmless aside from the damage it's done to my psyche. I was wandering around BBC News trying to find something interesting to wow you all with, and suddenly this little fucker burst out of my nightmares and into what's actually a pretty interesting article. It turns out the naked mole rat can tell us quite a bit about how hormones can affect social tendencies, as their distribution of oxytocin receptors cause them to be promiscuous while their more furry, less terrifying cousin the Cape mole rat have oxytocin receptor distribution that lead them to more monogamous relationships. Studies about the cause and effect of oxytocin has been linked to a human's ability to empathize and can even be connected to certain types of autism.

But in order for me to have absorbed all of those interesting tidbits, I've been forced to have two things permanently imprinted in my mind.

1)Those oxytocin receptors that are linked to social behaviors are distributed in naked mole rats to make them behave more like ants than like other mammals. This means that if you ever come across a naked mole rat, he likely won't be alone.


2) Some of the demons from the Hellraiser movies are, in fact, based in reality.











Sweet dreams, folks.

Go Phillies!

Well, I found this story on Yahoo this morning, and I think the picture below pretty much captures the spirit of both the idiotic sports fan as well as the overzealous authority figure in Philadelphia. And no, this is not Photoshopped.



Also, is anyone else not at all surprised that this guy is going to Penn State next year?

Grumpy Movie Review: Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

I tried something a little new this weekend with Mrs. Grumpy-to-be. Normally, we have movie tastes that are close enough that we can agree on something to watch together. However, this usually means that, as a horror fan, I have to forgo most of the new genre films that come out because that's the one thing that my lady just doesn't have the stomach for. This time, though, we decided to go on a movie date where we watch different movies. And I gotta say, I think we're on to something here. That's why I'm excited to bring you a movie review for the first horror movie I've seen in the theaters in three or four years, Michael Bay's remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street.

First, let me address the elephant in the room when it comes to today's trend in horror movies: the remake. I grew up watching the staples of the horror genre: A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Halloween, Hellraiser, and of course the gaggle of sequels churned out by each franchise. So to have to sit and watch Michael "Make Things Go Boom" Bay gobble up all of the rights to these movies just so he can profit off of the name is pretty heart-wrenching. You know damn well the movies won't be as good as the original, but the name has the power to make us buy a ticket even though we will probably walk away disappointed. And here is where I think Michael Bay has horror fans of my generation by the balls. Being born in 1984, I wasn't even alive for the premiere of most of these movies, and I was way too young to go have my parents take me to the theater to see any of the sequels. So, I had to make do either waiting for them to come out on TV or by renting them on video. I never really got to experience the event of going out, cheerily buying overpriced popcorn, and seeing these icons on the big screen. The remakes coming out today give us a chance to do so.

Now when it comes specifically to remaking A Nightmare on Elm Street, there were a couple of other factors that intrigued me. Firstly, modern special effects would allow for more creativity when playing with the dream sequences in the movie. Even though the effects in the original movie were pretty damn creative for their day, I could see a case for improved visuals with updated technology and I wanted to see if director Samuel Bayer could utilize them well. After watching the movie, I can say that in some ways he did, and in some ways he really, reeeeeeally didn't. When it came to developing a frightening atmosphere, the effects were right on the mark. We see a classroom full of students disintegrate into ash as one of the teens (I really don't feel like remembering who was who) falls asleep during school. We watch blood burst in a torrent from the ceiling (a nod to the blood volcano from the original, perhaps?). And the line between reality and dream is constantly blurring in a way that just wasn't possible when the original movie was produced. However, as often happens in horror movies nowadays, computer-generated imagery (CGI) was very overused. The drawback to CGI is that 9 times out of 10, I can tell that it's CGI. Freddy's make up is the prime example for this movie. I read that they were going for a look that more closely resembled the effects of being badly burned which I supposed they needed to do through CGI, but if you know that's what you're looking at then it's that much harder to pretend it's real and get lost in the movie.

This shit is seamless...as long as I don't move or speak.

Speaking of Freddy, the other thing that interested me about the new Nightmare was the choice of Jackie Earle Haley as the new Freddy Krueger. Now, for most fans of the original movies, casting someone other than Robert Englund as Freddy automatically counts for strikes one, two, and three. But if they were going to recast the role, I really can't think of anyone better than Jackie Earle Haley. I was as surprised as anyone when they cast Kelly Leak from the Bad News Bears as Rorshach for the recent film adaptation of The Watchmen, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone else who could turn a small, skinny redhead into such a believable badass. So why couldn't he do the same for Freddy? Unfortunately, his role was usually just a Robert Englund impression of hammy one-liners. Haley does alright with this but it seems a bit forced. He really shines through, however, when Freddy's rage boils over. Just as with Rorshach, a pissed off Jackie Earle Haley is a terrifying Jackie Earle Haley. But Freddy rarely reaches that point, so Haley's abilities were squandered.

***Spoiler Alert*** The writers also waste what appears to be a good opportunity to make their own unique vision of Freddy Krueger. In the original films, Freddy was a evil child killer before and after he was killed by the parents of Springwood. In the updated version, more emphasis is put on Freddy as a pedophile rather than a murderer, and throughout the movie they toy with the idea that maybe Kruger was innocent and wrongly accused and murdered by overanxious parents. This idea is dropped, however, when we learn that Freddy was indeed guilty and deserved whatever he got. But I can't help wonder if it wouldn't have been more interesting had they made the movie their own by making the human incarnation of Freddy be innocent. Now, the Freddy that haunts our dreams should not be a sympathetic character. We all know and love Freddy as a sadistic demon who will psychologically and physically torture his victims. But what of this demon was created not by the inherent evil of a man, but by the actions of those who thought he was evil. I don't know, it's just a thought. ***End Spoiler***

Now, as remakes go, this one wasn't terrible. The obligatory twenty-something actors playing teenagers were all passable, I had a good time with the various surprise scares, the gore left me satisfied, and honestly I just enjoyed the nostalgic value of bringing back something fun from my childhood (screw you normal people and your Sesame Street). If you can put aside the fact that Michael Bay probably had no business making the movie in the first place, you can probably get some entertainment out of it. If you don't need to make an event out if it like I did, however, you might just want to wait for it to come out on DVD. Grade: C+

Take the Edge Off with Tilapia w/ Butter Sauce

I think the plan from now on will be to throw something at you each weekend that has the potential to make you a little bit happier. I figure the things that work for a grouchy bastard like me should probably work for almost everybody else, and if not then oh well there's always next weekend.

This week's happy distraction comes in the form of my favorite of all distractions: food. I'm one of those people who will eat when he's mad, or when he's sad, or when he's bored, or when he's celebrating....OK basically the point here is that I eat a lot. But with my upcoming nuptials, I would like to make sure I can get into my penguin suit without actually being in the shape of a penguin. So I'm always on the lookout for recipes that aren't too fattening but that also don't taste like something you'd find on the bottom of a shoe. Yahoo! Food has a pretty extensive recipe list from all different sources so I'll usually start there, and they came through for me again with tasty recipe for tilapia with almond butter sauce.

Here's the recipe, courtesy of Better Homes and Gardens:

ingredients

• 3 cups snow pea pods, trimmed
• 4 4- to 5-ounce fresh skinless tilapia fillets or other white fish
• Sea salt and freshly ground black pepper
• 1 teaspoon all-purpose flour
• 1 tablespoon olive oil
• 2 tablespoons butter
• 1/4 cup sliced almonds

directions

1. In a large saucepan bring lightly salted water to boiling. Add pea pods. Cook for 2 minutes. Drain and set aside.
2. Meanwhile, season fish with salt and pepper; sprinkle with flour. Cook fish in hot oil for 4 to 5 minutes or until it is easy to remove with a spatula. (If necessary, cook fish half at a time.) Gently turn fish and cook for 2 to 3 minutes more or until fish flakes easily when tested with a fork. Place peas on serving plates; arrange fish on top of peas.
3. Reduce heat to medium. Add butter to skillet. When butter begins to melt, stir in almonds. Cook for 30 to 60 seconds or until nuts are lightly toasted (do not let butter burn). Spoon butter mixture over fish fillets.
4. Makes 4 servings

I think one of my favorite things about this recipe is that it's so damn easy. Anyone who can boil water can make the peas and in my experience fish is pretty hard to overcook. The only potentially tricky part is the almond butter sauce because as the directions say you don't want to burn the butter. The trick there is to use a the smallest pan that you have so that the butter melts quickly without burning, and to really keep an eye on the almonds so that you can get them off as soon as they're ready. Other than that, this is a really simple meal that you can cook and seem like you really know your shit in the kitchen.

Plus, tilapia makes for a very mild-tasting fish so you don't have to worry about whether it will be too strong for people who don't like seafood. I suggest buying Roasted Garlic Caesar-flavored Almond Accents brand of sliced almonds. I admittedly got lucky when I picked these up because I was just guessing as to what would be a good choice, but these things really do add a nice bit of extra flavor to the meal.

Now, yes, I do realize that I could probably do better than a recipe with melted butter, flour, and almonds when looking for a low-calorie meal. But keep in mind that I once learned a way to "enhance" my snacking experience with 3-D Doritos (remember those?) by biting off a corner and filling it up with spray cheese from a can. The simple fact that a) I haven't already had a triple bypass surgery and b) I'm at least looking for things that are low-calorie is a pretty big accomplishment. And I can guarantee that if my fat ass enjoys the flavor then you'll probably enjoy it as well. So give it a try, and let me know in the comments how you liked it if you do.