We all scream for … frogurt? Divine delicacies defined

By the gods, do I ever love ice cream. I would be eating ice cream right now if I had some. It’s like, 80 degrees in my house because I’m cheap when it comes to my electric bill, and it’s a struggle for me not to buy and consume the delicious, delicious foodstuff on a daily, if not hourly, basis during these warm months. Maybe you can relate.

But it’s not just ice cream either. There are a spate (spate, I say!) of frozen yogurt shops springing up all over the place, and you’d be remiss not to visit Rita’s for Italian ice once or twice this summer. Perhaps the elusive ice cream truck will stop by with its merry song, delivering frozen dairy product to your front door.

Where do we get all these tasty desserts, and how do they differ from each other?

Ice cream, of course, is best during warm weather, but modern refrigeration techniques (vapor compression) have only been in use since the mid-1800s. How did the people get their refreshing cold desserts before that? The Persian empire would save snow in a domed building called a yakhchal (“ice pit”), in which evaporating water kept the temperature cool. If a city was close enough to a mountain, citizens could also send runners to the higher elevations and fetch fresh snow. They would pour grape juice on the snow and eat it. Just like mom used to make.

Around 200 B.C., the Chinese first used an ice cream-making device that looks like the kind of thing you can buy at Walmart today: a container that gets dunked in snow and salt, to lower the freezing point of the water, then sloshed around until the milk and rice have frozen inside. This was pretty much standard practice for the next 2,000 years.

More recently, ice cream became more accessible and popular along with the onset of refrigeration, and the ice cream sundae (a respelling of “Sunday,” due to religious deference?) made its appearance in the late 19th century. Shortly thereafter, the ice cream cone, the soda fountain/ice cream parlor, and soft serve ice cream (in which air is mixed in to make the product lighter and allow it to move through a spigot) came along.

Aside from straight-up ice cream, we also have frozen custard, frozen yogurt, gelato, sorbet/Italian ice, and sherbet. The fab five?

Custard was invented in 1919 by the Kohr brothers, who basically beat egg yolk into the ice cream to keep it cold longer for afternoons on the Coney Island boardwalk.

Yogurt (Turkish, “to be curdled”), of course, is a deeply storied food, stretching back at least four millennia in India and the Middle East. It’s made by introducing bacteria cultures to milk. The bacteria ferments the lactose into lactic acid (like when milk curds but … tastier), which makes it squishy and sour. The frozen variety was introduced in 1970, but only really came into its own with TCBY (The Country’s Best Yogurt) in 1981. Froyo went through a low in the late 90s (probably because marketing suggested a different Ice Cream of the Future) but has been coming back strong in the last few years. Though typically, when I go to a frogurt place, I pour just a little bit of yogurt and add like 500 pounds of toppings.

Gelato is from Latin gelatus (“frozen”). In the United States, there’s no specific differentiation between gelato and ice cream, although ice cream has to have a certain amount of milk fat (10 percent — less than that and you have to call it a “frozen dairy product”). Gelato, on the other hand, can be anything, though it is typically airy and highly fatty. Like I like my … men?

Sorbet and sherbet share the same root: Arabic sharbat (“a drink”). They are different things, though! At least in America, sorbet and Italian ice (or water ice) contain no dairy products, just frozen fruit juice, making it sweeter and giving it that sort of flaky consistency. Sherbet (also sometimes called sherbert, a recurring character in the Dilbert comic strip notreally) has 1 to 2 percent milk fat, which cuts the fruity sweetness and makes it scoop up more like ice cream.

So now that we’re caught up on mortal desserts, let’s see what the gods are slurping down in the heat. Contrary to what you might think, they aren’t all immortal just because. No, they get longevity from tasty treats, which is sort of the opposite of how we work in the mortal realm. For instance, the Greek gods would chow down on nectar (Proto-Indo-European: nek, “death”; tar, “overcoming”) and ambrosia (Indo-European n-mer-to: mer, “to not die”; to, “being”).

Now, the gods are typically quite possessive about their grub. When Tantalus (root of our “tantalize”), a mortal king, ate at the gods’ table, he sneaked a bit of ambrosia into his doggy bag and took off. The gods punished him by locking him in the nether regions of Hades, where he couldn’t reach the fruit hanging over his head or the water below him, forever yearning and never being able to sate his hunger and thirst. Well, they did that either because he stole their fruit punch or because he carved up his own son into a pie and tried to feed him to the gods for brunch one time. Hard to say.

It’s not just the Greek gods who get immortality from their desserts. The Hindu angelic devas had to recover their longevity after a curse was placed on them. They convinced the demonic asura to help out, promising half of the life-giving, milky amrita (same root as “ambrosia”). After churning the ocean, using a giant snake king and a mountain, the devas got their juice and left the demons poisoned by the snake king’s toxic breath, unable to reap the benefits after all. Sneaky buggers.

The Norse gods, too, needed snacks to keep up their lifespans. In their case, the goddess Iðunn (“ever young”) tended apples that reversed aging in those who ate them. At one point, the giant bird Þjazi, a jötunn and enemy of the gods, coerced Loki into luring Iðunn away from her orchard in search of interesting apples, and Þjazi kidnapped her. The other gods started to age and wither, and they forced Loki (who just gets pushed around a lot in this story) to get her back. Loki transformed into a falcon and flew to where Iðunn was kept and turned her into a nut, which he could carry on his back, and flew her home. Hooray for ambiguously heroic/villainous trickster gods!

So whether you’re chilling out this summer with ice cream, frogurt, or immortality-granting produce, remember that you won’t win the gods’ favor by trying to feed them your progeny. Cheers, and we’ll see you next week!

Powers, perils of building cinematic megafranchise

Every few years, a movie transforms the way Hollywood does business. The Birth of a Nation, Star Wars, and others changed the game through their financial and cinematic successes. Marvel’s The Avengers, released in 2012, changed the game again.

By taking their time and releasing five distinct movies before The Avengers, Marvel laid down a strong foundation on which to build. Audiences were intrigued by Iron Man, Thor, The Hulk, and Captain America, but they were much more intrigued by what would happen when these cinematic characters met for the first time. When The Avengers was finally released, Marvel succeeded not only financially, but in creating something entirely new to cinema: the megafranchise.

The Avengers has grossed over $1.5 billion internationally and has had residual effects on other Marvel Studios releases. The Winter Soldier has grossed almost twice what its predecessor, Captain America, has, and Thor’s box office receipts increased for its second installment by around 50 percent as well. The result has been attempts by other studios, specifically those with the rights to superhero properties, to duplicate Marvel’s success. Some have done well trying to adapt to this model, but others are risking the destruction of their franchises by not understanding what made The Avengers so successful.

The idea of a megafranchise is that several stories and characters that are commercially viable in their own right work together under the same fictional umbrella in such a way that all component properties end up being more successful, with the eventual crossover making even more money. The cinematic megafranchise has roots in the superhero comic book.

Since All-Star Comics #3, released in 1940 by DC Comics, comic books have been using crossovers to build interest in new characters and to increase profits in existing titles. All-Star #3 saw the formation of the Justice Society of America, the first super-powered team to star characters from several different series, including the original versions of The Flash, Green Lantern, Sandman, and more.

DC may have been the first to use the team-up tactic in comics, but Marvel made the crossover its modus operandi. When Stan Lee first introduced his brand of Marvel heroes, he revolutionized the industry by making his heroes flawed and fallible. Flawed heroes are susceptible to human errors, including misunderstanding the motivations of other heroes. That makes the possibilities of crossovers endless, with heroes like Daredevil mistaking the antics of Spider-Man, leading to a fight in New York City.

Lee saw this potential and made sure to place all of his heroes in a single, interconnected fictional world. Creating a Marvel Universe where crossovers were expected helped to make Marvel the industry leader. Crossover stories would allow fans to see who would win in a fight between their favorite heroes, but also helped to raise the value of lesser-known characters. This tactic was used well in Avengers comics from the beginning.

The Avengers came together in 1963 with an all-star lineup of Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Ant-Man, and Wasp. Three issues later, they were joined by Marvel heroes’ patriarch, Captain America. It wasn’t long, however, before the creative team at Marvel began using the Avengers to promote lesser-known heroes. In only its 13th issue, the Avengers lost the entire original lineup and reformed with Captain America leading a “cooky quartet” including Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, and Quicksilver. All three of Cap’s cohorts were originally villains and were using the superhero team as a way to achieve redemption — and to gain greater notoriety among comic book fans.

With the increasing popularity of comic book movies, it was inevitable that Hollywood would adapt Lee’s storytelling style, especially when one of the studios making superhero movies actually was Marvel. Marvel had sold away the rights to its biggest properties a long time ago, losing X-Men, Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, and more. So, when Marvel decided to create its own film studio, the options for franchises were limited.

Marvel Studios took a gamble on a second-tier hero known as Iron Man, who was created by Lee as a sort of challenge to himself: he wanted to create a hero who would be very unlikable to his anti-establishment audience and force them to like him. And thus, Tony Stark, the billionaire, playboy, industrialist, was born. In the movies, Marvel relied on Robert Downey Jr. to deliver both the audience and a show-stealing performance.

By showing the world what could be done with its remaining superhero properties, Marvel Studios built in an audience for additional films. But Iron Man did so much more. The post-credits appearance of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury told fans there was much more to see — that the world of Iron Man was vastly larger than just Tony Stark.

Every succeeding movie built on the groundwork of Iron Man by adding more to the mythos and getting fans excited for the next new entry. People who would not normally be fans of Norse mythology were interested in seeing Thor thanks to the allusions to Mjolnir in Iron Man 2. People who thought Captain America would be a hokey movie still bought tickets because they knew it was building to something larger. By the time The Avengers was released, it was a foregone conclusion that it would be a true blockbuster.

Studios that had already been making superhero movies for years took notice but found themselves in a difficult situation. 20th Century Fox had been producing X-Men movies for a long time and tried to use the team movies to spin off into solo titles, an inverse of what Marvel had been doing. Unfortunately, to this day, Fox has created only one independent franchise, in Wolverine.

With the success of The Avengers, Fox chose to follow the Marvel model by creating a movie loaded with heroes. The result, X-Men: Days of Future Past, was an incredible movie that deserves its comparisons to The Avengers as among the best superhero movies ever made. But its success is nowhere near the level of The Avengers. Why? Because many of the X-Men characters have been seen together already, and there has been no franchise dedicated entirely to building stories for Magneto, Mystique, Storm, or any of the other heroes featured in DoFP.

Sony Pictures’ answer to Marvel has been to use the Spider-Man villains in their own spinoff movies since the Spider-Man franchise is limited to only one major hero. Rumors abound about a Venom movie, which fans hope will lead to the first screen adaptation of Carnage, and Sony has practically confirmed it will produce a movie based on the Sinister Six, a team of six supervillains.

In its attempts to build a megafranchise, however, Sony has made some mistakes. By cramming several villains into The Amazing Spider-Man 2, none of the new characters were able to flesh out their motivations and become more compelling to movie audiences. Though I believe Amazing 2 actually was pretty amazing, other fans weren’t so happy, thinking Sony displayed for everyone the pitfalls of getting too overzealous when attempting to build a megafranchise.

The worst offender of trying to duplicate Marvel’s success has been Warner Brothers. Time Warner owns DC Comics and has had the rights to make movies based on some of the most popular heroes in the world for a long time. Yet somehow, Warner Brothers has mostly only been able to spit out movies based on their two major icons, Batman and Superman, while completely ignoring their third, Wonder Woman, and doing a poor job with Green Lantern.

In a terribly misguided attempt to catch up to Marvel, Warner Brothers has been working on a sequel to Man of Steel, which has slowly evolved into a prequel to a future Justice League film. In trying to build a megafranchise, Warner Brothers has forgotten that it requires the strength of several independent franchises first. Warner Brothers is looking to skip all of that, hoping that the idea of a Batman versus Superman movie will be enough to sell tickets. And it will be.

Warner Brothers has been considering this crossover movie for decades — and for good reason. There are no two characters more iconic than the Dark Knight and the Man of Steel. But in their impatience, Warner has added Wonder Woman, who should have had her own movie years ago, as a third wheel, as well as Cyborg. Also, no movies starring Flash, Aquaman, Martian Manhunter, Green Arrow, or any other major DC hero have been announced. What Warner Brothers did announce, however, is an official Justice League movie, to be directed by Zack Snyder.

But if a movie is coming out in two years that features DC’s top three heroes together for the first time, what reason do casual superhero fans have of going to see the Justice League movie? Are unestablished Green Lantern and Flash characters going to be interesting enough to sell tickets? It’s doubtful.

Marvel made an effort to make sure we fell in love with their characters who would not normally sell tickets on their own by promising us a greater movie experience in the future. Once we had that experience, we fell in love with the characters, even leaving The Avengers asking for a Black Widow movie, which would have been unheard of a decade ago. The success of the megafranchise has created greater success for its constituent franchises, with Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America all seeing increased revenue for their newest cinematic outings. These successes have even allowed Marvel to take new risks, with D-level properties Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man coming to theaters in the next year.

Marvel has proved that it has a winning formula, but it is one that takes time and patience. Fox is beginning to work toward creating a stronger megafranchise in the X-Men by producing more solo movies for characters outside of Wolverine, but Fox’s lack of faith in strong mutant characters, many of whom are women, is holding the studio back. And Sony has shown the risk of relying too heavily on creating a megafranchise, to the detriment of the existing franchises. But Warner Brothers, which has the strongest chance of creating a tremendous cinematic universe, is missing out on the opportunity to create several strong franchises in favor of taking a quicker path to a megafranchise — one that is unlikely to be able to match the success of The Avengers.

Will Justice League, Sinister Six, and future X-Men team-up movies be successful? As a fan of superhero movies, I certainly hope so. But I am willing to wait for them to be set up correctly. As fans, we would much rather see strong movies based on Wonder Woman, the Flash, Green Lantern, and even Cyborg before being thrust into the world of the Justice League. Unfortunately, the promise of Avengers-level profits have clouded the minds of Hollywood producers. Hopefully, they will start to see things long-term, before a massive flop kills the momentum of the superhero genre.

Out with old, in with new? Trappist ale vs. craft tripel

There has never been a final agreement on which is better: the classic, old, tried-and-true way of doing things, or the new, improved, “groundbreaking” way. The debate unfolds in many areas of human endeavor, including in the production of wine, beer, and spirits, and there are partisans on both sides.

I guess circumstances determine a lot in the argument, though. Consider technology: Most people will go out and purchase the newest, most up-to-date techy device, sometimes dropping hundreds of dollars just to have the latest, “greatest” whatever-it-is. We assume that when a new technological marvel is invented and released, it must be an improvement over what came before, the previous glitches fixed and new applications available to us. The iPhone 6 will make prior versions obsolete, just like digital media has done to most vinyl records, eight-track tapes, audio and video cassettes, CDs, DVDs, and more.

But it’s not like that with everything. Remember New Coke? When Coca-Cola tinkered with the formula of its flagship soft drink in the 1980s, the backlash was swift and overwhelming: Coca-Cola “Classic” was on the shelves within three months, and New Coke was nothing more than a case study in marketing textbooks by the 1990s.

So, which argument prevails in the brewing of beer?

Beer is an ancient but constantly evolving beverage that has craft-brewing practitioners biting at the bit to branch out and risk it all to make something new and never-tasted. Take, for example, Rogue Voodoo Doughnut Bacon Maple Ale — surely and truly a challenge to the palate of even the most skilled beer drinker. And I’m still not sure about trying Belgium’s Smisje Wostyntje Mustard Ale. It seems that the reigns have been loosened quite a bit in the new craft beer renaissance; brewers with eccentric vision are pursuing what would have once been illegal.

All these innovations are exciting and, in many cases, a novelty. I appreciate what the craft beer movement is doing, while I maintain a certain respect for brewers who have taken to focusing their beer-crafting skills on taking a tried-and-true style of brew that is already near perfection and attempting to reproduce it with the highest quality of care and diligence.

I recently was able to get my hands on a large bottle of a 2012 vintage Goose Island Brewing Company Matilda, a Belgian-style, golden tripel ale. I thought it would be interesting to drink it side-by-side with a proven and respected Belgian Trappist tripel ale, such as the Westmalle Tripel. I wanted to compare the Old-World recipe with a New-World interpretation. It turned out to be a gratifying experience.

First, a little about each beer:

Representing the Old World, Westmalle Tripel is not only a conventional Belgian-style ale, but it is one brewed in the proud tradition of the Trappist monks at Westmalle Abbey, who oversee every aspect of its production, from picking the choicest hops, yeast, and malt, to the brewing, bottling, and sale of the product. Trappist beers are revered the world over because of their intensity and the attention to detail given to flavor, carbonation, and overall quality craftsmanship. Westmalle is no exception.

According to the historical records of the abbey, monks at Westmalle started brewing beer for their own use back in 1836, but this recipe was first brewed and served in 1934. The current formula has been unchanged for close to 60 years. This beer is nicknamed the “mother of all tripels” by the monks who brew it with simplicity in mind. At 9.5 percent alcohol by volume (ABV), this strong, top-fermentation, classic blonde beer consists of only five ingredients: water, malt, sugar, yeast, and hops. The exact ratio of these ingredients in the formula is kept under tight wraps by the monks. Only the handful of monks that actually work in the brewery know the exact mixture.

Representing the New World is Goose Island Brewing Company, a prominent, Chicago-based craft brewery that thrived during the 1990s and 2000s. Goose Island was recently purchased by Anheuser-Busch InBev, allowing the company to really expand its product availability in recent years. Their Matilda beer, at 7 percent ABV and between 26 to 32 International Bitterness Units (IBU), is a multi-award-winning, Belgian-style tripel ale.

Goose Island recommends aging the beer and says it can continue, under the right conditions, to develop in the bottle for up to five years. Its wild spice and fruit accents make it a unique beer. Matilda has been brewed since the early 2000s but was, until around 2010, not available in wide release. Beer critics on Beer Advocate liken it to popular Belgian strong ales such as La Chouffe.

For the tasting of these beers, I tried them one after the other. I drank the Westmalle first, because it was a beer I have had in the past and was more familiar with; the Matilda was a new beer to me. Both beers were drunk from a Trappist-style chalice glass.

My tasting notes

Westmalle Tripel (2014 bottling): On the pour, golden, but cloudy and yeasty in color with a foamy head (a slow, angled pour is recommended). Great effervescence and a wafting, subtle aroma of hops, dried fruit, and nutmeg. The first sip can be a shock if you’ve never had a strong Belgian ale before. (I liken it to someone who tries a Delirium Tremens or Duvel for the first time and realizes that, while it may have the color of Budweiser, it is most definitely not Budweiser; it is much more powerful.) But it smooths out quickly, and you are left with a satisfying, refreshing drink. The hops are strong, but not I.P.A. strong; they sit on the tongue just long enough to be noticed. It has a classic finish and a lasting aftertaste. Rating: A

Goose Island Matilda (2012 bottling): On the pour, slightly darker golden/amber color than Westmalle, but far less opaque; noticeably less unfiltered yeast present in the bottle. On the nose, it was quite different. This beer reminds me of autumn: heavy on spiced nutmeg, ginger, and clove — maybe even some cinnamon in there. Even before I tasted it, I had the impression of much more complexity. The hops level is similar to or slightly less than the Westmalle, but the combination of spice and nuttiness was much more prevalent. There was a sweetness factor that had not registered with the first beer, too. (My theory is that this beer has less yeast and, therefore, less of the sugar was broken down and turned to alcohol — but I have no evidence to back that up.) Where this beer seemed to yield more on the side of complex and intense flavors, I feel the spiciness of it made it less refreshing, overall. The beer is already two years old but, based on its intensity, I feel it could probably withstand another year or two of bottle aging and still be enjoyable. Rating: A-

Boxing: Cotto, Martínez to work out differences at MSG

This article was written by guest contributor Eric Edstrom Jr.

Boxing superstars collide June 7 in Madison Square Garden as the pride of Puerto Rico, Miguel Cotto (38-4-0), takes on Argentina native Sergio Martínez (51-2-2) at a catch weight of 159 pounds for Martínez’s WBC middleweight championship. If victorious, Cotto will be the first Puerto Rican fighter to win major titles in four different weight categories, a feat he has deemed would be “the greatest achievement of [his] career.”

The negotiations for this bout have been a rocky road, with both fighters’ egos becoming obstacles for us, the fans, to overcome. Martínez has repeatedly called out Cotto as a “diva,” calling “ridiculous” certain demands Cotto has made, like fighting out of the red corner (the champions’ corner), being first billed (Cotto/Martínez as opposed to Martínez/Cotto), and entering the ring last (also the champions’ spot). The negotiations were also held up by Martínez repeatedly declaring that he deserves more respect as the champion.

Cotto claims his terms should be met because he’s the bigger draw in the matchup. It’s hard to argue with Cotto’s ability to sell tickets, especially in New York, where he has sold out Madison Square Garden nine times. And in the modern world of boxing, the sweet science has become more and more about the business.

Both fighters are coming off of impressive victories. Martínez followed up his one-sided domination over Mexican superstar Julio César Chávez Jr. by scoring another unanimous decision over top prospect Martin Murray in April of last year. Despite Martínez going down once in the eighth round against Murray, the sly Argentinian’s speed and ability to land clean, powerful shots won out over the course of the bout.

Martínez then took a layoff to deal with chronic injuries that he claims “still bother him to this day.” He told Scott Christ of BadLeftHook.com that “it is not easy to prepare for a fight when you have some of the ailments that I have when preparing for a World Championship fight. I struggle with joint pains, knee pain, and shoulder pain. Without my physical therapist, Dr. Raquel Bordons, I would not be able to train today, and probably would’ve had to retire due to my injuries.”

The 39-year-old Martínez has certainly done well in his career, especially for someone who didn’t see the inside of a boxing gym until he was 20 years old. But this late bloomer has proved himself not only a force to be reckoned with, but one of the pound-for-pound best fighters in the world with victories over world champions such as Paul “The Punisher” Williams and Kelly “The Ghost” Pavlik, as well as prime European contenders Murray and Matthew Macklin. It is clearly no easy feat to stand in the ring with Martínez, even for a fighter as accomplished as Cotto.

Cotto had become a crowd favorite early in his career. Using an aggressive but intelligent style, he would pressure opponents to their breaking points, often out-boxing more seasoned fighters such as Paulie “Magic Man” Malignaggi and “Sugar” Shane Mosley or scoring knockouts against prime contenders like Alfonso Gómez and Zab Judah. With 31 of his 38 victories coming by knockout, there is no shortage of well-known names of outstanding fighters who have fallen to Cotto’s elite talent. But even more interesting was his drama-filled feud with Antonio Margarito.

Margarito, a top-level Mexican fighter, first faced Cotto in July 2008. Although Cotto was winning the rounds with smart, effective combinations and counter-punching, the larger Margarito began to land heavy shots with seemingly impossible power. In the 11th round, Cotto, his face mangled, finally succumbed to the excruciating punishment that Margarito was dealing him and threw in the towel.

The devastating loss was made all the more infuriating by what was revealed nearly six months later, when Margarito was preparing to step into the ring against Mosley. As the rules allow, Mosley’s trainer, Nazim Richardson, was present at Margarito’s hand taping. Richardson noticed both Margarito and his trainer attempting to conceal a plaster-like substance within Margarito’s hand wraps. The offense was reported and both fighter and trainer were fined and suspended.

A shadow of doubt had been cast on all of Margarito’s previous victories, including his win over Cotto, who demanded a rematch once Margarito’s suspension was up. Whether or not Margarito had actually cheated in their previous bout is a mystery. But what is undeniable is that, in their rematch in December 2011, Cotto put a beating on Margarito, winning every round and causing severe facial swelling. He dominated Margarito for nine rounds until Margarito could not continue. Cotto had his revenge.

Cotto then came back from well-fought losses to Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Austin Trout to score an impressive third-round knockout over top-level journeyman Delvin Rodríguez. The 34-year-old Cotto, now under the expert tutelage of famed trainer Freddy Roach, exhibited the tenacity of the Cotto of old: bulldogging his opponent and landing massive shots to the body and powerful combinations to the head, culminating in the knockout.

Now, the boxing world turns it eye to New York’s storied arena, Madison Square Garden, where these two middleweight superstars will meet Saturday night on HBO Pay-Per-View. Martínez has promised a knockout of Cotto by round 9. Roach has, in turn, also predicted a knockout win for Cotto, but the fighter himself has simply promised to “do his best” against the Argentinian.

Physically larger and supposedly faster, Martínez is the betting favorite by way of Las Vegas odds. But I, for one, disagree with the “experts” who determine those things. I think Cotto’s elite skill is rivaled by very few and that he will be able to outwork the slicker Martínez, who too often drops his combinations in favor of trying to land that one big counter-punch.

Either way it should be one hell of a fight.

Looking at the 10 — or 15 — best Buffy episodes

A few weeks ago, I shared a list of my 10 favorite Angel episodes, in honor of the 10th anniversary of the finale of Angel. Writing about my favorite Angel episodes also got me thinking about my favorite episodes of its sister show, Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Coming up with a list for Buffy is actually easier than it was for Angel — a fact that surprised me. I was a bigger fan of Buffy, and the show aired for two seasons more. There are a lot of episodes of Buffy that I love — I could probably make a top 10 list for each season — but when I really sat down and thought about it, certain episodes immediately came to mind as being truly great. I didn’t spend nearly as much time thinking about which episodes should go on this list as I did the Angel list; these all seemed natural choices.

So, without further ado, here are my top 10 favorite episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer:

10. “Grave” (Season 6, Episode 22): I have to be honest and say that, overall, season six was one of my least favorite seasons. It was dark and rather depressing. I also had a hard time believing guys like Warren, Andrew, and Jonathan could really be a threat to the Slayer herself (though I love Andrew and Jonathan). However, it made sense in the end that Willow would be the Big Bad of the season. I feel like they had been building toward this possibility for a while — and not just in season six. I really liked the symbolism at the end of this episode, when Dawn and Buffy climbed out of the grave: they were leaving the shadow of Buffy’s death behind once and for all and entering a new stage of life. What I loved most about this episode, though, and what earns it a place on my top 10 list, is that it was Xander who stopped Willow and saved the world. I’ve always loved Xander, and I thought this was a terrific moment for his character.

9. “Amends” (S3, E10): When this episode first aired, The First Evil was just a random bad guy who was easily defeated by destroying a shrine; no one knew how powerful a villain he (she? It?) would later become. I really liked this closer look into Angel‘s character and the things he regretted doing as Angelus. I also really liked the scene with Buffy and Angel on the hill in the end. Sure, the snow was a bit of a deus ex machina, but this was a Christmas episode, so it worked.

8. “Angel” (S1, E7): The first season of Buffy wasn’t perfect, but it did have its moments, and “Angel” was one of them. I thought this episode was well done, including the reveal that Angel was a vampire. Sure, if you were paying attention, you probably suspected it before now, but I liked the fact that they waited for that reveal.

7. “Once More, with Feeling” (S6, E7): Buffy sings! Only Joss Whedon could have pulled off a musical episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and have it be just the right amount of cheese. A demon that curses the townspeople with having to sing about their problems? It sounds ridiculous, but in this case it worked and is one of my favorite episodes. I still pull out the soundtrack and listen to it once in a while. I think the best part of this episode, though, is the fact that it’s not just a one-off silly episode. It actually drives the plot of the entire season forward with the huge bombshell that Buffy was happy and in heaven before her friends decided to resurrect her.

6. “Prophecy Girl” (S1, E12): Looking back over my list, I realized I included a lot of season finales, though that wasn’t intentional. They just tend to pack that emotional punch that make them really good episodes. “Prophecy Girl” was no different. The scene in the library, with Buffy and Giles and Buffy’s emotional declaration, “I don’t want to die,” really made this episode; it reminded us that, though she is the Slayer, she is also still a teenager. That, along with the fact that she went to meet the Master anyway, knowing the prophecy predicted her death, really set the tone for Buffy’s character and the entire series. Even though she’s a teenager, she’s not afraid to make difficult choices and sacrifices. This is why I admire her character so much.

5. “Becoming (Part 2)” (S2, E22): This was another finale with a huge emotional punch. Season 2 is possibly my favorite of the entire series. I’m not saying it all went downhill from here — each season has its high points, and some excellent episodes — but this season was extremely well done. The Angelus storyline was brilliant, and it all culminates in one moment at the end of this episode. Willow is finally able to succeed in performing the spell to re-ensoul Angel, but she’s too late. Angelus has already opened a gateway to a hell dimension and the only way to close it is to kill Angel. Killing Angelus would have been easy — Buffy was prepared for that — but watching her kill Angel is heartbreaking.

4. “Chosen” (S7, E22): I really loved season 7. It had its flaws, but, overall, it felt like a final season long before it was announced it would be the last. This episode brought out everything that made Buffy such a wonderful series. It even reunited Buffy and Angel for a brief period. I cried and laughed, felt worried and tense — sometimes all those emotions in just the 10 minutes of action between commercial breaks. The only sense of finality in this episode is the knowledge you have that there will never be a season 8. I loved the feeling of hope at the end and knowing that our beloved characters would continue on.

3. “The Gift” (S5, E22): Buffy willingly sacrifices her life a second time to save the world. This one was much more emotional than the first, however, since there is no bringing her back with CPR. I loved the opening of this episode, where she saves a young guy and his reaction is, “But you’re just a girl.” Buffy responds with, “That’s what I keep saying.” I love the little moments like this that remind us Buffy is much more than a Slayer. She is just a girl and sometimes would love to be just a girl. Her speech to Dawn was also tear-jerking; her line, “The hardest thing in this world is to live in it,” has really stuck with me over the years. The shot of the tombstone at the end lent the episode serious gravity and marked the series’ move from The WB into a new era on UPN.

2. “The Body” (S5, E16): These last two episodes could really be tied for first place, in my mind. “The Body” is one of the most heartbreaking episodes of television I’ve ever seen (possibly second only to Angel‘s “A Hole in the World”). The heartbreak really started in the previous episode, when Buffy came home to find her mother dead on the couch. Hearing Buffy, one of the strongest people you’ll ever meet, call out, “Mommy?” gut-punches me every time. Buffy and her friends deal with death constantly; what makes Joyce‘s death that much harder to take was that it was a natural one; this was no demon or vampire, there was no way Buffy could have done anything to prevent it. In this case, the Slayer is completely powerless. What adds to the tension (and brilliance) of this episode is the fact that there is no soundtrack at all; this gives the entire episode immediacy and a haunting feel. Anya’s breakdown and lack of understanding human emotions was one of the best moments from this episode, which, on the whole, was extremely well done.

1. “Hush” (S4, E10): I’m pretty sure this was the episode that cemented my love for all things Whedon. Not many hour-long series could pull off an entire 20 minutes in which not one character speaks, but Whedon did it wonderfully. This is definitely my favorite episode of the series. I loved how the characters had to make use of other modes of communication (Giles’ transparencies, for one), and the emphasis on expression and movement made the episode so fascinating to watch. I also loved that Buffy’s realization that Riley is part of a secret organization occurs in this episode, where they can’t talk about it until the end — and even when they can speak, they just sit there, staring at each other, unable to think of what to say. Plus, the Gentlemen still give me nightmares and are quite possibly the most terrifying monsters Buffy has fought (although, Gnarl comes in a close second).

As I was making this list, I realized there were several more episodes that couldn’t go unmentioned. So here are five more great episodes, in no particular order:

“The Zeppo” (S3, E13): This episode focused entirely on Xander’s exploits, with Buffy’s fight to stop the apocalypse entirely in the background. Xander will always be one of my favorite characters of this series, and this episode perfectly showcased his character.

“Lovers Walk” (S3, E8): I love Spike, and drunken, emotional Spike returning to Sunnydale was great.

“Something Blue” (S4, E9): This was another episode that I found amusing, as Willow accidentally casts a spell that makes everything she says come true.

“Innocence” (S2, E13): I debated whether this deserved a place on the list over “Becoming (Part 2),” but, ultimately, Angel’s death won me over. Nonetheless, from Buffy’s initial fears that she wasn’t good enough in bed, to her realization that the man she loves no longer exists, just a demon wearing his face — all very well done.

“Passion” (S2, E17): I’ve said before I’m not always a fan of voiceovers, but I thought the limited narration in this episode was powerfully done. This episode is where, in my opinion, everything changes in Buffy’s world. The stakes are raised and consequences become real. People die. And Angelus must be killed.

So that’s my list. What did I miss? Share your favorite episodes in the comments!

What We’re Pouring: June 4, 2014

First, a little about the grape: A delicate white grape originally sourced from western France, but is now found growing successfully in most major wine producing regions throughout the world. Predominantly, successful new-world wine regions such as California and New Zealand have found the grape to grow well, especially in warm weather, and produce increasingly popular wines. There are many affordable sauvignon blancs being produced and it is starting to fill shelves at stores more and more due to its popularity. The wine is associated most with spring and summer as it is a light, delicately refreshing wine with a citrus zest that is best served chilled. It is perfect by itself, but can also compliment light-fare dishes, nuts, cheeses, and seafood. I drank three different, but pleasing new-world sauvignon blancs last week that are sure to satisfy the casual wine drinker.

WINERY: Constellation Brands (a mega-huge wine outfit, the Simply Naked is one of their brands marketed to U.S. consumers)
WINE NAME: 2011 Simply Naked: Unoaked Sauvignon Blanc
REGION: New Zealand (east coast)
VARIETAL: 100% Sauvignon Blanc
ABV: 12.5%
NOTES: The wine is huge on the tropic/citrus fruit. It is apparent as soon as the faux cork is removed; it is very potent on the nose, at first. There is a perfume/floral element that hits later, but it is not as overwhelming as the fruit. The intense fruit on first sip doesn’t linger long and the wine has little sustainability after that, but it’s appropriate for this lighter wine. The color is of Welch’s white grape juice or a light pilsner beer. This is an all steel tank fermentation process, so (unlike a more tradition Loire Valley style), there is no oak flavor. The wine maker claims a bit of lat minerality on the finish, but I got none of that. It was an easy-to-drink, refreshing wine, and at $8 to $9 a bottle, it’s easy on the wallet. If you like a lot of initial fruit punch to your wine, this is definitely worth a bottle or two. I didn’t pair it with anything, but could see it going well with a plate of soft cheese and even some dijon mustard on crackers, but honestly, it might just be best by itself. The wine, while intense on the fruit at first, is overall, weak, and might get lost amongst food that is too complex. Just speculation, but the 2011 vintage could very well be past its prime. C+ ~JW

WINERY: Michael Mondavi Family
WINE NAME: 2012 Oberon Sauvignon Blanc
REGION: Napa Valley, California
VARIETAL: about 76% Sauvignon Blanc and 24% Sauvignon Blanc Musque
ABV: 13.7%
NOTES: This one is about as robust as you can get with a sauvignon blanc. The slightly higher alcohol (as compared to the Simply Naked) gives it a zest and heightens the grapefruit flavor. I feel that this one could actually pair with a meal (of white fish or shellfish, perhaps even a grilled salmon with a yogurt-dill sauce) as the wine has enough power to cut-through and not become lost in the flavors of the meal. The acid is prominent, but gives way to an agreeable earthiness, like grass or salad, that was missing from the previous wine. A pale golden color, like apple juice. This steel-tank, cole-fermented wine yields to a slightly sour aftertaste, but not one that is unpleasant. I’d liken the slightly sour finish to Granny Smith apples. Of the three, this was the most well-rounded by itself. It’s a best buy, too, at around $12 to $13 a bottle. The wine was a little tight, and while most mass-marketed, steel-fermented sauvignon blancs are really meant for immediate drinking, this one, I feel, could maybe last it out another year or two. Wine Advocate recently gave this wine an 89, which prompted me to try it. I have to agree. B+ ~JW

WINERY: Root: 1 (The Original Ungrafted) of the ViÂ¤a Ventisquero Estate Winery
WINE NAME: 2012 Root: 1 Sauvignon Blanc
REGION: Valle de Casablanca, Chile
VARIETAL: 100% Sauvignon Blanc
ABV: 13%
NOTES: Very pale yellow, paler than the others tried, but yields a good potency upon first removing the twist-off cap and taking the initial sip. It is extremely similar in taste to the Oberon, although this one gets the added minerality on the sides of the tongue, more like a French produced sauvignon blanc. According the winemaker’s website, the appellation contains high amounts of red and black clay soil types that might contribute to this flavor. Like the others, there is a pronounced emphasis on citrus (primarily grapefruit and lemon) that are the main driving force in this wine. The acidity cuts, providing a full range of pairing possibilities. I had this wine along with some grilled vegetables and tilapia, and while I feel the Oberon might have complimented this meal better, I was not at a loss with this wine. It was refreshing and the acid lingered long enough to enjoy it. This one is for fans of citrus fruit heavy wines. A very affordable wine, too, at around $10 a bottle. B ~JW

WINERY: Hogue Cellars
VARIETAL: 100% Gewurztraminer
VINTAGE: 2011
REGION: Columbia Valley, Washington State
ABV: 12.2%
NOTES: Light golden in color, floral aromas are detected almost instantly. But after the initial floral attack, the nose has nice fruit characteristics: pineapple, grapefruit, and lemon. On the palate, it is not nearly as intense as most Gewurztraminers, more like off-dry in style rather than bone dry. Orange/tangerine, lychee, and tart apple on the palate, with hints of honey and clove, and a refreshing bit of astringent tea on the finish. More of a floral/citrus Gewurz, without the heavy spice character commonly found, and the hint of sweetness makes it a great pairing with spicy asian cuisine. $11 B+ ~BG

WINERY: Red Newt Cellars
VARIETAL: 100% Riesling
DESIGNATION: Bullhorn Creek Vineyard
VINTAGE: 2011
REGION: Finger Lakes, New York
ABV: 12.2%
NOTES: Single-vineyard Riesling from the Finger Lakes. Light yellow in the glass, the nose has an enticing honeysuckle aroma, combined with hints of melon and apple. On the palate, the acidity is fairly intense and mouthwatering, and the wine is slightly off-dry. Flavors of tart apple, lychee, and pear strike first, with a delicious, refreshing citrus finish, especially lime. The layers of fleshy fruit up front, followed by the intense citrus acidity creates a really outstanding balance. $20 A- ~BG

WINERY: Decoy by Duckhorn Vineyards
WINE NAME: Red Blend
VINTAGE: 2011
REGION: Napa Valley, California
VARIETAL: 47% Merlot, 36% Cabernet Sauvignon, 10% Cabernet Franc, 7% Petit Verdot
ABV: 13.5%
NOTES: This red blend pours inky dark crimson in the glass, with plenty of dark berry fruits on the nose. Mostly blackberry and black cherry, with hints of blueberry, along with dark chocolate and a little bit of baked pie crust. On the palate more of the same dark fruit, intertwined with hints of earth, leather, and spice. Finish is a bit weak, but overall enjoyable. $20 B ~BG

WINERY: 14 Hands
VINTAGE: 2011
REGION: Washington State
VARIETAL: 100% Riesling
ABV: 11%
NOTES: Sweeter than I expected, the wine pours a very pale yellow in the glass. Fruity melon and peach on the nose, with tart apple, peach, and pear dominant flavors on the palate. I had this wine with swordfish, and found myself wishing for less sugar, more acidity and more mineral flavors. The flavors are pleasing but simplistic. Probably not a good choice for pairing with a main course, but as an apertif, it would be fine. $11 C+ ~BG

Batman: The Brave and the Bold pays tribute to Silver Age

Batman: The Brave and the Bold (Cartoon Network)
Where to binge: All three seasons available on Netflix

Since 1992, the Dark Knight Detective has been a television staple, beginning with the ground breaking Batman: The Animated Series and continuing through to Beware the Batman. Outside of and before the Batman-centric cartoons of the past 20 years, Bruce Wayne’s alter ego could be found guest-starring on The New Scooby-Doo Movies or fighting nonsensical crime alongside Aquaman and Wonder Woman as a member of the Justice League as imagined in the sundry Super Friends series.

The common thread that runs through these appearances (well, with the exception of the lighthearted humor of the Super Friends) is that Batman is consistently depicted as a grim avenger of the night, a man who has been consumed by his quest for vengeance against the superstitious and cowardly criminal lot that killed his parents and brought Gotham City to the brink of ruin. Sure, there are moments of deadpan humor, and the occasional bit of outright comedy — what fan of the DC animated universe didn’t love the tongue-in-cheek humor of the Justice League Unlimited episode “This Little Piggy“? — but the overall feel of the character is one of driven, determined seriousness.

Which brings us back to the Super Friends. There was a time in Batman’s history when he was more lighthearted and fun. The Silver Age of Comic Books was a wacky time, with time travel, utterly ridiculous villains, and dozens on dozens of obscure and short-lived heroes with offbeat powers. It was a very different time in comics than today, a time when some stories were being written to children, where the art was still getting its feet under it. The industry was trying to figure out what it would become. It was a time of imagination and exploration, and much of what we consider as the mythos of comic books was established in these formative years.

Batman: The Brave and the Bold was the first, and so far only, animated series to truly embrace the entirety of the wonderful, off-beat, imaginative world of the Silver Age. And it is absolutely brilliant.

This is no small achievement. Following on the heels of the incredibly popular DC animated universe meant that The Brave and the Bold had some big shoes to fill. Had they chosen to play up the darker and edgier elements of the Batman, the show would have felt like a pale imitation of the widely successful Animated Series (a trap that Beware the Batman, the current animated incarnation, is at risk of falling into).

But by choosing to celebrate the madcap fun of the Silver Age, The Brave and the Bold has carved out a unique space in the world of comic-book-inspired animated shows. The animation uses a much brighter color palate than previous animated DC shows. The art feels very much like a four-color comic book. The characters are drawn in a style that smacks of classic Silver Age aesthetics. The occasional computer-generated animation sequence pays tribute to that other famous style of animation, anime. All of these elements come together and form a unique and wonderful look and feel.

The show, which is based on a concept first introduced in the pages of DC Comics, is structured with a short lead-in story that pairs Batman and another hero, usually one of DC’s more obscure characters, in a fight against some evil. These lead-ins serve as character development, allowing the audience to meet many of the show’s recurring characters before they appear in a major storyline. The lead-in story doesn’t usually connect to the rest of the episode, but it is always used to expand the universe.

The show is very episodic, building a world over the course of a season while creating the setup for a two-part grand finale for each season. This “problem of the week” model of storytelling allows the writers to pay tribute to the vast scope of classic comic book storytelling. Episodes range from time-and-space travel, cosmic-level hijinks, classic storyline references, to down and dirty crime drama. Heck, there is even a musical episode, guest-starring none other than Neil Patrick Harris himself.

Voiced by Diedrich Bader, Batman is a deadpan snarker, delivering puns and one-liners that come directly from the Adam West school of Batman acting. The rest of the voice cast includes many well known names (Dee Bradley Baker, John DiMaggio, and many more) voicing just about every major, minor, and throwaway character that has ever graced the pages of a DC comic, along with several created exclusively for the show.

While The Brave and the Bold willingly embraces that Super Friends sense of camp, as well as the Silver Age predilection for storylines that are way over-the-top, it does so with respect and an honest admiration for the classic nature of the characters and the time period that birthed them. What distinguishes The Brave and the Bold is that it treats what the characters will become in the Bronze and Iron Ages of comics with just as much respect. The Brave and the Bold doesn’t just appeal to our retro-comics sensibilities; it uses them as a springboard for innovation.

Just look at how the character of Aquaman got a much-needed shot in the arm here, going from the guy who talks to the fishes to the brave, bombastic, and completely outrageous king of the sea. Or perhaps at the Starro invasion and its study of heroism through the sacrifice and death of B’wana Beast. The episode “Chill of the Night!” is one of the best explorations of the tragic death of Batman’s parents and how it shaped a young Bruce Wayne that has ever been put on the small screen, combining classic and modern Batman sensibilities and Dickensian representations of the Phantom Stranger and the Spectre seeking to claim Batman’s eternal soul.

It’s hard to sell a series to people by talking about its final episode, but I would be remiss not to mention “Mitefall!” Not only is it a zany, hilarious, self-referential adventure romp, but it is a work of love, a good-bye letter to the fans who took a risk on a different kind of Batman show and, in so doing, found themselves rewarded beyond their expectations. In a series where every episode is a love-letter to DC comics, “Mitefall!” is the capstone, the last chance the writers and the cast had to pay tribute to all the great stories of the Silver Age, be they serious or funny, dark or full of laughter, drama or comedy.

All three seasons of Batman: The Brave and the Bold can be streamed on Netflix right now. If you want to take a retro-themed romp through the DC Universe, put aside your preconceptions of what makes a good Batman story and give The Brave and the Bold a watch.

Batman: The Brave and the Bold originally aired from 2008 to 2011 on the Cartoon Network.

Nice day for a green wedding: Those pricey traditions

Late spring into early summer is the perfect time for weddings. The weather is temperate and docile, the foliage is in full bloom, and potential guests have extra gift money on hand from low utility costs over the last few months.

Of course, wedding vendors the world over are well aware of these truths, and price accordingly. Between paying top dollar for the dress, the rings, the food (and cake), the venue, and the entertainment, somebody’s coming out of this process wishing it were December instead. It can’t all be lush, red roses and gorgeous, photogenic rainbows after all.

Let’s see if we can trim the fat a bit by looking at our cash-intensive traditions and where they come from. Maybe there are some things we can do without.

The Dress

What’s the deal with these wedding dresses, anyway? You buy one for way more than the price of any other dress you will ever own, and then you wear it one time ever. Whose bright idea was this?

As usual, we can blame Queen Victoria. When she married Prince Albert in 1840, she bucked the trends and picked white as her color, to signify purity. Shortly thereafter, it caught on, with rich women wanting to show off that they could afford a dress that would pretty much immediately be ruined if it suffered any wear or if they did any kind of work.

Most everyone does white these days, but it’s not required if you’re getting remarried (for whatever reason). In India, however, brides wear anything but white, as that’s the color of mourning, and typically go for red instead.

As to veils, these aren’t for hiding the bride’s beautiful face from the groom, but rather from evil spirits. Roman brides, along with their five witnesses (bridesmaids), wore veils and identical dress so as to confuse the dastardly spirits that might want to steal away her fertility at the moment she passes from the protection of her father to that of her husband.

When it comes to the bride adorning herself with something old, new, borrowed, and blue, this superstition seems to be related to protecting oneself from the evil eye. The evil eye, wielded at times even by an unknowing practitioner of the dark arts, is a widespread cultural myth, which in our contemporary society has been diminished to the less-malevolent “stink eye.”

Anyway, it was common practice for everyone to have something blue on them, to avoid the curses of the eye, which might cause things to dry up (like wells or, in the case of weddings, reproductive organs). The “something borrowed” really should, by tradition, be the undergarments of a woman who has already given birth, so they can confer her fertility to the new bride. We also typically leave off the final line of the poem, “and a silver sixpence in her shoe.” Silver, of course, doubles as a powerful aphrodisiac (not really) and werewolf deterrent.

The Rings

The first engagement rings were probably invented by the Egyptians, while the Romans made them popular. Roman men wore rings of iron to indicate that they were citizens. Giving such a ring to a bride-to-be would indicate that she was now “like people.” Romans believed the left ring finger (named after, y’know, where you wear your wedding ring) contained a vein (or sinew) that led straight to the heart. This idea is either delightful or creepy, depending on your perspective, I guess.

The Cake

More Roman origins. These Romans are popping up everywhere, I swear. In ancient Rome, the priest class, known as Flamen, got married by eating a cake made of spelt, a kind of wheat, in a ceremony called “confarreatio,” which basically means “eating spelt.” In medieval Europe, cakes were stacked up high, and if the bride and groom could kiss over their cake, they would have a long and happy marriage. Sucks to be short, I guess.

The Entertainment

In the United States, we hire a DJ or a band and get a second cousin who plays the viola to perform at the ceremony. Then people dance, or not, as the mood takes them. We have first dances, parental dances, money dances, ridiculous group dances like the Chicken Dance, Electric Slide, Macarena, the Hora if you’re Jewish, that terrible clapping, stepping, cha cha thing, and I’ve even seen the Hokey Pokey once or twice. Maybe some other cultural traditions can help us out here, to give us some more variety, at least.

In Ethiopia, the wedding day starts with the groom and his friends going to the bride’s house and forcing their way inside through the bride’s relatives while loudly singing. The “best man” then sprays perfume everywhere inside. Why yes, yes, it is an overt metaphor for sex.

How about Germany, where bride kidnapping is the norm, which you may recognize from The Office. The groomsmen take the bride bar-hopping, leaving clues behind, while the groom follows after them and pays their tabs. Hmm … that doesn’t really sound less expensive than the overpriced DJ.

In Romania, the lăutari (“lutists”) follow the couple around all day, playing specific songs to fit the moment, and act as entertainer/emcee/event organizer all in one.

The Ceremony

In the United States, the ceremony is most often going to be a Christian one, performed in a church. We have special music, ring exchanging, vows, probably a brief sermon, and then people throw rice at the married couple. Also, there are unity candles these days. What is the deal with those, anyway? Like, people aren’t content with the half-dozen existing symbols for unity inherent in the wedding service, like the rings, the joining of hands, the kiss … they also need something that’s blatantly called a “unity” candle? I’ll get over it.

Maybe you’ve also seen a Celtic-style rite called handfasting? The word “fast” comes from Proto-Germanic fastuz (“firm”). We have three definitions for the word, which carry very different meanings, but they all happen to share this root. You can be a fast runner (or a “firm” runner). You can fast to skip meals or other desired things (or hold “firm” against temptation), then break your fast by eating breakfast. You can also fasten two things together, which is the meaning implicit in handfasting. The rite involves wrapping a hand each of the bride and groom together with cloth to symbolize, you guessed it, unity.

You might also have been to a Jewish ceremony, which has a chuppah (Hebrew: “canopy”), a sheet, held up by four poles, that’s spread over the couple when they get married. It symbolizes the home they’ll build together. A Jewish couple would also then sign a ketubah (Hebrew: “written thing”) outlining the responsibilities of the groom toward the bride.

Hopefully, if nothing else, this article can show potential brides, grooms, and payers of the wedding expenses that there are abundant options available to them, whether or not some would be particularly advisable/accessible in your locale, or defray the costs versus the norm even if they were.

So, cheers, everyone. Keep on marrying and giving in marriage. I’ll see you next week.

NXT Takeover showed WWE can still deliver

If you are a professional wrestling fan and haven’t signed up for WWE Network, do it. Thursday night’s NXT Takeover special proved that the future of wrestling is bright by putting on an incredible show that, by itself, makes the WWE Network worth the price.

When the network first launched, WWE tested the waters for live streaming with a special event titled NXT ArRival. The two-hour card was an incredible spectacle, showcasing the greatest WWE NXT, the company’s developmental branch, has to offer. Casual wrestling fans got their first taste of new performers, like Adrian Neville, Paige, and Sami Zayn (El Generico), and all of the wrestlers impressed.

During NXT ArRival, Zayn and Antonio Cesaro stole the show with a 20-minute epic. Paige and Emma fought another incredible bout over the NXT Women’s Championship. And Neville stunned new fans with his incredible high-flying repertoire. It seemed like the NXT wrestlers would never be able to top their first show, so when NXT Takeover was announced, fans were skeptical about whether or not NXT could keep up its momentum.

When NXT Takeover aired live Thursday night, the wrestlers outperformed even the highest of expectations. It was another dramatic, well-executed show from top to bottom that showed what WWE is capable of when the producers and writers stay focused and deliver a real wrestling show. There were no questionable segments, no little people in bull costumes, no infuriating commentary, and plenty of standout matches. After watching NXT Takeover, I can see that WWE has all of the talent, in-ring and behind the scenes, to create an incredible show every week.

NXT Takeover stuck with a simple formula. It promoted three big matches, gave time for all three to breathe, and let all six performers show off what they could do.

Zayn proved that he deserves to be listed next to Daniel Bryan and Dolph Ziggler as WWE’s greatest in-ring talents, and his opponent, Tyler Breeze, showed he belonged, too. Move after move, kick out after kick out, it was easy to buy into every big maneuver as the one to end the match. The near falls in this match were so close that it was hard to tell whether or not the referee made a mistake and actually counted to three.

Zayn and Breeze exchanged impressive offense that alternated between graceful and brutal. At least one sequence was so quick and perplexing that it may take scientists years to determine what actually happened. The commentators were on fire, putting over Breeze’s new attitude and Zayn’s difficult and ongoing journey to the NXT Championship. The match felt like a clash of two gladiators and kept the fans on the edge of their seats from beginning to end. The finish of the match, which saw Zayn take a seemingly inadvertent low blow, was creative, and put over Breeze’s finishing move without making Zayn look weak in defeat.

In a classic WWE move, the women were sent out after a show-stealing match. Unlike most WWE shows, however, the women put on an equally incredible show. Natalya Neidhart battled Charlotte Flair for the vacant NXT Women’s Championship in a match that had bigger names attached to it than most WrestleMania matches. Natalya was accompanied to the ring by her uncle, the legendary Bret Hart, and Charlotte had her father, the iconic Ric Flair, in her corner.

From the beginning, this match felt like something special. Flair and Hart rarely appear on WWE TV anymore, and never at the same time. Showing that greatness is a family trait, Charlotte and Natalya tore the house down, reversing moves that would have been a finish on any WWE Raw Divas’ match. Natalya tried putting Charlotte away with her uncle’s Sharpshooter, only to have it reversed into the Flair family’s classic figure-four leglock. The match felt powerful and personal, with the two ladies slapping each other ruthlessly while locked up in Nature Boy’s signature submission.

The crowd chanted, “This is awesome,” which is so rare to hear during women’s matches, so often dominated by untrained models instead of real wrestlers for the last decade. When Charlotte put Natalya in her own Sharpshooter, it looked like the match was over, but Nattie managed to escape before finally being put away clean by Charlotte’s own signature maneuver.

What happened next made the match feel like a part of history. Ric Flair, overcome with emotion, entered the ring to celebrate with his daughter, as Hart entered to console his niece. The two legendary wrestlers stood by their families as Charlotte and Natalya exchanged a very real, emotional hug. It was obvious that they understood what they had just accomplished. This women’s match went 17 minutes — four times what would be par for a Divas match on typical WWE programming, fulfilling what our resident feminist hoped to see out of the WWE Network. And it was incredible, putting it in contention, alongside Zayn-Breeze, for Match of the Year.

Then, to make the moment even more special, Bret Hart and Ric Flair, two pillars of professional wrestling, shook hands, and each hugged both of the girls as all four were seemingly overwhelmed by the incredible performance. The two legacy stars proved they belonged in a big way, and proved, like Paige and Emma did at NXT ArRival, what the ladies can bring to the ring.

Tyson Kidd had the unenviable task of following his wife in the main event against Neville for the NXT Championship. The two wrestlers did an outstanding job, delivering an innovative, violent, and dramatic title match. Kidd proved himself as the most underutilized talent on the WWE roster by hitting moves most wrestlers couldn’t even land in their dreams. Neville proved he belonged in WWE by going hold for hold with one of the greatest mat wrestlers of this generation. Neville retained the title after hitting the incomparable Red Arrow corkscrew shooting star press. It was a strong end to the show, but could not possibly top the two matches it followed.

NXT Takeover proved yet again what WWE can do when it is committed to putting on a good show and allows the wrestlers to do what they do best. The card was built around three big, well-paced matches. No one needed to kick out of a finisher to create extra drama, they just needed to be innovative between their signature spots. The commentary told stories while putting over the guys and girls in the ring as talented and hungry athletes. The heels came across as ruthless, the faces came across as valiant. No match ended with a screw job or interference, but no one looked weak in defeat. It was WWE at its best, and we can only hope that moving these athletes to the main roster will not kill what makes them unique. Unfortunately, WWE has a poor track record when it comes to introducing new talent.

If you haven’t already, I urge you to sign up for WWE Network and watch NXT ArRival and NXT Takeover. You will not be disappointed.

How to avoid perils of rebooting Power Rangers

The dream of 90s kids everywhere is about to come true. Lionsgate recently announced a partnership with Saban to reboot the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers on the big screen.

As a long time and devoted fan of the Power Rangers, no one was more excited by the announcement than me. However, there are a lot of potential pitfalls about a movie whose source material is maddeningly incomprehensible.

Power Rangers premiered in the United States on Fox in 1993 and quickly became an American sensation. But the Power Rangers are not American creations and are anything but original. Power Rangers is loosely based on a Japanese show, known as Super Sentai, which has been on the air since the 1970s. And not only is Power Rangers based on Super Sentai, but it actually uses the Japanese footage of the heroes, monsters, and Zords, spliced with shots of American actors reacting to things. The show then mixes this footage into what can politely be called a story, and Saban makes millions of dollars off of toy sales.

But I love it. Millions of fans across a generation love it as well. And now we want a Power Rangers movie, but we want it to make sense while still not being an embarrassingly terrible adaptation like Dragonball: Evolution. So what to do?

The first thing Saban and Lionsgate should do, before even culling the 150 Mighty Morphin episodes for potential stories, is determine the audience. Power Rangers has survived for two decades by being colorful and exciting to every child watching for the first time. The stark dichotomy between good and evil, the bright and interesting costumes, the giant robot animals, and the incredibly unnecessary dance moves performed when starting a fight make the show impossible for children to hate. And the show is still on the air, providing happiness for kids everywhere who will undoubtedly want to see a Power Rangers movie the minute they hear about it.

However, there is an entire generation of fans of the original who are adults now and want to see our childhood stories retold in a way that makes us feel young again while intriguing our adult sensibilities. That makes the job of the Lionsgate writers incredibly difficult, but not impossible.

The short answer is to make a PG-13-rated movie. The G.I. Joe and Transformers films, which similarly traded in nostalgia, are PG-13. For the most part, these movies thread the needle well for reaching a broad audience, and lessons can be taken from them.

The G.I Joe movies were based on a 1980s children’s show, but honestly were always about guns, swords, and war, just like Power Rangers. But the G.I. Joe movies were also pretty bad. The first one at least seemed to understand what was great about the franchise — the advanced technology, the sense of heroism, etc. — and ran with it, but the second, starring The Rock, forgot all of that and decided instead to make a popcorn action-and-explosions movie, full of terrible one-liners and forgettable characters.

The Transformers movies, however, were (mostly) much better. Though there is obviously a lot of criticism out there for these Michael Bay explosion festivals, the movies have been quite successful, and in this Nerd’s opinion, very enjoyable. The Transformers trilogy took what was essential about the franchise, updated it, set it up in the post-9/11 America we all know and love, and made two interesting movies — and whatever you want to call that nonsense in Egypt.

Most importantly, Bay’s series was able to appeal broadly to kids and adults. Kids, who can still watch Transformers on television, loved the action, the story about good and evil, and the explosions. Adults loved the action, the story about good and evil, and the explosions. And the adult men loved Megan Fox and Rosie Huntington-Whitely. The constant references to male genitalia were veiled enough that the kids mostly didn’t notice.

With enough giant robot fights and at least a coherent story, a Power Rangers movie can be just as successful, if not more than, Transformers.

Unfortunately, to achieve Bay-levels of testostersplosions requires an incredible budget, which I doubt Lionsgate is willing to provide. Despite backing the most successful domestic movie of 2013, Lionsgate is not the biggest monster in Finster’s factory. And Power Rangers on the silver screen is not yet a known entity. Lionsgate is likely to provide a relatively small budget for the heroes, and we will probably be treated to visual effects not much better than the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers film of the 90s.

But Lionsgate isn’t Legendary Pictures. They actually support filmmakers who know how to script a story well for the big screen, even if that story is Twilight. So the next question is: what can Lionsgate take from the source material in order to create a compelling blockbuster?

In short, not much. Power Rangers fans are not as rabid as Batman fans and won’t decry the death of their favorite characters just because of a questionable casting choice. (But really, Ben Affleck?) All Lionsgate has to do is give us five, maybe six, teenagers with attitude, dressed in bright spandex, taking orders from a translucent floating head and his robot life partner, fighting horrible monsters, and piloting 30-story mechanized animals. Other than that: you are free to do as you please.

After all, the Power Rangers origin story lasts all of 10 minutes. The primary villain was trapped inside a dumpster since before recorded human history and was freed by astronauts during what appeared to be a beautiful sunlit morning on the moon. Zordon, transdimensional wizard that he is, determined the best way to handle this vengeful threat to humanity was to entrust superpowers to five randomly selected children.

Lionsgate can start by expanding this origin story from 10 minutes to 60. Let us learn some things about the characters and why an ancient alien would entrust the fate of the planet to these young heroes. What makes Jason a good leader? Why is Billy so closed off from the world? Why is Kimberly so annoying? The five original Rangers are a blank slate. Paint away, Lionsgate, paint away.

The important thing for this reboot, as with any cinematic adaptation, is not to be beholden to specific storylines, but to adapt the themes and core qualities of the source material. This is where Winter Soldier succeeded and Man of Steel failed. Both movies were adapting heroes with hokey backgrounds from a different era, but Marvel embraced the iconic and heroic nature of Captain America, while Warner Brothers ran away from what makes Superman special.

The Power Rangers on the silver screen should not be lame — except Billy, of course — but they should be heroic and inspiring, even if their home is grittier than the Angel Grove we have come to love. The Power Rangers should become the symbol of light needed in a dark world facing an attack from an alien force of unknown origin. The men and women under the masks, however, should be flawed humans struggling with bearing that burden on their shoulders. Unlike Superman, Jason, Trini, Zack, Kimberly, and Billy were not born to be superheroes but were drafted into a war. Their lives were changed forever, and like Spider-Man, the Power Rangers must accept the responsibility that their powers require of them.

Whatever Lionsgate decides to do, I can guarantee that I will be at the theater for the movie’s premiere. As someone who’s life has been heavily influenced by the Power Rangers, I hope to see this franchise successful on the silver screen. And Lionsgate, I’m available if you need writers.

Postscript:

Lionsgate has complete freedom in terms of what origin story to tell, but with a sequel inevitable, there is one story that needs to be told. “Green with Evil” told the story of an evil Power Ranger who was granted his powers by Rita Repulsa. This Green Power Ranger was Tommy Oliver, the new kid in school. Tommy spent five episodes schooling the other Rangers, completely dismantling them, while holding the advantage of fighting a team of heroes unwilling to kill someone whom they knew was under an evil spell. As great as this story is, however, it requires a team of heroes who have already been established as credible. An evil Power Ranger means nothing if the world doesn’t already know the Rangers as heroes.

Of course, this leads to the most important question of all: will Jason David Frank, the original Green Ranger, be a part of this new movie? I hope so, and plenty of fans do as well. A reboot means a big role is unlikely, however, but we can at least hope for a Stan Lee-like cameo from everyone’s favorite ranger. Perhaps JDF will even be granted a larger role as a mentor of sorts to the new Rangers, though without the history of the Tommy Oliver character connected to him.

Sound off. What do you most want to see from the new Power Rangers movie? And please, don’t all say Polluticorn.

curiata

provoke your curiosity