Childhood Memories

So where have all the great kid's movies gone?

Looking back on it now, I seem to have been born at a very opportune time for fantastic kid's movies. Between 1984 and 1986 there was a glut of really amazing films aimed at mostly kids and teenagers with the leads generally of those ages (with 1 exception that I will include mainly because while starring adults, they were most definitely kids inside!). This really did lead me to associate with them, and allowed me to submerge myself in the storyline.

I was too young to see these films when they first came out, but fortunately for me they all hit our TV screens in the late 80s/ early 90s when I was at just the right age to appreciate them. Back when Christmas TV actually was something out of the ordinary.

A lot of these films became so popular that they formed their own cottage industry with sequels, video games, cartoon TV shows and more. No more so than 1985's Back to the Future which was one of my favourites as a kid. The humour, the dialogue, the car. And while dear ol' Michael J was a tad bit older than the teenager he was supposed to be playing (he was 24) it didn't matter to the audience.

The same year, The Goonies hit the screen, featuring a variety of kid and teenage actors in an amazing adventure. I have to admit I wasn't hugely big into this film, but many site it as one of their all-time favourites.

A year earlier, Gremlins had arrived. Featuring amongst others, a young Corey Feldman, this was one of those quite scary to watch for kids, but at the same time enormous fun as well. And in fairness, you couldn't be too frightened by a film featuring a character like this:

The recently deceased (RIP) director John Hughes made some fantastic coming of age films (but not the best one I've ever seen, we'll get to that one) and he was responsible for one that probably would have been my favourite if you'd asked me aged about 12. This was Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986). The age gap between Matthew Broderick and the ubiqutious Bueller may have been large, but it's nothing like that of his buddy Cameron (who was played by a 3o year old).

Fortunately, I wasn't aware of any of this when I was watching it and I have to admit Ferris had the most perfect life a kid could ever wish for. And it was great fun to watch.

What started me writing this was the long-awaited arrival this morning of my much anticipated copy of Ghostbusters: The Video Game based on the 1984 film. I mean, what kid didn't want to have one of those ray guns and fight ghosts (and know I finally can!) Everybody in that film looked like they were having so much fun doing it, I'm sure they couldn't believe they were getting paid to do it (and the film made an absolute truckload of money too).

Cue a disappointing sequel, some substandard cartoons and numerous merchandising. But nothing can dull the sheer wonderful brilliance of the original movie.

But now we come to my favourite. Despite all those classics coming out around the same time, 1 beats them all in my mind. It helps that when I first saw it, I doubt I was much older than the boys in the film. It wasn't funny, it wasn't escapist like the films I mentioned above, but it is a film that will stay with me til my dying day. And I doubt I'm the only one.

In fact, it so affected me that when I got my first DVD player a long time ago, it was the 2nd film I bought (after Dirty Harry but that's another story). Stand By Me came out in 1985 and featured the story of 4 youngsters going to see a dead body.

All 4 actors were unknowns, and around the ages of the boys they were playing (who were 12/13) and they acted like pros. This poignant tale (made more so by the death only a few years later of River Phoenix) is so utterly outstanding that I won't ruin it for anyone reading this. Just go see it for yourself.

I suppose I'm too old to appreciate kid's movies now. But beyond a few exceptions (like American Graffiti), there are very few that stand out for me. And to have so many in such a short few years seems amazing to me.

I'm just glad I was of an age to appreciate them all when they first hit our TV's on long Christmas nights 2 decades ago.

Lock and Load!

Well, the violence in video games crowd has reared it's ugly head again. And I can't much blame them when you see this trailer.

I love my violent games, and very much enjoyed the original Modern Warfare game. But here's the thing, I'm over 18. I'm allowed to.

And with all the previous controversies about the likes of Manhunt (which I heard was rubbish anyway) and Grand Theft Auto IV, it seems that a lot of people have forgotten 1 simple fact: these games are for adults only.

Don't buy them for your kids and complain when they're too violent!

The other point often made is that these games are teaching kids to commit violent acts. And I find it curious that some right wing commentators would make this comment.

After all, they presumably don't expect their child to become a professional soccer player merely because they've mastered every level in the latest FIFA game, nor do they expect their progeny to become a rock god because their amazing at Guitar Hero.

So why do they expect anything different when it comes to GTA IV? Does anyone think that to rob a car that all you have to do is jump in front of it, pull the driver out and drive off?!

Or that shooting someone using a controller will prepare you for the recoil from an actual gun (which if you're not careful can severely hurt your shoulder)?

Here's the thing, in the US military, they have to sent their soldiers to boot camp in order to basically 'deprogramme' them as human beings. That's how ingrained it is in ordinary decent people not to end the life of someone else.

And frankly, if you're the kind of sociopath who would murder someone else, a video game is not going to be the main reason you did it.

Lock and Load!

Football/ Soccer

Why is football/ soccer the world's most popular sport? Why is it that an event featuring just 1 sport (the World Cup) is as popular as 1 featuring dozens (the Olympics)?

I remember reading a very interesting article on this which explained not only why the Beautiful Game is the most popular sport on every continent bar 1, but also why it consistently fails in that elusive exception (North America).

In a nutshell, here are the reasons:

1. It's simple. There are lots of rules in football just like any other sport, but to explain the basics to a child it's really simple: 'get the ball between the posts without using your hands'. Try doing that with American Football, rugby, baseball etc.

2. It's versatile. You can play it on basically any surface from sand, to hard court, to grass. You can play the full 11 aside or any variation from 5 to 15 a-side. Or you can pratice your soccer skills by yourself against a wall.

3. It's safe. You can get some serious injuries in football but compared to more physical sports it's relatively speaking much safer. Which is important for parents.

4. It's inclusive. Some sports involve standing around a lot waiting for something to happen (e.g. cricket, baseball) or involve only a small number of players (tennis, golf). Everyone gets to run around after the ball in football.

5. It's cheap. An important factor particularly in the Developing World. You don't need fancy equipment or specialised playing surface. Hell, 2 piles of jumpers and a ball (not even a football, I've seen people play it with tennis balls) and you're away.

So with all these advantages, why hasn't it made it in the USA? It's certainly cleaning up at underage level where it's the most popular sport for youngsters and even spawned the phrase 'Soccer Moms' to describe a key demographic there.

The truth is that countries often only have room for 1 type of sport: 1 stick sport (baseball over say cricket), 1 aggressive sport (American football over rugby) and we'll see what happens when it comes to fighting sports (boxing v UFC).

America has a sport very similar to football in terms of its versality, its inclusiveness, its safety.

And that sport, by no coincidence, would be considered by many to be the world's second most popular sport.

Basketball.

Gattaca

Gattaca is a truly excellent film set in an unspecified future where genetically superior human beings have all the advantages.

While this kind of liberal eugenics has thankfully not come to pass, it is interesting how changes in technology and the legalising of abortion across the Western world is having an affect on our society.

In the highly entertaining book Freakonomics, the authors discussed what caused the crime rates across the US to decline in the 1990s when it was predicted they would rise and rise. Conventional wisdom suggested this was due to a combination of the growth in the economy and tougher sentences for criminals/ more police.

In fact, the authors suggested it was due to the seminal Roe vs Wade case of 1973 which resulted in the legalising of abortion. Many poor, uneducated, potential single mums instead aborted their children. So, 20 years later, these kids weren't around to commit crimes.

The BBC recently published a piece on the increase in Down Syndrome births in the United Kingdom. They stated that while there was a large increase in Down Syndrome pregnancies (due to the rising age of women conceiving), there was only a 1% increase in Down Syndrome births.

"An increase in the number of subsequent abortions and more antenatal diagnoses means slightly fewer children are being born with Down's syndrome.

Campaigners say better education about the condition will reduce abortions.

The number of Down's syndrome pregnancies rose from 1,075 diagnoses in 1990 to 1,843 by 2008 in England and Wales.

Despite the higher number of Down's pregnancies, the number of Down's syndrome babies has fallen by 1%, from 752 to 743. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8327228.stm

The new technology available has meant that antenatal diagnoses are being used to prevent Down Syndrome babies ever being born.

It's not all bad news however. Apparently, evolution is making women become hotter, while men are staying the same. I think all us menfold can appreciate that!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6727710.ece

Creationism v Evolution

As more and more schools across the United States discuss the issue of teaching Creationism as a theoretical alternative to the Theory of Evolution, it occurs to me that one important factor is being overlooked.

The Theory of Creation as taught in the Bible is not the only religious view of how our world began. If we assume that Creationism is a credible alternative to the Theory of Evolution, and therefore that a faith-based scientific approach is valid, it logically makes sense that the following should EQUALLY be taught in schools amongst others:

1. Hindu mythology depicts Creation in anthropomorphic terms and there are various versions of Creation in the various Puranas. The most common version is that at the time of Creation Vishnu wakes up and a lotus emerges from his navel on which Brahma is seated. Brahma then creates the universe.Read more: http://hinduism.suite101.com/article.cfm/faqs__creation_desruction_heaven#ixzz0VjEaowW1

2. Heaven and Earth were once the Chaos (hun-tun) like a chicken's egg, in which P'an-ku was born. After eighteen thousand years, this chaotic mass split apart, what was high and clear forming Heaven, and what was dark and turbid forming Earth. P'an-ku stood between them. His body transformed nine times daily while his head supported the Heaven and his feet stabilized the Earth. Thereafter, Heaven daily increased ten feet in height, Earth daily increased ten feet in thickness, and P'an-ku daily increased ten feet in size. This continued for another eighteen thousand years. Hence, Heaven is so high, Earth so thick, and P'an-ku so long. This is how aven and Earth came to be separated by their present distance of ninety thousand li [a li is about one-third of an English mile].
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=96381299


As the Christian view of Creation is based purely on faith, then it cannot be considered in any way superior to Hindu, Taoist, Buddhist or indeed any 'extinct' religious beliefs such as those held by Vikings, Romans, Greeks, Persians and on and on.

Therefore, surely Christian scientists and advocates of Creationism should not object to alternative religious beliefs on how the world began being taught in schools as a counterpoint to both Creationism and the Theory of Evolution.

Unless of course they don't want other religious views on how the world began being taught in schools.