A few weeks back I wrote an entire blog about how the new "Tron" was being insanely overhyped and later trailers looked to be a mess.... also, the entire crew was green except for The Dude (green as in "no experience," not "earth safe," though I suppose the latter could be true, too).
NOT GEEK
Clu looked like ass. The rest was pretty cool, though. Would watch again. Olivia Wilde is more than just a pretty face and out-acted everyone in the movie who wasn't Jeff Bridges (nobody out-acts Jeff Bridges).
GEEK
The writers came from "Lost," the television equivalent of a handjob from a famous person. Sure, everyone talked about that show and it garnered a huge amount of viewers, but at the end of the day, it was still a handjob. Yep, it had an ending, but only an idiot would think it was going to be a satisfying one.
That said, the writers dropped in some pretty clever things. Dillinger Jr (aka Peter Warner aka Sark)'s kid shows up in the opening minutes, played by Cillian Murphy. Bringing back Bruce Boxleitner (who is still a competent actor and was in Babylon 5, even if I didn't watch that, either). ... Wait. On second thought, those were largely casting decisions. The dialogue was nothing special or memorable, except for everything that Flynn says, and I'm pretty sure that was just Jeff Bridges' real personality. Knock on the sky and listen to the sound? Seriously? Imagine if someone said that in the 1982 original movie. Ronald Reagan's head would have exploded.
Not that there's anything wrong with Ronald Reagan's head exploding. I can say that now, on account of he's dead.
Alright, fuck the writers: cinematography, production design, costumes, all great. Acting all great, except for Garrett Hedlund (Sam Flynn) who was adequate. The 3-D neither added nor subtracted from the viewing experience. It'll be the last 3-D movie I ever see, if given the choice.
The director is Joseph Kosinski, which was my primary fear going into the movie, because he'd never directed anything but commercials. This is often a bad sign. Not that directors with his lack of experience always fail, it's just that they fail more often. This guy? Pulled his shit together. To wit:
David Fincher. Started in commercials/music videos. Now has a viable movie career. Kosinski isn't as good as this guy, but it's an example of what to shoot for (even if Fincher is merely a visual stylist. Wilde's performance in T:L shows Kosinski CAN work with actors... Fincher is hit or miss on this).
Gore Verbinski. Started in commercials/music videos, directed 3 movies before he did the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" for Disney. He knocked it out of the park and made 1.21 kajillion billon dollars. He's doing pretty okay.
Rob Minkoff. Directed "The Lion King," which was excellent, then moved to live-action with Stuart Little (pretty okay) and The Haunted Mansion, which was a steaming pile of shit. Pirates: 3 sequels. Mansion: Zero sequels. Nicely done, Rob.
My point is, even in interviews Kosinski talked about having a shorter amount of time than he'd like to shoot the movie, storyboarded things that never got to be shot, working on the script... he may not be a writer, but he took the resources available to him and made a movie that was both entertaining, and true to the original. He done good. And, granted, the grosses may be artificially inflated because of increased 3-D ticket prices, but the movie's still making a decent amount of money. His next announced project? A remake of "The Black Hole." I'm in if you are.
NOT GEEK: A-
GEEK: A
I don't know who's running Disney these days, but this is the smartest move they've made in forever. Of course, they hired a dance choreographer to direct the next Pirates of the Caribbean movie, so..... we'll see.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Friday, December 10, 2010
Killing Time 'til Tr0n
I'm a big fan of homoerotic tension.
I know that's an unusual, perhaps even controversial, stance to take, but I'm sticking with it. When I was tricked by advertising and hype into seeing the very bad film "Eragon" a few years ago, one of the only things I took away from it were that the teen male hero, and his male competition for the female, had more sexual tension than between either of them and the female. THAT'S GREAT FILMMAKING. Accidental filmmaking, yes, but hot n' sexy nonetheless. Not sexy? Everything else about that movie.
So despite the obvious pretty-boy ridiculousness of the lead in "Prince Caspian" when that came out, I was in on the action because dammit, I'd only ever read "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," and I wanted to see what happened next. The result was pretty nifty, I must say, with great battle sequences and a fuckin' CASTLE SIEGE. I mean, c'mon people. I know there were mice and dogs and foxes and centaurs involved, but it was a freakin' CASTLE SIEGE. That shit is awesome. It's not "Braveheart," but regardless of the reality of the characters involved, a castle is attacked, there are gigantic battle sequences, and then a duel between the King of All Narnia, and some upstart British teenager who's been training in the woods for an hour with Peter Dinklage. Great movie. Four stars on Netflix. Would watch again.
GEEK
The first two live-action Narnia movies were directed by Andrew Adamson, who previously directed the original "Shrek." I liked Shrek, and despite the complaints of some about too many pop-culture references, it had plenty of other jokes that landed, as well as some non-comedic moments that came together really well, too. And the message about "inner beauty" was an important one, which of course was squandered in all of the sequels in favor of lame poop jokes. Point Adamson, Negative Points for Shrek.
My point being is that Andrew Adamson is a competent director, and made a good enough live-action adaptation of "LW&W" that it made lots of money, and lots of people liked it. Hopefully you're one, too. If not, well, maybe fantasy just isn't your thing. That doesn't make it a bad movie.
"LW&W" was released at Christmas time that year, so when it came time for Prince Caspian, the studio thought, "These kinds of family movies do really well at Christmas. Should we release Prince Caspian at Christmas, too? ... NAHHHHH, let's dump it during the summer, because clearly "The Water Horse" is going to be a huge hit and make a billion dollars and we don't want to put all our eggs in one basket."
I did not see "The Water Horse."
NOBODY saw "The Water Horse."
Speaking of awful decisions, the studio then opted to replace Adamson for "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" with Michael Apted, who has not had a hit since 1999, with a movie called "Tomorrow Never Dies," arguably the worst of the Brosnan-Bond movies. Maybe you liked it, I dunno, but it sure as shit was no "Goldeneye." Apted is also roughly 153 years old (no, seriously, he's 69, and in no condition to be making a kids movie. The closest he's ever come to a kids movie is "Enough" starring Jennifer Lopez, which I guess also doubles as the closest he's ever come to directing fantasy. That's not a dig at women's rights, just a dig at Jennifer Lopez).
My point is that "Dawn Treader" is going to suck and I'm mad about it.
The first two films were able to mine the adventure from the story while leaving the supposed religious shenanigans in the background, if you chose to ignore them. Sure there was Aslan was supposed to be Jesus and blah blah blah, but they weren't all in your face about it. CASTLE SIEGE. Eddie Izzard. TILDA SWINTON HOTNESS. These are important movie-going experiences.
Dawn Treader? Confirmed for mediocre also-ran. It's the "Star Trek V" of this cycle, and it won't make any money, because even if Tron blows (and it might), Tron is going to make Phantom-Menace money, while Dawn Treader makes "Howard the Duck" money.
Nice one, studio.
NOT GEEK
Wardrobe was awesome. Caspian was awesome. Fuck the haters.
........Though Apted does suck a dick.
And was that the White Witch in the trailer? WHAT THE F--
Etc.
I know that's an unusual, perhaps even controversial, stance to take, but I'm sticking with it. When I was tricked by advertising and hype into seeing the very bad film "Eragon" a few years ago, one of the only things I took away from it were that the teen male hero, and his male competition for the female, had more sexual tension than between either of them and the female. THAT'S GREAT FILMMAKING. Accidental filmmaking, yes, but hot n' sexy nonetheless. Not sexy? Everything else about that movie.
So despite the obvious pretty-boy ridiculousness of the lead in "Prince Caspian" when that came out, I was in on the action because dammit, I'd only ever read "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," and I wanted to see what happened next. The result was pretty nifty, I must say, with great battle sequences and a fuckin' CASTLE SIEGE. I mean, c'mon people. I know there were mice and dogs and foxes and centaurs involved, but it was a freakin' CASTLE SIEGE. That shit is awesome. It's not "Braveheart," but regardless of the reality of the characters involved, a castle is attacked, there are gigantic battle sequences, and then a duel between the King of All Narnia, and some upstart British teenager who's been training in the woods for an hour with Peter Dinklage. Great movie. Four stars on Netflix. Would watch again.
GEEK
The first two live-action Narnia movies were directed by Andrew Adamson, who previously directed the original "Shrek." I liked Shrek, and despite the complaints of some about too many pop-culture references, it had plenty of other jokes that landed, as well as some non-comedic moments that came together really well, too. And the message about "inner beauty" was an important one, which of course was squandered in all of the sequels in favor of lame poop jokes. Point Adamson, Negative Points for Shrek.
My point being is that Andrew Adamson is a competent director, and made a good enough live-action adaptation of "LW&W" that it made lots of money, and lots of people liked it. Hopefully you're one, too. If not, well, maybe fantasy just isn't your thing. That doesn't make it a bad movie.
"LW&W" was released at Christmas time that year, so when it came time for Prince Caspian, the studio thought, "These kinds of family movies do really well at Christmas. Should we release Prince Caspian at Christmas, too? ... NAHHHHH, let's dump it during the summer, because clearly "The Water Horse" is going to be a huge hit and make a billion dollars and we don't want to put all our eggs in one basket."
I did not see "The Water Horse."
NOBODY saw "The Water Horse."
Speaking of awful decisions, the studio then opted to replace Adamson for "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" with Michael Apted, who has not had a hit since 1999, with a movie called "Tomorrow Never Dies," arguably the worst of the Brosnan-Bond movies. Maybe you liked it, I dunno, but it sure as shit was no "Goldeneye." Apted is also roughly 153 years old (no, seriously, he's 69, and in no condition to be making a kids movie. The closest he's ever come to a kids movie is "Enough" starring Jennifer Lopez, which I guess also doubles as the closest he's ever come to directing fantasy. That's not a dig at women's rights, just a dig at Jennifer Lopez).
My point is that "Dawn Treader" is going to suck and I'm mad about it.
The first two films were able to mine the adventure from the story while leaving the supposed religious shenanigans in the background, if you chose to ignore them. Sure there was Aslan was supposed to be Jesus and blah blah blah, but they weren't all in your face about it. CASTLE SIEGE. Eddie Izzard. TILDA SWINTON HOTNESS. These are important movie-going experiences.
Dawn Treader? Confirmed for mediocre also-ran. It's the "Star Trek V" of this cycle, and it won't make any money, because even if Tron blows (and it might), Tron is going to make Phantom-Menace money, while Dawn Treader makes "Howard the Duck" money.
Nice one, studio.
NOT GEEK
Wardrobe was awesome. Caspian was awesome. Fuck the haters.
........Though Apted does suck a dick.
And was that the White Witch in the trailer? WHAT THE F--
Etc.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
An Open Letter to Mark Cuban
I try not to write about sports here, but this is the only blog I have, and until I can think of more than one sports idea every three months, this is where it goes:
DEAR MARK CUBAN,
Despite not having lived full-time in Houston since I was 20, I still feel a strong loyalty toward the city, despite its many abuses to me, during my upbringing. That sounds more overly dramatic than I meant it: my parents were lovely and my little brother only occasionally irritating, but of course the weather in Houston remains as oppressive as it does in Dallas, and the traffic situation down there makes the Dallas traffic look like a walk to the mailbox.
And yet I still feel fierce loyalties to the teams I grew up with, the Rockets and Astros, and by extension, the Texans. I believe there was another football team in Houston for some time, but I have erradicated all memory of it from my brain, due to abuse by a terrible owner-- words which, I must say, cannot be applied to you.
You are a wonderful owner. You have hired good people, let them do their jobs, you have been open with your fans and fans of your team, and your enthusiasm is purely contagious. You know your job, and are keenly aware that privilege is not a substitute for actual knowledge of the game and the team. And, most importantly, of all the professional sports franchise-owners in Dallas, you are the only one to actually allow your sports franchise to play in Dallas. Purists will surely say, "But hockey is a professional sport, too," to which I say, "Go back to Canada, you Molson-drinking moose-rider."
I know all this (except for the bit about Canada, which is hearsay) because I lived in Dallas for over ten years. Sure, part of it was in Denton, and part of it was in the remote outpost known as Sherman, but we all basically fall under the same Dallas umbrella (except for Ft. Worth, which hates you). I'm a fan of your work and of all the owners in professional sports today, you're the one who feels like he's most excited to be there. Not because of potential profits, but because you can actively affect the world around you and the culture in which you live. You know that a championship is more important than how many hot dogs you sold at concessions last week.
So when it was reported that you'd said, in a casual offhand way, that you weren't interested in buying the Astros... I was fine with it. Really, I was. Whatever your reasons, that's fine. One man owning a team in both Houston and Dallas is certainly a great sports sacrilege, akin to owning teams in both New York and Boston, or Los Angeles and San Francisco, but even if this was not your reason, it doesn't matter. You have a business to run, you got burned by the Cubs, burned by the Rangers, whatever. It's water under the bridge, and we needn't dwell on it. I didn't think you'd want the gig and your name never even really occurred to me when their previous owner announced the sale.
But the thing is, sports needs more people like you. Someone passionate about the game, not just someone who views it as an investment, or an excuse to stand next to cheerleaders. A rock star, as it were, with enthusiasm and intelligence, passion and personality. Someone Not Jerry Jones. Someone like you.
And so, even though I have only ever lived in four cities: Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, and presently Seattle... I feel great confidence in suggesting the next sports team you should buy:
If there has ever been any more long-suffering, desperate, needy, and nowhere-to-go-but-up franchise, can any answer really be more obvious than the Detroit Lions?
Sure, we're all waiting for the owner of the LA Clippers to be declared insane and have his team wrested from his clutches, but you already own an NBA team and I think there's an ownership-cap on that. But if you must own a second team, it should be not baseball.... but football.
RATIONALE #1: The Detroit Lions are not in Texas. So no "sports bigamy" to borrow a term from another writer.
RATIONALE #2: The Detroit Lions play at Ford Field. And while the Ford Motor Company lacks the presence in Detroit that it used to have, MANY PEOPLE IN DALLAS DRIVE CARS. And I just don't mean, facetiously, like, "Many people in Dallas have feet," but rather, it is an impossibility for anyone to get anywhere in Dallas without a car. Sure, the train is coming along nicely, but not to the point where people are just selling their cars and travelling everywhere on foot and by bus (like they do in Seattle). They have cars, they love their cars, and they WILL drive them to Detroit. For you.
RATIONALE #3: The Lions are terrible. Do we need to remind you the state of the Mavericks when you first arrived? You love a project.
RATIONALE #4: Once a season you get to play Jerry Jones in open gladiatorial combat. Well, not personally, but your fans would plunk down $100 for that ticket, too.
RATIONALE #5: I'm not going to name names, but by and large, NFL owners are way, way more douchey than NBA owners. You, sir, are not a douche. You are a folk hero. Except for the HDnet thing.
RATIONALE #6: Within the last three years, Comerica Bank has left Detroit, relocating in Dallas. Think of this as giving something back to the community. If some businessman and entrepeneur from Oklahoma City wanted to give something back to Seattle, I certainly would not turn it down.
RATIONALE #7: Texas has no natural lakes. Michigan, I have seen on maps, has several. Two words, sir: LAKEFRONT PROPERTY. Or is that three words?
and finally...
RATIONALE #8: You would have an office in a state that borders a foreign country. Which, if I recall from the last presidential election, would give you foreign policy experience.
And honestly, not even a random passer-by on the street could do a worse job than the current Lions ownership, and you are far more experienced and passionate than some person that was just happening to pass by. You're Mark Cuban. You've got an illegal cigar RIGHT THERE IN YOUR NAME. There's nothing you can't do.
Speaking as someone who has never lived in, nor even set foot in, the beautiful state of Michigan, I feel myself and the people of this great nation would be behind such a bold move. For fortune favors the bold. And Americans favor cool guys with fortunes.
I for one look forward to your future adventures and endeavors,
Warmest Personal Regards,
Some Guy on the Internet
DEAR MARK CUBAN,
Despite not having lived full-time in Houston since I was 20, I still feel a strong loyalty toward the city, despite its many abuses to me, during my upbringing. That sounds more overly dramatic than I meant it: my parents were lovely and my little brother only occasionally irritating, but of course the weather in Houston remains as oppressive as it does in Dallas, and the traffic situation down there makes the Dallas traffic look like a walk to the mailbox.
And yet I still feel fierce loyalties to the teams I grew up with, the Rockets and Astros, and by extension, the Texans. I believe there was another football team in Houston for some time, but I have erradicated all memory of it from my brain, due to abuse by a terrible owner-- words which, I must say, cannot be applied to you.
You are a wonderful owner. You have hired good people, let them do their jobs, you have been open with your fans and fans of your team, and your enthusiasm is purely contagious. You know your job, and are keenly aware that privilege is not a substitute for actual knowledge of the game and the team. And, most importantly, of all the professional sports franchise-owners in Dallas, you are the only one to actually allow your sports franchise to play in Dallas. Purists will surely say, "But hockey is a professional sport, too," to which I say, "Go back to Canada, you Molson-drinking moose-rider."
I know all this (except for the bit about Canada, which is hearsay) because I lived in Dallas for over ten years. Sure, part of it was in Denton, and part of it was in the remote outpost known as Sherman, but we all basically fall under the same Dallas umbrella (except for Ft. Worth, which hates you). I'm a fan of your work and of all the owners in professional sports today, you're the one who feels like he's most excited to be there. Not because of potential profits, but because you can actively affect the world around you and the culture in which you live. You know that a championship is more important than how many hot dogs you sold at concessions last week.
So when it was reported that you'd said, in a casual offhand way, that you weren't interested in buying the Astros... I was fine with it. Really, I was. Whatever your reasons, that's fine. One man owning a team in both Houston and Dallas is certainly a great sports sacrilege, akin to owning teams in both New York and Boston, or Los Angeles and San Francisco, but even if this was not your reason, it doesn't matter. You have a business to run, you got burned by the Cubs, burned by the Rangers, whatever. It's water under the bridge, and we needn't dwell on it. I didn't think you'd want the gig and your name never even really occurred to me when their previous owner announced the sale.
But the thing is, sports needs more people like you. Someone passionate about the game, not just someone who views it as an investment, or an excuse to stand next to cheerleaders. A rock star, as it were, with enthusiasm and intelligence, passion and personality. Someone Not Jerry Jones. Someone like you.
And so, even though I have only ever lived in four cities: Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, and presently Seattle... I feel great confidence in suggesting the next sports team you should buy:
If there has ever been any more long-suffering, desperate, needy, and nowhere-to-go-but-up franchise, can any answer really be more obvious than the Detroit Lions?
Sure, we're all waiting for the owner of the LA Clippers to be declared insane and have his team wrested from his clutches, but you already own an NBA team and I think there's an ownership-cap on that. But if you must own a second team, it should be not baseball.... but football.
RATIONALE #1: The Detroit Lions are not in Texas. So no "sports bigamy" to borrow a term from another writer.
RATIONALE #2: The Detroit Lions play at Ford Field. And while the Ford Motor Company lacks the presence in Detroit that it used to have, MANY PEOPLE IN DALLAS DRIVE CARS. And I just don't mean, facetiously, like, "Many people in Dallas have feet," but rather, it is an impossibility for anyone to get anywhere in Dallas without a car. Sure, the train is coming along nicely, but not to the point where people are just selling their cars and travelling everywhere on foot and by bus (like they do in Seattle). They have cars, they love their cars, and they WILL drive them to Detroit. For you.
RATIONALE #3: The Lions are terrible. Do we need to remind you the state of the Mavericks when you first arrived? You love a project.
RATIONALE #4: Once a season you get to play Jerry Jones in open gladiatorial combat. Well, not personally, but your fans would plunk down $100 for that ticket, too.
RATIONALE #5: I'm not going to name names, but by and large, NFL owners are way, way more douchey than NBA owners. You, sir, are not a douche. You are a folk hero. Except for the HDnet thing.
RATIONALE #6: Within the last three years, Comerica Bank has left Detroit, relocating in Dallas. Think of this as giving something back to the community. If some businessman and entrepeneur from Oklahoma City wanted to give something back to Seattle, I certainly would not turn it down.
RATIONALE #7: Texas has no natural lakes. Michigan, I have seen on maps, has several. Two words, sir: LAKEFRONT PROPERTY. Or is that three words?
and finally...
RATIONALE #8: You would have an office in a state that borders a foreign country. Which, if I recall from the last presidential election, would give you foreign policy experience.
And honestly, not even a random passer-by on the street could do a worse job than the current Lions ownership, and you are far more experienced and passionate than some person that was just happening to pass by. You're Mark Cuban. You've got an illegal cigar RIGHT THERE IN YOUR NAME. There's nothing you can't do.
Speaking as someone who has never lived in, nor even set foot in, the beautiful state of Michigan, I feel myself and the people of this great nation would be behind such a bold move. For fortune favors the bold. And Americans favor cool guys with fortunes.
I for one look forward to your future adventures and endeavors,
Warmest Personal Regards,
Some Guy on the Internet
Friday, November 5, 2010
The Tea Party is Batshit Nuts, and That's Okay!
Eh. Ostbensibly this blog is to split time between my Inner Citizen and Inner Geekboy, but movies have been thin in '010, and even trips to the comic book store have been less than satisfying. Which is not to say I like comic books because no no no, I'd actually prefer to see naked women. Real ones. Let's just quit while we're behind here.
THE TEA PARTY AND WHY THEY'RE FUNNY.
This is not to say EVERYthing about them is funny. Quite the contrary; aspects of them are quite terrifying, like the fact that they have their traditional conservative roots coming from the same political corner as the Nazis. That and a complete ignorance of history (or else they wouldn't call themselves 'The Tea Party') is pretty much sure to seal their fate on a national level in 2012.
I mean, look. These people make Bill O'Reilly seem reasonable. And even Bill O'Reilly bombs every time he goes on Letterman, because appealing to your tiny little Krazy Kult is not the same as mainstream acceptance. And as a comic-book reading, video-game playing, theatre-reading nerd, I know a thing or two about not being able to gain universal acceptance.
So.
In 1992, Ross Perot garnered 18% of the popular vote. Or, to use a more current but less universal example, in 2006, bigoted Texas Governor Rick Perry (the Lt. Governor under then-Gov. George 'Dubya' Bush) was re-elected after receiving approx. 45% of the vote. The remaining 55% was split between the Democratic challenger (38% or so) and author/musician/activist Kinky Friedman. And so, popular sentiment would tell you, if every person who voted for Friedman, voted instead for the Democrat, then the Democrat would have won.
Which I guess makes the Perot argument kind of invalid, because it's not like liberals were voting for him, but then again this is kind of hindsight. Also I was 16 at the time.
Anyway, through all this, the Neo-Republicans bitched and yelled and screamed about "holding the party line." They all must remain unified under their ONE candidate, because "that's what being a good Republican is all about!" ... And so they all rallied behind Bush Sr., even though he was a weak President and laid the seeds of the current Iraq mess, and they all rallied behind Dole, who lacked all charisma, and they all rallied behind Dubya, even though McCain was more charismatic and had more experience, and at least in 2000, was younger than 500. They even held the party line 8 years later with McCain/Palin, even though the country had cooled on Republican shenanigans, and the party itself had trashed the man 8 years earlier. Also Palin isn't qualified to run a 7-11.
So what do we have in 2010? DISSENT. The Republican party is splitting, with the right-wing over here, and the EXTREME right-wing over there.
This is good for Democrats.
What is, of course, NOT good for Democrats, or the people in general, is the entire Tea-Party's platform, in which they feel marginalized and stepped on and not represented by our government, much like (they say) the colonials of North America circa 1776. The reason they feel marginalized is because they ARE in the margins, and their beliefs are so uneducated and outside the mainstream that they can't ever possibly hope to maintain a foothold bigger than the one they have right now. Then again, that's at a national level. In Kentucky (for example), they're actually doing alright in the polls.
Preaching the good old days, wanting to return to "Traditional American Values," and abhorring the entire popular culture. Finger-pointing. Blaming other Americans who don't share their beliefs as the only problem, and a problem that must be stopped. Uber-conservatism, led by a charismatic leader who gives good speeches but doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
Hitler only grew that moustache because his handlers told him it would make him popular-- Charlie Chaplin was pretty big at the time. And while Barack Obama is educated and has a record of service going back to his formative years, Hitler was rejected from art school twice and wrote a popular book in prison in which he blamed everyone else for Germany's problems.
Meanwhile Glenn Beck used to be a drive-time morning radio DJ and has a miltary-esque flat-top haircut (the military is popular with his fans, but he has never served), and has written a lot of retarded books.
I'm just sayin'.
Basically parts of the country are completely screwed, politically... but we must remain optimistic. Granted, there are just chunks of the country ignorant to history-- no doubt a result of the Republicans slashing of education-- but the same can't be said for 100% of us.
And so, Tea Party... creepy as though they may be... means the crazy nutcases who helped put Bush over Kerry in 2004... have all left the party for Insaner Pastures.
Let the good times roll.
THE TEA PARTY AND WHY THEY'RE FUNNY.
This is not to say EVERYthing about them is funny. Quite the contrary; aspects of them are quite terrifying, like the fact that they have their traditional conservative roots coming from the same political corner as the Nazis. That and a complete ignorance of history (or else they wouldn't call themselves 'The Tea Party') is pretty much sure to seal their fate on a national level in 2012.
I mean, look. These people make Bill O'Reilly seem reasonable. And even Bill O'Reilly bombs every time he goes on Letterman, because appealing to your tiny little Krazy Kult is not the same as mainstream acceptance. And as a comic-book reading, video-game playing, theatre-reading nerd, I know a thing or two about not being able to gain universal acceptance.
So.
In 1992, Ross Perot garnered 18% of the popular vote. Or, to use a more current but less universal example, in 2006, bigoted Texas Governor Rick Perry (the Lt. Governor under then-Gov. George 'Dubya' Bush) was re-elected after receiving approx. 45% of the vote. The remaining 55% was split between the Democratic challenger (38% or so) and author/musician/activist Kinky Friedman. And so, popular sentiment would tell you, if every person who voted for Friedman, voted instead for the Democrat, then the Democrat would have won.
Which I guess makes the Perot argument kind of invalid, because it's not like liberals were voting for him, but then again this is kind of hindsight. Also I was 16 at the time.
Anyway, through all this, the Neo-Republicans bitched and yelled and screamed about "holding the party line." They all must remain unified under their ONE candidate, because "that's what being a good Republican is all about!" ... And so they all rallied behind Bush Sr., even though he was a weak President and laid the seeds of the current Iraq mess, and they all rallied behind Dole, who lacked all charisma, and they all rallied behind Dubya, even though McCain was more charismatic and had more experience, and at least in 2000, was younger than 500. They even held the party line 8 years later with McCain/Palin, even though the country had cooled on Republican shenanigans, and the party itself had trashed the man 8 years earlier. Also Palin isn't qualified to run a 7-11.
So what do we have in 2010? DISSENT. The Republican party is splitting, with the right-wing over here, and the EXTREME right-wing over there.
This is good for Democrats.
What is, of course, NOT good for Democrats, or the people in general, is the entire Tea-Party's platform, in which they feel marginalized and stepped on and not represented by our government, much like (they say) the colonials of North America circa 1776. The reason they feel marginalized is because they ARE in the margins, and their beliefs are so uneducated and outside the mainstream that they can't ever possibly hope to maintain a foothold bigger than the one they have right now. Then again, that's at a national level. In Kentucky (for example), they're actually doing alright in the polls.
Preaching the good old days, wanting to return to "Traditional American Values," and abhorring the entire popular culture. Finger-pointing. Blaming other Americans who don't share their beliefs as the only problem, and a problem that must be stopped. Uber-conservatism, led by a charismatic leader who gives good speeches but doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
Hitler only grew that moustache because his handlers told him it would make him popular-- Charlie Chaplin was pretty big at the time. And while Barack Obama is educated and has a record of service going back to his formative years, Hitler was rejected from art school twice and wrote a popular book in prison in which he blamed everyone else for Germany's problems.
Meanwhile Glenn Beck used to be a drive-time morning radio DJ and has a miltary-esque flat-top haircut (the military is popular with his fans, but he has never served), and has written a lot of retarded books.
I'm just sayin'.
Basically parts of the country are completely screwed, politically... but we must remain optimistic. Granted, there are just chunks of the country ignorant to history-- no doubt a result of the Republicans slashing of education-- but the same can't be said for 100% of us.
And so, Tea Party... creepy as though they may be... means the crazy nutcases who helped put Bush over Kerry in 2004... have all left the party for Insaner Pastures.
Let the good times roll.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The Legacy of Tron Legacy
Here's a twist:
NOT GEEK
OMG this looks GREAT! So freakin' awesome... the trailers look great, and did you hear DAFT PUNK is doing the soundtrack? The first movie was early electronica as far as the soundtrack, so the producers this time around got THE PREMIER electronica artists of 2010 for this! Is liking Daft Punk not geeky? Let's save that question for someone else's blog, "Hipster/Not Hipster."
GEEK
Dude.
People have been nutting themselves over this movie for months, and the first trailer(s) looked great. I was going to link them (for science) but could not easily find an embedded one, so I just gave up. ... Because I am a Geek, and therefore I weigh 300+ pounds, never shave, and sweat easily. Etc. Etc.
TRAILER ONE: Leaked on the net, it was just two random dudes on their light-cycles. I was cynical, but I let it slide: It's the light cycles. That's like making an X-Men movie and only showing Wolverine in the trailer. Or making a Monopoly movie, and only showing the racecar. It's what we want, but it's not indicative of the final product.
TRAILER TWO: This is the one that gave everyone wood. Slow mood-building, Bruce Boxleitner cameo (that guy looks familiar...), then BAM, score switches to electronic and we're seeing a towering, extremely familiar image of a Space Paranoid. Then the crazy guy with the air guitar. Then the hot chick on the sofa. Then Young Bridges. ZOMG WTF LOL AHHHH.
I watched this trailer about 197 times, and the first 196... okay, let me excise hyperbole (I don't really talk like that in real life): I watched the trailer literally about ten times the first week or so it was out, and after about a dozen, it started to crack for me.
I thought, "Why show these specific elements? They look cool, but what are they telling me about the story?"
Answer: Nothing.
These are things in every single story Hollywood creates. I read this in a review of a movie you and I have already forgotten about, the CGI-animated "Nine" starring celebrity voices and with Tim Burton's name in the credits because it sells tickets. But it applies to most movies: Stock characters. (1) Hero. (2) The friend of the hero/wacky comic relief who has some inherent flaw, but is there as a sounding board/deus ex machine so our hero completes the task. (3) Wise sage (4) A girl. (5) The bad guy.
Go down your mental rolodex. Yes, I just listed the cast for every Shrek and Toy Story film. And I'm not being pretentious, I really really loved Toy Story 1-2 and the first Shrek movie. I haven't seen Toy Story 3 because I am old and you need to get the hell off my lawn.
Anyway: Tron Legacy. These are just the standard movie stock characters. The hero (Flynn Jr), the friend of the hero (Bruce Boxleitner), the wise sage (quite probably Old Bridges), a girl (Olivia Wilde, who at least in the trailer serves no other purpose than to look hot and help the hero out. Really? She can't be the hero? She seems to know her way around weaponry. But this being Disney, it is her job to be pretty and tell the hero "You can do it!"), and the bad guy (presumably Young Flynn).
Well now as stylistic as the trailer is, I'm sorta cranky. But no, I tell myself. Even though everyone is super-excited for this movie, even those people who were born AFTER the original came out (1982), I will STILL withhold judgment. It's just a trailer. They make it to have as broad of an appeal as possible. TOP MEN are working on this film. TOP.... MEN.
I even ignored my own rule about, "It can't be 5-Star movie if it's the director's first film." Cuz it is. The new director has done commercials, but that's it. Then again, the director of the original Tron only ever directed the original Tron. There's wiggle-room.
THEN CAME THE MOST RECENT TRAILER. Clearly buzz is deafening for the flick, because people watched this piece of shit and ARE STILL BUZZED ABOUT THE MOVIE. You remember in Zoolander where Zoolander kept giving the same look, and Will Ferrell was all like, "AM I TAKING F&%# CRAZY PILLS?!!"
It's like that.
I am by no means a video game afficionado, and have played far fewer games than I have seen movies or even owned CD's. But while young-Bridges in the first trailer (seen only briefly) looks like simply an old-Bridges with major air-brushing (see also: Benjamin Button), in the new trailer, young-Bridges face moves, and IT LOOKS WORSE THAN VIDEO GAMES FROM 2005. Like it's not even remotely fooling anyone. Or, apparently it's fooling EVERYONE, because nobody seems to notice. It looks like ASS. It looks less-realistic than the skeletons in Pirates of the Caribbean, and that movie is five years old TOO. Do they just figure, screw it, we spent enough money, people won't notice because nobody cried foul about Gollum?
... Okay, Gollum was shot dark, but he didn't have to look human. But when he shared the screen with a real person, it looked bad, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here.
CGI-Bridges looks like shit. We still know nothing about the story. It's a first-time director.
While I am not without a childlike sense of joy, and am currently twitching in a POSITIVE way about other movies opening between now and Christmas, every single thing I've seen about Tron: Legacy points to a Phantom Menace-esque experience, or best-case scenario, Revenge of the Sith.
And while Revenge of the Sith was clearly the best of the New Three, it couldn't hold a candle to the Original Trilogy, and we all know this.
Seriously, when was the last time Disney put out quality anything? Even Pixar wasn't their doing; Pixar owned them so many times that eventually Disney shut down its own hand-drawn animation department. Because they got BEAT. By an upstart company with ACTUAL TALENT.
I am too young to be old and cynical. But the movie looks like a C+, and while de-rezzing gladiators looks pretty cool, the actual human fight choreography looks like shit, or at least the 1.5 seconds they've bothered to put in the trailer. And trust me, if it looked good, there'd be more of it.
On the upside, the entire soundtrack is on YouTube, and it is awesome.
Bring on Harry Potter. Bring on 127 Hours. Bring on True Grit.
Let's do this thing.
NOT GEEK
OMG this looks GREAT! So freakin' awesome... the trailers look great, and did you hear DAFT PUNK is doing the soundtrack? The first movie was early electronica as far as the soundtrack, so the producers this time around got THE PREMIER electronica artists of 2010 for this! Is liking Daft Punk not geeky? Let's save that question for someone else's blog, "Hipster/Not Hipster."
GEEK
Dude.
People have been nutting themselves over this movie for months, and the first trailer(s) looked great. I was going to link them (for science) but could not easily find an embedded one, so I just gave up. ... Because I am a Geek, and therefore I weigh 300+ pounds, never shave, and sweat easily. Etc. Etc.
TRAILER ONE: Leaked on the net, it was just two random dudes on their light-cycles. I was cynical, but I let it slide: It's the light cycles. That's like making an X-Men movie and only showing Wolverine in the trailer. Or making a Monopoly movie, and only showing the racecar. It's what we want, but it's not indicative of the final product.
TRAILER TWO: This is the one that gave everyone wood. Slow mood-building, Bruce Boxleitner cameo (that guy looks familiar...), then BAM, score switches to electronic and we're seeing a towering, extremely familiar image of a Space Paranoid. Then the crazy guy with the air guitar. Then the hot chick on the sofa. Then Young Bridges. ZOMG WTF LOL AHHHH.
I watched this trailer about 197 times, and the first 196... okay, let me excise hyperbole (I don't really talk like that in real life): I watched the trailer literally about ten times the first week or so it was out, and after about a dozen, it started to crack for me.
I thought, "Why show these specific elements? They look cool, but what are they telling me about the story?"
Answer: Nothing.
These are things in every single story Hollywood creates. I read this in a review of a movie you and I have already forgotten about, the CGI-animated "Nine" starring celebrity voices and with Tim Burton's name in the credits because it sells tickets. But it applies to most movies: Stock characters. (1) Hero. (2) The friend of the hero/wacky comic relief who has some inherent flaw, but is there as a sounding board/deus ex machine so our hero completes the task. (3) Wise sage (4) A girl. (5) The bad guy.
Go down your mental rolodex. Yes, I just listed the cast for every Shrek and Toy Story film. And I'm not being pretentious, I really really loved Toy Story 1-2 and the first Shrek movie. I haven't seen Toy Story 3 because I am old and you need to get the hell off my lawn.
Anyway: Tron Legacy. These are just the standard movie stock characters. The hero (Flynn Jr), the friend of the hero (Bruce Boxleitner), the wise sage (quite probably Old Bridges), a girl (Olivia Wilde, who at least in the trailer serves no other purpose than to look hot and help the hero out. Really? She can't be the hero? She seems to know her way around weaponry. But this being Disney, it is her job to be pretty and tell the hero "You can do it!"), and the bad guy (presumably Young Flynn).
Well now as stylistic as the trailer is, I'm sorta cranky. But no, I tell myself. Even though everyone is super-excited for this movie, even those people who were born AFTER the original came out (1982), I will STILL withhold judgment. It's just a trailer. They make it to have as broad of an appeal as possible. TOP MEN are working on this film. TOP.... MEN.
I even ignored my own rule about, "It can't be 5-Star movie if it's the director's first film." Cuz it is. The new director has done commercials, but that's it. Then again, the director of the original Tron only ever directed the original Tron. There's wiggle-room.
THEN CAME THE MOST RECENT TRAILER. Clearly buzz is deafening for the flick, because people watched this piece of shit and ARE STILL BUZZED ABOUT THE MOVIE. You remember in Zoolander where Zoolander kept giving the same look, and Will Ferrell was all like, "AM I TAKING F&%# CRAZY PILLS?!!"
It's like that.
I am by no means a video game afficionado, and have played far fewer games than I have seen movies or even owned CD's. But while young-Bridges in the first trailer (seen only briefly) looks like simply an old-Bridges with major air-brushing (see also: Benjamin Button), in the new trailer, young-Bridges face moves, and IT LOOKS WORSE THAN VIDEO GAMES FROM 2005. Like it's not even remotely fooling anyone. Or, apparently it's fooling EVERYONE, because nobody seems to notice. It looks like ASS. It looks less-realistic than the skeletons in Pirates of the Caribbean, and that movie is five years old TOO. Do they just figure, screw it, we spent enough money, people won't notice because nobody cried foul about Gollum?
... Okay, Gollum was shot dark, but he didn't have to look human. But when he shared the screen with a real person, it looked bad, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here.
CGI-Bridges looks like shit. We still know nothing about the story. It's a first-time director.
While I am not without a childlike sense of joy, and am currently twitching in a POSITIVE way about other movies opening between now and Christmas, every single thing I've seen about Tron: Legacy points to a Phantom Menace-esque experience, or best-case scenario, Revenge of the Sith.
And while Revenge of the Sith was clearly the best of the New Three, it couldn't hold a candle to the Original Trilogy, and we all know this.
Seriously, when was the last time Disney put out quality anything? Even Pixar wasn't their doing; Pixar owned them so many times that eventually Disney shut down its own hand-drawn animation department. Because they got BEAT. By an upstart company with ACTUAL TALENT.
I am too young to be old and cynical. But the movie looks like a C+, and while de-rezzing gladiators looks pretty cool, the actual human fight choreography looks like shit, or at least the 1.5 seconds they've bothered to put in the trailer. And trust me, if it looked good, there'd be more of it.
On the upside, the entire soundtrack is on YouTube, and it is awesome.
Bring on Harry Potter. Bring on 127 Hours. Bring on True Grit.
Let's do this thing.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Are You There God? It's Me, Warren
Dear Almighty,
If you don't exist, no one's reading this. If you do exist... are you there, God? It's me, Warren.
I had a terrifying thought today, and I was hoping you of all Entities could take care of that. There may or may not be other entities to choose from, but I just want you to know I'm coming to you first, as a token of goodwill, and because my parents had me baptized when I was too young to know what I was getting myself into.
Going about my business the other day, I realized with depressing horror that someday Christopher Walken is going to die.
Please, I beseech you: We cannot let this happen. I cannot let this happen, and You cannot let this happen. So I am writing to You. And even though every human ever born has eventually died, I pray to you that just this once, in this one lone case, you will make an exception.
Other humans might say, isn't there a more worthy cause? What about doctors, and healers, and moral authorities, and mothers and fathers and sons and daughters? What about really really sexy people?
Almighty, Christopher Walken is all of these. All of these and more.
John Malkovich is intimidatingly intelligent, but is he Christopher Walken? No, he certainly isn't.
Nelson Mandela brought an entire nation together, but did he ever make you remember a wristwatch in the same way Christopher Walken did?
Chuck Norris has perhaps kicked more ass than You have created asses, and he also has a beard that most of your followers are pretty sure you wear. But does Chuck Norris really make us think of eggplant in the same way as Christopher Walken?
Can John Malkovich, or Nelson Mandela, or Chuck Norris.... DANCE, like Christopher Walken?
No almighty, they cannot.
Christopher Walken has done many good works, and the most important of these is being Christopher Walken. He has inspired, terrified, and done that thing with his voice. To deprive the world of Christopher Walken is to steal away for generations and generations the sheer unique wonder that is... he. Generations today do not appreciate Humphrey Bogart, or Malcolm X, or FDR in the same way as they did in their heyday because their work is now quantifiable. It had a limited time on this earth, as we all do, and then it saw an end.
For Christopher Walken there must be no end. To deprive future humans of Christopher Walken would be to deprive them of a tree, or a rainstorm, or the songs of birds chirping as the orange sun rises over the horizon. It would be like omitting an entire sexual position from the repertoire of every human beyond the year 2010. Generations forward will speak of it with quiet awe, but none will believe any of it ever really existed.
For if... if INDEED you are the Almighty, then there is room for someone who lives as long but still walks and works upon this Earth. Your reasons that we all must die, "For everything there is a season..." And we would all know that we do have a season. And some young, untried soul might pipe up and say, "But why doesn't Christopher Walken's season end?"
To which we, the wise, will reply, "Because he's Christopher Fucking Walken."
I know you're good with this, and are a fan of His works. And even though I'm pretty sure it's apocryphal, I'm really sorry my relative ate that apple. Do-over?
Warmest Personal Regards,
A fan of yours but not all of your followers,
A fan of Christopher Walken's but not all his followers,
Pope-a-Dope
p.s. If it turns out you ARE Christopher Walken, is there really a reason to end the double-duty? Your mysterious ways make every film you're in awesome.
If you don't exist, no one's reading this. If you do exist... are you there, God? It's me, Warren.
I had a terrifying thought today, and I was hoping you of all Entities could take care of that. There may or may not be other entities to choose from, but I just want you to know I'm coming to you first, as a token of goodwill, and because my parents had me baptized when I was too young to know what I was getting myself into.
Going about my business the other day, I realized with depressing horror that someday Christopher Walken is going to die.
Please, I beseech you: We cannot let this happen. I cannot let this happen, and You cannot let this happen. So I am writing to You. And even though every human ever born has eventually died, I pray to you that just this once, in this one lone case, you will make an exception.
Other humans might say, isn't there a more worthy cause? What about doctors, and healers, and moral authorities, and mothers and fathers and sons and daughters? What about really really sexy people?
Almighty, Christopher Walken is all of these. All of these and more.
John Malkovich is intimidatingly intelligent, but is he Christopher Walken? No, he certainly isn't.
Nelson Mandela brought an entire nation together, but did he ever make you remember a wristwatch in the same way Christopher Walken did?
Chuck Norris has perhaps kicked more ass than You have created asses, and he also has a beard that most of your followers are pretty sure you wear. But does Chuck Norris really make us think of eggplant in the same way as Christopher Walken?
Can John Malkovich, or Nelson Mandela, or Chuck Norris.... DANCE, like Christopher Walken?
No almighty, they cannot.
Christopher Walken has done many good works, and the most important of these is being Christopher Walken. He has inspired, terrified, and done that thing with his voice. To deprive the world of Christopher Walken is to steal away for generations and generations the sheer unique wonder that is... he. Generations today do not appreciate Humphrey Bogart, or Malcolm X, or FDR in the same way as they did in their heyday because their work is now quantifiable. It had a limited time on this earth, as we all do, and then it saw an end.
For Christopher Walken there must be no end. To deprive future humans of Christopher Walken would be to deprive them of a tree, or a rainstorm, or the songs of birds chirping as the orange sun rises over the horizon. It would be like omitting an entire sexual position from the repertoire of every human beyond the year 2010. Generations forward will speak of it with quiet awe, but none will believe any of it ever really existed.
For if... if INDEED you are the Almighty, then there is room for someone who lives as long but still walks and works upon this Earth. Your reasons that we all must die, "For everything there is a season..." And we would all know that we do have a season. And some young, untried soul might pipe up and say, "But why doesn't Christopher Walken's season end?"
To which we, the wise, will reply, "Because he's Christopher Fucking Walken."
I know you're good with this, and are a fan of His works. And even though I'm pretty sure it's apocryphal, I'm really sorry my relative ate that apple. Do-over?
Warmest Personal Regards,
A fan of yours but not all of your followers,
A fan of Christopher Walken's but not all his followers,
Pope-a-Dope
p.s. If it turns out you ARE Christopher Walken, is there really a reason to end the double-duty? Your mysterious ways make every film you're in awesome.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
J for Jehovah
NOT GEEK
Well, this happened:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/8069472/Homer-Simpson-is-a-true-Catholic.html
Let me explain. No no, there is too much, let me sum up: The Vatican newspaper published a story about how, looking at the evidence, Homer J. Simpson (and son Bart) are true Catholics.
Yeah. Out of nowhere, right? Is this the Catholic Church trying to look cool, like a few months back when they declared "The Blues Brothers" to be a good Christian movie? (yeah, that happened too: in case you missed it). Is the newspaper just getting more freedom now that the Pope is German? Much like the ingredients to Coke, we will never know, but one thing remains clear:
The Catholic Church is insane.
Now, I know a thing or two about the world. I watch The Daily Show and I once read half of a Time Magazine in the dentists' office, so already I'm more informed than the entire Fox News demographic. And I know Catholics don't like being called insane. It's rude. And while I may not hold their beliefs, I respect their right to congregate, and hold meetings, much like any other independent private organization, like AA, or Canada.
Then again, they follow a fictional character, and Homer Simpson is a fictional character, so I can see where they might get confused. But make no mistake: That article exists. Which we can only take to mean that the Catholic Church, or someone very high up within it, has watched all 20+ seasons of "The Simpsons."
That is time well spent. It's like finding out Barack Obama watches "Jersey Shore." No, I'm not linking anything here. It's too painful.
MY POINT: What the paper fails to mention, outside of Homer Simpson being a Catholic (apparently), is that if he IS a Catholic, he is of course going Hell. Yes, Hell. With a capital H. H for Homer.
"Oh," sayeth the article. "We get pop culture too! We are not your grandfathers' Catholic Church! We are hip, and with-it, and get the references! Being a Catholic is cool... like The Simpsons!"
Well first of all, Catholic Church, I'd like to commend you on updating your pop culture barometer from 1692, all the way up to 1992. That's quite a leap for you and I commend you. Now if you can just give the thumbs up to women going on the pill, we might be getting somewhere.
OFFICIAL 'HEP-CAT' PRESS RELEASE: "Homer Simpson is a Catholic!"
BEHIND THE MUSIC: If Homer Simpson were a Catholic, his Priest would slap the shit out of him, and while it isn't actually likely Bart was being touched inappropriately by a Catholic priest, if he WERE, we would transfer the priest to Shelbyville and say no more about it.
Or, to put it in a less offensive way, "If Homer Simpson were real, we would ex-communicate him, but since he's not, we're trying to drum up support via the use of his wacky antics."
The following is a list of all the cardinal sins to which Homer has succumbed. If you're guessing "seven" without even scrolling down.... well, Jesus Christ, you're right.
ENVY: He's constantly envying/stealing Flanders' shit. He even coveted Flanders' wife's ass, when she was alive (Maude Flanders R.I.P.)
SLOTH: Duh
LUST: Granted, it's usually for his wife ("And I know I was dreaming because usually I dream of naked.... Marge."), but he also goes to strip clubs all the time and whistles at women in bikinis. As opposed to, say, Smithers, who avoids such temptations because he is a good Christian man and entry into Heaven is assured.
GREED: Greed for BEER.
GLUTTONY: Further Duh.
... at this point I had to bust out Wikipedia, because even after the Brad Pitt movie I couldn't remember all seven, but if I ever get famous, don't worry... the Vatican will probably try and pin me as a Catholic, too.
WRATH: "Flanders was a zombie?"
PRIDE: You've seen Homer with his shirt off, and you know he knows he looks good. Also he's got a hot wife he has sex with a lot, which puts pretty much every guy into the "I'm bulletproof" mindset.
AND THEN THERE'S THE TEN COMMANDMENTS:
1) "I am the Lord Thy God. Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me."
Homer Simpson: "Beer. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems."
.... also, there was the episode where Homer sold his soul to the Devil, but then got out of it thanks to his lawyer proving his soul already belonged to Marge.
2) "No Graven Images, even though this is just a paraphrasing of the First Commandment."
I can paraphrase too, Bible. See?
(Homer is listening to football on his walkman in church)
Homer: Please, please, please, please...
Sportscaster: Yes, it's good!
Homer: IT'S GOOD. IT'S GOOD. IT'S GOOD. It's... good to see you all today.
3) "Thou Shalt Not Take My Name in Vain, Even If It IS Only My First Name, Bro."
Homer says a lot of mean things about church, but can we all agree the only reason he doesn't swear more creatively is because of the Fox censors?
4) "Remember the Sabbath Day, Keep it Holy... Yadda Yadda Yadda."
They've done entire episodes about this.
Flanders: Sport on a Sunday? I don't kn--
Rev. Lovejoy: Just play the damn game, Ned.
5) "Honor Thy Father & Mother"
Homer sure does love his mom. Homer sure does treat his dad like total shit. HILARIOUS shit.
6) "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder."
Again, I turn you to my favorite Simpsons quote of all time, "Flanders Was a Zombie?" ... Maybe it's out-of-continuity cuz it was a Halloween episode, but I'm still pretty sure I've seen him touch the skin of an unclean animal, and I'm pretty sure that's in the Bible too. Right next to the part about slavery being okay and weed being an abomination.
And oh yeah.... FRANK. GRIMES.
7) "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery."
Now here's a tricky one. While it is technically true that Homer has never physically cheated on Marge, he has developed some emotional connections of which Marge wholly disapproved. Ask a guy what cheating is, he'll say, "Boning another chick." (because yes, we really talk like that). Ask a woman what cheating is, she's more likely to say, "Forming a close, emotional bond with another woman. Oh, and also, boning another chick."
It's interesting, though, that in addition to only sleeping with Marge since they were married, the implication is that he's only had sex with Marge, EVER. Then again, the show states he knocked up Marge right after high school, and Bart is ten, which means Homer is between 28-30 years old. Bullshit on THAT.
8) "Thou Shalt Not Steal."
Which episode was it where Homer tries to get out of paying his bar tab? ALL OF THEM.
9) "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor." (also, thou shalt not neighbor false witness against thy bear).
Chief Wiggum: "Oh, yeah! You can pretty much legally kill a man in your own home."
Homer: Flanders, get over here!
Ned: High-dilly-hi!
Chief Wiggum: It doesn't count of you invite him in.
Homer: Aw. Get lost, Flanders.
Ned: Toodly-doo!
... yes, that's not the same thing as saying, "Ned killed that guy," but it's still funny.
10) "Thou Shalt Not Covet."
We covered this in the Sin list, but,
"Your wife's BUTT, is higher than my wife's BUTT...."
This is not to say Homer wanted to get with Maude, but as everyone knows, religious girls are absolutely freaky in bed. Then again, Ned has an 18-inch penis, so it's unlikely Homer was going to be able to get the job done, unless Maude had a secret fetish for fat alcoholics.
So, 7 of 7 on the sins, and 8 or 9 out of 10 on the commandments, depending on your definition of "adultery." And it's not like the Catholic church is soft on this; breaking just one Commandment puts you into Hell these days. Unless you repent on your deathbed, which is exactly what Homer has stated he plans on doing.
"Well," you might argue, "At least it's getting people talking about Catholicism. Which is only the point, really. I mean, it made you google the Ten Commandments."
Yes, that is true. It's also 1:30 a.m. and I've already forgotten them again. Also I have porn open in another window while I download Swedish Death Metal so I have something to listen to in the car tomorrow while driving to get an abortion. No, not for a woman... I'm having an abortion my ownself. Because I'm an American. Just like Homer Simpson.
Meanwhile:
If JUST Bart and Homer are Catholics, where does that leave the rest of the, as George W. Bush would say, "Nuke-yu-lar" family?
BART - Also Catholic, at least according to the Vatican. Which makes sense, considering in the movie you could totally see his penis, and as we all know, the Catholic church totally loves ten-year-old boy penis.
YES. I JUST WENT THERE. It was an easy joke and you're laughing right now, so we're all going to Hell together. But not as far down as pedophile Catholic priests. Or any pedophile, really.
LISA - Buddhist. She tries to convert her family all the time. You know who never tries to convert anyone? Homer and Bart. Yes, this sounds exactly like the behavior of Catholics. And Buddhists.
MAGGIE - Well, we can't understand anything she's saying, and she definitely killed a guy. By Republican rhetoric, she must therefore be Muslim, but that's a lame joke and a bad one. Plus I'm pretty sure she eats bacon, so... Really, she freeloads off Marge and never gets a job. So she's a Liberal and will probably one day take part in an anti-meat protest outside of a college campus. C'mon, she's the third sibling: the best AND worst of her two older ones. She is dangerous, and you know this. And you can't find a court in this land who will convict a baby. Except maybe in Texas.
MARGE - Attends Church regularly, turns the other cheek, insists her family attend Church as well, calls Homer on his shenanigans and makes him set things right. Her hairstyle went out-of-date when JFK was still alive. While she didn't wait until marriage to have sex, she did marry the first (and only) man she ever had sex with. So... yes, whether she be Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Epsicopalian, Mormon or Jehovah's Witness, Marge is truly the best Catholic of the bunch, and a good Christian all around, who sets an amazing, patient, and wholesome example of what a Christian should be.
Except the Vatican newspaper didn't mention that.
Because it's the Vatican and they hate women.
LET'S ALL SAY THREE HAIL MARYS AND DO THE HOKEY-POKEY.
GEEK:
I haven't watched The Simpsons since 2004. Who the FUCK still watches "The Simpsons?"
You know who's actually a Catholic? Peter Griffin. Literally. The show says so.
Well, this happened:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/8069472/Homer-Simpson-is-a-true-Catholic.html
Let me explain. No no, there is too much, let me sum up: The Vatican newspaper published a story about how, looking at the evidence, Homer J. Simpson (and son Bart) are true Catholics.
Yeah. Out of nowhere, right? Is this the Catholic Church trying to look cool, like a few months back when they declared "The Blues Brothers" to be a good Christian movie? (yeah, that happened too: in case you missed it). Is the newspaper just getting more freedom now that the Pope is German? Much like the ingredients to Coke, we will never know, but one thing remains clear:
The Catholic Church is insane.
Now, I know a thing or two about the world. I watch The Daily Show and I once read half of a Time Magazine in the dentists' office, so already I'm more informed than the entire Fox News demographic. And I know Catholics don't like being called insane. It's rude. And while I may not hold their beliefs, I respect their right to congregate, and hold meetings, much like any other independent private organization, like AA, or Canada.
Then again, they follow a fictional character, and Homer Simpson is a fictional character, so I can see where they might get confused. But make no mistake: That article exists. Which we can only take to mean that the Catholic Church, or someone very high up within it, has watched all 20+ seasons of "The Simpsons."
That is time well spent. It's like finding out Barack Obama watches "Jersey Shore." No, I'm not linking anything here. It's too painful.
MY POINT: What the paper fails to mention, outside of Homer Simpson being a Catholic (apparently), is that if he IS a Catholic, he is of course going Hell. Yes, Hell. With a capital H. H for Homer.
"Oh," sayeth the article. "We get pop culture too! We are not your grandfathers' Catholic Church! We are hip, and with-it, and get the references! Being a Catholic is cool... like The Simpsons!"
Well first of all, Catholic Church, I'd like to commend you on updating your pop culture barometer from 1692, all the way up to 1992. That's quite a leap for you and I commend you. Now if you can just give the thumbs up to women going on the pill, we might be getting somewhere.
OFFICIAL 'HEP-CAT' PRESS RELEASE: "Homer Simpson is a Catholic!"
BEHIND THE MUSIC: If Homer Simpson were a Catholic, his Priest would slap the shit out of him, and while it isn't actually likely Bart was being touched inappropriately by a Catholic priest, if he WERE, we would transfer the priest to Shelbyville and say no more about it.
Or, to put it in a less offensive way, "If Homer Simpson were real, we would ex-communicate him, but since he's not, we're trying to drum up support via the use of his wacky antics."
The following is a list of all the cardinal sins to which Homer has succumbed. If you're guessing "seven" without even scrolling down.... well, Jesus Christ, you're right.
ENVY: He's constantly envying/stealing Flanders' shit. He even coveted Flanders' wife's ass, when she was alive (Maude Flanders R.I.P.)
SLOTH: Duh
LUST: Granted, it's usually for his wife ("And I know I was dreaming because usually I dream of naked.... Marge."), but he also goes to strip clubs all the time and whistles at women in bikinis. As opposed to, say, Smithers, who avoids such temptations because he is a good Christian man and entry into Heaven is assured.
GREED: Greed for BEER.
GLUTTONY: Further Duh.
... at this point I had to bust out Wikipedia, because even after the Brad Pitt movie I couldn't remember all seven, but if I ever get famous, don't worry... the Vatican will probably try and pin me as a Catholic, too.
WRATH: "Flanders was a zombie?"
PRIDE: You've seen Homer with his shirt off, and you know he knows he looks good. Also he's got a hot wife he has sex with a lot, which puts pretty much every guy into the "I'm bulletproof" mindset.
AND THEN THERE'S THE TEN COMMANDMENTS:
1) "I am the Lord Thy God. Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me."
Homer Simpson: "Beer. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems."
.... also, there was the episode where Homer sold his soul to the Devil, but then got out of it thanks to his lawyer proving his soul already belonged to Marge.
2) "No Graven Images, even though this is just a paraphrasing of the First Commandment."
I can paraphrase too, Bible. See?
(Homer is listening to football on his walkman in church)
Homer: Please, please, please, please...
Sportscaster: Yes, it's good!
Homer: IT'S GOOD. IT'S GOOD. IT'S GOOD. It's... good to see you all today.
3) "Thou Shalt Not Take My Name in Vain, Even If It IS Only My First Name, Bro."
Homer says a lot of mean things about church, but can we all agree the only reason he doesn't swear more creatively is because of the Fox censors?
4) "Remember the Sabbath Day, Keep it Holy... Yadda Yadda Yadda."
They've done entire episodes about this.
Flanders: Sport on a Sunday? I don't kn--
Rev. Lovejoy: Just play the damn game, Ned.
5) "Honor Thy Father & Mother"
Homer sure does love his mom. Homer sure does treat his dad like total shit. HILARIOUS shit.
6) "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder."
Again, I turn you to my favorite Simpsons quote of all time, "Flanders Was a Zombie?" ... Maybe it's out-of-continuity cuz it was a Halloween episode, but I'm still pretty sure I've seen him touch the skin of an unclean animal, and I'm pretty sure that's in the Bible too. Right next to the part about slavery being okay and weed being an abomination.
And oh yeah.... FRANK. GRIMES.
7) "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery."
Now here's a tricky one. While it is technically true that Homer has never physically cheated on Marge, he has developed some emotional connections of which Marge wholly disapproved. Ask a guy what cheating is, he'll say, "Boning another chick." (because yes, we really talk like that). Ask a woman what cheating is, she's more likely to say, "Forming a close, emotional bond with another woman. Oh, and also, boning another chick."
It's interesting, though, that in addition to only sleeping with Marge since they were married, the implication is that he's only had sex with Marge, EVER. Then again, the show states he knocked up Marge right after high school, and Bart is ten, which means Homer is between 28-30 years old. Bullshit on THAT.
8) "Thou Shalt Not Steal."
Which episode was it where Homer tries to get out of paying his bar tab? ALL OF THEM.
9) "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor." (also, thou shalt not neighbor false witness against thy bear).
Chief Wiggum: "Oh, yeah! You can pretty much legally kill a man in your own home."
Homer: Flanders, get over here!
Ned: High-dilly-hi!
Chief Wiggum: It doesn't count of you invite him in.
Homer: Aw. Get lost, Flanders.
Ned: Toodly-doo!
... yes, that's not the same thing as saying, "Ned killed that guy," but it's still funny.
10) "Thou Shalt Not Covet."
We covered this in the Sin list, but,
"Your wife's BUTT, is higher than my wife's BUTT...."
This is not to say Homer wanted to get with Maude, but as everyone knows, religious girls are absolutely freaky in bed. Then again, Ned has an 18-inch penis, so it's unlikely Homer was going to be able to get the job done, unless Maude had a secret fetish for fat alcoholics.
So, 7 of 7 on the sins, and 8 or 9 out of 10 on the commandments, depending on your definition of "adultery." And it's not like the Catholic church is soft on this; breaking just one Commandment puts you into Hell these days. Unless you repent on your deathbed, which is exactly what Homer has stated he plans on doing.
"Well," you might argue, "At least it's getting people talking about Catholicism. Which is only the point, really. I mean, it made you google the Ten Commandments."
Yes, that is true. It's also 1:30 a.m. and I've already forgotten them again. Also I have porn open in another window while I download Swedish Death Metal so I have something to listen to in the car tomorrow while driving to get an abortion. No, not for a woman... I'm having an abortion my ownself. Because I'm an American. Just like Homer Simpson.
Meanwhile:
If JUST Bart and Homer are Catholics, where does that leave the rest of the, as George W. Bush would say, "Nuke-yu-lar" family?
BART - Also Catholic, at least according to the Vatican. Which makes sense, considering in the movie you could totally see his penis, and as we all know, the Catholic church totally loves ten-year-old boy penis.
YES. I JUST WENT THERE. It was an easy joke and you're laughing right now, so we're all going to Hell together. But not as far down as pedophile Catholic priests. Or any pedophile, really.
LISA - Buddhist. She tries to convert her family all the time. You know who never tries to convert anyone? Homer and Bart. Yes, this sounds exactly like the behavior of Catholics. And Buddhists.
MAGGIE - Well, we can't understand anything she's saying, and she definitely killed a guy. By Republican rhetoric, she must therefore be Muslim, but that's a lame joke and a bad one. Plus I'm pretty sure she eats bacon, so... Really, she freeloads off Marge and never gets a job. So she's a Liberal and will probably one day take part in an anti-meat protest outside of a college campus. C'mon, she's the third sibling: the best AND worst of her two older ones. She is dangerous, and you know this. And you can't find a court in this land who will convict a baby. Except maybe in Texas.
MARGE - Attends Church regularly, turns the other cheek, insists her family attend Church as well, calls Homer on his shenanigans and makes him set things right. Her hairstyle went out-of-date when JFK was still alive. While she didn't wait until marriage to have sex, she did marry the first (and only) man she ever had sex with. So... yes, whether she be Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Epsicopalian, Mormon or Jehovah's Witness, Marge is truly the best Catholic of the bunch, and a good Christian all around, who sets an amazing, patient, and wholesome example of what a Christian should be.
Except the Vatican newspaper didn't mention that.
Because it's the Vatican and they hate women.
LET'S ALL SAY THREE HAIL MARYS AND DO THE HOKEY-POKEY.
GEEK:
I haven't watched The Simpsons since 2004. Who the FUCK still watches "The Simpsons?"
You know who's actually a Catholic? Peter Griffin. Literally. The show says so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)