In unrelated blog stuff, I'm going to try to have my top music list(s) up soon. I originally made a deadline for myself around two weeks ago, but...well, we all knew that wasn't going to happen. My top movies of 2008 list probably won't be up till the new year, and I doubt I'm going to even do a top TV show list this year (it was hard enough to try and think of 5 shows that I actually watched this year...)
So, to anyone that watched the Vol. 3 finale of Heroes last night...
Jeph Loeb's way to make Sylar scary...is to rip off Saw?
Now, unlike Loeb, I'm not a terriblecomicbookwriter, so I guess I can't really talk about homage vs. outright swiping, but if I may make a suggestion: the next time you want to make your audience feel a real kind of threat from a character, you may want to focus on better characterization, rather than relying on references to a well known movie franchise to provide it for you.
Here he is performing "The Piano Has Been Drinking (Not Me)" On Fernwood 2 Night in 1977.
I'm going to celebrate my favorite musician's birthday by listening to Swordfishtrombones and Small Change while driving to Pennsylvania today in the snow. It will be quite an adventure.
Also, since I apparently missed it, November 22nd was Little Steven Van Zandt's birthday. Little Steven, other than being Bruce Springsteen's guitarist in the E Street Band, and the actor who played Silvio on The Sopranos, is also the DJ and founder of the greatest radio program of all time: Little Steven's Underground Garage.
Here is a clip from Little Steven's Underground Garage Festival back in (I think) 2004. The clip features Bruce Springsteen introducing the fantastic Chesterfield Kings.
You know, it's really sad, that I was at the Underground Garage Festival and I don't remember what year it was...it was August, I remember that...and there was a hurricane warning, and Julian Casablancas from The Strokes yelled at one point: "They told us to hurry up our set because there's a hurricane coming...WELL I DON'T SEE NO FUCKING HURRICANE!"
It's time for a post I have been planning since McCain received the Republican nomination.
John McCain will not win the Presidency of the United States of America.
Want to know why?
Because he hosted Saturday Night Live.
You're looking at me crazy right now, I know. Let me explain...you see, SNL has a curse...a POLITICAL curse.
Every politician that has hosted SNL, has gone on to lose a presidential election (or nomination).
Let's start with recurring Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader. Nader hosted the show on January 15, 1977. He then lost nominations for President in 1992, and 1996, and achieved the Green Party nomination in 2000, and Independent Party nominations in 2004 and 2008. He lost all three times.
"Well, Nader had no chance of winning, that's why he lost..." Maybe, but let's move on:
Jesse Jackson. Hosted October 20th, 1984. He went on to lose the Democratic nomination in both 1984 and 1988 after a fairly impressive showing in the polls.
Steve Forbes. Hosted April 13th, 1996. He lost the Republican nomination in both 1996 and 2000. In 1996, he won two states in the primaries.
Al Sharpton. Hosted December 6th, 2003. Lost Democratic nomination for 2004 election.
Rudy Giuliani. Hosted November 22nd, 1997. He just missed the Republican nomination for the 2008 election.
On top of them, we have:
George McGovern. He hosted April 14th, 1984, which of course was after his two attempts at the Presidency (in 1968 and 1972). BUT, as I just learned, according to wikipedia McGovern also tried running for the Democratic nomination in 1984, and lost.
and of course:
Al Gore. Hosted December 14th, 2002. Yes, that's after he lost the 2000 election, but he's also a name that is still coming up (at least four newscasters mentioned him as a candidate DURING THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION). Time will only tell if Gore decides to run again.
So this leaves John McCain. McCain hosted on October 19th, 2002. It was a wretched show. The monologue was especially painful. Now, this was also after his loss of the nomination for the 2000 election, but as I'm sure you know, he's the Republican nominee this year.
Using this evidence above, I shall theorize that McCain will lose in November.
And just so you don't think I'm showing only the candidates who lost, these are the other politicians that have hosted SNL over the years.
Julian Bond. Hosted April 9th, 1977. Senator, never ran for President. Ron Nessen. Hosted April 17, 1976. Gerald Ford's Press Secretary. Never ran for President. Ed Koch. Hosted on May 14th, 1983 and May 12th, 1984. New York City Mayor. Never ran for President.
And here's another thing: What about politicians who have just appeared on SNL, but haven't hosted? I searched online, but I couldn't find a list of these occurrences. Off the top of my head, I know that Gerald Ford appeared on the Ron Nessen episode in 1976 (saying the famous "Live From New York..." line), and lost the Presidential election soon afterwords. Jesse Jackson appeared after Dr. Seuss died, but that was after his Presidential defeats. Lamarr Alexander appeared in a skit right before losing the Republican Nomination. Ralph Nader appeared many years later in a skit before his Presidential campaigns. George H.W. Bush appeared on one episode, but I'm not sure if it was before or after he lost the 1992 election. Former Senator Paul Simon appeared on one episode in the 1980s right before he lost the Democratic nomination for President. I actually think Al Gore appeared briefly on an SNL political special in 2000. Giuliani appeared at least twice more on the show after he hosted. And most recently, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, John McCain and Sarah Palin have all made appearances on the show. Hmm. Maybe Bob Barr will win this election!
So, I'm going to admit that I've been keeping track of all the places the "Chan We Need" pictures have shown up on the internet. Every time I think the 15 minutes are over another site links to them. Thanks for bringing a smile to my face, guys. Everyone at Nonsense Humor Magazine is tickled pink by all of this.
I'm gonna admit...I don't think I had even heard of that term prior to this. To quote wikipedia, culture jamming is:
...an individualistic turning away from all forms of herd mentality – including that of movements – and by that definition, culture jamming is generally not treated as a movement. Culture jamming is not defined by any specific political position or message, nor even by any specific cultural position or message. The common thread is mainly an urge to poke fun at the homogeneous nature of popular culture, often by means of guerrilla communication (communication unsanctioned or opposed by government or other powers-that-be).
Huh? Ok, how about this:
Culture jamming sometimes entails transforming mass media to produce ironic or satirical commentary about itself, using the original medium's communication method...To have a good laugh (and to encourage others to do likewise) at the expense of prevailing social currents - many purveyors of which, in the opinion of many culture jammers, take themselves too seriously. Even culture jammers themselves are not immune to being the subjects of culture jamming, if they appear to be on their way to becoming as institutionalized and humorless as the original objects of culture jammers' attention...To reawaken a sense of wonder and fascination about one's surrounding environment, inspired by the frequent intentional ambiguity of a specific culture jamming technique, which stimulates personal interpretation and independent thinking...To demonstrate contrasts between iconic images, practices or attitudes and the realities or perceived negative side of the item object of the jamming (often the target is a trapping of monolithic power structures such as corporations, government or religions). This is often done symbolically, with the "detournement" of pop iconography...To provoke an interest in civic engagement and social connectedness.
Alright that makes sense. I can definitely see that term being used for this. I just called it performance art, but culture jamming certainly is a better term.
The wikipedia page also tells me that the term was coined by the experimental band Negativeland, which to me is really funny, because I'm pretty sure I own every album Negativland has ever made, and still have never heard this term.
So, I'm not sure how much longer this internet meme is going to last, but we're very glad that we got to be a part of "underground culture" (at least according to wikipedia).
Here's what really pisses me off about the new season of Heroes.
You know Usutu, the African Precog played by Ntare Guma Mbaho Mwine, who though his ability to paint the future helps set Matt Parkman and now it seems Hiro and Ando in the right direction? He's a total abuse of the mystical stock character known as the "Magical Negro".
The white characters come to him looking for answers, and through his magical ability of precognitive painting (and headphones?) he shows them some special insight and sends them along on their way.
He has no past; he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist...He is patient and wise, often dispensing various words of wisdom, and is "closer to the earth"...Although from a certain perspective the character may seem to be showing African-Americans in a positive light, he is still ultimately subordinate to European-Americans. He is also regarded as an exception, allowing white America to like individual black people but not black culture.
Since my last post seems to have been linked-to all over the internet, I've been a little hesitant to post anything new. Can I top that? Are people actually going to be reading this now? Shit.
Now, add to that my recent experience in a local Coldstone where some fourteen year old girl tried to hit on me (I'm serious). Yeah, it was cute that she thought she could flirt with a guy ten years older than her...I smiled and left the store, slightly laughing to myself. That didn't freak me out.
What freaked me out was when telling this story to my friends, they all said I should have made sure she was fourteen and not a really young looking eighteen year old.
Um...No?
Anyway, I figured I'd complain today about bad relationship advice:
Slate.com's Dear Prudence column recently posted a piece of outrageously bad advice.
Some woman wrote in claiming that her boyfriend is a "genius" and that she always loses in arguments to him because he sees everything logically and rational, and she feels like she always has to compromise.
My boyfriend and I are both in our early 20s and have been dating for three years. We have a really strong relationship in almost every way, and I can't imagine being with anyone else. But here's the rub: My boyfriend is a genius. In so many ways, I love this about him. He challenges me to think about things, I am constantly learning, and he is always honest and rational. Unfortunately, these last two qualities have caused a bit of strain. I consider myself a very intelligent person also—nowhere near his level, but I've always felt confident academically. This sometimes takes a hit when I am around him. I rarely win arguments because I simply can't keep up with him. In matters of politics or world issues, this can be frustrating, but it doesn't really raise my ire. However, sometimes his argumentative style and calculating rationale are applied to our relationship. In many situations, I feel as though I am the one who has to compromise because he always wins the argument. I know my positions are reasonable, but I just can't articulate them as well as he does. I have talked to my boyfriend about this, but I think he has a hard time seeing my point of view—that though my feelings may not always be logical or rational, they are still valid. Am I being unreasonable for wanting a little bit of slack, or should I just accept that I'm dating Dr. Manhattan and let it go?
She's making a legitimate complaint here, one which "Prudie" does hit upon (slightly). He isn't really as intelligent as he claims if he can't see her feelings; if he doesn't realize that being a "genius" also means knowing when to shut up and letting other people be victorious. He needs to learn emotional intelligence.
Now I'm no advice column writer, but I'm sure I could write a well-written response to this girl, pointing out my above answers, and also explaining to her that she doesn't need to feel emotionally belittled by him (his constant parading of intelligence has made her second guess her self-worth).
If I can do that while not being a professional in this field, surely Prudie can do even better, right?
Well, no.
Prudie decides it would be much better to belittle this girl further, essentially telling her she's an idiot for putting up with him for so long when he obviously has problems (and ones that anyone with a brain can see!).
Did you conclude on your own that your boyfriend is a genius, or is this one of the things he had to articulate to poor, dumb you? I don't know what his IQ is, but his emotional intelligence comes in somewhere around "dolt." I'll take your word that you're dating a virtual Einstein, but take mine that he's an arrogant twit who's got you confusing bullying for brilliance. It's also possible he has some kind of disorder that leaves him unable to process the feelings of others. If so, he should be seeking help, or else he is destined to go through life alienating co-workers, friends, and loved ones like you. Actually, you might want to examine why you have spent three years being told by Mr. Spock that what you say has no validity because it lacks rationality. Mr. Spock and Dr. Manhattan are effective characters because while they seem human, their lack of emotion and empathy means they aren't quite. So give your mastermind a copy of Emotional Intelligence and tell him it's about a subject in which he's deficient, but it's important for the two of you that he learn.
Yes Prudie, that's what the girl needed...someone else telling her that her decisions were neither logical nor rational.
Further, this girl references both Hamlet AND Watchmen in her letter. If her boyfriend doesn't make every effort to keep her, then he really is an idiot.
I'd like to take some time out to talk about my alma mater.
Hofstra University hosted the 3rd and final presidential debate this evening. We were all very proud.
While the candidates were embarrassing themselves within the David S. Mack Arena, Hofstra itself was being embarrassed on live TV...by my friends.
You see, I was a part of a certain society at Hofstra, I don't know if I need to mention it's name...ok, it was called NONSENSE HUMOR MAGAZINE. We are in fact Hofstra's Only Intentional Humor Magazine.
Current members and Alumni alike (i.e. me) infiltrated the debate coverage tonight, creating fake posters and signs, and trying to get on MSNBC. Finally, after the debate, that goal was achieved.
If you look right behind Andrea Mitchell, you'll notice a few odd campaign signs in the background. They look like they could be Barack Obama signs...but not quite...you see, these signs were promoting a little known campaign. They were promoting the Presidential run of Jackie Chan.
In that screen shot you can clearly see two members holding up signs proclaiming a "Chan We Need" and "Chan"
There we have yet another "Chan" sign as well as one of our "I'm Apathetic" posters.
Finally in this one you see current editor Brendan Smyth showing his support for Bob Barr with his hand made sign.
During the commercial break the Obama campaign called and demanded that Nonsense take down the signs. Pussies.
We shall not be silenced! The campaign of Jackie Chan will go on! Let Jackie debate! Let Jackie debate!
It's not like he's the only candidate that wasn't born in this country.
So, this little Improve Everywhere-like idea was cut short by a candidate who couldn't take a joke...Nonsense still came out on top.
Chris Matthews took an issue of Nonsense and enjoyed it. He also signed a copy for an alumna.
Matthews's aid then asked what another sign one of our members was holding up meant. The sign in question said "I Scissored Sarah Palin". An explanation was given, and hilarity ensued.
There will of course be people who will complain about this act of comedy. Nothing unusual about that. When I was the Managing Editor of this magazine, someone complained every week. In it's 25 years of existence not a year went by without a controversy.
If we're not offending people we're not doing our jobs. Comedy is meant to upset the status quo. It's meant to challenge authority.
I love free speech.
I love Nonsense Humor Magazine.
And I'll love Hofstra University if they understand that.
I remember a time when I used to read Pitchforkmedia every day. I looked through all the news, and enjoyed reading the album reviews. That year was 2003.
I had just started working for the Hofstra Chronicle, writing album reviews for their entertainment section. My first reviews were very bland, and if they were by anyone else, I probably would never have even read them. I needed a better writing style, something that would attract attention. Enter Brent DiCrescenzo.
Brent DiCrescenzo broke every rule when it came to writing album reviews. He referred to himself throughout his reviews; he went on huge tangents that only paid off at the end; he told stories and made up characters in hopes of getting his audience to relate to his point-of-view better. He worshiped at the altar of Hunter S. Thompson just as often as he did Robert Christgau. He was very interesting to read, even if you didn't agree with what he was saying. Dare I claim that what he was writing for Pitchfork was in fact beyond criticism, but rather, art.
It wasn't just DiCrescenzo. Many of Pitchfork's stable of writers at the time were tryng new things with their reviews. I was a fan of Dominique Leone, Amanda Petrusich, Nick Sylvester, Mark Richardson, Douglas Wolk and of course Ryan Schreiber.
So, of course, I completely aped their styles, and as my former editor Taylor Long can tell you: peoplestartedreadingmyreviews. I know this, because I have the hate mail.
So, back to the point. That was 2003. Since then, Pitchfork has gone down in quality a great deal. DiCrescenzo left to pursue to another writing gig, Leone just released his first (excellent) full length LP, Petrusich just wrote a book I'm dying to read, and for the most part, the current crop of writers aren't nearly as experimental as the old ones (Scott Plagenhoef's continuous attempts aside). The biggest criticism Pitchfork gets these days (actually, I guess they've always gotten this criticism) is that they are pretentious and elitists. Their reviews reek of the arrogance that mars the line between being a taste-maker and just being Holier-than-thou.
And honestly, it's completely true. It's sad to see one of my influences that was so strong once, completely make themselves irrelevant.
So why do I still read it then? Well, I'm always on the look out for new music that I have yet to hear. I'm always trying to find stuff that I don't know yet. If the website provides me with these criteria, then I see no reason to abandon them. If I get something out of my reading, why is that bad? Today was a perfect example of why I still read Pitchfork.
Before today, I had never heard of Alton Ellis. Sadly, Ellis died recently, and Pitchfork ran their obituary and also a few song suggestions.
And my God, he is fantastic.
I've never really explored the genre of rocksteady that deep, but now, now I think I must because this song is terrific:
name="allowFullScreen" value="true">
That's all I ask from Pitchfork, recommend something to me that I might like, and I'll still glance over your site every day. Is that such a bad reason to still read the site? Am I wrong? Tell me.
Flirting with the audience is certainly one way to get people to stop listening to what you are (or aren't) saying. I wonder though, if anyone actually is voting for McCain/Palin now, based solely on the suggestion that Sarah Palin was flirting with them.
Writer John Rogers neatly sums up the response to that:
Modern American Conservatives have sunk to the intellectual and emotional level of the guy who thinks the stripper really likes him.
I've got to take it a step further John. It's not just Palin's flirty winks, but everything any politician does EVER to get people to vote for them. If you think the politician is really listening to you, and really cares about your specific problem, then I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the lap dance still costs $60.
Satirist P.J. O'Rourke, one of my comedy writing idols, has been diagnosed with cancer.
Cancer of the ass.
Apparently, this is a real thing. O'Rourke has a malignant hemorrhoid. He doesn't go into detail about how this is possible (thank God), but I'm still very confused about it. How on earth did he find out he has cancer of the ass?
And is there a funnier cancer a comedy writer could possibly be diagnosed with? Honestly, cancer of the ass?
As I stated above, O'Rourke was one of my comedy writing heroes. In the mid-70's he was the editor of National Lampoon and was one of the writers who worked on the fantastic (and out of print)1964 High School Yearbook Parody (which if you haven't read, you must. It is perfect). O'Rourke then went on to Hollywood, where he wrote the screenplay for the Rodney Dangerfield movie "Easy Money". After that harrowing experience, he turned his sights to the social satire in Washington D.C. His book "Parliament Of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government" is among one of the best political satire books ever written.
Since then, O'Rourke, like many of his age group, has gone from biting satirist to old complaining curmudgeon. His rants aren't really funny anymore, and now just sound like a more republican Dennis Miller. I haven't even bothered with many of his recent books---most of which require an annotated knowledge of the works of Adam Smith-- really, everything comes down to Parliament of Whores. That's his best post-National Lampoon work. Start there, and then go explore his further works (may I suggest "All the Trouble in the World: The Lighter Side of Overpopulation, Famine, Ecological Disaster, Ethnic Hatred, Plague, and Poverty")
Yeah, I haven't posted in a while. I'll get on that as soon as I can. I have a post waiting that I just need to fact check. Seriously.
In the meantime, look at this. Somebody actually put together a video of all the worst moments in Joel Schumacher's Batman and Robin. Somehow it's only ten minutes long.
I never was that big a fan of Cedric The Entertainer. The whole "Kings Of Comedy" thing just never appealed to me, though I did understand why people liked Steve Harvey, Bernie Mac and the such.
One of the few times that I that I forced myself to reconsider Cedric was his short lived Fox show "Cedric The Entertainer Presents..."
Cedric was just coming off a string of hits at the time, starting with the 'Original Kings of Comedy' tour in 2000 and running up to the release of 'Barbershop' in 2002. To Fox's credit, this was probably the best time to try Cedric out on network TV with his own sketch show.
"Cedric The Entertainer Presents..." lasted only one season. The show was never able to achieve the level of comedy they were aiming for...instead of the biting satire of Dave Chappelle, they seemed more like the buffoonery of Martin Lawrence. I gave up on it after the first episode.
But that first episode. They were trying something there...
The major problem of the first episode was that they were trying too hard to be "In Living Color" (Fox's early 90s hit sketch show which brought to stardom The Wayens Brothers, Jaimie Fox and Jim Carrey), and not trying hard enough to be anything worth watching. The show was set up with many potential reoccurring characters that would come on screen and offer a witty catch-phrase, and basically have a uni-plot for every skit they were in. Like I said, it was nothing special.
Now, I know I said above that I reevaluated Cedric because of this show. Well, yes...but it was really just for one skit: "Que Hora Es?", the Mexican soap opera for people who only had three weeks of Spanish in the 4th grade.
Looking back at it today, the skit isn't without it's faults. The concept runs a little dry after the second minute in. Some of the jokes seem a little two easy. And I think I would have been more impressed if they were able to make some sort of a plot out of the use of only well-known phrases.
Then again, I guess there is some sort of plot on the screen...dare I call it the Mexican soap opera "uni-plot" as well.
Regardless of it's problems, the skit does bring a smile to my face, and I hope will also bring one to yours.
I don't know about this Ben, Sesame Street seems like the wrong place to promote a movie like "The Cable Guy":
(I think the embedded video was taken down, but here's a link)
I don't know what year this video was, but the fact that The Cable Guy, a very-adult movie Ben Stiller directed, is referenced in the video just makes me feel weird.
The word “Change”...........Take a gulp of beer The word “Hope” .............Take a gulp of beer The word “Freedom” .......Take 3 gulps of beer
Mentions Energy Crisis ....Take 2 gulps of beer Mentions Gas Crisis ..........Take a gulp of beer Mentions the Economy .....Take a gulp of beer Mentions the Poor ............Take 2 gulps of beer
Mentions Hillary ..................Take 4 gulps of beer Calls McCain Old ..................Finish beer Calls For Democrats to Unite ..Take 3 gulps of beer
Mentions God ..........................Take a gulp of beer Mentions his Faith ..................Take a gulp of beer Mentions his (ex) Pastor ...........Take 4 gulps of beer Mentions being a ‘secret Muslim’ ...Finish Beer
Says “YES WE CAN” ................Take 2 gulps of beer
Hillary fans BOO during any part of his speech .......................Take 4 gulps of beer Calls Democrats “The Party Of Jefferson” ...........Take 5 gulps of beer
Says “Change We Can Believe In” .............Take 4 gulps of beer Mentions his “European Friends” .............Take 4 gulps of beer Makes any reference to the Media ...........Take a gulp of beer
Mentions he’s biracial ...............................Take 2 gulps of beer Mentions his childhood in any capacity .....Take 3 gulps of beer Mentions “Checking Air in Tires” ..............Take 4 gulps of beer
Mentions his wife ..................................Take a gulp of beer Mentions his wife and doesn’t call her by name ..Take 2 gulps of beer Mentions his wife and doesn’t call her by right name...................................................... Finish Beer
Says “Where All The White Women At?” ............Vote For McCain
Have you heard? The British are FREAKING OUT! And, get this...it's over Barbie! The Sun has the headline: "S&M Barbie Is Lashed By Public" My word! What is this all about?
Mattel is releasing a fall line of Barbies that are based on DC Comic superheroes. Included in this collection are icons Wonder Woman and Supergirl, fan favorite Batgirl (Barbra Gordon), and my favorite comic book character to ever wear fishnets, Black Canary:
Poor Dinah Lance is this "S&M Barbie" all because her costume (since the 1940s by the way!) contains fishnet stockings and black leather.
Golly! What would Dr. Frederic Wertham think? I mean, he claimed Batman and Robin are a gay fantasy, and that Wonder Woman's independence made her a lesbian! But...fetish gear made to attract heterosexual males? In comics? Gasp! Hang on to your monocles!
Hey, S&M Barbie, have you met Bild Lilli?
What do you mean no? She's family! In fact, she's the doll you were based on. Well, not you specifically S&M Barbie, but the original 1959 Barbie. Yeah, she's old. Let me tell you about Lilli: she was a German doll, that was primarily marketed to men as a sex toy.
Oh. Well. Now this is awkward, isn't it.
Yes, Barbie was based on a German sex doll, which makes this quote from British Group Christian Voice about S&M Barbie even funnier: “Barbie has always been on the tarty side and this is taking it too far. A children’s doll in sexually suggestive clothing is irresponsible – it’s filth.”
No, no, Bild Lilli, don't cry, they weren't talking about you, you were marketed to men...it's not your fault that Ruth Handler ripped off your design almost completely for her original Barbie doll...aimed at little girls...
Here's a 1955 Lilli on the left, and a 1959 Barbie on the right.
Now you might be asking "where on earth did this Lilli come from originally anyway?!" Well, would you believe a comic strip?
(Translation from German: "I'm a Whore. Let's go fuck!")
Oh My!
Lilli was a comic strip character created by Reinhard Beuthien for the German newspaper Bild-Zeitung in 1952. Her strips usually involved her using her sexuality to attract men and gain money. In fact, one newspaper (from Australia) even goes as far as to call her a "comic strip prostitute"
Now I understand why Ken isn't atomically correct. Who knows what diseases Barbie inherited from her slutty mother?
(On a side note, those Lilli strips kind of remind me of Harvey Kurtzman and Will Elder's Playboy comic "Little Annie Fannie". The main difference is try doing a google search of "Little Annie Fannie" and you get pages of results. Then try searching for the Lilli comic strip and you get the same two images that I posted here. How has this not been archived better?)
So, everyone that's freaking out over Barbie being dressed like Black Canary, S&M gear and all, maybe you should take a look at your tarty children's dolls' history first.
Plus, have you seen their Supergirl doll? Jeez, she's only like 16 in the books...
There's been a lack of updates recently, I know. I've been looking for a new place to live and that's taken up most of my time. I'm going to try to update tomorrow. Anybody hear about that whole Black Canary Barbie thing? We'll, I have some stuff to say about it...three weeks late.
"Liberals live in a world of “and.” Full security and full civil liberties. Universal health care and the best quality with no waiting. A dynamic economy and full welfare and unemployment benefits. Liberals, in other words, live in that scene in Spider-Man in which Spidey, forced to choose between saving a tram car full of innocent civilians and saving his girlfriend, chooses both. Liberals live in a fantasy.
Conservatives, though, live in a world of tradeoffs, of either/or. For having this relationship with reality, conservatives are caricatured as grumpy, stingy and negative. Surely all it takes is a bump in taxes on the wealthy and everything will be affordable? Where’s the Hope? Where’s the Dream? Yes, we can!"
Ouch.
And to think, the article was talking about the politics of The Dark Knight...
Feist, everyone's favorite Canadian countress finally performed "1234" on Sesame Street:
It's pretty cool, but..."Chickens just back from the shore"??
I don't even know where to start with that one...
I'm a little disappointed though...when I heard of this, I was promised Count Von Count. There is no Count Von Count in this clip. Way to go Sesame Street, great job dropping the ball on that one.
I know that everyone has commented on this already, but it seems that people still don't understand it.
The recent New Yorker cover:
IT'S SATIRE!!!!!!!
The Daily Show made the point pretty well, but still I hear people (read:Newscasters) saying that they think it is offensive...
Look at it like this: If we took all of the descriptions of Barack Obama and his wife Michelle that every commentator on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and the such, have said in the past, and given those descriptions to a sketch artist, who has no clue who these people are, this would be the result. The Media has made this image of the Obamas, and now, THEY think it's offensive.
Picture yourself in a movie theater in 1903. You've just sat down to watch this new "film" thingy called "The Great Train Robbery". The "film" starts, and you're skeptical. "The way that camera moved made me dizzy!". After an exhausting 12 minutes later, the film finally ends, except...suddenly, one of the bad guys from the movie faces you--THE AUDIENCE--and slowly raises a gun. Oh no! We're doomed! He's going to fire upon us! Nooooo!
Scared? No? Well, that's because we aren't idiots.
********************************************************************************** I remember watching a great Simpsons 'Tree House Of Horrors' episode where they did their take on Edgar Allan Poe's "The Raven".
At the end of the story, Bart questions the poem's classification as horror:
Bart: Lisa, that wasn't scary, not even for a poem. Lisa: Well, it was written in 1845. Maybe people were easier to scare back then.
Lisa suggests that people in the past were a lot more prone to easy scares than we are today. (How else could the romantic horror of "The Raven" ever give someone the chills they get today while watching something like "The Ring".)
Maybe using this theory, we could infer that in 1903, when Thomas Edison and Edwin S. Porter's "The Great Train Robbery" came out, people were still easily scared, and a fictional character on a movie screen could actually pose a real threat.
No, I'm sorry, I've got to call BULLSHIT.
I know film was a new medium at the time, and theoretically, many of the people in the theater probably didn't know what "the moving pictures" were capable of, but to honestly believe that a character on a screen can break the fourth wall and shoot you? Come on.
The movie-going audience of 1903 was more familiar with live theater like plays, and vaudeville, so maybe they though the same rules apply. In a live performance, yes, a guy holding a gun on stage has the ability to actually shoot through the fourth wall...but here's the kicker...I bet that if this was an actual live performance, the audience wouldn't have even blinked. I bring your attention to the Iroquois Theater Fire of 1903. At no more than a month old, the theater broke out into flames during a performance. As the fire spread out of control, THE AUDIENCE DIDN'T MOVE. They thought it was all part of the performance. The actors kept on acting and the dancers kept on dancing. It wasn't until comedian Eddie Foy told the audience that it's wasn't part of the act that anybody did anything.
602 people died because the audience wasn't scared of no heat and flames.
But a 2 dimensional movie character shooting through the fourth wall...well now, that's a pants pisser.
I also have to call bullshit on the idea that people were more prone to be scared back then than today. Case in point.
So, I'm calling every film professor in this country wrong. There ain't no way in hell the people of 1903 were scared of being shot by a two dimensional man. Unless of course, they were idiots.
This comes directly from Taylor over at T-Sides. It is apparently Neko Case performing Chuck Berry's "Brown Eyed Handsome Man" on a Chicago-based kids dance program. While that is cool within itself, the fact that they all start dancing to KC and the Sunshine Band afterwards just makes it even more amazing.
Taylor didn't know what show this is, so I did a little research, and found out that it is a public access show called Chic-a-go-go, and it is AWESOME.
When I heard that the new Wolverine movie would feature cameos by Sabretooth, Gambit, Deadpool, Maverick, Col. Stryker, Wraith and Silver Fox, I felt a certain nostalgia for horrible 90s Marvel comics and their cluttered, line-filled, exaggeratedly-proportioned covers. So, I headed over to my longboxes, with the intention of pulling out a few Wolverine-filled issues of Fantastic Four, Thor, and Conan, only to find that I didn't have any. I had forgotten I gave them away years ago.
That was a relief. No one should have to relive those horrible days.
Well, unless there's a contest going on that is...
Chris Sims, at the-isb and Phil at Poptown! have come up with a contest to find the most 90's cover ever. This of course had the potential to be ridiculously fun, or well, it did until Kevin Church kicked everyone elses butts with his entry. Yeah, he won.
But what the hell. Here's my entry:
I figured it I can't beat Kevin, I'd cheat. This is an issue that hasn't even come out yet. In fact, it's not due till September of this year.
King Size Cable Spectacular #1.
Why is this cover from 2008 so 90's?
First off, it has Cable and Bishop on it.
Also: -Improbably large muscles. -Bionic Arms. -Obscured Feet. -Shitty Perspective. -Gun that's larger than half of Cable's head. -But not Bishop's hand. -Cable's facial expression makes him look constipated. -Rubble and Destruction are everywhere! -Shoulder pad! -Cable's face has more lines than a Woodstock '98 concession stand
Damn. Maybe it's a retro cover or something? Like how Liefield is doing the variants for the current Youngblood series? Maybe?
One of the biggest shames in the world of comedy is the slow decline of Will Ferrell.
Ok, maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but let me ask you, do you know anyone who has any interest in seeing this:
Yeah, and here's the sad part. At one time, this would have been the role that Will Ferrell was perfect for. Roles that involve pompous, windbag, over-acting/reacting, Ignatius J. Reilly-like man-childs, allowed him to shine.
Sadly, it's come to the point where no one cares anymore. After one bad sports movie parody after another (after another, after another), is there anything left to get excited about? The last time I really looked forward to a Will Ferrell movie was 2004, when Anchorman promised to be the most absurdest piece of surreal-ness to hit the cinema since Airplane 2: The Sequel. Now even a much-talked about Anchorman sequel doesn't even get a rise out of me. And that's a shame, because the man has so much talent, and has shown it before numerous times. So, here is the best 5 Will Ferrell projects, and the 5 most overrated.
The best 5:
5)Elf (2003)
Feel-good family Christmas films haven't exactly been works of high art in recent years, or for that matter, even good films (or watchable), but there was once a time when a Christmas film didn't have to insult your intelligence, and could be, dare I say it, good natured AND a fine film. While "Elf" is not cinematic gold, it is an enjoyable family film where Will Ferrell plays his role perfectly. That child-like spark of enthusiasm in his eyes when he sees something fun just makes the movie. When his overacting is not making a meta-joke about acting itself, it's perfect for keeping kids entertained.
4)Stranger Than Fiction (2006)
"Charlie Kauffman-lite" was among the insults that were thrown at this movie (and I can't deny that I was one of the insult-slingers), but amidst the not-uncalled for comparisons, the actual movie was lost. Is it perfect? No, most of Will Ferrell's movies are not perfect. The movie is notable though for being an experiment to see if Will Ferrell can work in a more restrictive environment, and the answer is a huge "yes". When he's not overacting, it appears that Will Ferrell can adequately act. Now, if only he can do this in a better movie.
3)"The Landlord" and "Good Cop, Baby Cop" (both 2007)
Alright, so the reason that both of these www.funnyordie.com skits were funny is because of little Pearl McKay. But, the joke would have fallen completely flat if not for Will Ferrell's reactions to Adam McKay's daughter. But you knew that already.
2) The Oblongs (2001-2002)
The critical reaction to The Oblongs was less than enthusiastic. In fact, I can't find one good review. On show creator Angus Oblong's website he makes a list of all the bad reviews and displays them proudly.
Oblong himself claims the show was a disaster. I disagree. Ok, I'm sure it could have been better, but from the episodes that I've seen airing on Adult Swim, I think it's genius.
1)Anchorman: The Story of Ron Burgundy (2004)
As I mentioned above, Anchorman was a mash-up of surreal gags, non sequiturs and Will Ferrell-style overacting that on paper seems like it should be the biggest mess in cinematic history. (In fact, the original script, which is more closely represented in Anchorman's "sequel" "Wake Up Ron Burgundy", is a huge unfunny mess. Most of what you see in Anchorman was the improvised scenes and last minute gags that happened on-set). Anchorman is the perfect example of Will Ferrell set free on screen to do whatever he wanted, his id just blazing about. The movie is one of the most spectacularly funny movies of the last decade, and possibly rivals the Marx Brothers for the wackiness content.
It's claimed that on the set of Dumb and Dumber, Jim Carrey's improvisations made a horrible script into a comedy classic. The actors of Anchorman did the same here.
Also great Will Ferrell projects: Most of his career on SNL, his supporting role in Zoolander, and his great cameo in Wedding Crashers. I'll mention Melinda & Melinda as well, as there was nothing particularly wrong with the concept of the movie, but Will Ferrell's acting was very held back, almost as if Woody Allen didn't know what he was getting into when he hired him.
The 5 Most Overrated:
I originally called this the "5 worst" until I looked at Will Ferrell's imdb page and remembered his was in Superstar, The Ladies Man, Boat Trip and Starsky and Hutch. Overrated is a lot better a choice than reliving those atrocities.
For something to be overrated people have to like it. At least more than a handful of people. So, something like "A Night At The Roxbury" doesn't count, because if you actually enjoy that movie, I think you can qualify for state aide.
5)Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)
It's been a little while since I've sat through this movie, but I remember that I hated it. Will Ferrell shouldn't have been anywhere around this. In fact, it should be a rule that unless Kevin Smith has worked with the actor since before they were really famous (Ben Affleck, Jason Lee), big stars should never be in a Kevin Smith film. They only end up distracting from the script and compromising characters. Granted, Will Ferrell wasn't what ruined this movie, but his presence totally didn't help.
4)The Producers (2005)
You know who likes this movie? Drama majors and people who have never seen the original.
3)Talladega Nights: The Ballad Of Ricky Bobby (2006)
Exec #1: Hey, you know what my son was really into this year? That Will Ferrell comedy. What was it called...Anchorman?
Exec #2: Yeah we should make a another movie that's a complete retread of that one, colon and all...but we should include that other thing that people like...NASCAR!
Exec #3: Yeah! I saw Jay Leno make fun of NASCAR last night! He's funny! *
*Note, all movie executives talk like badly written characters from first drafts of scripts. How else could you explain "Hide and Seek"?
2)Blades of Glory (2007)
My eyes still hurt.
1) Old School (2003)
Ok, here's the thing. This isn't that BAD a movie. It's just that if I hear one more person make a Frank The Tank reference, 5 YEARS LATER, I might strangle them. You know what, I take back what I said. This is a terrible movie. Yeah, ok, it made me laugh, that scene where Luke Wilson walks in on his wife having an orgy was hilarious, but other than that, every joke in this movie has been done by some other movie before in some form or another, and it was funnier then! This is the movie that defined the regrettable "Frat Pack" and that right there should define why I hate this movie...Frat humor. No, not humor about fraternities, but rather humor that people in Chris Miller-like fraternities would find funny. I have as much use for this movie as I do for another frat staple, Dave Matthews. So call me elitist, I don't care. Call me a film snob if it makes you feel any better, but don't call me a fan of this movie, because that insults me. God, it's even got a friggen Snoop Dogg cameo in it! And I love Snoop, but come on, could we be pandering to the frat boy demographic any more obviously here. These are the type of people that, when I was Managing Editor of Nonsense Humor Magazine, would come up to me and ask for more fart jokes. These are the type of people that...dhsdfhsbfjffdbfdznmAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
...
...
...
I'm sorry, but I'm angry. Damn you Will Ferrell. Damn you.
No, this is a really stupid idea that has the potential to alienate half their readership. You know there are people that will throw a tantrum because they find out that their childhood hero is of the opposing party of themselves.
Superman Red or Blue? And what happens when DC's Trinity declares their party? Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are DC's flagship characters and their over-saturated icons. Whatever way they fall will certainly bare scrutiny from the fans that that's the way DC or Dan Didio (Editor of DC Comics) falls.
Dave's Long Box did a pretty good job with guessing superhero political parties last midterm election. For the most part I agree with him on everything, but the people in his comment section bring up quite a few good points that could just as easily go against what Dave Campbell had posted.
Since Superman has had so many different writers over the 70 years he's been in creation, each with their own personal politics and image for the Man of Steel, it's not a surprise that there has been so much evidence to push Superman either way on the spectrum.
When John Byrne took over Superman after Crisis on Infinite Earths he had Superman execute three criminals from the Phantom Zone (including General Zod). This is the Superman that Dave Campbell mentions in his blog as a Moderate Republican who supports the Death Penalty. Many thought that was out of character for Superman at the time, and it is refuted by Campbell's commentors (quite a bit actually) that Superman, despite this execution, is actually very against the death penalty. DC Comics eventually gave into the pressure and removed the execution and all previous General Zods from continuity during the events of Infinite Crisis (personally I think it should have stayed because it was quite an important part of Superman's characterization and ethical code).
When Joe Casey took over the book in the early 2000s he made Superman a full on pacifist who hated throwing a punch. This is probably the most liberal leaning Superman has been since the Golden Age.
Currently I'd probably say Superman is that Moderate Republican that Dave Campbell talks about, regardless of the execution. His small town values mixed with his big city styling kind of push him that way. I don't think Superman would declare himself to a political party though. He'd probably give a speech that he's not for only Democrats or Republicans, but that he's for all Americans, in fact, he'd say he's for all humans and creatures of the world. Superman hates partisanship and division, and he doesn't really consider himself to be of one country (despite the fact that he wears Red, White and Blue).
Now that I think about it, can Superman even legally vote? He's an illegal alien. He's from the planet Krypton; an adopted child of earth. Sure Clark Kent could be passed off as an earth native...he could even possibly have a Social Security Card...but with the public knowledge that Superman is an alien, would his endorsement of a candidate or political party have much weight, or even be asked for? And with Superman's personal ethics, knowing that he himself is not of earth, and therefore would not be allowed to vote in an election without proper citizenship authorization, do you think that Clark Kent votes, even though he technically can? Would he not vote on purpose just to be fair to all American citizens? To make him just as equal as the others? Maybe that's the inner socialist in him after all?
I was going to talk about some other heroes and their political ideologies here, but I might hold that over for another post because this one is getting too long. I do want to say one more thing though: Superman is an odd case for his time period. If he was to be this anti-authority socialist hero in the 30s and 40s then that was a direct opposite to all the other heroes at the time who were jingoistic, America-loving, Nazi-bashing, patriots. Superman definitely stood apart from them...in fact, unlike all his contemporaries, he never actually fought in the War! This probably has something to do with Superman's creators: Jerry Shuster and Joe Siegel. Yes, they certainly would have been anti-Hitler and would certainly have wanted Superman to fight the Third Reich (which I'm not saying Superman wasn't anti-Hitler, I'm just saying he didn't stand along side The Flash, Green Lantern, Manhunter, Robotman and the others in the All-Star Squadron on the European Front), but they also were urban liberal Jews from poor families. There was no way Superman was going to represent a WASPy sentiment. He was going to be what his creators wanted: a savior for the poor Jewish people of the time. And at the time, that savior was looking more and more like socialism.
I did find time in my busy schedule to attend New York Comic Con last month. in lieu of a detailed review of the event like I gave last year, I wanted to post something I found on someone else's website:
Greg Hatcher in his awesome column on the Comics Should Be Good blog posted a game called Comic Con Bingo (which he says was created by Young American Comics). I figured it'd be a fun little thing to play to see if I really did encounter all of these stereotypes.
I'll analysis it later.
Well let's see:
Top Row: I can honestly say I didn't see anybody wearing socks and sandals, mostly because I wasn't really looking at anyone's feet. So no-go there. Furries? Really? Come to think of it, thinking of furries in the cleanest way possible, yes I did see some furries. Superhero tattoo? Yeah, I remember that, I think. Probably. Fat Jedi? Absolutely. In fact, the place was filled with Fat Jedis and fat Stormtroopers. Oh comic con, you make me laugh. "Hopeful with Portfolio" --like every three seconds in Artist Alley. You couldn't move in the place without bumping into one.
Second Row: Bald Guy With pony Tail--Does Peter David count? Heeey-Hooo! B-List Celebrity not at table-I didn't see any, but I heard that many were there. Ranging from Bill Hader to...Bill Hader. Oh wait, does Stan Lee count? I saw him while on line. He wasn't at a table. Long Black Trench Coat, Girl in comic shirt and Stripey Tights, yes to all three.
Third Row: Yes to this whole row, with no added commentary!
Fourth Row: "Over-Flowing Comic box/bag". I saw some guy with a luggage carrier. Got T-shirt and Goth Pony-tails-- Does Peter David count? Full Body Costume--Um...this should have been the free space. Have the makers of this never gone to a comic con before? GF taller than BF--I mean, I wouldn't really know if they were dating unless I asked them, but sure I'm pretty sure I saw this.
Fifth Row: Wings--Both people wearing wings, and a poster for the first Oscar winner. "Someone painted blue"--hmm. This year, I don't recall any blue people. In my head, I'm going through every possible blue character that could be a candidate for someone to dress up as at a con. Nightcrawler, Beast, Mystique, Blue Man group, Smurfs, Guardians of the Universe, post-incident Violet Beauregarde...I don't remember seeing any of them. Kilt--no. White-Boy Afro--No. Porn Star--Does Peter David count?
yes, there was a porn star there, just like last year, and she had a booth. Again.
I woke up today to a phone call from a friend of mine asking me why I hadn't updated my blog since February. Possibly due to sleep deprivation, or to the fact that it was SIX THIRTY ON A SATURDAY MORNING and I had to get up for work very soon after that, I sarcastically (and unamusingly) inquired "Blog? What blog? I have a blog?"
Like I said, it was 6:30 in the morning and I wasn't trying to be funny.
Ridiculous phone calls aside, the reports that I haven't updated my blog here are true.
Yeah, sorry about that.
My fake online Reverend school has taken a lot out of me, what with term papers and "online blackboard discussion groups" and what not. I haven't really had time for anything fun outside of kicking ass in Super Smash Brothers occasionally.
(ok, and yes, going to Comic Con. Which was awesome by the way).
If it means anything, I also haven't done any stand-up since March, so this little-read blog is not the only thing that is suffering from my need to further my education.
My education, ruining my dreams since college.
After my final paper for this semester is in though, you better believe I'll be back to posting every week or so (you know, cause I'll find something better to do then as well...like reading the second volume of Geoff John's Stars and S.T.R.I.P.E.). SO, look forward to that!
Alleged reports that pop star Prince has outgrown his own hipness seen to have been true, as this morning the Purple Rain singer checked into a British hospital to undergo "Hipness Replacement Surgery."
"It's a very complicated procedure," said Dr. Phinius Fogg of London's Secret Celebrity Hospital (SCH/St. George's), "but it's effects can benefit the "Under The Cherry Moon" star till long after his hopefully meaningful death."
Prince first hit the music scene in the late 70s with a fresh pop/soul sound. The star had a string of hits and a movie career in the 80s, but by the mid-90s had settled into an adult contemporary rut. "We knew it was critical when 'I Wanna Be Your Lover' was being played on WPLJ. I mean, that song's about sex!" said Suzanna Hoffs, long-time lead singer of The Bangles, and friend of the Prince family. "You should have seen Prince's face! It was like all {at this point Hoffs started making many odd facial expressions, most of which cannot be shown here because we were conducting a phone interview}."
Prince attempted a recovery of his hipness in the 2000's with three mediocre albums, most of which didn'tgetabove a 6.0 on Pitchfork. As more and more time passed, it was obvious the once could-do-no-wrong Prince would need some kind of boost to regain what he once had hipness-wise.
Dr. Fogg wouldn't give any other information on the "Graffiti Bridge" star's current state after the operation, but did say that he hopes to get Prince "out and hip again" before Stereogum's next best of the year list.
O'Rourke then went on to Hollywood, where he wrote the screenplay for the Rodney Dangerfield movie "Easy Money". After that harrowing experience, he turned his sights to the social satire in Washington D.C. His book "Parliament Of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government" is among one of the best political satire books ever written.
This is the Superman that Dave Campbell mentions in his blog as a Moderate Republican who supports the Death Penalty. Many thought that was out of character for Superman at the time, and it is refuted by Campbell's commentors (quite a bit actually) that Superman, despite this execution, is actually very against the death penalty. DC Comics eventually gave into the pressure and removed the execution and all previous General Zods from continuity during the events of Infinite Crisis (personally I think it should have stayed because it was quite an important part of Superman's characterization and ethical code). 
