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.
