Quite a bit to dig through this week. Of course, this is the first week where I've been really paying attention and holding onto stuff with intent.
First up this week is political in nature. A few words about this blog and politics - I lean left. And for the most part, I'm going to keep politics out of the blog because I know that colors my perception of what may or may not be "stupid".
But there are some times where a politically motivated post is just dumb with a side of idiotic regardless of your place on the political spectrum. When I feel it's worthwhile to post such stuff, I'll try to obfuscate the names a bit to protect the guilty.
So, without further ado, let me link you to MSNBC's "First Read". The following comes from a reader's comment posted on Wednesday:
"[KIRK] was bad....but you expected it from him, and he didn't let you down.
The difference between [KIRK] and [PICARD] is that the latter talks a good game, and simply can't/doesn't 'deliver the goods'."
Look, right, left, fascist, socialist, centrist, monarchist or anarchist, Original Series Gangsta or Next Generation Trekker... the idea that it's preferable to have someone who's incompetent and you know he's incompetent over someone who you expect better from but fails is stupid. Compounding the stupidity is the notion that such a person would fail on purpose.
However, even though I doubt that many people set out with the intent to fail, sometimes you have to wonder. Moving away from choppy political waters, it saddens me to have to bring Roger Ebert up two weeks in a row, but really... he's like the Eminent Sage of movie critics, and seeing him do such a lousy job of reviewing a movie - even a bad movie - disheartens me. From his review of GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra:
"This weapon has been invented by the evil disfigured scientist named McCullen"
I suppose this is true to an extent - McCullen's company MARS does produce the weapon. But he's not a disfigured scientist, and he still didn't invent the weapon in question - no spoilers from me, but the plot isn't all that complex and any attention paid at all would let you know who did. In fact, if you know the names of any of the characters in the old cartoon, I'm sure you can guess.
His conquest plans are not sophisticated. He launches four nano-missiles at world capitols. Two of them are Moscow and Washington. The third one is destroyed, and if I'm not mistaken the fourth one is forgotten by the plot and is still up there somewhere. But that's the kind of detail I tend to get wrong, because that's more fun that getting it right.
Okay, minor spoiler here - no world capitols are destroyed. The closest we get to that is the destruction of the Eiffel Tower that's played in every trailer since the very first. And even that isn't from one of the "four" missiles - McCullen actually only has 3 missiles. Hanging a lampshade on your unwillingness to follow this "not sophisticated" plot doesn't excuse the fact that you didn't do your job. You're Roger Ebert - I'm pretty sure that if you told the Tribune, "No way am I wasting two hours of the life I have left on GI Joe" that no one there is going to argue with you - they do have some minor critics who could have fielded this one for you. But if you decide to do the review and want us to believe that it was anything other than a pre-determined opinion, you might want to show us that you actually stayed awake for the entire thing. There's enough else wrong with it - sinking ice, for starters - that you'd still be safe in declaring it a bad movie without putting a black mark on your own name for not even doing it the justice of paying attention.
I got randomly tagged by someone named "mariposakitty" over at my LJ. I had posted a link announcing that this blog had gone live and asking for any submissions from folks who had seen anything "stupid" around the net. I don't know who mariposakitty is, but I'm not sure she was actually responding to my request when she linked me to Real Wishes. But it certainly fits the bill.
Not a whole lot of commentary to add to it, other than the FAQ is hilarious. I love it when arbitrary rules are imposed on acts of fantasy.
The next is certainly a matter of personal preference. Let me begin by saying that I have no real attachment to the 1978 Battlestar Galactica, but that Ron Moore's 2003-2009 "re-imagining" is one of my favorite television series of all time.
But even given that there are fans out there who didn't like the new series and want something more in line with the original, I still can't fathom how Brian Singer directing a Battlestar Galactica movie could possibly be a good idea at this time. In five, ten years? Maybe they'd even manage to get me interested. But ramping up production less than six months after the final episode of the Moore version? Yeah, reboots are all the rage. Batman Begins, Casino Royale and Star Trek. But here's the thing - all of those series were even being shunned by long time fans by the end of their previous iterations and years passed between the last of the old and the first of the new. Yeah, the series finale was pretty divisive, but the series as a whole is still held in high esteem, and again - it's been less than six months! Universal may think that fast-tracking this movie is a question of "striking while the iron is hot", but given that even the recent series wasn't a ratings blockbuster, I'm just not seeing the audience for this.
And Bryan Singer - you've got better things to do with your talent than this. I know you took a lot of media hits over Superman Returns and Valkyrie (even when the latter turned out to be well-received critically), but if you're looking to get in fanboys' good graces again, I think you'd be better served joining X-Men: First Class than picking up dubious sloppy seconds.
I think in any other week, I would have picked that last bit to take the taco, but the robber who gave the bank teller his ID is too rich to pass up. I can't even add any commentary to it, it's that delicious.
Congratulations, Jarell Arnold! You win the Week in Stupid!
Friday, August 14, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Week One - August 8, 2009
Welcome to the Week in Stupid. What began as a one-off rant with a catchy subject line over at my personal blog is now, at the suggestion of a friend, a spin-off blog dedicated to highlighting things that might MELT YOUR BRAIN (author takes no responsibility for any liquified brain matter you might develop as a result of reading this blog).
Here is the original post that started it all. Come back tomorrow for a review of what's lowered IQ points this week.
Firstly, we have a prime example of why I can't be trusted to post on Snarkfest anymore, from the "Unpopular Movie Opinions You Hold" thread:
"My UO might be a little film geeky.
I feel that Hollywood hasn't made a good movie since 1934. Movies were filled with strong,outspoken,passionate women who ran their own lives.
There was life to these movies,not empty Bruckheimer/Bay spectacle or romcom nonsense.
Give me The Divorcee or Red Headed Woman over Andy Hardy, Judd Apatow and Transformers any day.
Don't get me started on how sound has made actors lazy."
In 75 years, not a single good movie? In 75 years, every movie is either stupid spectacle or insipid romantic comedy?
Sound made actors lazy? You know, I always thought there was something to all that "stage" acting that seemed ridiculous, and now I got it - they speak dialogue instead of over-emotive pantomime. Seriously though - not that far past 1934, we have His Girl Friday, one of the smartest pieces of scriptwork ever put on film, and while the story is certainly serviceable and Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell are delicious, the reason it's considered one of the greatest movies of all time is the dialogue, and the way Grant and Russell nail every rushed, overspoken second of it. But... since we're talking about a movie made after 1934, obviously it sucks, because it's just romcom nonsense. Citizen Kane, Casablanca, It's a Wonderful Life, The Searchers, The Godfather, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, The Great Dictator, North by Northwest, Psycho, 2001, The Best Years of Our Lives... in that entire list of movies that came right off the top of my head from 1940 through 1971, there isn't one movie that you would call "good" - not even great, not even excellent, just good, and they're all either Bay-esque spectacle or romcom nonsense? Sometimes, an opinion can be wrong, and this is a shining example, asshat.
Then, possibly prompted by a trip down memory lane instigated by the death of John Hughes, Roger Ebert wrote the following. I love Mr. Ebert, but while I generally respect his opinions, I'm sad to find that he's just like any other old man, decrying those damn kids on his cinematic lawn.
"The obvious implication is, younger moviegoers don't care about reviews and have missed the news that The Hurt Locker is the best American film of the summer. There is a more disturbing implication: word of mouth is not helping the film in that younger demographic. It has been Hollywood gospel for decades that advertising and marketing can help a film to open strongly, but moviegoers talking with each other are crucial to its continuing success. That has been Summit Entertainment's game plan for The Hurt Locker, which opened in a few theaters and has steadily increased its cities, becoming a real success without ever 'winning' a weekend or benefiting from an overkill marketing campaign."
First off, I love that we're singing the praises of Summit Entertainment's low key marketing for The Hurt Locker. This is, after all, the same company who's producing the very over-hyped Twilight "Saga" (sarcastic quotation marks mine). Second, I must say that I'm shocked... shocked!... to discover that Transformers is outperforming The Hurt Locker. Even if Paramount hadn't spent dime one on marketing Transformers, it would still have outsold The Hurt Locker, and anyone could have told you this before a single frame of footage was shot for either movie. This is not a surprise, this is the way it's been all along - you don't think there was someone in 1939 lamenting that some obscure little movie was getting ignored so everyone could flock to that overdone, gaudy melodrama Gone With the Wind? You don't think DeMille and his marketing team didn't have their fingers all over every inch of that production, right down to the whole brou-ha-ha over the casting of Vivian Leigh as a promotional stunt?
Look, I know that Michael Bay must have kicked you in the nads or pulled out your IV drip or something, but dude, lay off Transformers for a few blogposts, okay? Just last year you were declaring The Dark Knight proof that comic-books-as-cinema had finally matured into its own, but now Transformers is proof that all that potential was hollow and naught but ash? Oh, those kids today, killing us all with their goddamn giant robots and their rap music and their text messaging. Not at all like those Gen-Xers that were killing us with their raunchy sex comedies and their moonwalking!
Congratulations, morons! You've won The Week in Stupid.
Here is the original post that started it all. Come back tomorrow for a review of what's lowered IQ points this week.
Firstly, we have a prime example of why I can't be trusted to post on Snarkfest anymore, from the "Unpopular Movie Opinions You Hold" thread:
"My UO might be a little film geeky.
I feel that Hollywood hasn't made a good movie since 1934. Movies were filled with strong,outspoken,passionate women who ran their own lives.
There was life to these movies,not empty Bruckheimer/Bay spectacle or romcom nonsense.
Give me The Divorcee or Red Headed Woman over Andy Hardy, Judd Apatow and Transformers any day.
Don't get me started on how sound has made actors lazy."
In 75 years, not a single good movie? In 75 years, every movie is either stupid spectacle or insipid romantic comedy?
Sound made actors lazy? You know, I always thought there was something to all that "stage" acting that seemed ridiculous, and now I got it - they speak dialogue instead of over-emotive pantomime. Seriously though - not that far past 1934, we have His Girl Friday, one of the smartest pieces of scriptwork ever put on film, and while the story is certainly serviceable and Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell are delicious, the reason it's considered one of the greatest movies of all time is the dialogue, and the way Grant and Russell nail every rushed, overspoken second of it. But... since we're talking about a movie made after 1934, obviously it sucks, because it's just romcom nonsense. Citizen Kane, Casablanca, It's a Wonderful Life, The Searchers, The Godfather, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, The Great Dictator, North by Northwest, Psycho, 2001, The Best Years of Our Lives... in that entire list of movies that came right off the top of my head from 1940 through 1971, there isn't one movie that you would call "good" - not even great, not even excellent, just good, and they're all either Bay-esque spectacle or romcom nonsense? Sometimes, an opinion can be wrong, and this is a shining example, asshat.
Then, possibly prompted by a trip down memory lane instigated by the death of John Hughes, Roger Ebert wrote the following. I love Mr. Ebert, but while I generally respect his opinions, I'm sad to find that he's just like any other old man, decrying those damn kids on his cinematic lawn.
"The obvious implication is, younger moviegoers don't care about reviews and have missed the news that The Hurt Locker is the best American film of the summer. There is a more disturbing implication: word of mouth is not helping the film in that younger demographic. It has been Hollywood gospel for decades that advertising and marketing can help a film to open strongly, but moviegoers talking with each other are crucial to its continuing success. That has been Summit Entertainment's game plan for The Hurt Locker, which opened in a few theaters and has steadily increased its cities, becoming a real success without ever 'winning' a weekend or benefiting from an overkill marketing campaign."
First off, I love that we're singing the praises of Summit Entertainment's low key marketing for The Hurt Locker. This is, after all, the same company who's producing the very over-hyped Twilight "Saga" (sarcastic quotation marks mine). Second, I must say that I'm shocked... shocked!... to discover that Transformers is outperforming The Hurt Locker. Even if Paramount hadn't spent dime one on marketing Transformers, it would still have outsold The Hurt Locker, and anyone could have told you this before a single frame of footage was shot for either movie. This is not a surprise, this is the way it's been all along - you don't think there was someone in 1939 lamenting that some obscure little movie was getting ignored so everyone could flock to that overdone, gaudy melodrama Gone With the Wind? You don't think DeMille and his marketing team didn't have their fingers all over every inch of that production, right down to the whole brou-ha-ha over the casting of Vivian Leigh as a promotional stunt?
Look, I know that Michael Bay must have kicked you in the nads or pulled out your IV drip or something, but dude, lay off Transformers for a few blogposts, okay? Just last year you were declaring The Dark Knight proof that comic-books-as-cinema had finally matured into its own, but now Transformers is proof that all that potential was hollow and naught but ash? Oh, those kids today, killing us all with their goddamn giant robots and their rap music and their text messaging. Not at all like those Gen-Xers that were killing us with their raunchy sex comedies and their moonwalking!
Congratulations, morons! You've won The Week in Stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)