Thursday, June 25, 2009

Michael Bay Wants To Blow You

Michael Bay. Cousin of Leonard Nimoy. American. Millionaire. And Hollywood Director that puts together big budget summer blockbuster films with one thing in common: He likes to blow your mind. If you take a gander at the movies he's done, you'll know what I'm talking about. The man loves to go over the top on his films. He's the Barry Bonds of Tinseltown. Everybody likes to watch his movies but knows he's cheating somehow because you know his movies are chock full of testosterone from rhino sperm.

Let's take a look at the titles he has under his belt: Bad Boys (1995), The Rock (1996), Armageddon (1998), Pearl Harbor (2001), Bad Boys II (2003), The Island (2005), Transformers (2007) and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009). In the beginning, Bay came out in the ring as a lightweight contender with Bad Boys. After that movie was released with rave reviews, he redefined the action genre and set the standard with huge explosions and some pretty nifty special effects. Everybody thought "Wow, this guy knows what he's doing." Then The Rock came out and you couldn't get enough of Sean Connery and Nicolas Cage fighting side by side and the dramatic adventure they go through to save San Francisco. Still, the same explosions and action sequences played out and you figured "Ok, it's entertaining, I still like it!". Then Michael Bay decided to go somewhere else and take his big budget blow-shit-up plan into space (coincidentally around the same time as another movie with the same premise came out; Deep Impact). Okay, this shit's getting old, no? After these three movies, you realize Michael Bay is following the same old formula: Huge over-the-top explosions + Swooping camera angles (usually from the bottom looking up with a wide angle lens) that's showing someone say something dramatic for 5 seconds before cutting to the next camera angle + The film's protagonists uniting and walking towards the camera in cool slow motion to glamorize their heroic appearance + Presidents making epic speeches before the epic climax + Empty romances multiplied by a huge studio budget = COCKBUSTER!

Nobody ever revered this man as the next Francis Ford Coppola or anything. But you have to admit, his movies get extremely old. You would think that as a director, you would try to challenge yourself artistically and take a chance. After eight movies, I guess not. Personally, I'm never really excited when I see the Dynamic Duo (Michael Bay & Jerry Bruckheimer) attached to any film. I try to avoid it, actually, at all costs. There's just no depth to his films. No meat. Just pixels and fire. But again, it's because of the audience that goes and watches these movies that keeps Michael Bay making films. So, I can't really sit here and request Michael Bay to stop making films that have a diarrhea of stunts, explosions and special effects. I would have to sit here and request dumb America to stop watching his films. So America (or The World), please try to acknowledge that his movies are poop. Show me that you people have taste. The same goes for anybody that likes Roland Emmerich. That name alone makes my eyes roll long enough to look like I'm having an epileptic seizure.

Friday, June 19, 2009

To The Red, White and Black...Comedies...

If you're as observant as I am you'll notice a few things about the comedies that have been released in the past 12 years. Yes, some of them were hilarious, some of them mediocre, and most of them just downright horrible. Of course, the downright horrible ones you wouldn't really remember because you didn't watch them (or maybe you did and thought they were hilarious. For that, dear sir/lady or both, you suck hard). You'll notice that there's a very close relationship between the movie posters and how good or bad the movie actually is. Let's focus on the bad ones.

Now, look at the funny movies that have come out in the past 12 years. You see anything? There's something they all have in common. You see it yet? Well you're fuckin' blind then. Or maybe I should've clarified. Look at the movie posters. Now you see it? Good! You got it (actually you probably didn't because you weren't really looking at ALL the comedies in the past 12 years, you didn't even bother. Hence why you're reading this, to find out). From a designing perspective, all the posters are terrible! They share the same qualities! The background is predominately white and the big goofy sans serif font that they use is always, ALWAYS red. Maybe red with a stroke around it (you don't Photoshop, then you don't know what "stroke" is), but regardless, they're all the same. This type of movie poster alone should alert you to the very fact that these movies are shit. Chock full of mediocre jokes and horrible slapstick comedy. Basically, they're all comedies that insult your intelligence.

Here's another thing you might've noticed. Almost all of those movie posters (I'd say about 95%) are Black comedies. No, no, I'm not talking about "dark, funny" comedies (like Death to Smoochie; great movie). I'm talking about "tha brothas". Yeah, I said "brothas", so effing shoot me. I had to clarify for all you politically correct lame-o's. So if you see the correlation between these comedies, their posters and their cast, is it safe to come up with a few theses? Can we propose that Hollywood is racist by predetermining the success of these "Black" comedies by marketing it as another cheap-o movie with their crappy posters therefore targeting a certain audience? Or can we assume that the Black demographic has a horrible sense of humor and don't even look at the posters and just watch the movie and thinks it's funny because there's an all Black cast? It's almost kind of like posing the question "What came first? The chicken or the egg?" You don't believe me? Lemme go ahead and list a few movies for you. And you'll also find that all these movie posters belong to a certain celebrity who's stuck doing these comedies: Eddie Murphy.

- Meet Dave
- Norbit
- Daddy Day Care

- Dr. Dolittle (1st & 2nd)
- Nutty Professor (1st & 2nd)
- Life

- Bowfinger
- Holy Man
- Imagine That
(this is the only exception because the font color is purple, but it still sucks)

*Now let's try some other movies without Eddie Murphy (but with a Black cast) and you tell me if they're bad.

- Beauty Shop
- Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins
- Big Momma's House (1st & 2nd)
- Are We Done Yet? (as well as Are We There Yet?)
- Scary Movie (Wayans Bros wrote and starred in it, that kinda counts)

Now you ask, "Whut abowt 'white people' and them their movies? Hmmm?" To that, I answer with this delectable selection:

- Malibu's Most Wanted
- Kickin' It Old School
- Meet The Spartans
- Epic Movie

- Date Movie
- Fun With Dick & Jane
- The Heartbreak Kid
(although, this one was okay)

So, with all that said, what can we make of this marketing scheme? What is our answer? Maybe we can say that Hollywood knows a shitty movie when they see one and decides they're not going to spit out the cash to really spruce up the movie posters. Or maybe we can say that these movie posters are made for shitty actors that can't ever be taken seriously. Or maybe we can say that Eddie Murphy can't ever escape his family friendly comedies because he's made a deal with the Devil somewhere along the line to make horrible movies in exchange to give Mel B an illegitimate child and sleep with tranny hookers. Maybe there's something we don't know about these actors? Maybe they all sold their soul the Devil at one point. I mean, c'mon, Jamie Kennedy? His movies are shite. He might be a good writer, but not on his own movies. Queen Latifah? Get outta here with your sass. Martin Lawrence? He's on his way to Eddie Murphydom. Jim Carrey? Now, he's great, but he's had his time and he needs to stick with his indie flicks (I love you Eternal Sunshine) or jump on the Judd Apatow train (but that's such different comedy from his older flicks). And don't even get me started on those stupid movies mocking other movies. Date Movie and shit. Why does Hollywood greenglight that diarrhea?

Now let's take a brief look at why these movies are predominately Black. What is Tinseltown trying to do? Again, is it because the Black audience will only watch comedies that involve a Black cast and Hollywood producers knows this so they make the typical red and white posters? Or is it that Hollywood is cheapening these movies through their marketing scheme because they don't care about the Black audience, therefore influencing their (yeah, I said "their", get over it) perception of humor? I guess you'd have to go all the way back to 1996 when the first types of these posters were released. The Nutty Professor. Yeah, it was funny. It was great. Eddie Murphy's last hurrah as a legitimate comedian. Then after that there was an influx of such comedies with the same poster. The designs got more simple and simple as the years went on and eventually, it just simply contained white background and title with goofy font in red. That's it. But who's decision was it? I guess we'll never know what came first, the McChicken Sandwich or the Egg McMuffin.

Whatever the explanation is, you're not too far off. Overall, what we can safely conclude is that any movie that has a movie poster such as these attached to it, you can assume that movie will blow. Maybe a few slip by and they're actually good, but hey, that's the studio's fault for putting their movie in that category with their stupid posters. With all this said, I leave you with Eddie Murphy's catalogue of these god-awful posters and you'll finally see what I mean.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Just Keep On Suckin'

Can you smell it folks? Can you smell the iron scented crimson blood running down the dark copper celluloid film only to emulsify and be projected on screen? Can you see the scarlet blanket that drapes itself over the the windows to your soul? Well if you do, it's because vampires have taken over Hollywood. Duh.

I mean how could you not notice? They're everywhere those damn Transylvanian terrorists. The Twilight Saga. True Blood. Blood: The Last Vampire (upcoming remake of Japananimation cartoon). The Underworld Trilogy. The Blade Trilogy. Guillermo Del Toro's collaboration with Chuck Hogan for their book, The Strain. 30 Days of Night. Rooskie land's Let The Right One In. The idea of Morbius being in Spider-Man 4 (but then it was scrapped because the overly saturated vampire craze) et al.

I'm not going to say that I hate it. I mean, don't get me wrong, I love vampires as much as the next person. True romances cursed by bloodlust and immortality. That's a great premise isn't it? The everlasting battle between humans and the living dead. I mean you can do so much with such an epic story. But what you shouldn't do (at least I think so anyway) is portray vampires as monstrous satanic humanoids. There's nothing worse than turning the seductive look of a classic vampire into a horrible looking bloodthirsty turd looking creature. I understand that filmmakers want to strike fear in the hearts of their audiences with a wooden stake, but facial prosthetics is NOT the way to go.

I think humans are more scared by realism than fantasy. I mean, it's pretty far fetched enough that your captor turns out to be a bloodsucking being with a rapist wit. So why add on to that unbelievable debacle by morphing their their snout and adding millions of sharp teeth and making their foreheads look like Klingon labias? You want some examples? Okay. Take Interview With A Vampire for instance. In my opinion, best vampire movie ever. A stellar cast and an elaborate story spanning two centuries (and might I add Kirsten Dunst was amazing as a young actress). Nobody in that movie once turned into a retarded monster Klingon. Everybody had the classic look ranging from the romantic aesthetics of the late 1700's to the present.

Now, take into consideration hmmm...let's see...Wes Craven's fucking Vampire In Brooklyn starring Eddie Murphy. I think this was the first vampire movie in which I was disgusted with, mainly due to the fact that Eddie Murphys vampire, "Maximillian", turns into this grossly perverted vampiric monster. Even at that age of 10 I could tell this movie was shite. Sure they tried to add in the exotic look of having long locks like a black Fabio and a well groomed beard, but that was just a cheap attempt at disguising the horrible idea of Wes Craven's vampire look. Other movies are like this. Such as Blade, John Carpenter's Vampires, Tales From The Crypt: Bordello of Blood and a crapload of others with no imagination.

I just don't understand it. Hollywood's idea of "scaring" up the vampiric image is to add 3 to 6 hours of make-up on someone and adding some teeth and red contacts. Sure they're dreadful creatures of the night, but the one main thing that's scary about them is that they're human looking which successfully lures in their prey. Again, the realism! The ONLY vampire to EVER successfully pull off the creepiest vampire look without excessive make-up was 1922's Nosferatu. Max Schreck's lanky body and that oversized head with the pointy ears, the blank eyes, the fangs and the long skinny fingers tipped with sharp nails was about the scariest depiction of a vampire ever put on camera. Still, to this day, 87 years later, it still holds as the most frightening creature in cinema.

In conclusion, just an advice to any filmmakers (like my opinion matters to you guys and anybody else that's reading this), lay off the exaggerated demon look. Even Twilight doesn't do that to its characters and I hated that movie. Stop sucking Hollywood, and try to instill eternal life into our beloved vampire movies.

P.S. Don't worry folks, if you're bored with the whole vampire thing, just you wait and see what's coming out next: WEREWOLVES (or wolf related creatures)! It began with Underworld: Rise of the Lycans. It's gonna kick off again with New Moon and then The Wolf Man (starring Benicio Del Toro). And who knows after that! Maybe Marley and Me 2: Return of the Living Dead Marley Dog Thing.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Extreme Makeover: Hollywood Edition

In the past, I don't know, sayyyy 10 years? There's been a growing trend in Hollywood. I think you know what I'm talking about. Movie makers have been clamoring to get these old beasts on celluloid. No no, I'm not talking about celebrity vagina. I'm talking about the "reboot". Big time studios have been trying to think of the next best thing they can reboot, rehash, remake, refuck, redo and retune. Some of them are great! And then some of them, well, they deserve to be forgotten. But is this a reflection of where we're at as a creative society? More importantly, does a "reboot" successfully showcase a director/producer's visionary ability?


A lot of you might disagree. That's perfectly fine, you ingrates. But hear me out. Sure, doing a remake of a movie doesn't involve much thinking. I mean, the story's already there. As a director, you already know how certain scenes are played out and what goes where and what does what. Sure, that doesn't take much of a toll on the creative process. But this is how, as they say, they "seperate the men from the Gods".

Now, to argue this point, let me pose this question: What's better to choose from (if you're a movie maker)? A brand new screenplay that could be kind of iffy meaning you're gonna be taking a gamble by trying to transform it into a full length film? OR, choose a film that you KNOW was either good or bad and depending on the size of your cajones, challenge yourself?

Let's use two examples. Tim Burton made his Batman franchise in the late 80's early 90's. The first movie grossed over $40 million in its opening weeekend. They were well received. They went in a particular direction. Joel Schumacher decided to drive and crash into the Batman house and destroy everything. I mean, EVERYTHING. Children's bodies were mangled, the parents were slaughtered. And the opening weekend for Batman & Robin was around $40 million. So that was that. Then, Christopher Nolan (thank God) came in and with a little fairy dust and a great writing staff, laid waste to all the previous movies by coming out with a darker, meaner Batman machine. Everybody went bat shit crazy (no pun intended) over it and The Dark Knight grossed over $158 million in its opening weekend and even got some Oscar nominations. Now, let's take a look at The Hulk, directed by Ang Lee and released in 2003. Apparently, nobody liked it. They thought it was a big green piece of turd. Its opening weekend (which wasn't that bad) grossed over $62 million. "A talented director wasted on a poorly plotted and weakly acted film. Not even the visual effects are salvageable," critic Wesley Lovell stated. So yeah, apparently it was bad. But someone (Louis Leterrier) decided he could remake it and blow people's minds. He figured he had the cajones to do it. Despite the fact that the movie was ONLY 5 YEARS OLD, he thought he can regain the people's faith in this massive green colored beast (as if anybody originally cared). The studios marketed it as "not a sequel, but a reboot". They even figured if they plugged in the respectable Hulk title of "Incredible", the people would finally get what they've been dying to see. They wanted everybody to disregard Lee's original Hulk movie and take this one as the OFFICIAL movie to best represent our angry super-hero. Guess how much it did at the box office it's opening weekend? Go on, take a guess? $55 million. That's $7 million less than Lee's version.

Now, aside from the financial points, WAS it a better movie? In my opinion? No. The movie did not need to be made! Leterrier's Hulk wasn't THAT bad. But it wasn't THAT much better either. I would've just written off Lee's version as mediocre, but that would be about it. The fact that Hollywood hyped up Leterrier's Hulk as a "much needed reboot" led me to believe that it was going to be 100 x's better! But it wasn't. What a huge waste of greens (pun intended).

So, there you have it. Two fine examples of franchise reboots. Everybody knows that Christopher Nolan now has a place in Heaven for him because of his amazingly re-imagined Batman movies. And because of that, you begin to look through your DVD racks for his other movies and realize, "Whoa, this guy is unbelievable." He's like Mr. Miyagi who took a snivelling little Jersey brat and turned him into a killing machine (well, maybe I'm exaggerating, but hey, if he swept the leg any harder he could've busted a main artery and caused internal bleeding which in turn would kill his opponent). Now, Nolan's Batman is a prolific example of what ALL directors need to do when rebooting something. And Leterrier's Hulk is a prime example of Tinseltown's premature ejaculation. I must point out again, LEE'S VERSION WAS ONLY 5 YEARS OLD.

Like Capt. Pike said to James Kirk in Abrams extraordinarly impressive reboot of Star Trek, "Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mothers and yours. I dare you to do better."

Here are some upcoming reboot rumors and happenings you might want to look out for:
  • Predators (Robert Rodriguez)
  • Ghostbusters III (no director yet, but the writers for The Office have taken over screenplay duties)
  • Clash of the Titans (fuck, it's Louis Leterrier! But hey, it's got Sam Worthington.)
  • 21 Jump Street (Jonah Hill's got his dirty hands all over this one)
  • Rambo V (even though it's more of a sequel to the last reboot Rambo IV)
  • Robocop (Darren Aronofsky's still iffy on doing it)
  • Aliens (apparently it's a prequel with Ridley Scott's little brother, Tony, taking over)
  • The Warriors (Again, Tony Scott)
  • Conan The Destroyer (Just confirmed, Marcus Nispel is directing)

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Stick a Cork In It, Rourke!

You might be asking yourself, "What do you have against Mickey Rourke?" Well...after seeing the new photo of him in his new role as "Whiplash" (Iron Man 2's new villain), I just felt like I had to give my brief opinion (just like everybody else that blogs in this world).
The only background I know about "Whiplash" is that he hails from Muzzah Russia and that, well, he fights with whips. Judging by the photo, all I can imagine is that Rourke, despite the fact of researching this role by visiting Butyrka prison, will just be the same ol' muttering burnout he always is. Maybe my only gripe is that he's chosen for these character driven roles but is always Mickey Rourke (with the exception of Sin City, but under all the prosthetic make-up, he was still a good ol' muttering burnout).

Sure he was great in The Wrestler. And yeah, he's good in all his other roles. But look at the roles themselves. The reason he's good at them is because they're practically made for him. Okay, I know, what's wrong with that right? I don't know, as much as he's a burnout, I myself feel burnt out on him. Maybe it's due to the fact that he probably has a shady guido pimp as a stylist. Or maybe it's that scumbag smirk he always puts on his face. Or could it be that lame pencil thin mustache that he dons in hopes of personifying some edgy actor. Could it possibly be those greasy locks he refuses to cut regardless of what movie he's in? I don't know. But I'm pretty much over him.

I mean, doesn't Hollywood have enough roid abusing has-beens running around their sets?

Movie Review: Bronson (2009)

"No one wanted to fight me, so I ended up fighting a dog. I won that one too -
but I had to kill the dog." - Charles Bronson (prisoner)
My dear dear cousin (who suggests some of the most asinine movies for me to watch. One in particular that stands out: 1985's World War II rooskie psychological mindfuck of a movie, Idi i Smotri aka Come and See) threw a movie my way this past weekend. When he talks up a movie, he does so in such bravado and confidence that it really convinces me that any movie he watches and suggests can possibly be the next classic. Well, he's done it this time.

One man. One movie. One two syllable, single word title: Bronson.

'Bronson' stars British born actor, Tom Hardy, and is a movie (released in the UK 03/13/09) that is about Britain's most violent (and expensive) prisoner, Mickey Peterson aka 'Charles Bronson'. The film takes you through his life behind bars and takes it even further as Bronson (Tom Hardy) narrates his own story. In the first 5 minutes of the movie, you can tell that this man is charmingly psychotic. The character (and the idea of the movie) is reminiscent of Chopper (starring Eric Bana; released in 2000) in that the story is based on a criminal who's charming personality can switch into rabid vicious manimal in .5 seconds. And you can't help but love it.

But the way the movie plays out is a bit different. Chopper (or Chup-pah as it is phonetically spelled according to the Austrians. Haha) is more or less like Australia's version of Reservoir Dogs, while 'Bronson' takes its tips from 'A Clockwork Orange' (I know it's such a cop out to mention Kubrick's famed movie in my review since it was mentioned in quotes on the movie's posters, but it REALLY is kind of like A Clockwork Orange!). The violence that is inflicted isn't particularly mind blowing, it is more or less the passion portrayed by Tom Hardy that is. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way undermining the level of ferocity that is thrust upon the prison guards, but the real face of fear is in Tom Hardy's sarcastic (and mustache donning) grin as he punches and bites his way through confinement. The man is an animal. And there is no way of understanding it. Not only is his personality intimidating, but his physical appearance and mannerisms are shocking. His image resembles something of an old time strongman from the turn of the century (not the milennium, the 1900's). Think of a bald Arthur Saxon. But, more about the movie and less about the actual man.

As mentioned before, the movie is narrated by Tom Hardy's raspy sounding Bronson character. Throughout the film, most of the violent scenes are shown while classical music (Verdi, Wagner, Bruckner etc.) is played. Much like A Clockwork Orange (see, I told you). Maybe it's to show the contrast between violence and beauty and trying to meld it together into this beautiful piece of art, which, is something that Bronson himself has acheived in real life (he sells his art from prison). Watching the violent scenes being exaggerated in slow motion is like watching a lion taking down a gazelle in the Sahara desert. It's majestic to watch more than it is a dismal part of life. I think the director (Nicolas Winding Refn) does a great job at portraying this to the audience. And as for our main anti-hero, Bronson; it is magnificently played by our underdog actor, Tom Hardy.

Tom Hardy has done a successful job at staying under the radar in the previous years by being cast in such movies as Star Trek: Nemesis, Blackhawk Down and RocknRolla. But you really wouldn't recognize him from those movies because this guy got so damn yolked up for this performance. Much like Bale losing over 60lbs. for The Machinist or Charlize Theron (probably) gaining that much weight for Monster. Though, unlike those movies, Tom Hardy captivates the audience in a more hilariously insane role. This movie is his 'Romper Stomper'. This is his 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'. This is his 'Taxi Driver'. And I am a fan. Hardy plays Bronson with such grandiose and flamboyance that you're absolutely drawn in with his ability and talent. Hopefully, he has a good agent on his shoulder because I definitely would like to see him in more roles.

All in all, this movie was good and I thank my cousin for keeping his ears to the streets. It might be a bit drawn out and a bit awkward at some points throughout the movie, but Hardy does a good job at reeling you back in for more bloody ultra-violence (sans "the ol' in-out, in-out").

Monday, June 8, 2009

To Insanity and Beyond!

Now, I don't know about you folks, but I have an affinity for crazy space movies. Sure, your typical space movies with aliens and rayguns and hot space babes are good. They open up a whole spectrum of advanced human possibilities and theories. But, I'm not talking about those.

I'm talking about "crazy" space movies.

I'm talking about space movies that explore the very depths of human psychology and the physical and mental effects that the infinite black void has on the mortal psyche. I'm talking about accidentally (or purposely) opening up the air-lock door to the ship and getting sucked out into the dark, cold space only to get the bends and have your insides torturously expand slowly, destroying your very soul in a matter of seconds.

I guess what prompted me to write/type this little piece up is the fact that there will be a new movie coming out starring Sam Rockwell entitled 'Moon'(set to be released 07/20/2009). No, it's not a documentary about our beloved nightly sphere that sheds light on half the Earth, cleverly narrated by David Attenborough (or Morgan Freeman or Sigourney Weaver etc.). A quick synopsis of the movie: Humans have found an efficient way of harvesting energy on the Moon and a gentile by the name of Sam Bell is nearing the end of his 3 year shift. Now, he's been alone for 3 years. So, being as this article is about "crazy space", come to your own conclusions.

Another fine piece of film that encapsulates pure solar system insanity is 'Sunshine', directed by the very talented Danny Boyle (though I've yet to see Slumdog Millionaire. Shutup). It's basically about how the sun is dying out in our near future and a team of astronauts/scientists have to fly to the sun to re-ignite it. That alone is a crazy premise! Who ever thought about re-igniting the effing sun?! Also, the cast was brilliant and very cohesive. Each actor's character had a purpose on the doomed ship and it was absolutely thrilling (despite the pace of the movie) to see things slowly fall apart. I can't say much for the end. I hated it. But the rest of the movie made up for it.

There's a ton of other movies, I'm sure, that fall into this category of "dark space movies". But, there are movies that were just completely lame. Hmmm...let's try 'Red Planet' with Val Kilmer. Or how about 'Mission to Mars' starring Tim Robbins? Horrible. HORRIBLE! But eh, Hollywood is known for spewing out more junk than good. I just won't waste my time watching 'em.

Space has infinite possibilites and ideas to explore. The psychology of space travel alone is extremely daunting and even in real life, astronauts have to do extensive psycho analysis before even stepping foot on a shuttle. I suppose that space isn't the only place where one can go beserk. You might want to go try the grim reaches of the deep sea ('The Abyss' anyone?). I guess maybe the reason why I have this appreciation for these types of movies is because space (and the deep sea, respectively) are places where humans have not fully explored. They're both mysterious areas for humans physically AND mentally. These places challenge the very being that we are and we still stay compelled and completely enthralled by the fact that we know nothing about these two areas of potential discovery. And while everybody has a positive outlook on our explorations, that maybe we'll find another planet to inhabit, I myself am more interested in what it takes for us as a race to get there. Because the one thing that nobody wants to understand is our own minds and what it would do to us (and others) if put in strenuous situations. And there's nothing more psychologically onerous than space.

Plus, it's hilarious (and sometimes really cool) when space travellers fuck up and jeapordize everything.

'Aliens' anybody?

New Moon is For Pedophiles

In case you're living under a rock or maybe, magically living INSIDE a rock, and you somehow got out of it and joined the Real World, one of the first things you'd possibly see is the Twilight pandemonium (and then you'd go on to notice we have a black President, California still hates Gays and cats have the amazing ability of playing the keyboard). And if you keep looking, you'll see the new movie posters for the second film, New Moon (set to release on 11/20/09).

Is it me, or does anybody notice anything about these posters? Does something seem a bit off to you? Do you feel like by looking at these posters, it's a bit taboo? Does looking upon these posters evoke a sense of paranoia, like Dateline NBC's Chris Hansen is going to pop out of nowhere and ask you to sit down for a talk to question your motives? Because that's how I feel. I mean, look at these posters! 2 out of the 3 posters for the movie have SHIRTLESS MALE TEENS. I don't think there has EVER been, in the history of movie posters, a poster that depicts half-naked teenagers.

Now, I completely understand that the core demographic of this phenomenon are girly tweenie boppers (generally ages 7 - 18, but I know some over the ages of 23!). I understand that these girls need a new boner popping man to look up to because Zac Efron is starting to take off in his movie career towards more of an "adult" mainstream and, well, he's just getting older (be forewarned: he WILL have facial hair one day). But for whoever's in charge of marketing for New Moon, this is just WRONG to capitalize on this type of audience, by plastering half-naked male teens all over the place.

I wonder how the meeting for the Marketing Execs went for this movie:

Exec #1: "So yeah, how are we going to make this movie different from the first one?"
Exec #2: "Right. Because the first one sucked and we need to set ourselves apart from that blunder. We did it right by sacking Catherine Hardwicke!"
Exec #1: "Fuckin' A right we did! And we got Chris Weitz to direct! He knows a thing or two about gettin' to the kids! I mean, did you SEE American Pie?!"
Exec #2: "Yeah, but we gotta do something else...I feel we should tell people we're serious about this movie. We want this to go in a new direction."
Exec #1: "Maybe we can really focus on the romance between Edward and Bella and showcase, in the trailers, her dramatic heartbreak when he leaves!"
Janitor: (Walks in and notices the conversation) "Why don't you just throw a bunch of underage boys on the movie posters with their shirts off?"
Exec #1: "Is that even legal?"
Exec #2: "Don't we want people to take us seriously?"
Janitor: "It's completely legal and people will take you seriously. If, by people, you mean little prebuscent girls."
Exec #1 & #2: "FUCKING BRILLIANT!"

Marketing Execs (or whoever's in charge), you've completely lost all credibility, IF, there was even an ounce of credibility left for this Saga. Whatever. Just don't be surprised if all of a sudden police start raiding pedophiles' houses and find New Moon posters of The Wolfpack all over the place. And by the way, Jacob turns into a puppy. Way to go.