Originally, I wanted to stay out of the LeBron James discussion entirely.  Yea, he is the most well known sports figure in the world right now, but he is still just a basketball player.  I felt there were more important things going on (like the federal ban on gay marrige being declared unconstitutional), and saw no need to jump on the bandwagon.  Plenty of other people willing to do that.

But unfortunately, I am a Clevelander.  Born and raised.  So I can’t escape the discussion.  When every single person within a 30 mile radius wants to talk about “The Decision,” fuck, I’m gonna have to go with it.  So fine.

Let’s start things off with an unpleasant reality: Who doesn’t want to get the hell out of Cleveland?  I know that if I were offered the chance to move somewhere else, ESPECIALLY if that somewhere else if freakin’ Miami, I would take that offer in a heartbeat.  Yeah, Cleveland is his home town (though techinically, it’s Akron that’s his hometown) but how many people stick around thier entire lives?  Loads of people move off to newer pastures.  The fact that he is moving to another team in itself is not a betrayal of his roots.

What IS a betrayal, however, and where anger is justified, is the WAY in which LeBron carried out his decision.  For two months now, drama had been building up around where LeBron would go.  And he kept playing it up.  From making hs official announceent of Free Agency during the NBA Chamionship series, to putting up a “countdown” on his website, to having an hour program on ESPN devoted to his decision, LeBron acted like brat child who needs constant attention.  His ego was on full display, and by holding his breath and waiting for the last possible moment (to capatilize as much as possible on the plubicity), he effectively screrwed Cleveland out of getting anyone out of the signings.  He’s an ass, a self-promoting douchebag whose ego has started to eat itself.

But, he’s always been a self-promoting douchebag.  That’s not a surprise.  Also not a surprise is his decision to leave.  I’ve know for two years he would leave, ever since he first started floating out wanting to be a free agent.  TWO YEARS.  All the while he was just as much of an arrogant ass as he is now.  That’s why he has his Toss-Some-Coke-Into-The-Air pregame ritual, and why there are (or were, I’m sure at this point) all those gigantic “Witness” posters around downtown, as if he really were some kind of supernatural savior.  Granted, the posters probably weren’t his idea, but he went along with it in gusto.

The point is, he has always put being in the spotlight above the game itself.  And until yesterday, everyone went along with it.  We kissed his ass for seven years, and are only now calling him out on his shit because he’s doing something we don’t approve of.  For as much of an ass as LeBron has been, I still find it hard to sympathize with my fellow Clevelanders, who I know would have continued to kiss his ass had he decided to stay for whatever reason.  If this had happened to the Browns or even the Indians, I would be much more suppotive, bcause those fans, by and large, stick with the team even through the shit seasons.  But there have not been any real Cavs fans over this past decade.  We had LeBron fans, people who were only interested because now we in the national spotlight.  Did anyone go to a Cavs game pre-2002?  Cause I went to a number of them, and there were not many fans to speak of then.

The bright spot in this whole thing is that now we do have Cavs fans, even if it’s for the wrong reasons.  Cleveland is anxious to prove that we don’t need LeBron, as evidenced by Dan Gilbert’s trash-talkingly awesome Letter to the Fans.  Can we win a championship before LeBron?  I wouldn’t rule it out.  But this mentality does strike an awful resemblance to a bad breakup, where you shout “I don’t need you!” to your former lover before going home and crying into a bowl of Ben & Jerry’s, desperately wishing they would come back.

Personally, I’m glad LeBron left.  Especially after watching his performance in the finals, I don’t think we’re in that bad of shape.  And I’m glad to see Cleveland rallying up behind the Cavs franchise, and not just King James (and this is Amurrca anyway, we don’t like kings!).  Most importantly, I’ll be glad when all this LeBron talk is finally dying down, so we can stop feeding his cravings for attention.

Well, another example has presented itself, and holy shit, did the internet up the ante.  It is now demanding that Donald Glover be given the part of Peter Parker/Spider-man in the upcoming reboot.  For those who don’t recognize the name, he is a former writer for 30 Rock and currently stars on Community.  Why did everyone decide Glover deserved the role?  No idea, but I am now reasonably certain that the internet just likes to slam random things together and call it awesome.

I don't even know

An important difference, however, is that Glover has actually come and said he would indeed be interested in the part, which actually gives credence to the continuation of the movement.  And Glover has also stated that he doesn’t want to just be given the part, he wants to audition and be judged by his ability, not by a Facebook popularity contest.  It seems even he realizes how stupid it is to base casting decisions solely on the opinion of the masses, who really shouldn’t be trusted anyway since they made Transformers 2: Michael Bay Is Still Overcompensating For Something the highest grossing movie of 2009.

Now, I like Glover on Community, and there isn’t any reason I can think of as to why he wouldn’t do a good job.  If he nails the audition, power to him.  If not, whatever.  Since I couldn’t give two shits about the Spider-Man reboot, I have even less interest in the casting.  What I do have interest in, however, is if Glover will even be allowed to audition.

See, for anyone who hasn’t noticed yet, Glover is black.  Peter Parker, as everyone knows, has always been depicted as a white kid.  This has kicked off the question, asked even by Newsweek, “Can Spider-Man Be Black?”  While it may be easy to dismiss as injecting race into a situation to create controversy, it should be noted that director Marc Webb’s short list for actors to play the part were all white.  Yes, I understand that Peter Parker is white in the comics, but when adapting works for the screen (especially when you’re rebooting a franchise anyway) you do have some creative license to change things.  “Fans” might get pissy, but honestly, they’re going to be pissy anyway.  Take your pick of a comic book movie, no matter how well received, and there is a forum somewhere tearing it apart for not “following the original.”  Now obviously Glover shouldn’t be cast just because he’s black, but there is also no reason that non-white actors shouldn’t have been included in the search to find the best Peter Parker out there.  For as awful of a movie Daredevil was, Michale Clark Duncan made a badass Kingpin, even though Kingpin was always white in the comics.

So while I hate the trend of passively-aggressively demanding entertainers perform at a certain venue or be given a part, a part of me is glad to see it being used to diversify the playing field.  And unfortunately, Sony and Webb are stuck in a lose-lose situation.  If they stick with their short list and ignore Glover, they risk having the race card played against them, and more importantly will have a web full of spiteful bloggers going for their jugulars.  If they do give Glover an audition, and especially if they end up casting him, they risk your typical afirmative-action B.S. about how he just got the part because he’s black, and the wrath of purists who can’t comprehend making such a change to their beloved hero.  Webb and Co. are pretty much boned.

But hopefully it will serve as a lesson to future adaptations:  There is no need to limit your casting options for something as silly as race.  Now, there are exceptions.  By the nature of his story, Thor has to be white, since he’s based on Norse mythology, and Norwegians are about as white as you can get .  Casting a, I dunno, Latino in the role for diversity’s sake would be ridiculous.  And the Black Panther kind of has to be black.  But for most heroes, race plays no part into their origin stories.  Especially as writers and directors modernize the stories anyway, the heroes can be pretty much anyone.  And isn’t that the appeal of heroes like Spider-Man?  That an every-day person can become something more?  And let’s be honest, in New York City, your every-day person is more likely to be non-white anyway.  So lets live up to that appeal where anyone can dream of saving the world.

Well... maybe not ANY one

This is complete bullshit.

Now, I am willing to believe that there may be some left leaning bias in some textbooks.  But there is a big difference between correcting said bias, and creating a bias of your own.  Many of the things being altered have been accepted by historians for years, so if you do want to correct any perceived bias, you would probably want to consult them about it, right?

Or, you could do what Texas did and listen to a freaking dentist who has no background in history at all.  But he sure does love Jesus.

And that’s kind of important, as a lot of the changes made have to do with giving religion a more prominent role in our nations history.  Does it have some significance?  Yes.  But by focusing on the impact religion had on the Founding Fathers, while ignoring their rational for keeping Church and State separate is historically dishonest.  In fact, it’ unethical.   It’s whitewashing our nation’s founding to serve a specific ideological narrative.  How bad is it?  They have removed Thomas Jefferson from the history books because he coined the terms “Separation of Church and State”.   Basically, they are trying to promote their warped view that America is only for Christians, and get that into kid’s heads at an early age.  Kind of like brainwashing.

“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” board member Cynthia Dunbar stated.  Yes, that’s true.  But by your own logic, religion was not the only philosophy these revolutions were based either.  So you have just admitted that you are cherry-picking what parts of their ideology you want to teach.  That’s not history, genius.

Other changes include:

- teaching that McCarthy was vindicated in his communist witch hunt (he wasn’t)

- giving Presidents Nixon and Reagan more prominant roles

- ensuring students learn about the conservative resurgance of the 80′s, and study such groups as the Moral Majority and National Rifel Association

- denying coverage of Latino leaders and movements

Many of these are covered in the New York Times article here.

Again, it’s important to note that none of these changes were proposed by actual historians.  Which begs the question, why do they get to decide what are children are taught?  They have no more expertise than I do, can make up a curriculum?  Inject my personal beliefs in history and teach them as facts?  Because that is essentially what Texas has done.  In “standing up to the experts” they have forgotten why we have experts in the first place: they tend to know more about their field than we do.  Kind of like how a dentist knows more about teeth than a historian would.

So Texas, if you want to live in your own aternate reality, go right ahead.  But don’t take the rest of us down with you.

I DON'T CARE, 4CHAN!

Every so often though, a meme pops up that makes a real impact on the cultural landscape.  And there is usually no discernible reason to explain why.  Enter Betty White.  For seemingly random reasons, the “Betty White Should Host SNL!” meme was all over the place.  Why Betty White?  I have yet to come across someone who can provide me an answer with any more depth than “Because she’s awesome!”  Now don’t get me wrong, Betty White is a great comedic actress.  But it struck me as odd that everyone jumped on board to get her to host.  While it would be unfair to say she is past her prime, she is freaking 88 years old.

But then that never stopped Keith Richards

Regardless of the insane reason behind the attempt, it worked, and Betty White did in fact host Saturday Night Live.  More importantly, she brought in the shows highest ratings since Tina Fey was doing the Palin skits.  And it was a quality show to boot.  Even at 88, Ms. White proved she was just as funny as these young whipper-snappers.  It seemed a great way for her to go out, by answering the call of pop culture and proving you can still kick ass.  But the internet wasn’t done with her yet (the internet apparently being the island from Lost).  Now it wants her to host the Academy Awards.

Cinematical asks if Betty White could reinvigorate the Oscars.  It’s reasonable to suggest she would.  But the more important question, I think, is Does Betty White even want to fucking do it?  Let’s not forget, she’s 88 years old.  The fact that she hosted a live sketch television show is impressive, but the Oscars is a marathon of self-congratulatory Hollywood excess.  With all the wardrobe changes and the bloated run time, should we really be asking America’s most beloved senior citizen to perform simply for our amusement?

It would be one thing if Betty White had expressed some kind of interest to do so.  But like the SNL meme, this Oscar one has sprung up on Facebook all on its own.  Does she want to do it?  Who the fuck cares!  145,000 fans on Facebook demand it!

He demands it

Now, maybe Betty White would in fact like to host the Oscars.  In that case, good for her.  She probably would do a great job.  My point is that it is not up to us to decide that a specific individual should preform.  She’s not a trained monkey.  She’s not an enslaved gladiator.  She doesn’t have to get up on stage just because a bunch of people with too much time on their hands start a petition.  She’s earned the right to kick back a bit and only do the things she wants to do.  So I guess what I’m saying is, Leave Betty White Alone!

“It truly is a momentous occasion,” said Roger Ailes, after being appointed by Murdoch as the new Dark Lord of the Sith.  “Creating a media corporation was just the beginning.  Now Emperor Murdoch has the power he has desired for so long to turn the News Corp. Media empire into a Galactic Empire.”

News Corp. is already the second largest media conglomerate in the world, controlling many communication and information mediums.  It was also already considered by many to be evil well before Emperor Murdoch’s embracement of the Dark Side.

“This isn’t surprising in the least,” media critic Mitchell Gritz stated.  “For the past year Fox News has aggressively spread lies, misinforming the public about what was going on in our country.  They are simply taking the next step.”

“Also, Fox is responsible for giving us Temptation Island,” he continued.  “How evil is that?”

In addition to its promotion of mindless dribble such as American Idol and Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?, Fox also has a tendency to cancel any program that requires viewers to think in any capacity.

“An audience that is thinking is an audience that can think for itself,” comments Gritz.  “That is something Fox tries to avoid.”  He went on to stipulate that the only reason The Simpsons still airs is because it has digressed into a simpleminded shadow of it’s former self.

It is this strategy of turning the public in malleable, mindless drones that is finally paying off.  Murdoch has long had the resources to expand his empire in a very literal term, but take-overs are much easier with public support.

“The past year has been great with regard to getting people to go along with whatever we say,” noted Grand Moff Glenn Beck.  “I can say ‘Go protest the government on this day’ and my audience does it.  I can even tell them 1.9 million more people showed up than were actually there, and my audience will believe me.  They were actually there and they still believe me!  I gotta tell ya, this kind of power is just awesome, and it’s only gonna get better.  For us, that is.”

All attempts to interview Emperor Murdoch himself were met with blasts of lightning shooting from his fingers, killing three reporters in total.

Though there are limits

So when Fox first aired Glee back in September 2009, I avoided it pretty hard.  The show did not look particularly bad, I just don’t take to musicals very well, and so spent my time on other shows (like the fantastic Modern Family).  I never begrudged the show or assumed it was terrible, just wasn’t my cup of tea.  Also, knowing plenty of theatre kids in college, I felt I had lived through a lot of that “drama” anyway.  While I wasn’t looking, however, Glee fucking exploded.  It garnered critical praise and amassed a feverent fan base calling themselves Gleeks (get it?!?!).  It went on to win the Emmy for Best Comedy, and its return from it’s winter hiatus was heavily promoted with 5 zillion ginormous pop up ads that invaded my internet in the weeks leadin up to premiere of the second half of it’s season (season 1.5?).

With the promotional blitz, friends going on about it, and seeing it on the cover of every other issue of Entertainment Weekly, I began to get curious.  Was I missing out on something special?  Could I be a Gleek deep down?  I certainly don’t fit in with most of the people around me, maybe this show will speak to me!  And then I saw a commercial for the new episode, which featured a character uttering the line “You know a dolphin is just a gay shark.”

What a real gay shark looks like

I groaned and rolled my eyes, and assumed that it was merely a throw away line, and that the producers where saving the good stuff as a surprise.  But then, the day after the premiere, that same line was quoted all over Facebook and Twitter.  Really?  That was funny?  I began to wonder if I had given the show too much credit.  I normally try not to trash entertainment I have not actually experienced myself, but perhaps I had gone too far in the other direction.  Well that settled it, I told myself.  I need to watch Glee and see just what this show everyone is talking about is.

So I pulled up the Glee pilot on my computer one afternoon this week, prepared to marathon the hell out of the show and try and catch up.  I hit the play button.  Once the pilot was over, I turned my computer off.  I could not keep going.

Now, I had prepared myself to sit through musical numbers.  What I had not prepared myself for the volume of camp and melodrama it contained, and the groan inducing forced jokes (for the most part, anyway.  I did laugh at Matthew Morrison’s “They feel like they’re invisible.  That’s why they all have Myspace pages” line, however dated the joke may be).  And it seemed to me that the show was trying just too hard with Jane Lycnh, who I consider a fantatstic comedic performer otherwise.  Her first line of the episode (“You think that’s hard?  Try waterboaring, that’s hard!”) just felt way too blunt and on the nose for setting up who they wanted her character to be, and it continued throughout the episode.  Surprisingly, the musical numbers were fewer and more entertaining than I had anticipated, but they hardly made up for the rest of the show.  It seemed to me like Glee was merely trying to wear you down into liking it by smiling a lot.

Criticism aside, I did find things to appreciate.  Matthew Morrison gives his character a lot of added depth, which is needed amongst all the high school drama cliches.  And despite my aversion to the show, there is a certain charm to it’s underdog nature.  The show is about people who feel alienated by the world they live, and struggle to be taken seriously by those around them.  The show itself mimics the theme, by being unsure of how campy/melodramatic/satirical it wants to be at any given time.  Glee is that dorky kid with big dreams, trying to get noticed in a world full of the big popular kids like House or Lost.

And unfortunately, it’s doomed to fail.

But it's too big to fail!

This isn’t because I’m not a fan of the show.  Like Twilight, I’m outside the target demographic.  They will not lament my loss.  If I were to complain to the producers about not liking the show, they’d probably shrug and say “Why would you?”  They could give a shit about my opinion, and rightly so.  There are plenty of other people who adore the show.  Everyone loves an underdog.  And that’s the problem.

Something major happened during the first half of Glee‘s first season: it got immensely popular.  Which is for the most part a good thing for a show.  But I feel Glee may be a bit of a special case.  Like I said, even for someone like me who doesn’t like it, there is a charm to it’s “lets just put on a show!” attitude.  But this persona is somewhat undercut by the massive promotional push and vibrant popularity.  Granted, the promotional blitz featured on magazine covers and online ads aren’t the shows doing.  But it does highlight an important fact; Glee isn’t an underdog anymore.  It’s a full fledged phenomenon.

And that creates problems for any show.  Especially considering the onslaught of ads that preempted this weeks premiere, backlash is all but inevitable.  It’s highly unreasonable and unfair to expect a show to live up to such extensive hype.  And a show like Glee, which seems to want to be so many different kinds of shows at once, will have a particularly hard time meeting expectations.  Fans are finicky, and when things get really popular really fast, they’re even worse.  And Glee has the added problem of being simultaneously a show about underdogs and one of the most popular programs on television.  This makes it’s message a bit shallow.  Kind of like how Taylor Swift’s “You Belong With Me” ends up being sung by the same preppy popular girls the song vilifies, or  how “Born in the USA” has gone from a critique of the violence of Vietnam to a chest pounding “Amurrrrrca!” patriotic anthem.

But that doesn’t even touch the biggest hurtle Glee now has to face.  Like a number of other shows, Glee has adopted a bizarre shooting schedule, which essentially splits the season into two mini-seasons (a strategy that upsets me for a whole batch of other reasons, but this is neither the time nor place to air those grievances).  The first half was filmed with no fan reaction.  The second half that is now just starting to air, however, was produced with mountains of fan reaction to build off of.  More Songs!  More Relationship Complications!  More Sue Sylvester! (judging by the new promos, it looks like the producers definitely ran with that last one)  But fans don’t know what makes a good show.  Ever read fan fiction?  Yeah, they’re terrible.

"... and then Harry Potter took my virginity."

Glee hasn’t even made it out of it’s first season, and it has already had to content with message board wish lists of what the fans want to see.  And if the show tries to please everyone, it will become even more center-less than it already is.  Remember what happened to Heroes when they started taking in fan reactions?  It wasn’t pretty.

Granted, I’m basing this off of viewing the pilot episode, random bits and pieces of other episodes, and what my many friends who love this show tell me.  And perhaps I am a bit bitter and am subconciously hoping for the show to fail.  I’m watching a program I have no interest in get the full support of a network that abandoned Arrested Development (aka the funniest show ever) to fend for itself and scramble for ratings, and chose to run Firefly out of order so no one knew what was going on, and then act all surprised when the ratings weren’t there.  Neither of those are Glee‘s fault, and I really wish the show no ill will.  But that won’t matter if the show collapses under the weight of it’s own hype and too eager fanbase.

We all know fanboys.  Many people use the term as an insult of sorts, which is a bit unfair.  Fanboys are an impressive lot, as they seem capable of making others hate even the best quality movies, shows, and games by their near inconceivable levels of annoyance.   No matter how much you might actually like something, you will avoid it like the plague to spite the asshole who wouldn’t shut up about it for 15 hours.

OH MY FUCKING GOD I GET IT! BATTLESTAR GALACTICA IS A GREAT BLEND OF SCI-FI AND POLITICAL COMMENTARY!

Fanboys can be devoted to just about anything, from movies and TV shows (with Star Trek and Star Wars being the most well know of the fanboy communities), to tech (Apple), to games (Halo), and celebrities (Kristen Bell).  While a majority of fanboy communities revolve around sci-fi, it would be a mistake to assume it does not stretch beyond the traditional geek fare.  Mad Men is a great recent example of a non-sci-fi entity gaining that kind of devoted (and annoying) fan base.  Yes, fanboys stretch across many terrains.  For the sake of this post, however, I will focus on the TV show and movie corners of this domain.

That is because fanboys of a particular show or movie (or by extension, a director or producer) partake in an interesting habit.  One they latch onto something to love and to hold forever and ever, they extend some of that devotion to other things that have some connection to the original object of affection.

For example, let’s look at Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Look at her!

Buffy developed quite the devoted fan base in it’s time, and still does today despite being off the air for seven years.  Buffy fanboys exhibit all the typical traits you would expect.  They defend it (sometimes illogically) against all criticism.  It is their most favoritest thing in the world, and nothing (not even the love of a woman) will ever be better than it.  But what is more important to my point, is how they put everyone involved with the show on a pedistal.  Thusly, anything those people do outside of the Buffy universe gets some of the awesomeness of Buffy rubbed off on it.  In some cases this makes sense.  As the creative force behind the show, Joss Wheadon deserves a bit of benefit-of-the-doubt when he has a new project come out.  Everything that happened on Buffy had to go by him, so if you like Buffy, it’s a fairly safe assumption that you will like the other things he does afterwords.

When it comes to the actors, though, its a bit different.  By their nature, if an actor is good they will be a very different person in the different productions they are in.  It’s easy to love an actor or actress in one movie, and hate them in another.  So it’s slightly more shallow to give an new movie or show the benifit of the doubt because you like an actor who is in it, especially since most actors and actresses have nothing to do with the creative side of a show or movie.  Back to Buffy fanboys, they take it a step further.  They like the actors who were on Buffy, not necessarily because they are good, but simply because they were on Buffy.

For example, let’s look at Alyson Hannigan.

I said look!

Alyson played Willow on the Buffy television program.  She also stared in the American Pie movies (the ones that were good enough to be released in theaters, anyway).  She is, in my opinion, a talented comedic actress.  But when How I Met Your Mother started in 2005, the Buffy fans did not say “That Alyson Hannigan sure is talented, I should check this show out.”  They said “It’s Willow from Buffy!  This show is gonna be awesome!”  They based their decision to watch a show not even on the talent of an actor, but on one character that actor played.

This can be extended to other things.  “Look, this movie has Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica in it!  Let’s go see it!”  Or “Ned from Pushing Daisies is gonna be in a new show!  We need to support it!”  Fans of Wheadon’s shows are especially prone to this, as they have an entire website devoted to those shows that keep track of what projects actors who appeared in his productions are working on, and then encouraging the fans to support those shows/movies.  These fanboy’s decisions on what shows or movies to watch are based not on the individual merits of the show or movie in question, but whether that show or movie has a connection to their beloved obsession.

This is what I have dubbed the Hydra Paradox.

Don't call it a paradox to it's face. It'll fuck you up.

In theory, this tendenciy of fanboys sounds like it would be a good thing.  Following the actors and other people associated with your favorite show seems to be a great way to branch out.  To go back to the Alyson Hannigan example, it’s very possible that many of those Buffy fanboys would have written HIMYM as another boring predictable sitcom and ignored it had it not been for the presence of Willow.  Surely HIMYM made out in that deal.  Theoretically, this fanboy devotion to those assciated with their obsession would provide a way to explore entertainment that is outside their comfort zone, and watch and enjoy things they would otherwise shrug off.

But this presents it’s own problem.  As a fanboy begins to rely more and more on the presence of someone associated with Lost or Stargate to determine what they view, they begin to shut out all other shows and movies.  For example, if two new shows start up at the same time, and one of them has John Locke from Lost in it and the other doesn’t have a connection to Lost, the Lost fanboy is going to go with the former.  Which show actually looks better is a secondary issue, they are there to support Terry O’Quinn simply because he once played a character on their favorite show.

This extreme, blind devotion is ridiculous.  While it is generalized (please don’t flood the comments section bitching about how your being a fanboy of whatever doesn’t cloud your judgement blah bah), most fanboys practice this in at least some capacity.  It is a particularly interesting practice to me, as fanboys tend to go on about how Buffy or Pushing Daisies or Chuck gets overlooked by the public because it doesn’t have any big stars attacthced to it.  People need to look beyond that to see how great and original the show actually is.  The problem is, it goes both ways.   Just because your actor is more obscure than the mainstream viewers, doesn’t mean your practice is any different.  Angle from Buffy (and Angle) doesn’t make Bones a good show.  That has to be determined by all the other aspects of the show.  Because if the only reason you are watching is because you love Angle, well, the show itself probably isn’t that great then, is it?

My point, and my beef with “fanboys”, is that a movie, a tv show, anything, should be judged by it’s own merit.  If you go see a movie that looks like crap, but has Jessica Alba in it so you go see it anyway, that’s idiotic.  Granted, it’s something we all do to some extent.  With all the decisions we have to make, we need any kind of short cut we can take.  But many fanboys take this to a whole new level.  It’s fine to like Hugh Laurie, the actor.  But when you begin to worship him because he plays House, and associate everything he does to that character, you step over the crazy line.  You need to at least try and show some objectivity, otherwise everyone is right to look down on the fanboy community.

We have a problem.  An issue that needs to be worked out between the two of us.  I understand you’re busy what with covering all the crazy stuff happening in this world of ours, but frankly, I can’t put this off any longer.

You see, you haven’t been doing your job.  Yes, you have been covering events and issues.  But you have done a piss poor job of that.  You have been neglecting your function reporting FACTS and focused solely on reporting.  When interviewing politicians, or any other prominent figures, you have simply taken to transcribing what they say, and make no effort to discern if what they are saying is actually true.

Let us start, my dearest Media, with a recent example.  Rudy Guliani this week, made claims that “we had no domestic attacks under Bush.  We’ve had one under Obama,” referring, of course, to terrorist attacks.  This is of course absurd, since 9/11, the biggest terror attack to befall this country, in fact happened during Bush’s first term.  Guliani later claimed he meant to say “after 9/11″ when referring to Bush, but even that is wrong.  Off the top of my head I can think of two terror attacks that happened post 9/11 on Bush’s watch: the anthrax scare and and the shoe bomber.  Doing some research I was also reminded of the attempted LAX terror attack in 2002, as well as the DC sniper and UNC SUV attack.

But that isn’t the real problem.  Perhaps all those incidents really had slipped Guliani’s mind.  The problem is that you, Media, did nothing to to suggest that Rudy was wrong.  You pasted his comments in your articles, never questioning the validity of what he was saying.  By doing nothing, you allowed the public to infer there was nothing wrong with Guliani’s statement.  It allowed the public to think that we are in more danger now than we were before.  This, based off of false information.  The actual data seems to suggest we are in no more danger than we have been over the past eight years.  But many in the public now believe other wise.

That is but a minor grievance, however, when compared to your handling of health care reform.  Multiple times since the summer, Sarah Palin warned the health care reform would bring about “death panels” that would essentially rationalize who woud recieve medical help (she did this via her Facebook page, no less).  This was, of course, bogus.  But you, ever vigilant Media, were laregly absent in saying so.  You allowed the public to be frightened by a non-existant threat.  Then there the claim made by Rush Limbagh and numrous other conservatives who claimed the health care bill would cost trillions and further us into debt.  This would seem like a legitmait concern, until the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) found that the plan would actually reduce our deficit by about $130 billion dollars over the next decade.  That is the exact opposite of what conservatives were saying.  But again, you were largely absent in correcting them, and thusly, many in the public believe the health care will further our debt, when the truth is it would help.

I hope you are beginning to see, Media, why I have an issue with you.  Your job is to inform the public so that they know what is going on in the world.  So that they can make the best possible decisions they can.  If it takes me five minutes on Google to get this information, it should be no problem for you to include it in your reporting.  But you don’t.  You have gotten lazy.  The public should not have to seek out the information on their own (though it is always sound practice to do so).  That is your job.  You are supposed to point out when lies are being promoted as truths.  When Glenn Beck says that 2 million people attaneded the 9/12 rally, you should have been there to point out it was really 60,000 – 70,000 people who attended the rally.

Media, you have been enabling lies.  And as a result, many people in this country have a warped view of what is going on.  How can people be expected to make good choices when they have been given misinformation?  You are supposed to prevent this, Media.  Now, I know you are weary of having a “liberal bias.”  I understand many have called you this and you would like to show them this is not the case.  But in trying to prove you are not liberally biased, you are in danger of having a conservative bias.  If I may make a suggestion, my estranged friend, you need to worry less about this.  If you report the FACTS, no amount of anyone calling you biased for one side or the other will matter.  Facts are not biased.  Focus on that.

It is a new year now.  This is the perfect time to go back and practice actual journalism.  To go back to truly informing the public.  That is your duty.  Unfortuntely, there is nothing to make you do this.  Most people do not have the time to double check what you report, so many will go on believing you regardless.  But those of us who do pay attention, Media, have had enough.  I do hope (however foolishly) that you do take that into consideration.  I will be waiting, old friend, to forgive you once you see the folly of your ways.  Until that day, however, I’m afraid I must bid you farwell.

With Sincerest Regard,

HBM

This tanning bed is AWESOME

So instead what I have decided to do is just put together a list of movies from the past year that I took notice of not because of how good they were, but from the impact (or lack there of) they had on the cultural landscape.  Some of them were great.  Some of them were God awful.  All of them were movies.

10. Avatar

Might as well get this one out of the way.  By the time December came around, everyone knew about mother-fucking Avatar.  My 90 year old grandma new about it.  If you didn’t, you were probably in a coma.  The hype surrounding this movie was massive, as was it’s budget.  Cameron touted his new 3D technology and promised it would revolutionize filmmaking.  But would the movie be any good?  Well, that depends.  The visuals were pretty damn fantastic, and the 3D Cameron wouldn’t shut up about were indeed impressive as fuck.  But the actual story was predictable and familiar.  It was basically Ferngully.  With explosions.  Now, far be it from me to poo-poo on that solid premise, but now there is talk of it getting an Oscar nod for Best Picture.  Really?  Best Picture for a movie that turned its central plot device (“unobatonium”) into a goddamn pun?  Boo.

9. Jennifer’s Body

Remember that witty, only slightly irritating dialog that made Juno such a hit back in 2007, and earned Diablo Cody a Best Screenplay award?  Now imagine a movie with twice as much flashy dialogue, no sincerity or character development to keep the sarcastic lines grounded, and replace the acting chops of Ellen Page with the non-acting black void that is Megan Fox.  Sound like a winner?  If you answered “no,” then congratulations!  You are at least passingly intelligent.  You’re also not alone.  The film only made $16 million, just barely breaking even.  I guess America has had it’s fill of Codisms.

OMG I'M TOTES A DEMON

8. Funny People

Funny People was important because it showed that movie goers want their funny movies to be funny, not sentimental.  It’s lackluster performance was a bit of a disappointment to me, because I thought it was a great film.  Not since Punch-Drunk Love has Adam Sandler so successfully translated his man-child humor into a performance that actually shows talent.  It was a well executed, very personal story, with all the ups and downs that come with it.  Also, dick jokes.  But it seems there is less and less room in the multiplexs for such movies, when people can see giant robots blow up.

7. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Oh look, giant robots blowing up.  And it’s the highest grossing film of the year.  Remember last year when that distinction went to The Dark Knight?  A movie that redefined how deep an impact a comic book movie could make, that astounded both critics and the general public alike?  Fuck that.  Apparently, what people really want is awful dialog, what appeared to be the vomit of an actual story, and a tiny robot humping Megan Fox’s leg for no real reason.  Throw in some good ole fashioned racial stereotyping and incoherent and surprisingly boring action sequences, and viola, you get a big pile of shit that we all actually paid for.

6. Land of the Lost

Movies like Transformers have proved that throwing lots and lots and lots of money around to remake retro property can have a huge payoff.  This was not the case for Land of the Lost.  Reportedly costing $100 million to make, the movie made back just shy of half of it’s budget.  That’s a lot of money it didn’t make.  The problem may be that, while many of the coveted 18-30 demographic grew up with say Transformers and G.I. Joe, they had missed the spectacle that was Land of the Lost.  The point of franchises is that they are familiar to the audience, hence the draw.  But the kiddies had no clue what the hell Land of the Lost was, and those who did were likely not impressed with Will Ferrel screaming at a CGI T-rex that should in no way look as fake it did with such a huge budget.

Also, you can't fight a T-rex with a stick

5. Paranormal Activity

On the opposite end of the money spectrum, Paranormal Activity proved that “budget” is a relative term.  The movie only cost a mere $15,000 to make.  It then made $107 million.  That means it made 7,133,333 times what it cost to make.  So while Transformers may be the highest grossing film of the year, it kind of had to to recoup costs.  But thanks to a unique distribution that helped insure the movie was initially only shown were there was interest, and thanks to the fact that it was one of only a handful of movies that wasn’t a remake or a sequel (and was good to boot), Paranormal Activity took the cake as the most profitable movie of all time.  Fuck you, Michale Bay.

4. Watchmen

The un-filmable graphic novel made it to the cineplex this year, and did it spark some debate.  Expectations for a the adaptation were probably unfairly high, and everyone seemed to have at least a few grievances with the movie (For me, the big one was the soundtrack.  Subtelty be damned, apparently).  But for all it’s flaws, the fact that we even got an adaptation is something quite miraculous (especially for those familiar with the lgal battle that played out right before it’s release).  And while everyone complained for the week after, we pretty much forgot about it after that.  So it probably wasn’t that bad.

Then again...

3.  Star Trek

This movie makes it on the list solely because it made me like Star Trek, and I know I’m not the only one.  J.J. Abrams reboot/re imagination of the  franchise made Star Trek kick ass and explosive, two words which I can never recall being used to describe it before.  It was the first big blockbuster of the summer (sorry Wolverine, but you’re shitty ass movie doesn’t count) and, for better or worse, clearly spelled out that this summer would be dominated by franchise movies with lots of things going boom.  The only downside is that years from now, kids will watch this movie and come under the mistaken assumption that all Star Trek is cool.  Those poor, ignorant fools.

2. Up

For the past number of years, Pixar has proven itself to be one of the most consistent studios in the business, cranking out animated films that have been adored both by critics and the general public.  Up put them at 10 for 10, and showed that they could draw an audience even with a marketer’s nightmare (how would YOU sell a movie about a crotchety old man who learns about letting go of the past to kids?).  From making everyone in the theater cry within the first 10 minutes, to making them laugh hysterically at talking dogs, Up was a perfect showcase of just how great Pixar is at story telling.  It was also one of the first movies to utilized 3D in a non-gimmicky way; a la objects flying out from the screen (Coraline also deserves mention for this).   Keep em coming, Pixar.

1. New Moon

As much as it pains me to say it, no other movie made as much of an impact on the pop culture landscape as New Moon.  The army of it’s teen girl fan base waited anxiously (and loudly) all year for it’s release, and the rest of us complained about it.  Arguments about how the series was nothing more than the author’s poorly written wish fulfillment, or that it centered around and promoted a borderline abusive relationship and sexism fell on deaf ears, drowned out by such arguments as “But Jacob is SO HOT!”

Above: Logic

For the whole year, any new trailer or photo stills from the move that got released was treated as breaking news, and Twitter feeds were a flutter with “OMG!”s.  It may not have grossed as much as the summer blockbusters (it ranks as the number six grossing film of the year, with over $255 million), but chances are you saw more of it than anything else this year.  Whether it be on Team Edward/Jacob t-shirts, Burger King cups, or Volvo car commercials, everyone was made painfully aware of it’s existence.  Because screaming tween/teen girs always know what’s best.

]]> http://damnmonkey.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/10-films-from-2009/feed/ 0 damnmonkey james-cameron-avatar-movie-on-set-highres-(2) megan-fox-bloody-jennifers-body scene-from-land-of-the-lo-001 patrick-wilson-night-owl-630-75 taylor-lautner-as-jacob-black-in-new-moon http://damnmonkey.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/christmas-is-dead/ http://damnmonkey.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/christmas-is-dead/#comments Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:33:00 +0000 damnmonkey http://damnmonkey.wordpress.com/?p=14 ]]> Ah, Christmas.  THAT time of the year.  When we all talk about it being that time of year, with out worrying too much about what that actually means.  Is it that time of year where we go into debt trying to buy each other’s love and appreciation?  When we celebrate the birthday of a 2000 year old barn baby?  Dragons?  It all becomes very complicated in this hectic season.

Merry Christmas!

The problem is, Christmas has always been a slightly paradoxical holiday.  We go to stores to buy mass produced consumer goods to show people how special and unique they are to us.  This is the entire reason Santa Clause got so popular (it’s true!).  Parents used him as a way to trick kids into thinking the crap tinker toys they bought at the local store were hand-made and one of a kind.  It was a mere coincidence that little Billy down the street got the exact same toy train.

To tackle it from the religious angle (which really, why would you?) Christmas is supposed to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, the magician with the killer beard who can produce SO MANY fish and loaves out of thin air.   Unfortunately, there is no reason for anyone to think that He was born on December 25th.  There is absolutley no mention of it in the Bible.  The Puritans actually made celebrating Christmas illegal for this reason.  They saw it as a slight against their savior.  Especially when you consider the only reason December 25th was chosen was because it coincided with the winter solstice and was convenient for converting pagans.  That’s kind of like having your parents celebrate your birthday on the Fourth of July even though it’s really in November just because they are already throwing a party.

The fireworks don't change that fact that your parents don't love you

So ok, neither way of celebrating makes a whole lot of sense.  But we have plenty of other traditions that are just as mind boggling.  Like eating turkey to celebrate giving small pox to the natives.  Or getting completely shitfaced in honor of a man who converted Ireland to Christianity.  Let’s face it, we suck at celebrating historic events and traditions.  We are much less concerned with what it is we are actually celebrating and much more gung ho about how awesome it will be for us.  Which is why centuries and centuries later, Christmas really has no connection left to what supposedly originated it.

Fine.  No big deal right?  At least we’re doing SOMETHING.  Maybe we don’t know exactly what it is we’re celebrating, but the fact that we’re celebrarting at least keeps it in the public conciouss.  That’s better than nothing.  It’s just like how Robert De Niro still shows up in movies, even though he stopped actually acting decades ago.

He doesn't care what his motivation is

The problem is, it’s a very superficial way of remembering.  And frankly, it’s harmful.  Remember last year when someone was freaking stampeded to death on Black Friday?  When does that fucking happen?  Did those Blu-ray players come with blow-job giving capabilities?  Is that why everyone needed to rush in there?

Go to the mall during the holiday season.  Not to shop, just to watch.  Watch how everyone blows past each other, hurrying to their next purchase.  Watch how irritated they get when they wait in line for even a minute.  Goddamnit, THEY HAVE SHIT TO DO!  Like buy their kid whatever this year’s must have toy is, even though it will end up in the corner of their closet within a week or two.

This is why I enjoy the Christmas I spend with my friends more than the one I spend with my family.  The family Christmas revolves around going to relative’s houses and exchanging gifts, then coming home and opening the gifts under the tree.  Who knows how much money was actually thrown around getting everyone everything that was on their list.  By the time all the presents have been opened, the day is pretty much over.

The Christmas with friends, however, is much more simple.  We’ll get everyone A (singular) gift, with it sometimes being something homemade.  It’s more about showing how much you know the other person that about spending money.  And the gift part takes all of 5 minutes, with the rest of the evening devoted to actually spending time with one another.

Spend time with one another?! Unheard of!

So to say Christmas is dead may be a little off the mark, since it’s always been pretty superficial.  And yes, there will be people who find more simple and modest ways to celebrate that are closer to the ideal image everyone has of the season.  So it may be more accurate to say that Christmas has been battling lekuimia it’s entire life, and has always been on it’s death bed.  Festive.