I recently saw the movie mentioned in the title, and I'm just gonna keep saying movie from now on to save time and reading and etc; anyways, I saw it, and it raised soooo many more questions than it answered. As a prequel, it is supposed to do the opposite -- fill in back-stories and flesh out character and plot points from earlier movies. It sets the stage after the fact. I'm going to try and do this all as within movie context as possible -- I shouldn't try to judge it against Marvel comics or any other medium because, well, each medium deserves to exist as its own entity.
Without further ado, let's dive into this--
Why does Charles speak in a British accent? He's from New York. He's upper crust, sure, but that would mean a bi-coastal accent, like Kelsey Grammer or Franklin Delano Roosevelt, if anything not purely American.
Continuing with languages, how does everyone in the cast seem to know, equally well, English, Spanish, German, Russian, and French?
Why did the Hugh Jackman Cameo last longer than 5 seconds? That scene was done almost immediately, and yet it lingered as if Quinten Tarantino was directing it.
How does Hank McCoy find shoes big enough for his feet? If they are truly like hands for feet than he would need like Shaq sized shoes, which would definitely be by custom order in 1962. Unless expert shoemaking is one of his mutant abilities, someone else would know he is a mutant.
How does Moira McTaggert get to stay with the X-Men after they leave the CIA compound? She is CIA and the project was terminated by the government. She should be effectively gone.
How does Magneto crack Emma Frost's diamond form? If diamonds are the hardest substance then the metal rods of a bed stand should never be able to crack it.
How does Mystique know about Shaw's telepath proof helmet? He hasn't shown it to anyone outside of his team at this point besides Magneto.
How does Shaw know the helmet makes him immune to telepaths? How did he test it? Is there another telepath that the Soviets keep locked up? If Shaw is doing this all to help mutant kind, he probably would have rescued this telepath and made him/her part of his cadre. Emma Frost is in his team, but knows not of the helmet or its abilities.
Either Mystique physically shows ageing or she doesn't -- she is a shape shifter. So any age of shape shifting characters should be available to her, or only age appropriate ones.
Havoc's energy blasts were completely unexplained. Nothing further.
If Darwin's power is "reactive evolution", he should be able to withstand any amount of energy Shaw throws at him -- perhaps not do anything with it afterwards, but survival seems to be key to this power (like maybe in order to hold the energy back he is stuck in stone or metal form for a very long time, or even permanently, but shattering definitely seems to be out of the question).
If Cerebro helps them track down ALL of the mutants on earth at that point, what made them settle on that particular group? Were they the only ones who didn't say no?
How is Hank McCoy completely oblivious to his physical speed and strength besides being able to hang off things with his feet?
Why is Angel the only mutant to defect to Shaw's group? Mystique has shown a much larger identity issue at this point.
Why did Angel have to undo the back of her top to let her wings out, despite not having to do this later, and how would her top stay on completely ungrasped and untethered?
Charles and Erik's deep relationship of the previous movies seems boiled down to a business partnership in this movie -- a business partnership that Erik never had any intention of holding onto. Where did all the Charles and Erik time go?
Did anyone direct January Jones' acting? She seemed bored throughout the whole thing, and not bored in that upper-class "is that all there is, I've seen better" kind of character she is -- bored as in "I am reading my lines for the first time off this cue card".
Trying to explain how Banshee uses his screaming power to fly only raises questions about who's idea was this in the first place (actually throwing this one back on the source materiel instead of the movie).
How does Magneto throw everyone around at the end? He's shown no propensity for being able to do this before hand, and no one is really running slowly, so it can't really be metal in the new suits.
The "Children of the atom" theory has no basis within the context of the movie. Shaw already has his powers as an adult, and Raven, Charles, and Erik have theirs as children all DURING the war (not to mention Hugh Jackman's Wolverine is showing being in-universe, and was born in the 19th century)-- predating any atomic bomb being detonated. It would only apply to characters under the age of 17.
If Havoc is in prison, arguably for the terrible things he can do with his power, why do the upper levels of the CIA doubt the existence of beings with mutant powers?
Yeah, I'm done with this. It wasn't bad -- in the top 3 as far as X-Men movies are concerned, but almost everything is better than either Wolverine or X-3.
-- Knuttel
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
10.05.2011
9.26.2010
The downfall of western society: a Pixar story
So I finally saw Finding Nemo.
I was dissappointed, but not really. I didn't like it, but it was standard Pixar fare.
Without further ado, I shall now let loose my anger upon Pixar.
All they make are treacly little Oscar-bait pictures. The funny part, of course, is they'll likely never win any best picture Oscars for doing this, as animated pictures rarely ever win the best picture Oscar. Though animated Oscar-bait pictures are usually much more likely to make money than non-animated ones -- plus lower production costs; theyre running to the bank.
But my point is they don't challenge the medium in any way other than technical. They don't treat it like an art, they treat it like an exercise. All the stories are the same tug-at-your-heartstrings bullshit. Oddly enough, all the stories also have a very anti-human message.
I shall go through this latter part in list format, using the list of Pixar films made, according to wikipedia.
Toy Story, 1995 -- While the conflict is mostly between Buzz and Woody, it is brought up mostly by Andy the human kid's temporary taste in toys. Also, there's the kid next door who terrorizes and destroys all toys, though he would be considered a minor-antagonist. Add in the fact that humans aren't supposed to see the toys move ever, and really any human is an enemy of some kind in this movie.
A Bug's Life, 1998 -- I don't remember anything about this movie. It sucked too much for me. Plus it was a blatant knockoff of Dreamworks' 1998 movie Antz. Funny thing is when Dreamworks goes toe to toe with Pixar on films of comparable quality, Dreamworks usually makes the better film. This is the beginning of this trend. Are people even in this movie? Oh man, that's the most evil of all.
Toy Story 2, 1999 -- Already going into the sequel well on their third effort, the antagonist in this mediocre movie is the toy collector.
Monsters, inc., 2001 -- I don't really remember this movie, but I think the antagonist in this movie was the little kid that runs around the monster city.
Finding Nemo, 2003 -- The main antagonist in this movie is the Sydney dentist (how an ocean clown fish managed to survive the trip from the Great Barrier Reef to Sydney is beyond me). All the oceanic "enemies" were merely plot obstacles (were the jellyfish ever aware of their presence?). It is also one of the first movies to make a dramatic stand against people and what people stand for explicity, criticizing the "stealing" of fish from their natural environments, and really people "invading" upon any oceanic habitat. Also, anyone notice how the final "obstacle" was a fishing boat, of which the fish were at least aware of fishing grounds? Not to mention a clown fish would probably get tossed overboard during the sorting process as by-catch. Also, even though Shark Tales was decidedly mediocre, it was still better than this.
The Incredibles, 2004 -- The antagonist is, at first, the humans who ban superhero activities in public. This is used as a plot device to set up the main antagonist, a normal human who captures and fights superheroes with his robots.
Cars, 2006 -- I could only stand about 5 minutes of this crapfest. Too many awful car puns. Anyways, I don't even think humans exist in the "Cars" universe. What is the purpose of a car's existence then, if not to propel the driver? Thus, existentially, humans are, too, the enemy.
Ratatouille, 2007 -- The enemy in this movie is every human which attempts to stop a single rat's attempts at becoming a chef.
WALL-E, 2008 -- The antagonist in this movie is natural human sloth. As people develop better and better technology, they become lazier and lazier, ultimately turning earth into a trash pile. The robots running the ship realize this, using it as their reason to keep the humans away from earth, even though it can now "support" life. Kung Fu Panda was superior to this film in every single way, even in only the first five minutes.
Up, 2009 -- Never saw it, don't plan on seeing it, but I can bet you there's an indictment against humankind somewhere in there.
Toy Story 3, 2010 -- The third sequel of the Toy Story franchise, it improves upon the second one. Humans exist as the usual background foe, special emphasis placed upon the little kids who destroy and go through toys, not understanding their limits. The main antagonist is mob-boss of the daycare, Lotso Hugs, but all of the conflict in this movie is driven by abandonment issues the toys feel from their human masters.
So there you go, Pixar hates people. I expect a Pixar remake of Soylent Green, rewritten as a feel good story.
-- Knuttel
I was dissappointed, but not really. I didn't like it, but it was standard Pixar fare.
Without further ado, I shall now let loose my anger upon Pixar.
All they make are treacly little Oscar-bait pictures. The funny part, of course, is they'll likely never win any best picture Oscars for doing this, as animated pictures rarely ever win the best picture Oscar. Though animated Oscar-bait pictures are usually much more likely to make money than non-animated ones -- plus lower production costs; theyre running to the bank.
But my point is they don't challenge the medium in any way other than technical. They don't treat it like an art, they treat it like an exercise. All the stories are the same tug-at-your-heartstrings bullshit. Oddly enough, all the stories also have a very anti-human message.
I shall go through this latter part in list format, using the list of Pixar films made, according to wikipedia.
Toy Story, 1995 -- While the conflict is mostly between Buzz and Woody, it is brought up mostly by Andy the human kid's temporary taste in toys. Also, there's the kid next door who terrorizes and destroys all toys, though he would be considered a minor-antagonist. Add in the fact that humans aren't supposed to see the toys move ever, and really any human is an enemy of some kind in this movie.
A Bug's Life, 1998 -- I don't remember anything about this movie. It sucked too much for me. Plus it was a blatant knockoff of Dreamworks' 1998 movie Antz. Funny thing is when Dreamworks goes toe to toe with Pixar on films of comparable quality, Dreamworks usually makes the better film. This is the beginning of this trend. Are people even in this movie? Oh man, that's the most evil of all.
Toy Story 2, 1999 -- Already going into the sequel well on their third effort, the antagonist in this mediocre movie is the toy collector.
Monsters, inc., 2001 -- I don't really remember this movie, but I think the antagonist in this movie was the little kid that runs around the monster city.
Finding Nemo, 2003 -- The main antagonist in this movie is the Sydney dentist (how an ocean clown fish managed to survive the trip from the Great Barrier Reef to Sydney is beyond me). All the oceanic "enemies" were merely plot obstacles (were the jellyfish ever aware of their presence?). It is also one of the first movies to make a dramatic stand against people and what people stand for explicity, criticizing the "stealing" of fish from their natural environments, and really people "invading" upon any oceanic habitat. Also, anyone notice how the final "obstacle" was a fishing boat, of which the fish were at least aware of fishing grounds? Not to mention a clown fish would probably get tossed overboard during the sorting process as by-catch. Also, even though Shark Tales was decidedly mediocre, it was still better than this.
The Incredibles, 2004 -- The antagonist is, at first, the humans who ban superhero activities in public. This is used as a plot device to set up the main antagonist, a normal human who captures and fights superheroes with his robots.
Cars, 2006 -- I could only stand about 5 minutes of this crapfest. Too many awful car puns. Anyways, I don't even think humans exist in the "Cars" universe. What is the purpose of a car's existence then, if not to propel the driver? Thus, existentially, humans are, too, the enemy.
Ratatouille, 2007 -- The enemy in this movie is every human which attempts to stop a single rat's attempts at becoming a chef.
WALL-E, 2008 -- The antagonist in this movie is natural human sloth. As people develop better and better technology, they become lazier and lazier, ultimately turning earth into a trash pile. The robots running the ship realize this, using it as their reason to keep the humans away from earth, even though it can now "support" life. Kung Fu Panda was superior to this film in every single way, even in only the first five minutes.
Up, 2009 -- Never saw it, don't plan on seeing it, but I can bet you there's an indictment against humankind somewhere in there.
Toy Story 3, 2010 -- The third sequel of the Toy Story franchise, it improves upon the second one. Humans exist as the usual background foe, special emphasis placed upon the little kids who destroy and go through toys, not understanding their limits. The main antagonist is mob-boss of the daycare, Lotso Hugs, but all of the conflict in this movie is driven by abandonment issues the toys feel from their human masters.
So there you go, Pixar hates people. I expect a Pixar remake of Soylent Green, rewritten as a feel good story.
-- Knuttel
5.18.2010
THE CHAMPIONS
:cue awful champions league theme song:
I dunno, maybe I don't get it cos I'm not one of those fancy pants European types.
Maybe I don't get it cos I'm also aware of the CONCACAF Champions League, in addition to the UEFA version (I don't think I hear them say UEFA, in either abbreviations or in full during the song).
In any case, I digress.
This Saturday (a step up from last year, when it was Wednesday) Bayern Munich and Internazionale Milan will meet in the Champions League finals. The game will be held in Madrid, Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, the field of Real Madrid.
Real Madrid was, for many decades, a willing acceptor of privileges at the behest of the Franko dictatorship. This means that many of their titles should be considered null and void, or at the very least include asterisks. While many Champions League level teams boast many international studs, the Real Madrid teams that won the first decade of Champions League play was basically the Spanish national squad.
They have played against one another 4 times, twice as a result of being in the same group in the 88-89 UEFA Cup, the other two as a result of being in the same group in the 2006-2007 UEFA Champions League. The record stands as 2 wins for Bayern, 1 win for Inter, 1 draw.
Bayern Munich has won the Champions League 4 times, the last time being 2001, and has been the runner up 3 times.
Internazionale Milan has won the Champions league twice, the last time being in 1965, and has been the runner up another two times. All of these were achieved by using Catenazzio, a strategy that uses boredom to lull the refs, spectators, and sometimes the other team asleep.
Both of these teams are going for the treble, having both won their league titles by points and by the league cup.
Both of these teams are most notable for carrying all time soccer great, legend, and sometimes alter-ego of the Knuttel, Lothar Matthaus, for extended periods of time. Lothar had two stints with Bayern Munich -- 1984-1988, 1992-2000. He had one stint with Internazionale in the meantime -- 1988-1992.
So who wins the game? BREAKDOWN
History in the Champions League final -- Bayern
Geographic proximity to Madrid -- Inter
Tenure of Lothar Matthaus -- Bayern
Not having Marco Matterazi -- Bayern
Goalkeeping -- Inter
Defense -- Bayern (by a hair)
Counter-attack -- Bayern
Mid Field -- Bayern
Forwards -- Inter
Bayern 6 - Inter 3
It is closer than it looks though. This game, by no means, should be a runaway. The stregnths of Bayerns Center defense, attacking outside backs, and midfield should be enough to keep Inter busy. If they can get through, their forwards are better (forwards plural, I do realize Bayern has Klose, just little else), and their more experienced goal keeper should keep Bayern at bay.
As long as the game doesn't devolve into the Cattenazzio that Inter made famous in the 60s, the game should be enjoyable.
-- Knuttel
I dunno, maybe I don't get it cos I'm not one of those fancy pants European types.
Maybe I don't get it cos I'm also aware of the CONCACAF Champions League, in addition to the UEFA version (I don't think I hear them say UEFA, in either abbreviations or in full during the song).
In any case, I digress.
This Saturday (a step up from last year, when it was Wednesday) Bayern Munich and Internazionale Milan will meet in the Champions League finals. The game will be held in Madrid, Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, the field of Real Madrid.
Real Madrid was, for many decades, a willing acceptor of privileges at the behest of the Franko dictatorship. This means that many of their titles should be considered null and void, or at the very least include asterisks. While many Champions League level teams boast many international studs, the Real Madrid teams that won the first decade of Champions League play was basically the Spanish national squad.
They have played against one another 4 times, twice as a result of being in the same group in the 88-89 UEFA Cup, the other two as a result of being in the same group in the 2006-2007 UEFA Champions League. The record stands as 2 wins for Bayern, 1 win for Inter, 1 draw.
Bayern Munich has won the Champions League 4 times, the last time being 2001, and has been the runner up 3 times.
Internazionale Milan has won the Champions league twice, the last time being in 1965, and has been the runner up another two times. All of these were achieved by using Catenazzio, a strategy that uses boredom to lull the refs, spectators, and sometimes the other team asleep.
Both of these teams are going for the treble, having both won their league titles by points and by the league cup.
Both of these teams are most notable for carrying all time soccer great, legend, and sometimes alter-ego of the Knuttel, Lothar Matthaus, for extended periods of time. Lothar had two stints with Bayern Munich -- 1984-1988, 1992-2000. He had one stint with Internazionale in the meantime -- 1988-1992.
So who wins the game? BREAKDOWN
History in the Champions League final -- Bayern
Geographic proximity to Madrid -- Inter
Tenure of Lothar Matthaus -- Bayern
Not having Marco Matterazi -- Bayern
Goalkeeping -- Inter
Defense -- Bayern (by a hair)
Counter-attack -- Bayern
Mid Field -- Bayern
Forwards -- Inter
Bayern 6 - Inter 3
It is closer than it looks though. This game, by no means, should be a runaway. The stregnths of Bayerns Center defense, attacking outside backs, and midfield should be enough to keep Inter busy. If they can get through, their forwards are better (forwards plural, I do realize Bayern has Klose, just little else), and their more experienced goal keeper should keep Bayern at bay.
As long as the game doesn't devolve into the Cattenazzio that Inter made famous in the 60s, the game should be enjoyable.
-- Knuttel
4.04.2010
The Aesthetics of Music
Genres of music, I have found, are more often divided by their aesthetic than by their actual sound. Oddly enough, this proves to be more useful, as using the combination of sound with the aesthetics creates a more encompassing and complete definition of a particular style of music as an actual cultural movement or event.
Case in point -- hair metal is not metal.
Aesthetically, there are no similarities at all. Musically, there are distorted guitars, which also exist in other types of music. Culturally there is the lifestyle of debauchery, which while sometimes associated with metal, is really more indicative of the successes of popular music in general.
Its insistence that it is part of the metal scene bugs me to no end.
Let me put it this way. In America in the 1980s, there was mainly two styles of "metal" -- hair metal and thrash metal. Put on any Metallica/Megadeth/Anthrax/Slayer/Exodus/Testament album from 1982-1990 and compare it to the output of bands like Motley Crue and Poison from the same time period.
They are clearly not of the same genre, no matter how you look at it. Even with all of the wide encompassing definitions of metal music, hair metal is not metal.
The way I see it, metal is a type of music defined by a lack of comfort. It's loaded with dissonance and distortion, sometimes syncopation and staccato. It's meant to keep you on edge. Thematically, in fact, the lyrics are often on edge. Hair metal is the exact opposite of that. Not only is the music "comfortable" but it is often about getting more "comfort".
And again, radio has ruined the definition. The only kind of metal which regularly gets played on the radio is hair metal. The only thrash band that gets played is really Metallica, and even then its mostly their 90s rock stuff. Megadeth, really only the song "trust" in the year 1998 or whatever; Anthrax and Slayer, forget about it, unless some dude's been bugging the dj for about a week. And then besides that, really only the "classics", like Sabbath (but only the album Paranoid) or Zepellin (more of the classic rocky stuff, less of the metal stuff).
I could probably rant on this for alot longer, but im pretty tired. fuck. damn hair metal.
Now for some real fucking metal (pete, I don't think you can see these videos on buzz)
-- Knuttel
Case in point -- hair metal is not metal.
Aesthetically, there are no similarities at all. Musically, there are distorted guitars, which also exist in other types of music. Culturally there is the lifestyle of debauchery, which while sometimes associated with metal, is really more indicative of the successes of popular music in general.
Its insistence that it is part of the metal scene bugs me to no end.
Let me put it this way. In America in the 1980s, there was mainly two styles of "metal" -- hair metal and thrash metal. Put on any Metallica/Megadeth/Anthrax/Slayer/Exodus/Testament album from 1982-1990 and compare it to the output of bands like Motley Crue and Poison from the same time period.
They are clearly not of the same genre, no matter how you look at it. Even with all of the wide encompassing definitions of metal music, hair metal is not metal.
The way I see it, metal is a type of music defined by a lack of comfort. It's loaded with dissonance and distortion, sometimes syncopation and staccato. It's meant to keep you on edge. Thematically, in fact, the lyrics are often on edge. Hair metal is the exact opposite of that. Not only is the music "comfortable" but it is often about getting more "comfort".
And again, radio has ruined the definition. The only kind of metal which regularly gets played on the radio is hair metal. The only thrash band that gets played is really Metallica, and even then its mostly their 90s rock stuff. Megadeth, really only the song "trust" in the year 1998 or whatever; Anthrax and Slayer, forget about it, unless some dude's been bugging the dj for about a week. And then besides that, really only the "classics", like Sabbath (but only the album Paranoid) or Zepellin (more of the classic rocky stuff, less of the metal stuff).
I could probably rant on this for alot longer, but im pretty tired. fuck. damn hair metal.
Now for some real fucking metal (pete, I don't think you can see these videos on buzz)
-- Knuttel
3.08.2010
Film: The Final Frontier
So I recently took it upon myself to watch the first six "Star Trek" movies, you know the ones that starred the cast from TOS (the original series). Seven featured Kirk, and maybe a few others, but that was a handoff, largely dominated by the cast of TNG (the next generation).
god that sounds nerdy.
Moving on.
I skipped 1 cos it sucks. Oh noes, an alien probe?! Oh wait, the V'ger is really the Voyager space probe? Let me mind meld with it! Expendable captain, please sacrifice yourself for it.
Moving on.
Star Trek 2 is awesome. The Wrath Of Khan is basically a pirate movie in space, and is such an awesome movie, it should have legitimately been considered for many "real" awards, but alas it was both a sequel and sci fi. Plus, who could say no to Ricardo Montalban? One of the greatest lines in all of moviedom (well actually one, followed by the other.) Must see.
Classic.
Star Trek 3. There's not much to love, but there's also not much to hate. Oh wait, where did Kirstey Alley go? Irrelevant. Cheeseburger habits are demanding on the paycheck. Anyways, who knew Christopher Lloyd would get his break as a Klingon? FUN FACT: Christopher Lloyd's character in The Search For Spock has the same name as his character from Santa Buddies (so no, it's not a nod to A Christmas Carol (Kruge and Cruge), it's a nod to Star Trek).
Star Trek 4. Widely regarded as the Star Trek non-Star Trek fans like, it's ok. It also serves as one of the cornerstones of my knowledge of aquatic life, along with Free Willie, Jaws, and Moby Dick. The plot mainly revolves around stealing whales from the mom from "Seventh Heaven". Oh, I should mention they travelled back in time for this to happen, to San Francisco of the 1980s. Highlights include Scotty talking into a computer mouse and Chekov asking for "nuclear wessels". The funniest part is The Journey Home is really a reworking of Star Trek 1, in the larger general plot (unknown space probe travels through the galaxy and destroys a bunch of stuff, except this time it sounds like its trying to communicate with whales). To top it off, the overt political message about whale hunting comes off as tacked on. Whatevs, gotta nuke something.
Star Trek 5. For what it's worth, it's not awful. It basically is everything you'd expect Star Trek to be. Crazy Prophet takes over the Enterprise, turns out to be Spock's half brother, and wants to go to the center of the galaxy to find god.
I wish I was making that up. All things said, The Final Frontier was about as good as it could be, especially with Shatner directing it.
Star Trek 6. A whodunit in space, with waaaaaaay too much Shakespeare, for space. You mean you've never read Hamlet in its original Klignon? Also, it turns out it was the slutty one from "sex and the city" who ruined everything for everyone. Highlights include seeing Christopher Plummer and the dad from "that 70s show" as Klignons. Also the Undiscovered Country doesn't actually exist. It's just a mediocre metaphor for the future. The only highlight is a scene where Shatner fights a shapeshifter who shifted into Shatner. Shatner fighting Shatner. It's almost as good as Shatner fighting the Gorn in "The Arena".
So yeah. Not a waste of time. Just watch 2, 3, and 4 (which happen directly consecutively, and thus kinda make up a trilogy, though 5 happens not long after that.....). I recommend avoiding 1 and 6 at all costs though.
-- Knuttel
maybe later I'll do 7-10. 8 is the only one I can really say if it's good or not (and it's awesome, perhaps better than 2). Why did they never make a movie with the DS9 cast? Whatevs.
god that sounds nerdy.
Moving on.
I skipped 1 cos it sucks. Oh noes, an alien probe?! Oh wait, the V'ger is really the Voyager space probe? Let me mind meld with it! Expendable captain, please sacrifice yourself for it.
Moving on.
Star Trek 2 is awesome. The Wrath Of Khan is basically a pirate movie in space, and is such an awesome movie, it should have legitimately been considered for many "real" awards, but alas it was both a sequel and sci fi. Plus, who could say no to Ricardo Montalban? One of the greatest lines in all of moviedom (well actually one, followed by the other.) Must see.
Classic.
Star Trek 3. There's not much to love, but there's also not much to hate. Oh wait, where did Kirstey Alley go? Irrelevant. Cheeseburger habits are demanding on the paycheck. Anyways, who knew Christopher Lloyd would get his break as a Klingon? FUN FACT: Christopher Lloyd's character in The Search For Spock has the same name as his character from Santa Buddies (so no, it's not a nod to A Christmas Carol (Kruge and Cruge), it's a nod to Star Trek).
Star Trek 4. Widely regarded as the Star Trek non-Star Trek fans like, it's ok. It also serves as one of the cornerstones of my knowledge of aquatic life, along with Free Willie, Jaws, and Moby Dick. The plot mainly revolves around stealing whales from the mom from "Seventh Heaven". Oh, I should mention they travelled back in time for this to happen, to San Francisco of the 1980s. Highlights include Scotty talking into a computer mouse and Chekov asking for "nuclear wessels". The funniest part is The Journey Home is really a reworking of Star Trek 1, in the larger general plot (unknown space probe travels through the galaxy and destroys a bunch of stuff, except this time it sounds like its trying to communicate with whales). To top it off, the overt political message about whale hunting comes off as tacked on. Whatevs, gotta nuke something.
Star Trek 5. For what it's worth, it's not awful. It basically is everything you'd expect Star Trek to be. Crazy Prophet takes over the Enterprise, turns out to be Spock's half brother, and wants to go to the center of the galaxy to find god.
I wish I was making that up. All things said, The Final Frontier was about as good as it could be, especially with Shatner directing it.
Star Trek 6. A whodunit in space, with waaaaaaay too much Shakespeare, for space. You mean you've never read Hamlet in its original Klignon? Also, it turns out it was the slutty one from "sex and the city" who ruined everything for everyone. Highlights include seeing Christopher Plummer and the dad from "that 70s show" as Klignons. Also the Undiscovered Country doesn't actually exist. It's just a mediocre metaphor for the future. The only highlight is a scene where Shatner fights a shapeshifter who shifted into Shatner. Shatner fighting Shatner. It's almost as good as Shatner fighting the Gorn in "The Arena".
So yeah. Not a waste of time. Just watch 2, 3, and 4 (which happen directly consecutively, and thus kinda make up a trilogy, though 5 happens not long after that.....). I recommend avoiding 1 and 6 at all costs though.
-- Knuttel
maybe later I'll do 7-10. 8 is the only one I can really say if it's good or not (and it's awesome, perhaps better than 2). Why did they never make a movie with the DS9 cast? Whatevs.
Feel Good-umentaries
What has happened to documentaries?
I realize that nothing can ever be truly objective, even the simple presentation of facts is always filtered by the mind which organizes them. But does every single modern documentary have to simply go for an emotional response?
OK, so not all the oscar winners and nominees were feel good stories, but the fact remains that they were all emotional. Even the documentary Food Inc., while producing a lot of fact filled moments and tried earnestly to expose wrongful practices of the large food industry, spent many many moments on emotional pieces, which usually didn't add anything major to the story.
In addition to this, The documentary awards (short and long) are often seen as a reflection of issues that hollywood, or the academy, care(s) about.
And so the winner for long documentary was a fluff piece (The Cove) about the Japanese practice of eating dolphins (and whales), and some of their methods of hunting. Sure, I don't personally agree with the eating of these animals, but I also come from a society where this is certainly not the norm, and really isn't accepted either. In Japan, there is a long history and tradition of eating these creatures, much like there is a tradition for them to eat other creatures of the sea. Japan is a series of islands, with alot of coastline, and not alot of land. It makes perfect sense they'd turn to the sea for sustinence. Alas, I digress. Possibly the thing that irks me the most about it is they don't have any regard at all for what Japan thinks of it. A good chunk of the movie was about how the locals were opposed to this film and how difficult it was for this film crew to get this message across to the world. (Good for you, thanks). OK, maybe the methods of hunting they use aren't that "humane", but frankly what is humane hunting anyway. These are probably the same idiots that want the deer population to starve themselves to death rather than get hunted down, cos it's natural -- nevermind that their natural predators haven't been in most of these areas for over 100 years. Goddamnit, I digress again.
Really the makers of this film come off as more ignorant than the people they're trying to portray. Even the title (The Cove) implies this is a secret and dirty act they are doing, and this is the only place this happens, and we, as responsible members of this western world, must be the ones to stop it.
It's like if a film crew went to Mexico to make a documentary about how the people are savages, making tacos instead of hamburgers.
What about Eskimo hunting? Is that OK? They hunt all sorts of sea mammals (which I'm assuming is the criteria for making this evil, being mammal). I can just imagine one of the producers trying to talk to an Inuit -- "Don't you know you can get all your protein sources from Soy and Soy byproducts? Where's your nearest Wholefoods?" "Geeeee, Thaaaaaaanks."
Like I said in my previous post, it's this total lack of self-awareness that makes the academy awards watchable.
Moral arguments are always the worst, simply because they lack universality. The world is not black and white, and fuck if it's always shaded in gray.
"Good sir, can you show me to that place where sea lions ride the waves to the shore?"
--Ok, one more picture. That's it, I swear.
Terrifying.
Anyways, onto the short documentary.
It got Kanye'd. Haha. It happens at the MTV awards, chalk it up to the zany nature. It happens at the academy awards? You betta bet there was some monocle droppage.
I'll try and put this together as fairly as possible. The documentary that won was about a woman in Africa who suffers from natural disfigurement, making her "tainted by witchcraft" amongst locals, that sings in a band, and to a lesser extent her band, who also suffer from deformities. There were originally two people involved in the direction/shooting of this short documentary or whatever, and naturally they had different ideas on what the direction was to be (oh, so that's what a director does). Anyways, one director wanted it to be about the woman, the other wanted it to be about the band. The one who wanted it to be about the woman won, and finished the movie listed as the director, and thus the recipient of the award. The other person, having contributed, managed to keep a role as producer in the credits, though largely maintained a position of disowning the film. The movie wins, and the director walks up and gives a speech. The other person crashes through (apparently to the protest of the director's 90 some year old mother, hah) and runs up, interrupts the speech only a few short words into it, and doesn't let the other dude finish.
So let me rephrase that. The director, who's documentary was his vision, gets cut out of his own acceptance speech by the partner who only the day prior had pretty much disowned any attachment to the project.
At least Beyonce was nominated for an award when the proceedings were interrupted on her behalf; and its probably less emotionally jarring for this to happen to a middle aged man than to an 18 year old girl.
BTW, last time a "major" motion picture, and not an "independent" film won best picture was only a few years ago with The Departed (2006). And possibly one of the "largest" films ever made, Return of the King (2003) has won recently, and blockbusters simply dominated in the late 90s. So, even with an expanded field, the academy can't pick one of its own major studio films to win the best picture award. Wow. I really question a lot here, but I'll leave this as it is.
You guys got enough pictures, no video.
-- Knuttel
I realize that nothing can ever be truly objective, even the simple presentation of facts is always filtered by the mind which organizes them. But does every single modern documentary have to simply go for an emotional response?
OK, so not all the oscar winners and nominees were feel good stories, but the fact remains that they were all emotional. Even the documentary Food Inc., while producing a lot of fact filled moments and tried earnestly to expose wrongful practices of the large food industry, spent many many moments on emotional pieces, which usually didn't add anything major to the story.
In addition to this, The documentary awards (short and long) are often seen as a reflection of issues that hollywood, or the academy, care(s) about.
And so the winner for long documentary was a fluff piece (The Cove) about the Japanese practice of eating dolphins (and whales), and some of their methods of hunting. Sure, I don't personally agree with the eating of these animals, but I also come from a society where this is certainly not the norm, and really isn't accepted either. In Japan, there is a long history and tradition of eating these creatures, much like there is a tradition for them to eat other creatures of the sea. Japan is a series of islands, with alot of coastline, and not alot of land. It makes perfect sense they'd turn to the sea for sustinence. Alas, I digress. Possibly the thing that irks me the most about it is they don't have any regard at all for what Japan thinks of it. A good chunk of the movie was about how the locals were opposed to this film and how difficult it was for this film crew to get this message across to the world. (Good for you, thanks). OK, maybe the methods of hunting they use aren't that "humane", but frankly what is humane hunting anyway. These are probably the same idiots that want the deer population to starve themselves to death rather than get hunted down, cos it's natural -- nevermind that their natural predators haven't been in most of these areas for over 100 years. Goddamnit, I digress again.
Really the makers of this film come off as more ignorant than the people they're trying to portray. Even the title (The Cove) implies this is a secret and dirty act they are doing, and this is the only place this happens, and we, as responsible members of this western world, must be the ones to stop it.
It's like if a film crew went to Mexico to make a documentary about how the people are savages, making tacos instead of hamburgers.
What about Eskimo hunting? Is that OK? They hunt all sorts of sea mammals (which I'm assuming is the criteria for making this evil, being mammal). I can just imagine one of the producers trying to talk to an Inuit -- "Don't you know you can get all your protein sources from Soy and Soy byproducts? Where's your nearest Wholefoods?" "Geeeee, Thaaaaaaanks."
Like I said in my previous post, it's this total lack of self-awareness that makes the academy awards watchable.
Moral arguments are always the worst, simply because they lack universality. The world is not black and white, and fuck if it's always shaded in gray.
"Good sir, can you show me to that place where sea lions ride the waves to the shore?"
--Ok, one more picture. That's it, I swear.
Terrifying.
Anyways, onto the short documentary.
It got Kanye'd. Haha. It happens at the MTV awards, chalk it up to the zany nature. It happens at the academy awards? You betta bet there was some monocle droppage.
I'll try and put this together as fairly as possible. The documentary that won was about a woman in Africa who suffers from natural disfigurement, making her "tainted by witchcraft" amongst locals, that sings in a band, and to a lesser extent her band, who also suffer from deformities. There were originally two people involved in the direction/shooting of this short documentary or whatever, and naturally they had different ideas on what the direction was to be (oh, so that's what a director does). Anyways, one director wanted it to be about the woman, the other wanted it to be about the band. The one who wanted it to be about the woman won, and finished the movie listed as the director, and thus the recipient of the award. The other person, having contributed, managed to keep a role as producer in the credits, though largely maintained a position of disowning the film. The movie wins, and the director walks up and gives a speech. The other person crashes through (apparently to the protest of the director's 90 some year old mother, hah) and runs up, interrupts the speech only a few short words into it, and doesn't let the other dude finish.
So let me rephrase that. The director, who's documentary was his vision, gets cut out of his own acceptance speech by the partner who only the day prior had pretty much disowned any attachment to the project.
At least Beyonce was nominated for an award when the proceedings were interrupted on her behalf; and its probably less emotionally jarring for this to happen to a middle aged man than to an 18 year old girl.
BTW, last time a "major" motion picture, and not an "independent" film won best picture was only a few years ago with The Departed (2006). And possibly one of the "largest" films ever made, Return of the King (2003) has won recently, and blockbusters simply dominated in the late 90s. So, even with an expanded field, the academy can't pick one of its own major studio films to win the best picture award. Wow. I really question a lot here, but I'll leave this as it is.
You guys got enough pictures, no video.
-- Knuttel
3.07.2010
Knuttel Watches The Academy Awards On An Hour Or Two Tape Delay
Sometimes I question why I do things. Sometimes, whatevs.
So why am I watching these awards if I have been such an outspoken critic of them and their relevance? Simple. It's such a large exercise in auto-fellation, that you just sit on the edge of your seat, waiting for that moment when something goes wrong, metaphorically when either that one muscle gets pulled, or if one flinches and bites. That is why.
That being said, I really don't care about who wins or any of that. I want to see just how self-indulgent these proceedings happen to be.
I know they expanded the "Best picture" award to 10 movies to try and incorporate more of the mainstream blockbuster movies.
But that's not the awards I know or want to see. I want to see the complete lack of shame or self awareness that caused them to expand the field to 10 pictures.
Will they be snorting the bones of third world orphans? One can hope.
Will any "genre" films get any of the big awards? Hah. The only genre that ever gets any of the big awards is the oscar bait genre itself. (Yes, it is its own genre).
And what's with all this genre bullshit anyways? And really you can't pin this on me for making a big deal about genre shit. They should've gotten their due as it arises. But no. Whatevs. Shits in the past, can't be changed, and it likely won't get resolved in the future.
I always go by this guideline -- 90% of everything (musically, literary, cinematically) is shit. 90% of drama, 90% of comedy, 90% of sci fi, 90% of metal, 90% of jazz, 90% of rap, 90% of romance, etc and so on. You get the picture.
So why are these mediocre movies getting all the pub and awards, when Star Trek doesn't even get nominated for best adapted screenplay?
Whatevs. I'll watch my movies, academy, and you can return to your ivory tower of neckbeard academia.
-- Knuttel
P.S. Best ever Movie Song. Doubt it was nominated.
So why am I watching these awards if I have been such an outspoken critic of them and their relevance? Simple. It's such a large exercise in auto-fellation, that you just sit on the edge of your seat, waiting for that moment when something goes wrong, metaphorically when either that one muscle gets pulled, or if one flinches and bites. That is why.
That being said, I really don't care about who wins or any of that. I want to see just how self-indulgent these proceedings happen to be.
I know they expanded the "Best picture" award to 10 movies to try and incorporate more of the mainstream blockbuster movies.
But that's not the awards I know or want to see. I want to see the complete lack of shame or self awareness that caused them to expand the field to 10 pictures.
Will they be snorting the bones of third world orphans? One can hope.
Will any "genre" films get any of the big awards? Hah. The only genre that ever gets any of the big awards is the oscar bait genre itself. (Yes, it is its own genre).
And what's with all this genre bullshit anyways? And really you can't pin this on me for making a big deal about genre shit. They should've gotten their due as it arises. But no. Whatevs. Shits in the past, can't be changed, and it likely won't get resolved in the future.
I always go by this guideline -- 90% of everything (musically, literary, cinematically) is shit. 90% of drama, 90% of comedy, 90% of sci fi, 90% of metal, 90% of jazz, 90% of rap, 90% of romance, etc and so on. You get the picture.
So why are these mediocre movies getting all the pub and awards, when Star Trek doesn't even get nominated for best adapted screenplay?
Whatevs. I'll watch my movies, academy, and you can return to your ivory tower of neckbeard academia.
-- Knuttel
P.S. Best ever Movie Song. Doubt it was nominated.
3.05.2010
Is Knuttel Really Talking About Tim Burton?
So Tim Burton has another re-make coming out soon. And it stars his usual cast, and I'm also going to presume Elfman is doing the score.
What should one make of his career?
He's spent virtually all of his career doing re-makes of one sort or another, and almost all of them are incredibly stylistically similar. So stylistically similar I often make the bad joke "I liked Edward Scissorhands the first time I saw it."
Basically every film he's done has either had a mid-20th century (50s-ish) or cheapened Victorian feel. Adding the 50s bit really makes it to include all of his films. The Victorian imagery style he uses is so gaudy and while stylistically true, so uncharacteristically Victorian, it just seems to cheapen the whole 19th century. I'd imagine many a steampunk enthusiast to abhor the coming of a Tim Burton film.
It's like he caught in some sort of permanent suburban mailaise, imagining up places he's never been, in a time he never will be a part of, with all the money Hollywood can throw at him.
I always thought it was a demand we have of our "artists" (something I'd always assume a good filmmaker to be) to progress with their work, or at the very least to not stand still. One must move about and explore. What can the medium do, what can it not do, where should we go, are there places we should refrain from going? These are questions one must ask. And no, "but it's in 3D" does not yet fully count unless one is really planning on exploring the medium (I heard Cameron did this in Avatar, but I don't have much interest in seeing it). As of now, I still see it as an expensive Hollywood excercise in survival.
Another note, something with which I disagree with him almost unequivocally -- Just because something is strange, bizarre, or even trippy does not mean that it is dark and possibly brooding. This trait of his has seemingly gotten worse in recent years, possibly due to the rise of emo music mid decade.
Even so, how can one say the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the original Planet of the Apes were not dark. Darkness is very much often hid amongst the light. In fact, the early music of Black Sabbath pretty much defined that sentance. Everyone remembers "Iron Man" and "Paranoid", but what about "Planet Caravan", "Laguna Sunrise", "Changes", and even "NIB" (which has a very positive message actually).
Maybe I'm just angry he lacks the proper respect one should have for an audience. He never challenges it, he simply expects them to show up when the time comes, hand over money to see his movie and possibly buy paraphanelia, and until then drool over press releases from the set.
-- Knuttel
What should one make of his career?
He's spent virtually all of his career doing re-makes of one sort or another, and almost all of them are incredibly stylistically similar. So stylistically similar I often make the bad joke "I liked Edward Scissorhands the first time I saw it."
Basically every film he's done has either had a mid-20th century (50s-ish) or cheapened Victorian feel. Adding the 50s bit really makes it to include all of his films. The Victorian imagery style he uses is so gaudy and while stylistically true, so uncharacteristically Victorian, it just seems to cheapen the whole 19th century. I'd imagine many a steampunk enthusiast to abhor the coming of a Tim Burton film.
It's like he caught in some sort of permanent suburban mailaise, imagining up places he's never been, in a time he never will be a part of, with all the money Hollywood can throw at him.
I always thought it was a demand we have of our "artists" (something I'd always assume a good filmmaker to be) to progress with their work, or at the very least to not stand still. One must move about and explore. What can the medium do, what can it not do, where should we go, are there places we should refrain from going? These are questions one must ask. And no, "but it's in 3D" does not yet fully count unless one is really planning on exploring the medium (I heard Cameron did this in Avatar, but I don't have much interest in seeing it). As of now, I still see it as an expensive Hollywood excercise in survival.
Another note, something with which I disagree with him almost unequivocally -- Just because something is strange, bizarre, or even trippy does not mean that it is dark and possibly brooding. This trait of his has seemingly gotten worse in recent years, possibly due to the rise of emo music mid decade.
Even so, how can one say the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the original Planet of the Apes were not dark. Darkness is very much often hid amongst the light. In fact, the early music of Black Sabbath pretty much defined that sentance. Everyone remembers "Iron Man" and "Paranoid", but what about "Planet Caravan", "Laguna Sunrise", "Changes", and even "NIB" (which has a very positive message actually).
Maybe I'm just angry he lacks the proper respect one should have for an audience. He never challenges it, he simply expects them to show up when the time comes, hand over money to see his movie and possibly buy paraphanelia, and until then drool over press releases from the set.
-- Knuttel
10.31.2009
World Series Preview, 2 games in
Well, the series is tied, so just consider it a new start
breakdown by positions
1B
Phillies - Ryan Howard -- Most powerful hitter in either lineup. His hits and rbis also come at very valuable times. He's slimmed down and gotten more fit, his defense is no longer in question
Yankees - Mark Texeira -- Power hitter, but not super powerful. Very good defensive first baseman.
advantage - Phillies
2B
Phillies - Chase Utley -- One of the strongest 2B's in all of MLB. Good defensively. Has a ridiculously good stealing percentage.
Yankees - Robinson Cano -- Good with the bat. Not a very good defensive 2B
advantage - Phillies
SS
Phillies - Jimmy Rollins -- Streaky hitter, but has good power for a leadoff hitter. Doesn't get on base consistently. Overall good defense and range. Can steal a base when he needs to.
Yankees - Derek Jeter -- Doesn't have the defensive range he once had. Defense was never really his strong suit. Reliable leadoff hitter and comes up with hits in clutch situations.
advantage - push
3B
Phillies - Pedro Feliz -- Good defensively. Came up with clutch hits in last year's world series. Hasn't done much this post-season.
Yankees - Alex Rodriguez -- Former short stop, so good defensively. Power hitter. Has 2 paintings of himself as a centaur hanging over his bed. Has had a strong post-season so far, after a history of poor post-seasons. (cheating -- has struck out like a demon in the world series so far)
advantage - yankees
Corner infield - advantage - yankees
Middle infield - advantage - phillies
Outfield
Phillies
Shane Victorino -- has been silent offensively most of the season, but may be the fastest baserunner on either side and has decent power too. Can take bad routes to the ball in the air, but has explosive speed and a cannon for an arm.
Raul Ibanez -- Started off season on fire at the plate. Cooled down, but still good with the bat. Better than he seems on defense, but still a likely candidate when looking for a DH.
Jayson Werth -- One of baseball's best kept secrets. Made his first all-star game this year. Powerful righty has made his way into the heart of the lineup. Solid on defense, strong arm.
Ben Francisco -- Ibanez's defensive replacement. Has picked up offensively since going to Phillies. Good right handed bat off the bench for replacement or pinch hitting.
Yankees
Melke Cabrera -- The lesser of the Cabreras. Decent bat. Mediocre defensive abilities for a center fielder.
Johnny Damon -- Former center fielder, so knows which route to take to the ball. Lost leadoff hitting spot to Jeter soon after joining the Yankees. Jeter was never a natural leadoff hitter. Lost a step or two in age. Has a weak throwing arm.
Nick Swisher -- Average defensive abilities for an outfielder. Doesn't have to cover much ground at Yankee Stadium. Not bad throwing arm. Decent hitter, except when it counts.
Jerry Hairston jr -- Is he really in the majors? Not very good defense. Mediocre offense.
Advantage -- Phillies, both CF and corner
Starting Pitching
Phillies
Cliff Lee -- Been Lights out entire post-season. I really dont see any flaws here. Only thing I count against him is he's pitching game one, at Yankee stadium, where he won't be able to take advantage of his hitting.
Pedro Martinez -- Pitches well in big situations better than anyone. Stuff isn't as fast as it once was, and he probably won't be able to throw as many pitches either.
Joe Blanton -- Most consistent pitcher for the Phillies all season. Also one of the few righty's that starts, oddly.
Cole Hamels -- Was lights out last post-season. a bit of an enigma this post season. had a dissappointing season by his standards.
JA Happ -- likely NL rookie of the year. Had a good year, but inexperience could catch up to him.
Yankees
CC Sabbathia -- needs to lose weight. seriously, the dude is huge. Can lose his head quickly, but has good stuff overall.
AJ Burnett -- Breaking ball pitcher. When his stuff breaks right, he's unhittable. When it doesn't it's batting practice.
advantage -- Phillies. to be honest i just don't know a ton about yankees pitching
Bullpen
Phillies -- good setup men, if Lidge can keep his head on, he's unhittable, has an ungodly slider that breaks more than most pitcher's curveballs.
Yankees -- shaky in the set up. If they can get to mariano rivera though, the game is over. He's virtually unhittable or unshakable.
advantage -- push
So there's my 2 games in preview of the world series.
yeah, i know i forgot Catcher, manager, and bench/dh, but to be honest, the penn state game is on, and i have to catch it.
-- Knuttel
now for some helmet
breakdown by positions
1B
Phillies - Ryan Howard -- Most powerful hitter in either lineup. His hits and rbis also come at very valuable times. He's slimmed down and gotten more fit, his defense is no longer in question
Yankees - Mark Texeira -- Power hitter, but not super powerful. Very good defensive first baseman.
advantage - Phillies
2B
Phillies - Chase Utley -- One of the strongest 2B's in all of MLB. Good defensively. Has a ridiculously good stealing percentage.
Yankees - Robinson Cano -- Good with the bat. Not a very good defensive 2B
advantage - Phillies
SS
Phillies - Jimmy Rollins -- Streaky hitter, but has good power for a leadoff hitter. Doesn't get on base consistently. Overall good defense and range. Can steal a base when he needs to.
Yankees - Derek Jeter -- Doesn't have the defensive range he once had. Defense was never really his strong suit. Reliable leadoff hitter and comes up with hits in clutch situations.
advantage - push
3B
Phillies - Pedro Feliz -- Good defensively. Came up with clutch hits in last year's world series. Hasn't done much this post-season.
Yankees - Alex Rodriguez -- Former short stop, so good defensively. Power hitter. Has 2 paintings of himself as a centaur hanging over his bed. Has had a strong post-season so far, after a history of poor post-seasons. (cheating -- has struck out like a demon in the world series so far)
advantage - yankees
Corner infield - advantage - yankees
Middle infield - advantage - phillies
Outfield
Phillies
Shane Victorino -- has been silent offensively most of the season, but may be the fastest baserunner on either side and has decent power too. Can take bad routes to the ball in the air, but has explosive speed and a cannon for an arm.
Raul Ibanez -- Started off season on fire at the plate. Cooled down, but still good with the bat. Better than he seems on defense, but still a likely candidate when looking for a DH.
Jayson Werth -- One of baseball's best kept secrets. Made his first all-star game this year. Powerful righty has made his way into the heart of the lineup. Solid on defense, strong arm.
Ben Francisco -- Ibanez's defensive replacement. Has picked up offensively since going to Phillies. Good right handed bat off the bench for replacement or pinch hitting.
Yankees
Melke Cabrera -- The lesser of the Cabreras. Decent bat. Mediocre defensive abilities for a center fielder.
Johnny Damon -- Former center fielder, so knows which route to take to the ball. Lost leadoff hitting spot to Jeter soon after joining the Yankees. Jeter was never a natural leadoff hitter. Lost a step or two in age. Has a weak throwing arm.
Nick Swisher -- Average defensive abilities for an outfielder. Doesn't have to cover much ground at Yankee Stadium. Not bad throwing arm. Decent hitter, except when it counts.
Jerry Hairston jr -- Is he really in the majors? Not very good defense. Mediocre offense.
Advantage -- Phillies, both CF and corner
Starting Pitching
Phillies
Cliff Lee -- Been Lights out entire post-season. I really dont see any flaws here. Only thing I count against him is he's pitching game one, at Yankee stadium, where he won't be able to take advantage of his hitting.
Pedro Martinez -- Pitches well in big situations better than anyone. Stuff isn't as fast as it once was, and he probably won't be able to throw as many pitches either.
Joe Blanton -- Most consistent pitcher for the Phillies all season. Also one of the few righty's that starts, oddly.
Cole Hamels -- Was lights out last post-season. a bit of an enigma this post season. had a dissappointing season by his standards.
JA Happ -- likely NL rookie of the year. Had a good year, but inexperience could catch up to him.
Yankees
CC Sabbathia -- needs to lose weight. seriously, the dude is huge. Can lose his head quickly, but has good stuff overall.
AJ Burnett -- Breaking ball pitcher. When his stuff breaks right, he's unhittable. When it doesn't it's batting practice.
advantage -- Phillies. to be honest i just don't know a ton about yankees pitching
Bullpen
Phillies -- good setup men, if Lidge can keep his head on, he's unhittable, has an ungodly slider that breaks more than most pitcher's curveballs.
Yankees -- shaky in the set up. If they can get to mariano rivera though, the game is over. He's virtually unhittable or unshakable.
advantage -- push
So there's my 2 games in preview of the world series.
yeah, i know i forgot Catcher, manager, and bench/dh, but to be honest, the penn state game is on, and i have to catch it.
-- Knuttel
now for some helmet
7.03.2009
Lady GaGa "The Fame" : a review
"Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss.
Her lips suck forth my soul: see where it flies.
Come, Helen, give me my soul again."
The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus [V.2.191-199]
The glitz and glamor of every visual aspect of Lady GaGa is deliberately over the top, and for that very reason so very attention grabbing and stunning. But physical imagery does not a good album make.
So you get rid of that, and what do you have? Incredibly catchy pop songs with hooks that dig into you for days. But we've all known catchy pop songs that deliver nothing save empty sing-alongs.
So what happens when you get rid of that too?
You get one of the most well written and thought out albums of recent history.
She has said the album is about how anyone can be famous. Alas, that statement sells the album short. Really, it is a modern pop Faustian tale of selling ones soul and spiritual well being for untold amounts of fame and material well being. Frequently the lyrics cite the need to decide between whether to have love or fame -- specifically in the songs "Lovegame", "Beautiful Dirty Rich", and "Paparazzi", "Paparazzi" even going so far as to make it explicitly clear in the music video (really short movie) this point of not being able to have both (her "lover" sells her out to the papparazi who are hiding in the bushes around their house and he proceeds to push her over the edge of the deck to a nasty injury because she wouldn't cooperate and pose for the pictures while in their disingenuous love tangle).
Faust aside, the songs stand on their own and use very expressive and imaginative metaphors and verbal imagery. At first glance "Just Dance" is about dancing when you're drunk, but it suggests a much deeper struggle to hold onto that one fleeting moment of glory, even when it's since become impossible. "Poker Face" uses the imagery of gambling and bluffing to convey a standoff between two people who are possibly trying to proposition eachother but don't want to give anything away. "Lovegame" complicates this theme by adding a tinge of desparation.
Additionally, the album seems to take a sort of emblematic approach to this (our, GaGa included) generation, demanding entitlement to certain perks and privelages, not necessarily ready to deal with the responsibilities that go along with it. The rise and fall of American Youth never sounded so sweet.
And that's the other thing; musically, this album is very sound. Synths are nothing new, but they never seem over done. Alot of the songs use unorthodox structures, yet none of them really seem that odd or off, thus being subversively progressive and avant garde. Regrettably there is autotune on some of the songs, but it's confined to B-tracks that will likely not be released as singles, and seems to be done solely as an experiment. She doesn't really need it anyway, as several of the songs show off her vocal chops. In other words, where there is autotuning, it is deliberately to make that robot sound, not just some dude screaming into a mike and then changing it around afterwards to sound goofy.
All things said -- this is a fundamentally solid album by a talented songwriter with the hooks and imagery to take it really far. Here's hoping for a successful follow up.
A
-- Knuttel
Her lips suck forth my soul: see where it flies.
Come, Helen, give me my soul again."
The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus [V.2.191-199]
The glitz and glamor of every visual aspect of Lady GaGa is deliberately over the top, and for that very reason so very attention grabbing and stunning. But physical imagery does not a good album make.
So you get rid of that, and what do you have? Incredibly catchy pop songs with hooks that dig into you for days. But we've all known catchy pop songs that deliver nothing save empty sing-alongs.
So what happens when you get rid of that too?
You get one of the most well written and thought out albums of recent history.
She has said the album is about how anyone can be famous. Alas, that statement sells the album short. Really, it is a modern pop Faustian tale of selling ones soul and spiritual well being for untold amounts of fame and material well being. Frequently the lyrics cite the need to decide between whether to have love or fame -- specifically in the songs "Lovegame", "Beautiful Dirty Rich", and "Paparazzi", "Paparazzi" even going so far as to make it explicitly clear in the music video (really short movie) this point of not being able to have both (her "lover" sells her out to the papparazi who are hiding in the bushes around their house and he proceeds to push her over the edge of the deck to a nasty injury because she wouldn't cooperate and pose for the pictures while in their disingenuous love tangle).
Faust aside, the songs stand on their own and use very expressive and imaginative metaphors and verbal imagery. At first glance "Just Dance" is about dancing when you're drunk, but it suggests a much deeper struggle to hold onto that one fleeting moment of glory, even when it's since become impossible. "Poker Face" uses the imagery of gambling and bluffing to convey a standoff between two people who are possibly trying to proposition eachother but don't want to give anything away. "Lovegame" complicates this theme by adding a tinge of desparation.
Additionally, the album seems to take a sort of emblematic approach to this (our, GaGa included) generation, demanding entitlement to certain perks and privelages, not necessarily ready to deal with the responsibilities that go along with it. The rise and fall of American Youth never sounded so sweet.
And that's the other thing; musically, this album is very sound. Synths are nothing new, but they never seem over done. Alot of the songs use unorthodox structures, yet none of them really seem that odd or off, thus being subversively progressive and avant garde. Regrettably there is autotune on some of the songs, but it's confined to B-tracks that will likely not be released as singles, and seems to be done solely as an experiment. She doesn't really need it anyway, as several of the songs show off her vocal chops. In other words, where there is autotuning, it is deliberately to make that robot sound, not just some dude screaming into a mike and then changing it around afterwards to sound goofy.
All things said -- this is a fundamentally solid album by a talented songwriter with the hooks and imagery to take it really far. Here's hoping for a successful follow up.
A
-- Knuttel
6.24.2009
Iran: Still the transformers of 2009 (a review of transformers 2)
"... frailty, thy name is woman!"
[Hamlet I.2.150]
Why, Mickey Bay, why?
Overall Grade: F-
In short, the movie was too long, boring, unoriginal and unexciting.
There was climactic music, yet no climax. There was dramatic (written) dialogue, yet no drama.
Looking at the last two sentences, if that could be done, and the movie is still watchable, congratulations, that may be art, but alas, Mickey Bay could not do it.
In the end, not even Megan Fox running in slow motion from explosions in a tight, low cut shirt could save this movie.
The movie was about 2.5 hours long, and yet it had no coherent plot or storyline. From what I gather, there were about 5 or 6 storylines, yet none of them actually seem to dovetail into each other. Any transitions are clearly covered up in the ploy of deus ex machina. Oh yeah, that's right; the 2 and a half hour Mickey Bay suckfest contained no actual climax.
How are these transformers going back and forth between earth and their home planet so quickly and easily? Especially since most of them don't fly. How are they hacking into satelites so easily? If they can just merge with other machines, why don't they? Or why do they only have two shapes to transform between? Are there 18 wheel trucks on cybertron?
Ok, getting past that -- What's up with the comic relief robots? I found them just annoying. During the course of a 2.5 hour movie, i didn't see fit the need to decipher everything that was shredded up to sound like a robot. How did the other robots get so much inflection in their voice boxes? It seemed like every robot that wasn't cracking wise was trying to deliver a monologue about a lost childhood or something.
And what was the deal with the decepticon college girl? Am I to believe they created her years ago so she could go to school and attend a prestigious east coast university? I also found it odd her relentless pursuit of Shia Labeouf. A girl that attractive would just move on, one would think, especially if he was just writing symbols the whole time.
I often imagine what it looks like when Mickey Bay tried writing it.
"OMG, it's Shia Labeouf, I remember you from "Even Stevens". Weren't you in Holes too? How about you penetrate some of my holes..."
"Umm no, sorry, I'm busy writing down all these symbols I don't understand to creep out my roommate, I'm also obsessing over Megan Fox, so yeah"
"Is this about your car throwing up on me? Cos I'm cool with that."
"Um no, I just don't like you at all, I want you to leave."
"Ok, I'll just rape you instead."
-- Little did Shia know that she was just a robot who looked like a hot girl, like that chick from Terminator 3: Rise of the machines. She should also have a hot robot tongue for when I try making out with her. Wait, you mean she's not actually a robot, just an actress? Fuck, this writing thing is hard. Note to self, hire someone else to write this movie, but try and keep this scene. Another note to self, delete this, but later, you have some explosions to edit.
Which brings me to the explosions. They looked way too planned and simultaneous for a warzone type atmosphere.
Why all of the slo mo? Why all of the spinning? Who is actually responsible for the cinemetography?
Are Shia Lebeouf's parents there for any reason at all? They seemed to have somewhat of a minor part in the first movie, but here they just seemed tagged on. Cameos would've been fine.
The one question that still surrounds me the most is : Why was this movie made?
-- Knuttel
[Hamlet I.2.150]
Why, Mickey Bay, why?
Overall Grade: F-
In short, the movie was too long, boring, unoriginal and unexciting.
There was climactic music, yet no climax. There was dramatic (written) dialogue, yet no drama.
Looking at the last two sentences, if that could be done, and the movie is still watchable, congratulations, that may be art, but alas, Mickey Bay could not do it.
In the end, not even Megan Fox running in slow motion from explosions in a tight, low cut shirt could save this movie.
The movie was about 2.5 hours long, and yet it had no coherent plot or storyline. From what I gather, there were about 5 or 6 storylines, yet none of them actually seem to dovetail into each other. Any transitions are clearly covered up in the ploy of deus ex machina. Oh yeah, that's right; the 2 and a half hour Mickey Bay suckfest contained no actual climax.
How are these transformers going back and forth between earth and their home planet so quickly and easily? Especially since most of them don't fly. How are they hacking into satelites so easily? If they can just merge with other machines, why don't they? Or why do they only have two shapes to transform between? Are there 18 wheel trucks on cybertron?
Ok, getting past that -- What's up with the comic relief robots? I found them just annoying. During the course of a 2.5 hour movie, i didn't see fit the need to decipher everything that was shredded up to sound like a robot. How did the other robots get so much inflection in their voice boxes? It seemed like every robot that wasn't cracking wise was trying to deliver a monologue about a lost childhood or something.
And what was the deal with the decepticon college girl? Am I to believe they created her years ago so she could go to school and attend a prestigious east coast university? I also found it odd her relentless pursuit of Shia Labeouf. A girl that attractive would just move on, one would think, especially if he was just writing symbols the whole time.
I often imagine what it looks like when Mickey Bay tried writing it.
"OMG, it's Shia Labeouf, I remember you from "Even Stevens". Weren't you in Holes too? How about you penetrate some of my holes..."
"Umm no, sorry, I'm busy writing down all these symbols I don't understand to creep out my roommate, I'm also obsessing over Megan Fox, so yeah"
"Is this about your car throwing up on me? Cos I'm cool with that."
"Um no, I just don't like you at all, I want you to leave."
"Ok, I'll just rape you instead."
-- Little did Shia know that she was just a robot who looked like a hot girl, like that chick from Terminator 3: Rise of the machines. She should also have a hot robot tongue for when I try making out with her. Wait, you mean she's not actually a robot, just an actress? Fuck, this writing thing is hard. Note to self, hire someone else to write this movie, but try and keep this scene. Another note to self, delete this, but later, you have some explosions to edit.
Which brings me to the explosions. They looked way too planned and simultaneous for a warzone type atmosphere.
Why all of the slo mo? Why all of the spinning? Who is actually responsible for the cinemetography?
Are Shia Lebeouf's parents there for any reason at all? They seemed to have somewhat of a minor part in the first movie, but here they just seemed tagged on. Cameos would've been fine.
The one question that still surrounds me the most is : Why was this movie made?
-- Knuttel
5.30.2009
A second look at that Wolverine movie thing
Due to the subject matter of the movie being so pressing for the world of comic books, I have decided to take a second look at X-Men Origins: Wolverine (though it's probably more like x-men oranges:tangerine, amirite?), this time observing the final, completed project.
I feel I should explain how this viewing came to be. Well, it was Wednesday, and some friends and I were watching the UEFA Champions league game in Center City in a bar, and being drunk and suggestible, we decided it was a good idea to watch that wolverine movie, i think as a joke, but does it really matter at this point?
First things first
What was different from the leak to the finished product? If you recall, the leak came out a month ahead of the planned theater release, the special effects look unfinished all around, and they claimed they had to add a scene or two.
Well, the scenes that looked really unfinished (as in stand in computer graphics) were finished, but that was pretty much it. Aside from the final fight with "deadpool", there was little to none done to improve the special effects of the movie. In fact, I waited through the credits to see that final clip that was rumored (meh). The real joy from doing this was seeing how short the actual credits were. For a movie of that production value scale, it was extremely small in fact -- compare to waiting till the end of one of the Matrixes (probably reloaded) to see that clip, the credit list was monstrous. It's as if they simply plan on passing out x:men movies as quick as possible, knowing that they're a sellable commodity, even when they suck (see: X3).
Oh, and the "younger" Professor X looks like a clown. And, little nit picking note here, but didn't Prof X lose his ability to walk sometime in the 50's or 60's (not sure of the exact date/year, but Lucifer dropped a rock on his legs or something before he founded the X men). The bulk of the wolverine movie appears to take place in the 70's -- that's another thing, for something that needs to rely so strongly on convention and proven methods of writing workable "dramatic" matierial, the action is spread out over a veeerrrryyy long period of time, and that's not even counting the "throwaway" intro showing what Wolvie and Sabretooth did from the mid 1800's (before Canada, let alone the NW territories existed) until they got kicked out the the AMERICAN army during Vietnam.
The worst part may actually still be the deadpool treatment. It appears as if somehow during the course of that month when the movie was leaked and outrage stormed, one of the gaff boys or whatever was actually decided to pick up a (and i mean a, singular) deadpool comic and tried coaxing the director to throw some shit in there. The result was really only two things -- his face is scarred (though not that much, and not because of cancer) and at one point the area around his eyes was black, like his mask (except this was on his skin, as a reaction to shooting cyclops' optic blasts). I wouldn't be surprised to go back and look at the credits and see T-Ray as a producer.
I'm still puzzeled as to how they could have screwed it up that much. Really. The humor was there though, in a mystery science theater 3000 sort of way. Still no consolation.
I feel I should explain how this viewing came to be. Well, it was Wednesday, and some friends and I were watching the UEFA Champions league game in Center City in a bar, and being drunk and suggestible, we decided it was a good idea to watch that wolverine movie, i think as a joke, but does it really matter at this point?
First things first
What was different from the leak to the finished product? If you recall, the leak came out a month ahead of the planned theater release, the special effects look unfinished all around, and they claimed they had to add a scene or two.
Well, the scenes that looked really unfinished (as in stand in computer graphics) were finished, but that was pretty much it. Aside from the final fight with "deadpool", there was little to none done to improve the special effects of the movie. In fact, I waited through the credits to see that final clip that was rumored (meh). The real joy from doing this was seeing how short the actual credits were. For a movie of that production value scale, it was extremely small in fact -- compare to waiting till the end of one of the Matrixes (probably reloaded) to see that clip, the credit list was monstrous. It's as if they simply plan on passing out x:men movies as quick as possible, knowing that they're a sellable commodity, even when they suck (see: X3).
Oh, and the "younger" Professor X looks like a clown. And, little nit picking note here, but didn't Prof X lose his ability to walk sometime in the 50's or 60's (not sure of the exact date/year, but Lucifer dropped a rock on his legs or something before he founded the X men). The bulk of the wolverine movie appears to take place in the 70's -- that's another thing, for something that needs to rely so strongly on convention and proven methods of writing workable "dramatic" matierial, the action is spread out over a veeerrrryyy long period of time, and that's not even counting the "throwaway" intro showing what Wolvie and Sabretooth did from the mid 1800's (before Canada, let alone the NW territories existed) until they got kicked out the the AMERICAN army during Vietnam.
The worst part may actually still be the deadpool treatment. It appears as if somehow during the course of that month when the movie was leaked and outrage stormed, one of the gaff boys or whatever was actually decided to pick up a (and i mean a, singular) deadpool comic and tried coaxing the director to throw some shit in there. The result was really only two things -- his face is scarred (though not that much, and not because of cancer) and at one point the area around his eyes was black, like his mask (except this was on his skin, as a reaction to shooting cyclops' optic blasts). I wouldn't be surprised to go back and look at the credits and see T-Ray as a producer.
I'm still puzzeled as to how they could have screwed it up that much. Really. The humor was there though, in a mystery science theater 3000 sort of way. Still no consolation.
5.27.2009
The Starship has left earth
Jefferson Starship is the image of washed up and datedness.
I recently had the "pleasure" of seeing them play a free show at the AC boardwalk. Thank god it was free.
Only one member remains from when the band was called "Jefferson Airplane" and only one other is from the original Jefferson Starship days of the mid-70s. Grace Slick apparently retired sometime around the late 80s, early 90s; leaving arguably the most identifiable member of the group out (especially to those who are not hardcore followers). In her stead, a washed up blues singer has filled the space. Her claim to fame thus far is playing Janis Joplin in a musical biography of the singer. Writer's note: She was born in 1969, according to wikipedia, meaning she was hardly even conscious for all of this stuff. The lead guitarist looked like a 60 year old sonic the hedgehog, at least the haircut. He's only been with the band since the mid 90s. Same goes for the keyboardist (who also plays bass synth, replacing the awesome need of having an actual bassist on stage, for shame). The drummer has been with the band maybe a year or two.
Maybe the show wouldn't have been so bad if they weren't so insistant on playing new material, including a folk song about Barrack Obama (San Francisco Liberals haven't done any of those yet, have they?")
Did black cargo pants come back in style? Were they ever in style?
Is Jefferson Starship the soundtrack to the daily life of a casino security guard?
How many packs of cigarettes can the lone original member smoke within a set/show?
Has the old starship member ever gotten off his seemingly decade long acid trip?
If they're anarchists then why do they support Barrack Obama, not only one in favor of institutions, but of creating new ones and making existing ones larger?
Are people still oblivious to the fact that "White Rabbit" is about drugs?
Why did the chick singer keep playing "solo" stuff?
Why didn't they play "we built this city (on rock and roll)"?
Much like the number of licks to get to the center of a tootsie pop (3), the world may never know the answers to these questions.
-- Knuttel
I recently had the "pleasure" of seeing them play a free show at the AC boardwalk. Thank god it was free.
Only one member remains from when the band was called "Jefferson Airplane" and only one other is from the original Jefferson Starship days of the mid-70s. Grace Slick apparently retired sometime around the late 80s, early 90s; leaving arguably the most identifiable member of the group out (especially to those who are not hardcore followers). In her stead, a washed up blues singer has filled the space. Her claim to fame thus far is playing Janis Joplin in a musical biography of the singer. Writer's note: She was born in 1969, according to wikipedia, meaning she was hardly even conscious for all of this stuff. The lead guitarist looked like a 60 year old sonic the hedgehog, at least the haircut. He's only been with the band since the mid 90s. Same goes for the keyboardist (who also plays bass synth, replacing the awesome need of having an actual bassist on stage, for shame). The drummer has been with the band maybe a year or two.
Maybe the show wouldn't have been so bad if they weren't so insistant on playing new material, including a folk song about Barrack Obama (San Francisco Liberals haven't done any of those yet, have they?")
Did black cargo pants come back in style? Were they ever in style?
Is Jefferson Starship the soundtrack to the daily life of a casino security guard?
How many packs of cigarettes can the lone original member smoke within a set/show?
Has the old starship member ever gotten off his seemingly decade long acid trip?
If they're anarchists then why do they support Barrack Obama, not only one in favor of institutions, but of creating new ones and making existing ones larger?
Are people still oblivious to the fact that "White Rabbit" is about drugs?
Why did the chick singer keep playing "solo" stuff?
Why didn't they play "we built this city (on rock and roll)"?
Much like the number of licks to get to the center of a tootsie pop (3), the world may never know the answers to these questions.
-- Knuttel
4.07.2009
The suck fest that is "X Men Origins: Wolverine"
Now, before I begin, I want to make it clear that Fox said it was OK to download this movie off the internet. Therefore, this review is not illegal.
I also want to mention, before I begin, that I will not comment at all on any of the special effects, or any bit of the movie where quality would in itself be depreciated by the lack of the finished special effects.
X Men Origins: Wolverine may be the worst comic book movie ever made, ever. This includes Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D starring Davind Hasselhoff, the practically unlicensed Fantastic Four from the mid 90s, Daredevil, Spiderman 3, and of course, X3 X Men United.
The reasons themselves are legion. The character of Wolverine was of the utmost importance to me as a child, so this offense is personal. It also gives me a certain kind of insight as to where abouts they went wrong. The characters of Deadpool and Gambit are also important to me, especially recently Deadpool. I also know very in depth the stories of Alpha Flight and Weapon X (also team x), which form the basis of any Wolverine origin story.
1. They never mention Alpha Flight by name, and it appears to be American in origin, as opposed to Canadian, despite having four Canadian members (Wolvie, Sabretooth, Deadpool, and John Wraith).
2. The X in weapon X is given as a number in a series of Weapons. This follows in the NEVER TO BE FOLLOWED Grant Morrison New X-Men story, which ties it to Captain America (Weapon I) etc. Would be nice, except this definitely does not seem like a tie into the Avengers Universe of Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, making the point entirely moot.
3. Deadpool is gone within a matter of minutes.
4. Many members of Alpha Flight that shouldn't be in the group -- Bolt, Blob.
5. Deadpool doesn't have any powers at all in the beginning except being badass at martial arts. Also he has a distaste for using anything besides his swords, which is a lie because he will use anything at his disposal, including guns.
6. Sabretooths claws extend. WTF
7. Silver Fox is only loosely attached to weapon x, and has the power of persuasion. Oh, and she's related to Emma Frost (White Queen).
8.Blob is not extremely obese to start.
9. John Wraith teleports at will in public, in fact showboating it. In reality, he wants no one at all to know that he can teleport, even hides his powers from his teammates.
10. Really, I'm getting tired of naming every single innacuracy, and I kinda feel bad about nitpicking like this. Why don't I move straight to who is to blame. The list is long
1. Rupert Murdoch, head of Fox. Let this movie be made.
2. Marvel. Sold the rights to X Men pretty much entirely since X3. This is a Fox movie using Marvel characters, as opposed to being a Marvel movie produced by Fox.
3. Fox, they really screwed up the story of arguably one of the most followed Comic book characters of the past 25 years. Even people who did not follow comics followed Wolvie.
4. Grant Morrison. His New X Men storyline about Weapon X is the one predominantly used. It also happens to be the one that is never ever used in any other X Men continuity.
5. Ryan Reynolds. He played an adequately well enough Deadpool that they had to identify not only the character in the beginning as Wade Wilson, but the monstrosity at the end (see picture above) as Deadpool. We all know that is not Deadpool by any stretch.
6. Hugh Jackman. He's really digging this whole Wolvie gig, except he sucks at it. Kinda funny how the voice of Wolverine in the short lived show Pride of the X Men was Australian. Just a funny coincidence is all. He also thinks he's the current foremost expert on the character. It's a shame really, cos it seems he doesn't know a thing.
7. David Beinoff. He's the man who wrote this piece of garbage. Probably never picked up a comic book in his life (ahem Tim Burton's Batman ahem).
8. The World Series of Poker. Gambit's entrance is at an underground high stakes poker game. Not exactly where I'd picture him. Oh, they're probably also playing Texas Hold 'em, not the poker game I'd picture him playing. Oh, and there's cameos by some people who do that world series thing or whatever its called.
9. Gavin Hood. He directs this piece of crap.
10. Whoever thought it was a good idea to do what they did to Deadpool. Deadpool was part of Weapon X, he got the healing factor to cure his cancer, and then became crazy, the merc with the mouth. He did not receive about 20 different powers to become some sort of controllable monster that cannot speak.
Seriously, what they did to Deadpool was unforgivable. I am going to have to write an alternate movie solely for Deadpool. I'm thinking something along the lines of a Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back type of deal, maybe, except instead of dodging Will Ferrel, it's like Taskmaster or T-Ray or something.
And why does he never break the fourth wall? That can be very easily done. Just have him fuggin narrate the thing in real time, seen on screen. Really, not that hard.
How could they screw something like this up that badly? I feel like a part of my childhood has been cornered in a dark alley and raped repeatedly.
-- Knuttel
4.01.2009
Space Buddies: Oedipus without the incest
Enough of these negative posts bashing various positions within the NFL and whatever else.
How about something positive.
Space Buddies may be the greatest straight to video release yet this year.
Both the Air Buddies and Air Bud series are direct to video now, but the Air Bud series is much easier to ridicule because of its ridiculousness. The original had a lot of pure dramatic elements. It wasn't a comedy or a children's movie per se, it was a feel good film, a story about redemption, a story that taught a kid to believe in himself. The dog just happened to be how it happened. As the kid learned more sports (presumptively) so did the dog, even when it seemed entirely impossible for the dog to do so.
The Air Buddies series, on the other hand, isn't grounded in that realistic original that prevents the movies from truly embracing the farcical. On the contrary. The very premise that the dogs can talk (as can the other animals) opens up the entire world to put these puppies on fantastic adventures that seem to be able to work within its own world.
The movie does have some of the problems of standard kid fare. The ending is horribly predictable, there are some pretty big plotholes, there are some fairly large inconsistencies (in the matter of physics and the like, things not needing to be explained); but it still works.
Really, the film has some of the best dramatic irony since Sophocles' classic Oedipus Rex, the standard of the definition. No one but the audience knows who is on board the shuttle until they reach the moon. No one but the audience knows who the villian is until the end. No one but the audience knows how the shuttle manages to make certain corrections until the end.
-- And it's things like that which make the film legitamately good on its own merits. Sure the ending is incredibly standard, but I wanted to see how they'd get there, and how certain things would unfold. The journey was the destination itself.
The characters could be a little more dynamic, and maybe the plot a little more twisted, but hey, it's a kids movie. It is meant to entertain.
It entertains.
-- Knuttel
How about something positive.
Space Buddies may be the greatest straight to video release yet this year.
Both the Air Buddies and Air Bud series are direct to video now, but the Air Bud series is much easier to ridicule because of its ridiculousness. The original had a lot of pure dramatic elements. It wasn't a comedy or a children's movie per se, it was a feel good film, a story about redemption, a story that taught a kid to believe in himself. The dog just happened to be how it happened. As the kid learned more sports (presumptively) so did the dog, even when it seemed entirely impossible for the dog to do so.
The Air Buddies series, on the other hand, isn't grounded in that realistic original that prevents the movies from truly embracing the farcical. On the contrary. The very premise that the dogs can talk (as can the other animals) opens up the entire world to put these puppies on fantastic adventures that seem to be able to work within its own world.
The movie does have some of the problems of standard kid fare. The ending is horribly predictable, there are some pretty big plotholes, there are some fairly large inconsistencies (in the matter of physics and the like, things not needing to be explained); but it still works.
Really, the film has some of the best dramatic irony since Sophocles' classic Oedipus Rex, the standard of the definition. No one but the audience knows who is on board the shuttle until they reach the moon. No one but the audience knows who the villian is until the end. No one but the audience knows how the shuttle manages to make certain corrections until the end.
-- And it's things like that which make the film legitamately good on its own merits. Sure the ending is incredibly standard, but I wanted to see how they'd get there, and how certain things would unfold. The journey was the destination itself.
The characters could be a little more dynamic, and maybe the plot a little more twisted, but hey, it's a kids movie. It is meant to entertain.
It entertains.
-- Knuttel
3.08.2009
A Watchmen review?
Is this going to be a Watchmen review? To be honest, I don't know and I can't really predict.
Maybe it's just going to be a Snyder (the director) review.
Yes, that is what it is going to be.
The Watchmen was everything 300 was not.
I say this as a man who has read both of these books before seeing the movies. Oh, and yes, they are books; just because they have pictures does not mean they cannot also be literature.
300, Snyder's first film which was not a remake (unless you consider it to be a remake of The 300 Spartans, the movie which probably inspired Miller to write the book) was a faithful adaptation, almost frame for frame. Really, there were several shots, slowed down to emphasize, which were from the book -- something done to great effect most notably in Sin City, but also done to far lesser extents (simple recognizable poses or phrases) in pretty much every comic book movie. But what Snyder cut out was the character development. The redemption of Stelios (or should I say, Stumblios) was cut out entirely, though he was still picked to lead the final charge. The rise of Leonidas himself was too bastardized. Though it was not cut, the scene in which he faces a wolf as a child turned from a coming of age survival story to simple badassery. Also, there was a plotline added where Leonidas' wife tries winning support in Sparta and in the Spartan senate.
The Watchmen, on the other hand sacrificed little, if any, character development. Rorschac's real identity is only alluded to, even when his face is exposed. That was a major flaw, but it doesn't really affect him as a character, it simply helps the audience understand him a little bit better. The curse of the black pearl, the meta-comic, was cut out, but it will be released separately, presumptively straight to video. Again, something that in and of itself does not hurt the media, but helps the audience to better understand what is going on. While both the book and the movie used an ensemble cast, the focus seemed to shift more to Silk Spectre II (or maybe Ackerman was just a scene-stealer). I dunno, maybe I was just drawn more to Rorschac's character when I read it, and the movie obviously couldn't have all of his insanity. They also cut out alot of the story about the Minutemen, the superhero group preceding the Watchmen, also including the Comedian.
Where the "freeze-frames" or slo-mo shots helped with 300, they hurt with Watchmen. 300 was set in a fantacized version of ancient greece. Slowing frames down emphasized their un-realness while making it all seem that much more epic. Watchmen had a realistic, dirty tinge to it. The only superhero with actual superhero powers was Dr. Manhattan, and that happenned in a ridiculously freak accident. These freeze-frames de-realized whatever scenes whenever they happenned.
In the end, as Moore himself said, it was written to sho what comics could do that cinema could not (sic). The universe that was so meticulously created in the comic was faithfully recreated in the movie sets, however movies move too fast. A true adaptation of the book would probably take 4, maybe 5 hours, and wouldn't really be that watchable. This was probably the best a Watchmen adaptation could be. It really is a good attempt, but it is not the best comic book movie, and never really could be unless it was severely stripped down from or "done in the spirit of" the book. Simple as that.
It's been common knowledge that Short Stories usually adapt much better than Novels into movies, now I guess we found out what happens when one full legnth comic with novel-esque depth (300 isn't very long, and Sin City is like an anthology of stories, not all of which were movie-ized (yet)) is adapted into a movie, at 2 hours and 40 minutes, still feeling a little light.
-- Knuttel
Maybe it's just going to be a Snyder (the director) review.
Yes, that is what it is going to be.
The Watchmen was everything 300 was not.
I say this as a man who has read both of these books before seeing the movies. Oh, and yes, they are books; just because they have pictures does not mean they cannot also be literature.
300, Snyder's first film which was not a remake (unless you consider it to be a remake of The 300 Spartans, the movie which probably inspired Miller to write the book) was a faithful adaptation, almost frame for frame. Really, there were several shots, slowed down to emphasize, which were from the book -- something done to great effect most notably in Sin City, but also done to far lesser extents (simple recognizable poses or phrases) in pretty much every comic book movie. But what Snyder cut out was the character development. The redemption of Stelios (or should I say, Stumblios) was cut out entirely, though he was still picked to lead the final charge. The rise of Leonidas himself was too bastardized. Though it was not cut, the scene in which he faces a wolf as a child turned from a coming of age survival story to simple badassery. Also, there was a plotline added where Leonidas' wife tries winning support in Sparta and in the Spartan senate.
The Watchmen, on the other hand sacrificed little, if any, character development. Rorschac's real identity is only alluded to, even when his face is exposed. That was a major flaw, but it doesn't really affect him as a character, it simply helps the audience understand him a little bit better. The curse of the black pearl, the meta-comic, was cut out, but it will be released separately, presumptively straight to video. Again, something that in and of itself does not hurt the media, but helps the audience to better understand what is going on. While both the book and the movie used an ensemble cast, the focus seemed to shift more to Silk Spectre II (or maybe Ackerman was just a scene-stealer). I dunno, maybe I was just drawn more to Rorschac's character when I read it, and the movie obviously couldn't have all of his insanity. They also cut out alot of the story about the Minutemen, the superhero group preceding the Watchmen, also including the Comedian.
Where the "freeze-frames" or slo-mo shots helped with 300, they hurt with Watchmen. 300 was set in a fantacized version of ancient greece. Slowing frames down emphasized their un-realness while making it all seem that much more epic. Watchmen had a realistic, dirty tinge to it. The only superhero with actual superhero powers was Dr. Manhattan, and that happenned in a ridiculously freak accident. These freeze-frames de-realized whatever scenes whenever they happenned.
In the end, as Moore himself said, it was written to sho what comics could do that cinema could not (sic). The universe that was so meticulously created in the comic was faithfully recreated in the movie sets, however movies move too fast. A true adaptation of the book would probably take 4, maybe 5 hours, and wouldn't really be that watchable. This was probably the best a Watchmen adaptation could be. It really is a good attempt, but it is not the best comic book movie, and never really could be unless it was severely stripped down from or "done in the spirit of" the book. Simple as that.
It's been common knowledge that Short Stories usually adapt much better than Novels into movies, now I guess we found out what happens when one full legnth comic with novel-esque depth (300 isn't very long, and Sin City is like an anthology of stories, not all of which were movie-ized (yet)) is adapted into a movie, at 2 hours and 40 minutes, still feeling a little light.
-- Knuttel
2.24.2009
On the Oscars
Let's just get down to the nitty gritty about the Oscars, why not?
Good
-Slumdog Millionaire came up huge. While some in India claim the plot etc is too cliche, it isn't really in America or the West, as the style is one that is predominant mainly in India. I have a feeling they would love Transporter 3, but alas, here it is same old same old.
Bad
-Nomination introductions for the acting awards. What is up with that? It is supposed to be the person of the opposite gender presents the award the next year. For example, if Heath Ledger were alive, he would present best supporting actress next year. Instead they did this huge elaborate ceremony with five past winners talking about awards and whatever, one for each person. When it came down to it, the only two I was really interested in hearing were Chris Walken for Supporting Actor (from Deer Hunter) and Ben Kingsley for Lead Actor (from Ghandi). Also, why wasn't Ben Kingsley nominated for anything? he was in like 6 movies (cancel out another because of the Love guru, so it's 4).
Bad
-Not only did Sean Penn win best actor, but (of course) he used the opportunity to grandstand on the issue of gay rights. I think he also called Obama gay ("I'm glad we have an elegant man as President"????). I should mention I am not against gay rights, it's just he phrased his whole argument alot like Clooney phrased his argument about the freedom of the press when he won for that forgettable anti-McCarthy movie. I wanted to punch Clooney in the face, and I've never liked Sen. McCarthy. While I would be happy if this man died, his life would forever be eulogized in an Eddie Vedder song, and he would be remembered as a martyr. He's always played an asshole, and that's what he is in real life. -- But what about Spacoli? Spacoli was an asshole, didn't anyone actually watch that movie? The only reason Mr. Hand liked him was 'cos he was an asshole too. Not to mention the Academy passed up an opportunity to give a career award to Frank Langella for a legitamately award worthy performance (so I've heard), likewise with Rourke.
Bad
-Hugh Jassman as host was subpar. This isn't the Tony's. The only semi-redeemable part was where he made Anne Hathaway act as Nixon.
Bad
-That huge musical number in the middle that mixed up a bunch of old oscar winning songs. If there's anything we learned from Moulin Rouge, it's that Baz Luhrman cannot be trusted to remix popular music. Almost entirely spoiled an on-screen appearance from Mean Girls' Seyfreid. Also, I know Beyonce sang "At Last" at the innauguration, and alot of people liked it (except the original performer), but this is the Oscars, not the innauguration.
Good
-Jack Black's presentation was awesome and awe inspiring. But then Kung Fu Panda didn't win anything despite being a far better movie than Wall-E. What is up with that academy?
Bad
-Wall-E won a ton of awards despite being a total piece of ass-crap. Was I the only one who didn't like that movie? And not because of the subliminal messaging throughout (Macs are awesome, Walmart is evil, if we kill the planet we can always come back when we're too fat for gravity to accept our body's movements and the soil is still too toxic for substinance farming). It was a boring movie. Yeah, the visuals were stunning, and yeah, maybe it should win some technical awards. But the movie was just that, an exercise. Besides that it was a boring, slow, plotless, characterless, settingless piece of crap.
Good
-Will Smith's live flub was amazing. I'm not saying that to make fun of him. He recovered awesomely and even let out some "boom goes the dynamite."
Bad
-Bill Mahr presented for best documentary (short then long) and of course had to talk about how awesome his own "documentary" wasn't nominated. A few problems. It wasn't a documentary, and probably wasn't funny enough to be a mockumentary. The premise is interesting but probably not really explored at all. He interviewed complete idiots and led them on with bad questions. No one can give you a definition of how the devil and the anti-christ are separate? Seriously? I can answer that question and I'm not even a church scholar. "The Devil" is a demon, a fallen angel who opposes God, much in the same way Lucifer, Beelzebub, and Satan are (yeah, they're all separate). Because none of them are God, they cannot be as strong or powerful, even when together (though their bickering prevents that). The anti-christ is simply the harbinger of the apocalypse. Fuck you Bill Mahr. Learn about your subject before you decide to condemn it.
Good
-Huge upset in Foreign language film land. I think I actually heard a monocle drop.
Good
-Kate Winslet finally won an oscar after being nominated like 50 times. Well you know what they always say, Nazi/Holocaust films aways win. I guess she gets bonus points for it also pretty much being a skin flick. Who would've thought she could pull off Nazi she-wolf so well?
Good
-Jerry Lewis is finally recognized for something outside of France. The man has been underappreciated for years. In addition to "recent revelations" that Deano was the true genius in Lewis and Martin, he was also held without cameos in both the Nutty Professor and Flubber. The man perfected the wacky scientist before it was even thought of.
Bad
-Yes, I know Peter Gabriel made a poor career choice in singing a song for Wall-E, but he should've at least sung his nominated song instead of that hack, John Legend.
Bad
-The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was both over-nominated and over-won. Over-winning for this movie includes winning anything, which I think it won one or two only. Also, did anyone see the look on David Fincher's face on the close up during hte presentation of the Director award? "So this is what happens when I take the Machete Dildos out of my movies" Advice, put them back in.
That seems like enough. No comment on the whole Pheonix saga.
--Knuttel
Good
-Slumdog Millionaire came up huge. While some in India claim the plot etc is too cliche, it isn't really in America or the West, as the style is one that is predominant mainly in India. I have a feeling they would love Transporter 3, but alas, here it is same old same old.
Bad
-Nomination introductions for the acting awards. What is up with that? It is supposed to be the person of the opposite gender presents the award the next year. For example, if Heath Ledger were alive, he would present best supporting actress next year. Instead they did this huge elaborate ceremony with five past winners talking about awards and whatever, one for each person. When it came down to it, the only two I was really interested in hearing were Chris Walken for Supporting Actor (from Deer Hunter) and Ben Kingsley for Lead Actor (from Ghandi). Also, why wasn't Ben Kingsley nominated for anything? he was in like 6 movies (cancel out another because of the Love guru, so it's 4).
Bad
-Not only did Sean Penn win best actor, but (of course) he used the opportunity to grandstand on the issue of gay rights. I think he also called Obama gay ("I'm glad we have an elegant man as President"????). I should mention I am not against gay rights, it's just he phrased his whole argument alot like Clooney phrased his argument about the freedom of the press when he won for that forgettable anti-McCarthy movie. I wanted to punch Clooney in the face, and I've never liked Sen. McCarthy. While I would be happy if this man died, his life would forever be eulogized in an Eddie Vedder song, and he would be remembered as a martyr. He's always played an asshole, and that's what he is in real life. -- But what about Spacoli? Spacoli was an asshole, didn't anyone actually watch that movie? The only reason Mr. Hand liked him was 'cos he was an asshole too. Not to mention the Academy passed up an opportunity to give a career award to Frank Langella for a legitamately award worthy performance (so I've heard), likewise with Rourke.
Bad
-Hugh Jassman as host was subpar. This isn't the Tony's. The only semi-redeemable part was where he made Anne Hathaway act as Nixon.
Bad
-That huge musical number in the middle that mixed up a bunch of old oscar winning songs. If there's anything we learned from Moulin Rouge, it's that Baz Luhrman cannot be trusted to remix popular music. Almost entirely spoiled an on-screen appearance from Mean Girls' Seyfreid. Also, I know Beyonce sang "At Last" at the innauguration, and alot of people liked it (except the original performer), but this is the Oscars, not the innauguration.
Good
-Jack Black's presentation was awesome and awe inspiring. But then Kung Fu Panda didn't win anything despite being a far better movie than Wall-E. What is up with that academy?
Bad
-Wall-E won a ton of awards despite being a total piece of ass-crap. Was I the only one who didn't like that movie? And not because of the subliminal messaging throughout (Macs are awesome, Walmart is evil, if we kill the planet we can always come back when we're too fat for gravity to accept our body's movements and the soil is still too toxic for substinance farming). It was a boring movie. Yeah, the visuals were stunning, and yeah, maybe it should win some technical awards. But the movie was just that, an exercise. Besides that it was a boring, slow, plotless, characterless, settingless piece of crap.
Good
-Will Smith's live flub was amazing. I'm not saying that to make fun of him. He recovered awesomely and even let out some "boom goes the dynamite."
Bad
-Bill Mahr presented for best documentary (short then long) and of course had to talk about how awesome his own "documentary" wasn't nominated. A few problems. It wasn't a documentary, and probably wasn't funny enough to be a mockumentary. The premise is interesting but probably not really explored at all. He interviewed complete idiots and led them on with bad questions. No one can give you a definition of how the devil and the anti-christ are separate? Seriously? I can answer that question and I'm not even a church scholar. "The Devil" is a demon, a fallen angel who opposes God, much in the same way Lucifer, Beelzebub, and Satan are (yeah, they're all separate). Because none of them are God, they cannot be as strong or powerful, even when together (though their bickering prevents that). The anti-christ is simply the harbinger of the apocalypse. Fuck you Bill Mahr. Learn about your subject before you decide to condemn it.
Good
-Huge upset in Foreign language film land. I think I actually heard a monocle drop.
Good
-Kate Winslet finally won an oscar after being nominated like 50 times. Well you know what they always say, Nazi/Holocaust films aways win. I guess she gets bonus points for it also pretty much being a skin flick. Who would've thought she could pull off Nazi she-wolf so well?
Good
-Jerry Lewis is finally recognized for something outside of France. The man has been underappreciated for years. In addition to "recent revelations" that Deano was the true genius in Lewis and Martin, he was also held without cameos in both the Nutty Professor and Flubber. The man perfected the wacky scientist before it was even thought of.
Bad
-Yes, I know Peter Gabriel made a poor career choice in singing a song for Wall-E, but he should've at least sung his nominated song instead of that hack, John Legend.
Bad
-The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was both over-nominated and over-won. Over-winning for this movie includes winning anything, which I think it won one or two only. Also, did anyone see the look on David Fincher's face on the close up during hte presentation of the Director award? "So this is what happens when I take the Machete Dildos out of my movies" Advice, put them back in.
That seems like enough. No comment on the whole Pheonix saga.
--Knuttel
2.17.2009
American President Rankings
As some of you may know, C-Span just created a poll of Greatest American Presidents (of all time, presumably).
Yeah, I know most of you don't watch C-Span (oh, look at me, I have a life), but fortunately I sometimes do. Unfortunately I never really payed attention to how this poll was put together, or who was involved in creating the poll.
In any case, I set out to create my own ranking of Greatest American Presidents of All Time (yeah, see, mine is of all time). In addition, I chose to rank Grover Cleveland only once, and also include the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, and the longest serving (and really only one worth mentioning) President of the Continental Congress, John Hancock.
1.George Washington
-Created the office himself, nothing really compares.
2.Abraham Lincoln
-Kept the country together when it needed it most
3.Franklin Delano Roosevelt
-Saw the country through the Great Depression and most of World War II
4.Lyndon Baines Johnson
-Used great legislative prowess to pass civil rights legislation JFK was too much of a pussy to pass, also got congress to pass the great society somehow
5.Andrew Jackson
-Fiercely held to his beliefs, not matter the cost. only Van Buren got burned. Also the only President ever to not have ANY debt or deficit.
6.Thomas Jefferson
-Enigma of person and President, left the country better than it was. Also landed first post-revolutionary American war victory, in the Barbary Wars -- to the shores of Tripoli, bitches.
7.William Howard Taft
-No President upheld the constitution as much as he.
8.John Adams
-Didn't kill Jefferson, somehow. Carried on Washington's work.
9.Theodore Roosevelt
-First President to take on Corporations, and win.
10.Woodrow Wilson
-Continued anti-trust work of TR and Taft, also saw through WWI and tried patching back together Europe singlehandedly
11.Dick Nixon
-Another enigma of a man, did what he thought was best. Most bi-partisan President of the 20th century.
12.Harry S Truman
-Made some extremely tough decisions that hurt his short term image, but ended WWII and saw through Korea. Maybe MacArthur really was a cunt.
13.James Madison
-Perhaps more known for Secretary of State work, but started the war of 1812. Why shouldn't Canada be ours?
14.Ulysses S Grant
-Tried to continue reconstruction Lincoln's way, but got tied up in corruption and an uncooperative legislature. If he had more political experience, he would probably be higher. Could also out drink any other President, except maybe Bush 43 in his Yale days.
15.James Monroe
-Most known for his eponymous foreign policy doctrine. Was also President during the middle of the "era of good feelings"
16.Grover Cleveland
-Rough style cost him re-election before the country realized it worked, and elected him back.
17.Rutherford B Hayes
-Ended reconstruction, perhaps too soon, but the country had to be whole again sometime.
18.William McKinley
-Without him, we would not have Guantanamo bay. Also took the rest of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines, and Spain's dignity.
19.William Jefferson Clinton
-Had the enormous benefit of an economic boom and started paying back the National debt. However, he also failed to hunt down Osama Bin Ladin, though some say a certain Senate investigation was the reason he was never caught.
20.Dwight S Eisenhower
-Without him, we wouldn't have that antiquated 50's worldwide image of America.
21.Ronald Reagan
-Only President to not fully know that he was actually the President.
22.George HW Bush
-Raised taxes after he said he wouldn't, but I still wouldn't trust Dukakis driving our nation's tanks.
23.Warren G Harding
-Singlehandedly responsible for the Warren Harding thru-hole.
24.John Fitzgerald Kennedy
-Take out the Cuban Missile Crisis, and you have a pretty piss-poor presidency. Lucky for him Kruschev got drunk enough to try it, then sober enough to realize it was dumb.
25.John Quincy Adams
-Narrowly beat Jackson for the Presidency through Congressional tiebreakers. Began setting for the modern two-party system.
26.George W Bush
-Some downs and ups that are going to take more time to fully understand. Don't think he'll be as highly regarded after the fact as Truman, but his star will eventually rise.
27.Calvin Coolidge
-Harding minus the balls (that got him killed). Quiet fellow.
28.John Hancock
-Only Continental President worth mentioning. While duties were mostly titular, oversaw the first two and a half years of the revolutionary war.
29.James K Polk
-Believer of Manifest Destiny who annexed roughly half of the current continental USA. Failure to deal with slave issue in new areas, however, costs him.
30.Gerald Ford
-Pardoned Nixon then let OPEC raise gas prices.
31.Jimmy Carter
-Let OPEC raise gas prices even more, than lost a bunch of hostages, and a puppet government, to Iran.
32.Martin Van Burn
-Tried being Jackson, but failed miserably. The Van Buren boys are not to be messed with though.
33.James A Garfield
-Only President for a few months, but received the first Presidential telephone call.
34.Benjamin Harrison
-Just a stopgap between Grovers Cleveland.
35.William Henry Harrison
-Caught Pneumonia and died roughly a month after his innauguration. Every President below him had a negative effect on the country entirely.
36.Zachary Taylor
-Refused to be nothing more than a party figurehead, unfortunately also refused to live.
37.Franklin Pierce
-Bleeding Kansas
38.Chester A Arthur
-Cog of NY Political machine.
39.Herbert Hoover
-Danced while Rome burned.
40.Millard Fillmore
-Refused to deal with slavery issue at all costs.
41.John Tyler
-So bad he was disowned by his own party. To be fair, Henry Clay was the type of asshole who would try something like that.
42.James Buchanon
-It's sad that doughface here is the only representative from Pennsylvania. Why, Science, WHY?!?!
43.Andrew Johnson
-First President to be impeached. Damnit John Wilkes Boothe, did you ever stop to think you'd be leaving us with him?
44.Jefferson Davis
-The Confederacy had a strong showing for about a year or so, but quickly faded as the war raged on. If the war lasted a few more years, maybe I'd bump him up.
And whatever happenned to Presidential facial hair? I think the last was Taft, with a moustache. Obama, it's time to start growing a Fu Man Chu. You owe the public at least a soul patch.
-- Knuttel
Yeah, I know most of you don't watch C-Span (oh, look at me, I have a life), but fortunately I sometimes do. Unfortunately I never really payed attention to how this poll was put together, or who was involved in creating the poll.
In any case, I set out to create my own ranking of Greatest American Presidents of All Time (yeah, see, mine is of all time). In addition, I chose to rank Grover Cleveland only once, and also include the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, and the longest serving (and really only one worth mentioning) President of the Continental Congress, John Hancock.
1.George Washington
-Created the office himself, nothing really compares.
2.Abraham Lincoln
-Kept the country together when it needed it most
3.Franklin Delano Roosevelt
-Saw the country through the Great Depression and most of World War II
4.Lyndon Baines Johnson
-Used great legislative prowess to pass civil rights legislation JFK was too much of a pussy to pass, also got congress to pass the great society somehow
5.Andrew Jackson
-Fiercely held to his beliefs, not matter the cost. only Van Buren got burned. Also the only President ever to not have ANY debt or deficit.
6.Thomas Jefferson
-Enigma of person and President, left the country better than it was. Also landed first post-revolutionary American war victory, in the Barbary Wars -- to the shores of Tripoli, bitches.
7.William Howard Taft
-No President upheld the constitution as much as he.
8.John Adams
-Didn't kill Jefferson, somehow. Carried on Washington's work.
9.Theodore Roosevelt
-First President to take on Corporations, and win.
10.Woodrow Wilson
-Continued anti-trust work of TR and Taft, also saw through WWI and tried patching back together Europe singlehandedly
11.Dick Nixon
-Another enigma of a man, did what he thought was best. Most bi-partisan President of the 20th century.
12.Harry S Truman
-Made some extremely tough decisions that hurt his short term image, but ended WWII and saw through Korea. Maybe MacArthur really was a cunt.
13.James Madison
-Perhaps more known for Secretary of State work, but started the war of 1812. Why shouldn't Canada be ours?
14.Ulysses S Grant
-Tried to continue reconstruction Lincoln's way, but got tied up in corruption and an uncooperative legislature. If he had more political experience, he would probably be higher. Could also out drink any other President, except maybe Bush 43 in his Yale days.
15.James Monroe
-Most known for his eponymous foreign policy doctrine. Was also President during the middle of the "era of good feelings"
16.Grover Cleveland
-Rough style cost him re-election before the country realized it worked, and elected him back.
17.Rutherford B Hayes
-Ended reconstruction, perhaps too soon, but the country had to be whole again sometime.
18.William McKinley
-Without him, we would not have Guantanamo bay. Also took the rest of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines, and Spain's dignity.
19.William Jefferson Clinton
-Had the enormous benefit of an economic boom and started paying back the National debt. However, he also failed to hunt down Osama Bin Ladin, though some say a certain Senate investigation was the reason he was never caught.
20.Dwight S Eisenhower
-Without him, we wouldn't have that antiquated 50's worldwide image of America.
21.Ronald Reagan
-Only President to not fully know that he was actually the President.
22.George HW Bush
-Raised taxes after he said he wouldn't, but I still wouldn't trust Dukakis driving our nation's tanks.
23.Warren G Harding
-Singlehandedly responsible for the Warren Harding thru-hole.
24.John Fitzgerald Kennedy
-Take out the Cuban Missile Crisis, and you have a pretty piss-poor presidency. Lucky for him Kruschev got drunk enough to try it, then sober enough to realize it was dumb.
25.John Quincy Adams
-Narrowly beat Jackson for the Presidency through Congressional tiebreakers. Began setting for the modern two-party system.
26.George W Bush
-Some downs and ups that are going to take more time to fully understand. Don't think he'll be as highly regarded after the fact as Truman, but his star will eventually rise.
27.Calvin Coolidge
-Harding minus the balls (that got him killed). Quiet fellow.
28.John Hancock
-Only Continental President worth mentioning. While duties were mostly titular, oversaw the first two and a half years of the revolutionary war.
29.James K Polk
-Believer of Manifest Destiny who annexed roughly half of the current continental USA. Failure to deal with slave issue in new areas, however, costs him.
30.Gerald Ford
-Pardoned Nixon then let OPEC raise gas prices.
31.Jimmy Carter
-Let OPEC raise gas prices even more, than lost a bunch of hostages, and a puppet government, to Iran.
32.Martin Van Burn
-Tried being Jackson, but failed miserably. The Van Buren boys are not to be messed with though.
33.James A Garfield
-Only President for a few months, but received the first Presidential telephone call.
34.Benjamin Harrison
-Just a stopgap between Grovers Cleveland.
35.William Henry Harrison
-Caught Pneumonia and died roughly a month after his innauguration. Every President below him had a negative effect on the country entirely.
36.Zachary Taylor
-Refused to be nothing more than a party figurehead, unfortunately also refused to live.
37.Franklin Pierce
-Bleeding Kansas
38.Chester A Arthur
-Cog of NY Political machine.
39.Herbert Hoover
-Danced while Rome burned.
40.Millard Fillmore
-Refused to deal with slavery issue at all costs.
41.John Tyler
-So bad he was disowned by his own party. To be fair, Henry Clay was the type of asshole who would try something like that.
42.James Buchanon
-It's sad that doughface here is the only representative from Pennsylvania. Why, Science, WHY?!?!
43.Andrew Johnson
-First President to be impeached. Damnit John Wilkes Boothe, did you ever stop to think you'd be leaving us with him?
44.Jefferson Davis
-The Confederacy had a strong showing for about a year or so, but quickly faded as the war raged on. If the war lasted a few more years, maybe I'd bump him up.
And whatever happenned to Presidential facial hair? I think the last was Taft, with a moustache. Obama, it's time to start growing a Fu Man Chu. You owe the public at least a soul patch.
-- Knuttel
2.11.2009
Breaking News: Coldplay Sucks More Than We Thought
Apparently Coldplay doesn't even bother to write it's own hit singles anymore.
Yes, that's right, the horribly anti-climactic "Viva la Vida" has been plagiarized from a work done by the great Joe Satriani.
Yes, the Joe Satriani.
While his music has never been very popular in anything remotely mainstream, he has long been a favorite of many musicians, rooted in solid fundamentals and ridiculously technical performances.
He has also been the teacher to just about every relevant guitarist of the past 25 years.
-Kirk Hammet (Metallica)
-Larry "Ler" LaLonde (Primus)
-Steve Vai (solo, David Lee Roth, Frank Zappa)
-Marty Friedman (Megadeth)
-Alex Skolnick (Testament)
-Kevin Cadogan (3rd Eye Blind)
-Rick Hunolt (Exodus)
Plus, he pretty much thinks he's the Silver Surfer; therefore his awesomeness should not be questioned.
The track that Coldplay stole is off Satriani's 2004 Album, Is There Love in Space?, and is called "If I Could Fly".
It's not really enough that they stole one part of the song, which is often passable. They stole the progression and lead from both the verse and the chorus. Just replace Satch's guitar with Chris Martin's whiny vocals.
I could go on and on and on about this, but I'll just show the evidence instead.
Fuck You, Chris Martin
Stop Killing Music
-- Knuttel
Yes, that's right, the horribly anti-climactic "Viva la Vida" has been plagiarized from a work done by the great Joe Satriani.
Yes, the Joe Satriani.
While his music has never been very popular in anything remotely mainstream, he has long been a favorite of many musicians, rooted in solid fundamentals and ridiculously technical performances.
He has also been the teacher to just about every relevant guitarist of the past 25 years.
-Kirk Hammet (Metallica)
-Larry "Ler" LaLonde (Primus)
-Steve Vai (solo, David Lee Roth, Frank Zappa)
-Marty Friedman (Megadeth)
-Alex Skolnick (Testament)
-Kevin Cadogan (3rd Eye Blind)
-Rick Hunolt (Exodus)
Plus, he pretty much thinks he's the Silver Surfer; therefore his awesomeness should not be questioned.
The track that Coldplay stole is off Satriani's 2004 Album, Is There Love in Space?, and is called "If I Could Fly".
It's not really enough that they stole one part of the song, which is often passable. They stole the progression and lead from both the verse and the chorus. Just replace Satch's guitar with Chris Martin's whiny vocals.
I could go on and on and on about this, but I'll just show the evidence instead.
Fuck You, Chris Martin
Stop Killing Music
-- Knuttel
More grammy news
CHRIS BROWN BEAT RIHANNA
or so I've been told ...
actually ... they both lost ... to Robert Plant and Alison Kraus for best pop collaboration with vocals. Chris Brown collaborated with Jordin Sparks, Rihanna with Maroon 5.
Oh, but Chris Brown still beat Rihanna.
And what is up with the stimulus bill?
Did Obama seriously think that handing a blank sheet of paper to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid equals bipartisanship?
His cabinet may be bipartisan, but he's gonna have to learn how to make his legislation more bipartisan. After all, history is going to remember what his legislation and policies were, not how many Republicans held prominent secretary positions -- We remember Bush as sending Colin Powell to the UN to make an ass of himself with faulty intelligence, not Bush as selecting Colin Powell in the first place.
This looks like it's going to be a little shakier than perhaps it should be, but hopefully he eventually finds his bearings.
Hope can die easily.
-- Knuttel
or so I've been told ...
actually ... they both lost ... to Robert Plant and Alison Kraus for best pop collaboration with vocals. Chris Brown collaborated with Jordin Sparks, Rihanna with Maroon 5.
Oh, but Chris Brown still beat Rihanna.
And what is up with the stimulus bill?
Did Obama seriously think that handing a blank sheet of paper to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid equals bipartisanship?
His cabinet may be bipartisan, but he's gonna have to learn how to make his legislation more bipartisan. After all, history is going to remember what his legislation and policies were, not how many Republicans held prominent secretary positions -- We remember Bush as sending Colin Powell to the UN to make an ass of himself with faulty intelligence, not Bush as selecting Colin Powell in the first place.
This looks like it's going to be a little shakier than perhaps it should be, but hopefully he eventually finds his bearings.
Hope can die easily.
-- Knuttel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)