 Back in September, I applied, for the 3rd time, to the "legitimate" website WhatCulture which writes-and I use this term very very loosely-"articles" about pop culture such as movies, video games and what have you. After finally getting in, I wrote my first article; a list based thing surrounding the 4 best shows that got quickly canceled but had decent endings despite the abrupt cancelation. The article did so so, and I didn't really enjoy it because the way I see it, those aren't articles.
These sites that have now popularized list based articles or such are becomingly rapidly abundant. Between Cracked (the only decent one), WhatCulture, BuzzFeed (even LESS because half the article is FUCKING PHOTOS) and UpWorthy. This is the same issue I have with Tumblr. It's theses sites that don't really have content, they just have clutter. Tumblr isn't a blog because a blog indicates original written content. Tumblr is not only 99% photos but 99% not even original as the majority of everyones Tumblr is reblogging, so nobody fucking makes anything original to start with. I never wrote another WhatCulture article mainly because I hate lists and they didn't pay. Recently, they started paying, so I went back and pitched a new article which was promptly rejected, which lead me to THIS conclusion.
These sites don't care about content. They care about clicks. Sure, understandable, a click is how you get paid. But there should be a line somewhere shouldn't there that separates your financial interest and your artistic integrity? Did I just use the phrase "artistic integrity" when talking about WhatCulture? Yeesh. The article I pitched, which will now be posted here (as it was intended to originally anyway) was about how PG-13 films compromise the quality of the film for a larger net audience and mainstream monetary value, therefore the rating doesn't allow darker films to go to the places they need to go to for story and therefore it compromises the entire product because the film isn't what it could've been. I even-at the end of my pitch-said "Hey guys, I could do this as a list article with all the ratings if that's what you'd prefer" seeing as I felt that might help its chances. Apparently it didn't. Here's where my belief that WhatCulture doesn't care about legitimate quality content comes in, but moreso, my annoyance as this is the SECOND time I've pitched an editorial piece that's been rejected.
Why would you give the writer the option-when you pitch a piece, it makes you choose what kind it is, list, editorial and so on-the choose editorial, then give them, not to make myself sound great but a pretty excellent thought provoking article about a real problem in filmmaking right now, and then NOT WANT THAT ARTICLE. Why even GIVE the option to have editorials? Yes, it's your website. Yes, you choose what gets published. Yes, you're ruining your "credibility" by pushing out shit garbage like "the 8 times Skeletor rode a pony!" but I guess if that's the toilet water you want to feature on your site, then so be it.
I guess in retrospect, I should've pitched the 5 sites WhatCulture has PLAGIARIZED FROM.
Oh, haven't heard of that? Yeah, get a load of THIS.
You can read the entire article linked here. So not only do they steal from other writers, get caught doing it, do it AGAIN and seemingly nothing comes from it, but they also deny the possibility of any actual good articles to be published on their site. I guess it's for the best. If my article had gone through, people would've had to THINK instead of look at silly pitches of Dr. Who drinking 8 different kinds of soda in the "8 different kinds of product placement featured in Dr. Who" article. Am I bitter? Certainly, a little. What I am more however is shocked that this-this reputable site that has quotes on DVD boxes for god sakes-is allowed to get away with this time and time again! That's what I am. Not bitter. Disappointed. Disappointed in the internet, in journalism and overall the world right now. Shit like this makes me not want to write. This is SICKENING. And what's worse is they'll keep getting away with it. Who says cheaters never prosper.
 Years ago, I read the first half of the book "Maximum Ride" because I was such a huge James Patterson fan. I never forgave him, and didn't read anything he wrote again until about a year ago when I read "Honeymoon" which was one of the greatest thrillers ever with the single most disappointing ending I've ever experienced. Now, if you're a reader of this blog, you'll know that endings aren't important to me, so this was a rare exception. However, my rare exception wasn't without provocation, BECAUSE, on the cover it says: "DON'T GIVE AWAY THE ENDING" so when you read that, you expect something earth shattering and not the shitstain you're given. Really, I'm not taking the blame for this disappointment, this was Pattersons once more, for dropping the ball yet again AFTER telling me I'd be blown away. That being said, I did love the book and I still rated it a 4 out of 5 because of how good it was despite it's shit ending; sadly, "The Fault Ib Our Stars did NOT receive the same treatment.
It's odd, I'm not usually very critical of books, which is weird because I'm a writer first and foremost. One of the taglines for this book is "Cancer books suck" and boy is that true for this. Now, this is a loaded gun with you young people, so hear me out. I like John Green, but I often feel he should be BETTER. In fact, Paper Towns is the only one he's written that's actually been GOOD, as his other work is just mediocre to ok. He's not a bad writer, at all, and he's got a really cool voice (and I love his blog and stuff, he's got some really good points on things) but one of the first things you learn as a writer are your strengths and weaknesses and that just because you WANT to write about something doesn't mean you CAN or SHOULD. The problem isn't the cancer aspect, the problem isn't the "mary sue" I've seen people call Hazel (a Mary Sue is a bland underdeveloped lead designed to allow any reader to insert themselves into the lead role, a character with no faults or poor traits) because Hazel was one of the only enjoyable things, and it wasn't even really the all over the god damn place feeling of the book.
The problem was Augustus Waters.
He is hands down one of the WORST characters I've EVER read. AND, not only is your lead male love interest fucking terrible, but the novel borderlines on "Twilightesque" romance, and what that means is never is it really indicated WHY these two love one another. A big issue in romance (movies, novels, whatever) is understanding why two characters love one another. NOW, while it's a bit realistic to NOT have a real reason because people fall in love for no reason at all all the time and I do kind of admire that, it also doesn't work for all love stories. "Because they both have cancer" isn't a reason, it's an excuse. These characters outside of their somewhat similar sense of humor had NOTHING. IN. COMMON. Not that the old time phrase "opposites attract" is right or true, but you have to have SOMETHING in common besides just both being sick, otherwise what the hell do you build your relationship on? Vanity? Because these two certainly do. CONSTANTLY you are told by Hazel how hot Augustus is. He constantly tells her she is beautiful, so is this mirroring teenage romance where it's almost all purely physical and lust based? Even when I was a teenager I didn't understand teenagers, and I certainly don't now either at 24. The book was also all over the place, and the subplot regarding the author of Hazels favorite book was better than the entire main plot. In fact, he's really the only character who acts like a real person (outside maybe Hazels parents) in this entire book. Book was pretty damn funny though. I will give it that much.
It's not that it's a bad book, it's more one of those overly hyped pieces of media that just fell completely flat. I read to the end waiting for it to get better-and it was given a million chances-but it never does, sadly. Its completely blah, mediocre and despite being well written isn't all that interesting. I was told by so many people it's "the saddest thing ever" or they they cried through the entire thing or that it was so movingly beautiful or that it "gave them feels" (that shit needs to stop, ok? Stop taking 4chan stuff and making it your own. Fucking stop it. "Feels" is fucking stupid now) and yet I felt NOTHING. The only time I felt anything was near the end when Van Houtons realization of his daughters death came to light, and that's because it was REAL. It felt realistic.
Ironic, isn't it? The most "unlikeable" character in this book is the only one I really liked.
Either way, I'm waiting for Green to finally write another book that hits the highs that Paper Towns hit, but I may be waiting a while, given now that it seems this book sold out entirely to the tween audience, and that it may only spawn more generic sad love stories.
RATING: 2 OUT OF 5
 Recently, USA started replaying Modern Family.
This was great because it isn't on netflix, or really any other channel besides the one it airs on, so it was a chance to see a lot of episodes I'd never seen as I was never a religious viewer, but had always enjoyed what I had witnessed. I started to tune in every day at dinner and I realized very quickly that I'd see the same episodes almost daily. Then I realized this actually happens a LOT with shows that are still on the air but are now syndicated, like How I Met Your Mother. It hit me that the reason for this is a brilliant marketing ploy.
Think about it...you never really watch the show simply because you either work, or are just busy with life in general, or maybe you were interested but missed it when it started and now simply can't catch up because of the means of catching up (don't wanna buy the DVD or iTunes or whatever). A dozen simple and logical reasons you didn't watch it. So what do the networks do? They syndicate shows to other networks and the other networks promote it as saying, "Modern Family is now on USA!". You get all excited and want to watch it now, until you realize it actually is, "5 episodes of Modern Family are now on USA!" and so you get tired of those episodes quickly, and want to see new ones, but you still don't wanna pay for them. What do you do? You find out when new episodes air and you start to tune into those.
BAM. NEW VIEWERS. BRILLIANT.
I mean, it really is absolutely brilliant. I think a lot of this is now happening thanks to Family Guy having been on Adult Swim. They gained a ton of viewership, people actually went and bought the DVDS and Fox brought the show back from cancelation! The show may be hurting for views or not-I don't really know, honestly-but it does bring in new viewers who hunger for episodes they don't have to pay for and aren't the same ones they've already been subjected to 80 thousand times. It's also a way to get around licensing your product to things like Netflix, which come with HUGE tags. Netflix will put your program on their service for a yearly fee but it also will expire and NBC will have to renew it (which may cost more, I don't know) and it keeps people who have Netflix from buying the DVDs or iTunes or Amazon episodes because why pay for something if you can have it for 7 dollars a month along with tons of other content. So they skirt around that danger zone by simply syndicating it and then gaining more viewers for new episodes via their syndication.
For once, it's a marketing ploy I don't have a problem with, because it's worked. I now generally tune into new episodes when they air. Well done.
 Rotten Tomatoes is both a godsend AND a curse. On one hand, they can save you from watching a legitimately atrocious movie such as The Unborn or Suckerpunch, but then they praise other movies too highly (Cabin in the Woods) and give actually somewhat decent movies too low of a score. It's all because it's user based and the user rating is what the people visiting the site pay attention to. There are 3 films in particular that I'd like to discuss, 2 of which have a pretty low score and the other has a high score but is panned by the people who saw it and critics alike. Those films are Jumanji, Avatar and The Mummy (not in the correct order). Avatar has an 83%, Jumanji has a 50% and The Mummy has a 55%.
Both The Mummy and Jumanji are actually rated higher than I thought they'd be, as they're right on the cusp of being rotten AND fresh, but they are-using the RT system-considered rotten. However, both these films are incredibly enjoyable, entertaining and easy to watch, and they both came out in the mid to late 90s, when we were trying to push our technology with graphics and cgi and special affects forward, so that movies like Avatar could be made. That's why-despite the rotten rating and the fact that they're actually pretty enjoyable-these films are VERY important. Yes, Jumanji and The Mummy are both incredibly silly and often times off the wall cheesy but it WAS the 90s. Yet, I will show Jumanji to my children and I STILL love The Mummy. Both are so fun to watch, and both have special effects (well, Jumanjis CGI stuff anyway) that hold up EXTREMELY well comparatively today.
This is why these films are important.
Take away the ratings and you're left with movies that had to exist purely to push our technological advancements forward. I believe Roger Ebert said about Jumanji that the director had made a career off flashy big budget special affects films and the film is lifeless and dreadful, and while he has a standard point-films don't NEED special affects to be great, or any effects at all-he's also missing the fact that without movies like those then, we wouldn't have the effects we have today. That's a big thing. These films deserve the credit for taking the chance of pushing our special effects forward and being pioneers in a way. Also, there's a BIG difference between a "film" and a "movie". All 3 of these are movies. They aren't meant to be artistic or life changing. They're just meant to be entertaining. That's why as kind of shitty as Avatar was and the pans it got, it was still decent because it was entertaining. Films are things that make you think and make you look at the world in a new fresh perspective. Things that are artistic like "The Artist" or "Citizen Kane" or "Gravity". These are films.
Avatar is a whole other beast, though, because while the movie went on to be the highest grossing movie of all time, it's not by ANY means a "great artistic endeavor". I understand the rating it has because it's certainly a mainstream hit. It was a cultural thing to go see. Plus, with James Camerons name attached it was a surefire box office draw, which usually happens with these insanely respected directors. BUT...I also understand the pans it got. It has a LOT of flaws. I mean, all I REALLY have to say is the "unobtainium" (which may have been named to BE bad on purpose, I don't know) and you get the problems. It's a formulaic story we've all seen a billion times before. It's Pocahontas meets Ferngully in space. I don't like any of those things and I don't want the meeting anywhere, much less in space. In fact, it's SO formulaic, and we all know it so well, any one of us could've sat down after seeing that trailer and wrote that script, almost beat for beat.
BUT, it needs the credit for doing what it did technologically. Avatar to me is the payoff for things like Jumanji and The Mummy. We saw the beginning and the end result, and we'll see even more of the end result later on down the road. Someday something will come along with the effects of a movie and the artistic integrity of a film and be a perfect 100%. Life of Pi has already set us further down that path. Hugo was a great example. Shit, even A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) is a wonderful example of it, and that was eons before Avatar.
So yes, these movies may not be great and they may not be the best things you've ever seen, but give credit where credit is due because without movies like these, we wouldn't have the effects we have today.
 There are some documentaries that become commercial and mainstream to the point where you question if they're legitimate. Supersize Me would probably be the best example, where years afterwards a lot of Spurlocks statements and research has been debunked, or so they say, but the thing about Supersize Me is it was pretty entertaining, and Spurlock is a pretty cool guy. The Cove would be another good one. Completely from the american point of view, and not going into the history of the japanese food culture itself, The Cove is another mainstream documentary that shows that these pander to people who don't want both sides of the story. They simply buy whatever they are told and shown on screen. Who are WE to say what people can and cannot eat, or how they do it? Japanese people have been catching and eating dolphin for thousands of years. I guarantee you that if tomorrow someone made a documentary about cows, we'd all still go eat cow. We wouldn't stop.
But the best example would be the 2011 documentary Bully. Unlike the other 2-which did actually have some good messages in them-this thing pissed me off. When this thing caught fire, it began the anti bully campaign that I LOATH. As someone who was bullied, you'd think I'd be all for it, except nobody made laws for me and the other kids. Nobody made a documentary. Nobody GAVE A SHIT. Kids need to learn to handle things on their own; survival of the fittest. It's harsh, yeah, but it's the world. Otherwise, everytime your kid comes into a problem even as an adult they're going to think they can run to mommy and daddy, which is half the problem because by bringing in parents-as they did at some points in this film-and getting the bullies in trouble, all you're doing is making the bullies ANGRIER and they're going to hurt your kid more.
Opening rant aside, I HATED this documentary. I found it INCREDIBLY one sided, biased to the "victims" and you're trying to stop something that has gone on forever and will never be fully stopped. It's completely biased towards the "victims" of bullying, because they make the bullies in this film out to be these absolutely terrible kids who just hurt other kids, but where's THOSE kids side of the story? Actions have reactions. There's a reason someone does something. Perhaps those bullies are being bullied themselves or facing abuse at home. But do we see that? Does it ever even COME UP? NO. It doesn't. We're supposed to just buy it at face value that these kids are evil, awful, heartless people and they don't deserve any sympathy. It's so wrong. Not only that, but these kids are caught on camera saying things like, "I'm gonna stab you" and "you're my bitch". I'm sorry, but kids are smart. I guarantee you-even if they were told to just act like they normally do-no kid, NO KID WOULD EVER, allow themselves to be caught on tape saying and doing the things they were caught saying and doing. They know there's repercussions to that. Imagine if their parents saw it! This documentary is selling a point of view.
And that's the problem with mainstream documentaries I feel. Documentaries are supposed to show you something and allow you to see both sides of it and decide where you fall on how you feel about it. These mainstream documentaries-bully, the cover, supersize me-they don't do that. They don't sell truth, they sell biased one sided opinions and then attack anyone who says that's wrong. That's the other thing I really hate about the anti bully campaign. If you say you're against it-even for good reasons-the anti bully people are bullies themselves, because they will verbally abuse you to the point where you just give in and have to be for anti bullying. It's sickening. It's downright sickening. You're not allowed to have an opinion in these matters. Just shut up and follow the crowd. If you're not with us, you're against us; you're our enemy.
How is that RIGHT?
AND...and this is the worst part to me...the director of this film said he made it because he himself was a victim of bullying. Ok, I can get behind that. For sure. It's therapy. As a writer, as an artist, I can TOTALLY get behind that. But then he goes and makes this movie with the hopes that he can shed light and open eyes to this "epidemic" that has been going on forever and maybe better things. Alright, he didn't do it in the best way, but his intentions were good, right? That does count for something. But then he SELLS IT. I'm sorry, I understand movies need to be profitable, but this is the thing that bugs me, because as Kyle said so well in South Park's parody of the anti bully campaign episode: "If this video needs to be seen by everyone, why don't you put it on the internet for free?" To which Stan had no reply. It boils down to pure market capitalism. This is darwinian capitalism at it's finest. I get you need to recoup your cash from making this thing, but yeah, if it's THAT important you wanna make THAT big a difference...shouldn't it be easily accessible to everyone who needs to see it? Sure, a movie ticket is 8 bucks or so, but that 8 dollars still holds people from going to see this thing.
Bully isn't without merit. It shows something that is a problem, for sure, but it shows in the wrong way, and it ultimately is only making the problem WORSE. "Raising awareness"? I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure people are AWARE of bullying, cancer and aids. What we need are SOLUTIONS. Not awareness. Do I have solutions? No. Nobody really does. We deal with it. It's a part of life and it makes us stronger.
Bully tried, but it didn't work.
FINAL GRADE:
C-
 There's a few people in the film industry who I think get hated on purely because it's considered "cool" to hate them. Wes Anderson for example, is one of the ones I hear the most but honestly-and this is coming from a girl who went to film school and has made video content herself-almost all his films are totally fine. Andersons work is cool too because he's got the Tim Burton disease (the "this is all i know how to do and i'm gonna beat you over the head with it") where once you've seen one of his films, you've kind of seen them all, but not to the degree Burton has, because, while Anderson does make quirky indie films, each one of his films is different enough that you could mistake it for someone elses work. Example: The Life Aquatic was shot kind of open, and with some handheld, and on a larger scale and unless I knew who made it going in, I'm not sure I could've figured it out BECAUSE Moonrise Kingdom is EXACTLY the opposite. It's tight, and concise and claustrophobic almost. It feels like a play. Two movies, made by the same guy and they feel extremely different. That's talent.
But then there's another person who gets shit on rather constantly by the mainstream audience, and that person is Diablo Cody. Now, it's understandable to not enjoy something just because it's "not your thing". I get that. Some people just don't like quirky independent flicks. Alright. But the criticisms I've read-from legitimate reviewers-is almost...sad. Juno in particular doesn't deserve HALF the hate it gets. First off, one of the main criticisms I read constantly is that the dialogue in the film isn't believable to real teenagers. Well, I'll have you know I was a teenager when this came out, and uh, yes, it IS. That WAS how people talked. Maybe not to that exact degree, as Codys writing was almost an over the top parody of the teen vernacular, but it was pretty similar. The ironic thing here is the people making this criticism are 40 year old film critics who obviously haven't been around a high school in 20 years outside of picking their kids up at the drop off spot. But let's take this to the next level, shall we? If you're going to criticize the teenagers, why not the adults? The adults act and speak just as unrealistically as the kids in this film do, and yet nobody seems to say a goddamn word about THAT.
In fact, Vanessa (Jason Batemans wife in the film) is the only person in the film who acts and reacts in a believable and rather realistic manner. That's why you sympathize with her. You shouldn't sympathize with Batemans character or even Juno because-yes while the are in rather bad situations-they're both kinda assholes. Even Juno, to a degree, is just a little asshole. But guess what...TEENAGERS ARE ASSHOLES. Batemans character is realistic in the sense of the overgrown man child who can't let go of his past dreams, but he's also an asshole. This is why you want to see Vanessa get the kid and just be happy. This is why she's relatable. Because in a sea of assholes-much like the real world-there's always one really good person.
Juno is nothing if not a parody of ridiculously cheesy cliche teenage drama pregnancy flicks that take themselves far too seriously to be taken seriously by the audience themselves.
Does the film make some flaws? Every film makes some flaws. Are the films flaws because "the film is only something a dumbed down teenage white person" would like, as I've read? No. If anything, that just shows you're a judgmental asshole. While I said before, Codys work can certainly be seen as polarizing-much like Andersons-her work isn't BAD. Young Adult was a really good character study, Juno was nothing if not purely entertaining (which is all a movie really all a movie has to be anyway, you hypercritical bastards) and her TV series The United States of Tara is BRILLIANT. Absolutely brilliant.
Does she warrant the kind of hatred she gets? I don't think so. As I said, I think the mainstream audience needs an indie person to pick on and hate because it's cool, and she's the target. Juno is a confidently shot and directed, humorously well written and decently acted film that I believe really began the age of hypercritical film review. And I realize that makes me sound RIDICULOUSLY hipster ("rah rah mainstream audience!") but I'm coming purely from a filmmaking point of view, as a viewer of the public.
Roger Ebert loved it.
Shouldn't that speak for something?
Or are you too fucking cool for him too?
 There's a few general themes and motifes that I love:
- people who are possibly crazy/hallucinating
- sad, mentally ill little girls
- Felicity Huffman
And when you put all of these together, you get a movie tailor made for me. Phoebe In Wonderland may have felt about 20 minutes too long-and I say felt because the movie is relatively short, it just FEELS long towards the end-but other than that this thing is great start to finish. Elle Fanning plays Phoebe, a girl with-clearly-some sort of mental illness and her family as they cope with her acting out at school after she gets the lead in the school play for Alice In Wonderland. The film is brightly colored, vibrant and yet has this sad undertone that somehow doesn't manage to run the bubbly film completely off the rails, which is rare.
The cinematography is OUTSTANDING. Whoever shot this thing should be proud as hell for themselves, because this is one of the most gorgeous films I think I've ever seen. Everything is surreal, and magical and yet realistic. Bravo to you. The film does tend to drag in some spots but it's not often, and for the most part the pacing is pretty good, and the acting is absolutely top notch from everyone involved, including the kids which is not something I praise often. Child actors are usually hit and miss (and more miss often than not, sadly) but every kid in this is pretty outstanding, which is a true achievement in and of itself. Now, perhaps it's because I dealt with a lot of this kind of stuff myself when I was a child that I'm more biased towards the plight of the lead but I don't think that's it. I'm really trying to be as unbiased as possible, and I really do think if you DON'T feel bad for this girl, you have no soul.
Some of the scenes when she's sad, or being consoled by Felicity Huffman (who played her mother) are just heartwrenching. 10/10 would tear up again.
I think this movie has some very good statements, especially with the best line in the film from Huffman to the child psychologist at one point, which is thusly: "You're so ready to put a label on things; medicate and move on. Your field is so scared to just let kids be kids."
As someone who's ex is in school studying for child psychology and someone who's been to therapists on and off since her childhood myself, I COMPLETELY agree. While there's obviously people in the field who do care and want to help children-and as Huffman herself eventually admits, some children DO need help-there's a LOT of kids who are highly over medicated or wrongly diagnosed simply because they're different or do things that adults don't think kids should be doing.
SPOILER It's revealed towards the end of the film that Phoebe has tourettes syndrome, but at one point-after watching her daughter count rocks and wash her hands multiple times, and thinking it was OCD-Huffman says to her husband: "When I was a child, I counted telephone poles from the backseat of our car and if I missed one we'd crash and die. It's just what kids do." I couldn't agree more here either. We all had imaginary friends as kids and we all lived in a fantasy type world at one time or another (unless you had no imagination at all whatsoever, in which case, I feel sorry for you, truly) so it's ridiculous that we just label children today with medical problems before realizing, "Wait, they're children..."
The acting is superb, the cinematography is top notch, the MUSIC IS OUTSTANDING and overall the film is gorgeous to watch and a very pleasing viewing.
I HIGHLY recommend this film.
FINAL GRADE A+
 Season after season, episode after episode, you can log onto facebook and see an endless stream of comments stating that tonights South Park was “the worst episode ever”, “terrible”, “stupid”, “shit”, “garbage” or some other version of that phrase. I think these people missed the message of an episode a few seasons back.
A few seasons ago, an episode titled “You’re Getting Old” was released, and it blew fans and critics alike away because of how honest and raw it felt. At first-and I admit to this too-we all thought that it was Trey & Matt saying, “We’re kinda getting tired of making this program.” However, after the last 2 seasons, I’ve come to realize something. “You’re Getting Old” wasn’t a message for Matt & Trey. It was a message FROM Matt & Trey. To their fans. Their fans who now say the show sucks.
Let’s get one thing straight before I continue, shall we? South Park, much like The Simpsons, has been on the air for a LONG time now. The Simpsons is in Season 25 now. They’ve been on the air so long that one of their cast members died recently because of old age and health issues. When both these shows began (1997 and 1989 respectively), the audience for them were MUCH DIFFERENT than the audience today. And not just the audience, but even the people who watched it then and are watching it now are different people because they got old. THAT’s what the episode is referencing. Your taste in humor. Your personal tastes in what you find funny or good are changing, because…YOU’RE GETTING OLD.
And that’s what it is. AND, if you want proof that others are starting to realize that, here’s a screencap from a user on facebook I spotted tonight before I started writing this article:
Now, spelling error of “shot” aside, he’s right, and it’s nice to see others realizing this. People change. What we once found funny, we no longer find funny. Case in point, I went back-when Netflix still had Viacom content-and watched some Nick cartoons I LOVED as a kid. Now some are brutal to watch. Some stuff holds up well, like old Spongebob, but a lot of it is just…not good. Why? Because I got older. I grew up. It’s not the shows fault, it’s just life. The show is still funny, and it’s funny to people who like what they’re doing NOW. Comedy is subjective. What’s funny to one person isn’t going to be funny to everybody, that’s why “offensiveness” exists. But to BLAME a show is just downright stupid. For instance, after Marcia Wallace died this last week, I tuned into The Simpsons because I wanted to see the little tribute they were going to do for her at the end. Much to my surprise, the episode was pretty funny. I haven’t even seen a lot of the show after Season 10 because it just wasn’t as good TO ME anymore. Not in general, just TO ME.
But that episode was good. I noticed though the show is much faster paced, and just in general written differently than the seasons I loved, and that’s because it’s being written for an entirely different audience. The people who grew up watching these shows may still watch them, but they aren’t the same exact people.
I get the feeling Matt & Trey got really fuckin’ tired (I listened to the commentary for the episode and of course they’d never admit this on it obviously, but subtext is enough to discuss right?) of hearing every single week “your show sucks” when they’re giving you, essentially, FREE FUCKING CONTENT. That’s GOT to be infuriating to a degree. Here they are, busting their nuts to give YOU free content and you FUCKING WHINE ABOUT IT. Freedom of speech, everyone’s got an opinion, blah blah blah, whatever I get it. But jesus. Shut up. That’s what the episode is basically saying:
"You don’t like our show anymore? You grew up. You changed. STOP FUCKIN’ WATCHIN’ IT."
It’s my personal favorite episode of the series, it’s one of my favorite episodes of television EVER and I think the message of it holds true to themselves, the fans and everyone in the world. We get older and we change.
The end.
 You ever hear the phrase “Even bad press is press?”
In this age, relevancy is how you stay…well…relevant. There’s an abundance of bad music on youtube by amateur kids like Rule This City or-god help you-My Jeans. However, Rebecca Black doesn’t fit in this category. The internet thrives on hatred and anger. Just look at it, half the articles on the internet is people saying they hate the thing they’re discussing. Video games are ridiculously overly criticized, movies and tv are ripped apart and most discussions regarding music is how it’s all “terrible” now.
Shit, look at music on Youtube and half if not ALL the comments are, “I’m 13 and this song is amazing, my generation has such bad music :(“, as if your age has anything to do with what music you like or what music is good or how smart you are. There’s 45 year olds who are stupid. Age has nothing to do with it.
That’s what leads me to Rebecca Black. She took the idea that the internet latches onto hate and thrives on anger, and churned out what many considered to be the worst song ever, and became famous off of it because people talked about it so much. BAD PRESS IS PRESS. Now I’m not defending Friday. The song is shit. But I’m pretty sure she KNEW it was shit. She made something she knew would make her famous because of how people would react to it.
And how am I going to back this up?
If you listen to her other songs following Friday, they aren’t all that bad. Person of Interest is catchy and fun in all the right ways, and overall the songs are decent. But you ride that stardom of hatred to the top, and why? Because whether they liked it or not, once Friday was viral, people were AWARE of her. Awareness breeds a fanbase of any kind. They were people out there who legitimately liked Rebecca Black and Friday. So, an installed fanbase from a shitty viral music video leads to a thankful and loyal fanbase who’ll REALLY defend you when you start churning out actually decent content. Genius? ABSOLUTELY.
While My Jeans is hilariously bad too, and you get the feeling Jenna Rose was attempting the same trajectory as Rebecca Black had taken, the problem is her follow up tune, “OMG” is not only barely better than My Jeans, but she’s 12 IN THE VIDEO DANCING IN A SKIMPY ANGEL OUTFIT DOING STRIPPER MOVES. That’s creepy as SHIT.
Rebecca Black knew EXACTLY what she was doing. Friday is nothing but a parody of shitty tween pop songs.
And if you want a really truly great example of parodying shitty tween pop songs, check out Dustin Mclean & Jason Nash’s music video, “ You Can’t Tell Me What To Do”. Perfection.
 Aside from having one BAD ASS poster, no film has made me more intrigued in my lifetime (perhaps The Poughkeepsie Tapes) than the insane “Escape From Tomorrow”. Filmed in absolute secrecy as “home movies” in DisneyWorld in Florida and edited in South Korea to keep Disney unaware of the project, it really is a modern day marvel of how far amateur filmmaking has come. Here we are, 2013, and this guy not only decides to make a film-which is fine, lots of guys do this like Kevin Smith or a better example is the Blair Witch guys-but do INSIDE a usually restrictive DisneyWorld. Thank god Disneyworld had lax rules on uploading footage to the internet and cameras and whatnot, otherwise this thing would NEVER have been made.
However, it IS the type of film where the story behind it is kind of more interesting than the film itself. The hype is much more worth it.
That isn’t to say that the film is bad. For a first film, it’s shot EXTREMELY confidently and the people in it-children too-are very very good. I have a few problems with it though. First off, sound. Now, I can’t gripe too much because of the way it was shot, and so it’s understandable sound would be an issue from time to time but a lot of times I had a hard time hearing what was being said and it made me actually miss key plot elements. That’s not good. Secondly, it becomes rather incoherent around the 40 minute mark or so. See, this film was sold to me as a “horror” movie, so I expected more stuff like when they were on the rides. I expected horror. Instead, I now understand what they mean when they compare it to the likes of early David Lynch, because it is extremely Twilight Zoneish and odd to the point of wondering if you’re on drugs while you’re viewing it.
I think somewhere in this movie is a great 40 minute short film, but I think as a feature there was a lot of padding. A lot of when the father was just following the french girls around…yeah…kind of padded.
But don’t make it out like I’m attacking or criticising the film in any way. It really is worth it to see, especially because of how it was made alone. One thing I noticed was in high traffic areas where they needed dialogue scenes-lengthy dialogue scenes-they actually greenscreened the actors over background footage of the park. Frankly, it not only didn’t look too bad but it was a smart move. Here they are, making a film in a place you’re not supposed to be making a film in, and to take some of the heat off themselves, they did the smart thing and digitally created some of the scenes. Very very smart way to stay safe.
The film is shot in black and white, which DEFINITELY helps. The atmosphere would be downright silly and absurd if they had shot this in color. No question. I had a hard time taking it seriously at points, but the whole film would’ve been a joke had it been in color. Probably the smartest thing they did in the production was that noir pallet choice. They also replaced some of the music in rides and attractions, which was probably to take some of the heat off themselves legally (they actually have a banner on their website that reads “number of hours since release that we haven’t been sued”) but also makes it WAAAAY creepier. Intentional or not, worked like a damn charm.
So is the movie good?
Well, it’s a curiosity. It’s worth seeing because as one reviewer put it so perfectly, “It shouldn’t by any logical means exist and yet it does.” It’s definitely more for film buffs than a mainstream audience, but it’s certainly worth seeing one time. Beyond that just depends on your general interest.
I definitely view it as an artistic triumph, I reward them for what they accomplished with what they had and I give ESCAPE FROM TOMORROW a rating of:
A+
|
RSS Feed