2004 Mellies, Day Numero Dos
Today we see two categories as I try to get through this nightmare of my own making!
Most loathsome television program
Jim
The Jury - This is just one of those shows which illustrates that the writers and producers have only a little working knowledge of the law and its procedure. I suppose that they pitched the show as a "Twelve Angry Men" for cynical, modern times, but it comes off merely as a third rate legal drama in which jurors are depicted as either misunderstanding key facts and evidence or refusing to follow jury instructions. I had originally set my Tivo record this program as a Season Pass, but upon watching the first episode, I was so disappointed that I cancelled the pass so as to avoid all future showings.
(editor's note: Sorry, Jamie...) Wonderfalls - Despite the protestations of viewers, the cancellation of this acclaimed and praised (and mostly unwatched) television program was warranted. The program tried valiantly (too valiantly, in fact) to be hip and clever and postmodern and wry and ironic, and thus, its humor and narratives seemed forced. Oh, how I grimaced when the writers had their main character use the recently coined word "frenemy," a combination of "friend" and "enemy," just to showcase their hipness and familiarity with Internet lingo. Ugh
Jamie
The Simple Life. Because Paris and Nicole will never realize what dumb dipshits they really are.
Jilly
The Swan--televised trainwreck
Randy
No answer
Maxwell
The Swan--I admit I watched this a couple of times for the sheer train wreck morbid fascination, and for this I will be judged in heaven
Scaljon
Again with the Kutcher. Punk'd is stupid and juvenile
Harms
Fox News - if I must be specific I think it's Hannity and Colmes
Valdez
No Answer
Nord
a. Survivor b. American Idol
The League Chimes In:
Goodness. You know, of the shows I watched this year, I'm tempted to say anything starring Wolf Blitzer is pretty lame... but is it loathsome? Not really.
This one is a tough call, and since I haven't actually seen The Swan, I have to believe it's strong showing here indicates the loathsome nature of this show. And I thionk going into why here is a bit redundant.
The show I did see an episode or two of, which outstripped the embarassment of Jessica Simpson or the grotesque behavior of The Simple Life, was MTV I Want a Famous Face.
The show seems like some bizarre sequence from Robocop or The Running Man. There's no other term for this show than "fucked-up." The show follows really fucked-up people who worship A and B list celebrities, and, unable to stalk them on their Piggly Wiggly hourly wage, decide they will contract MTV to get them plastic surgery and a make-over so that they may look like bizarro versions of their favorite celebrities. This isn't to mention that these people don't want to look like, say... George F. Will, or Cokie Roberts. These people want to look like fucked-up celebrities like Mariah Carey or Nelson or something. But they don't. They end up looking gross and weird, and MTV sort of fawns all over them like this is something really rational to do, and not something really fucked-up to do.
I mean, this is the equivalent of you or I deciding we REALLY like Doc from Love Boat, so we're going to go get tube socks, stethoscope and a white sailor suit.
Anyway, virtually all of MTV's programming is seriously jacked, but this show is seriously fucked-up.
But, maybe less fucked up than giving people a total body make-over and THEN making them compete in a beauty contest.
Most loathsome movie (theatrical release)
Jim
Van Helsing - Said I during my initial review of this movie: "Words fail me when I attempt to describe the utter awfulness of Van Helsing. Adjectives like 'abominable,' 'regrettable,' 'ridiculous,' and 'asinine' seem appropriate, but even they cannot convey the magnitude of the film's idiocy. I could attempt to cobble together a word or phrase ('deus ex machina-ridden' perhaps?) to achieve my great level of disdain for this cinematic detrititus, but even that would not accomplish the task."I can think of no other film released this year that was as awful.
However, for good measure, I'll include this as my second nomination: Dogville, a film about America by a pretentious Danish director who has never visited America. Lars von Trier has his moments (Breaking the Waves) but his downward spiral into fashionable pretension resulted in Dogville, which even The New Yorker called "unwatchable." I did not see it.
Jamie
Garfield. Because Garfield ceased being funny circa 1991.
Jilly
haven't seen enough to answer
Randy
No answer
Maxwell
Troy-within the first five minutes Brad Pitt smells the fart. It looks like Wolfgang Peterson took a joke take for each of Orlando Bloom's scenes, a "Don't worry, we'll never use this" take, and used all of them. There is one hot sex scene with a knife, but even Brad Pitt's naked ass cannot save this film.
Scaljon
hmm. I haven't seen anything in a while that was truly awful. I'm guessing Farenheit 9/11 for the obvious reasons
Harms
The Passion of the Christ for undermining the hopeful message of Christianity and turning it into a death cult on the par of Q'tub's death cult.
Valdez
The Matrix Revolutions. The original was fantastically entertaining. Reloaded raised enough questions to keep me interested. The finale was endlessly disappointing.
Nord
a. Lost in Translation b. The Passion of the Christ
The League Chimes in:
Looks like The League has turned on Gibson's exploration of Christ's final days. I never saw this flick, so I don't really have much to say about it. I mean, I loved the book, so I wasn't sure if I wanted to spoil it with a movie.
You know what movie really pissed me off?
Disney's Home on the Range. This movie wasn't funny. It wasn't clever. It was some nice, clean animation, but the humor was derivitive of every Disney movie since Aladdin.
And, if nothing else, it's the last 2D movie from Disney for the foreseeable future. Blah. Just thinking about it irritates me too much to go on again.
Monday, July 19, 2004
The League is slowly but surely succeeding in its elaborate plan.
Just now, Jim D. e-mailed me to let me know he'd been to Mile High Comics in Denver. Jim had not bought a comic in years, but recently, I dragged him back... kicking and screaming. Apparently, he's newly fascinated with zombie and horror comics. Unfortunately, I don't pick up too many horror comics, so I am unable to be much help, but I am more than 100% supportive. I actually am digging Darkhorse's Freaks of the Heartland. it's not a horror comic, per se... but it is done in the milieu.
And then Cowgirl Funk posted about her 4th, and how she managed to incorporate Free Comic Book Day into her day. And the story is well worth reading. She seems to like Spidey. Hey, I love Spidey. More power to her.
Just now, Jim D. e-mailed me to let me know he'd been to Mile High Comics in Denver. Jim had not bought a comic in years, but recently, I dragged him back... kicking and screaming. Apparently, he's newly fascinated with zombie and horror comics. Unfortunately, I don't pick up too many horror comics, so I am unable to be much help, but I am more than 100% supportive. I actually am digging Darkhorse's Freaks of the Heartland. it's not a horror comic, per se... but it is done in the milieu.
And then Cowgirl Funk posted about her 4th, and how she managed to incorporate Free Comic Book Day into her day. And the story is well worth reading. She seems to like Spidey. Hey, I love Spidey. More power to her.
YES!!!
Arnie finally plays off his own caricature as means to a political end! And, predictably, everyone else acts like a caricature, too...
How many other Governors provide this sort of powder keg atmosphere? Not dull, old Janet Napolitano out here in Arizona.
Arnie finally plays off his own caricature as means to a political end! And, predictably, everyone else acts like a caricature, too...
How many other Governors provide this sort of powder keg atmosphere? Not dull, old Janet Napolitano out here in Arizona.
The very first rumor about a new Superman movie to not make me break out into a cold sweat hit the internet this weekend.
Apparently Bryan Singer (director of The Usual Suspects, X-Men 1 and X-Men 2) has signed on to develop the new Superman movie from Warner Bros.. Following McG (Charlie's Angels 1 and 2) being onboard twice to direct, and Brett Ratner (Rush Hour 1-15) being the other director previously affiliated with the movie, it appears Warner Bros. (who owns DC Comics, and thusly, Superman) is trying to follow the Marvel Comics path to success. By stealing Marvel's directors. Apparently WB has no idea how to handle the material, so they'll take the position of lifting Marvel's talent. Real original, guys...
Much has been made over the past two years over a JJ Abrahms (sp?) script which detailed Clark's adolescence and first appearance as Superman, etc... and riffed on The Death of Superman. The script also eliminated Superman's additional moniker "Last Son of Krypton" by, for some reason, keeping Krypton alive and well instead of blowing the planet up and giving Superman a large part of the basis for his character (ever wonder why he's so hell-bent on trying to save all of us puny earthlings?). The JJ script was written after the success of Matrix 1, and was part of planned trilogy of Superman movies in which Superman saves Earth and Krypton from Brendan Frasier.
The JJ script was read by AICN's Moriarty, detailed in Moriarty's review, and sounded like a decent sci-fi script, but had absolutely nothing to do with Superman. WB freaked out as the leaking and subsequent panning of the script became what some might estimate to be the single largest scandal ever to hit AICN. Basically, nobody but dumb 'ol Harry liked the script (who will like anything, as long as he continues to get access), and the WB almost did a mercy kill on the project. Only that didn't happen, most likely due to Hollywood politics.
(Keep in mind, when JJ wrote the script to his version of Superman in 2002, his pet project had been ABC's Alias, a criticially touted program which appeared to be a show people liked, and with a growing audience. In Summer 2004, most people aren't sure if the show is still on the air).
Well, DC and WB kept kicking the development of that script around until this week. For the past year or so, the script has been under McG. The problem was: McG's sophomore effort with Charlie's Angels 2 was a disaster, critically and financially. And somebody at the WB didn't want to hand this guy the $200 million he was asking for to make the movie on a script nobody seemed to like. Plus, McG wanted NYC as Metropolis, and WB is, for some reason, hell bent on Sydney, Australia. NYC was too expensive, the WB said.
Apparently, nobody is quite sure what the new movie would be like or about, or what Singer has in mind. Except that some genius at WB noticed that they've been running a show called "Smallville" over on their TV network. Apparently this show already tells how and where Superman came from. The rumor mill is churning that this movie takes place after the initial appearance of Superman, and, possibly, long after he first appears. This gives Smallville some breathing space and gives fans of the first Superman movies some comfort zone.
AICN seems to believe the movie is going to pick up where Superman IV left off. Or possibly Superman II. (I'd prefer the continuation of John Cryer's character from Superman IV blown out into his own series of movies). I don't know.
All I know is: starting over with a new script and director at this point can't be all bad. And Bryan Singer has handily directed the first two X-Men movies, so you get a fairly good idea of how seriously he'll take the material.
But Singer's attachment to Superman puts immediate development of X-Men 3 in serious jeopardy. The X-Men cast seems to insist on having Singer as a director, and many may not return without Singer at the helm. Personally, I wanted to see Phoenix on film, but I'll take Superman first, any day.
With Batman Begins set to hit next year (the Christopher Nolan directed Batman origin flick), could be a good year for DC.
Except: another rumor hit this week that Jack Black has optioned The Green Lantern franchise and wants to make a wacky Green Lantern movie. Of all the DC characters, Green Lantern is probably the least inherently funny, but apparently Jack Black wants to do a movie like The Mask, and WB wants to be in bed with him.
One step forward, two steps back.
Now I'm just waiting for Beyonce Knowles to begin developing Wonder Woman and Tom Green to get Hawkman. Then I can officially say that WB tries to ruin all that is fair and good.
Check out the CNN.com story
Here's the story from Newsarama.com
SINGER TO DIRECT WARNER BROS. SUPERMAN
Trading allegiances for at least one film, Variety reports that on Friday, X-Men director Bryan Singer signed with Warner Brothers to both develop and direct the Superman film.
According to the report, Singer will work with Michael Dogherty and Dan Harris to develop the film, which is slated to begin production in late 2004 in Australia. The deal with Warner Brothers makes it look unlikely that Singer will return to direct X-Men 3. The other project that Singer was reportedly set to develop and direct, a remake of Logan’s Run may still be on the table, though the trade reported the film may fall now to Constantine director Francis Lawrence.
The studio has also shelved JJ Abrams’ version of the script.
Prior to Singer, Charlie’s Angels director McG was attached to the film, though he left the picture after a disagreement with the studio over location and budget.
Variety also reports that Singer will bring a new take to the franchise for the film, most likely scrapping the original treatment’s focus on Superman’s battle with Luthor, and a mysterious visitor from Krypton who has come to earth to hunt Superman. (League editor's note: This was Brendan Frasier playing Superman's evil cousin who was coming to Earth to kill Superman so he couldn't return to Krypton to fulfill some prophecy about Superman saving Krypton. because brendan Frasier had taken control of Krypton or something...)
Singer told Variety: "My interest in Superman dates back many, many years," Singer said. "In fact, it was the Richard Donner classic film that was my day-to-day inspiration in shaping the X-Men universe for the screen. I feel that Superman has been late in his return and it is time for him to fly again."
Apparently Bryan Singer (director of The Usual Suspects, X-Men 1 and X-Men 2) has signed on to develop the new Superman movie from Warner Bros.. Following McG (Charlie's Angels 1 and 2) being onboard twice to direct, and Brett Ratner (Rush Hour 1-15) being the other director previously affiliated with the movie, it appears Warner Bros. (who owns DC Comics, and thusly, Superman) is trying to follow the Marvel Comics path to success. By stealing Marvel's directors. Apparently WB has no idea how to handle the material, so they'll take the position of lifting Marvel's talent. Real original, guys...
Much has been made over the past two years over a JJ Abrahms (sp?) script which detailed Clark's adolescence and first appearance as Superman, etc... and riffed on The Death of Superman. The script also eliminated Superman's additional moniker "Last Son of Krypton" by, for some reason, keeping Krypton alive and well instead of blowing the planet up and giving Superman a large part of the basis for his character (ever wonder why he's so hell-bent on trying to save all of us puny earthlings?). The JJ script was written after the success of Matrix 1, and was part of planned trilogy of Superman movies in which Superman saves Earth and Krypton from Brendan Frasier.
The JJ script was read by AICN's Moriarty, detailed in Moriarty's review, and sounded like a decent sci-fi script, but had absolutely nothing to do with Superman. WB freaked out as the leaking and subsequent panning of the script became what some might estimate to be the single largest scandal ever to hit AICN. Basically, nobody but dumb 'ol Harry liked the script (who will like anything, as long as he continues to get access), and the WB almost did a mercy kill on the project. Only that didn't happen, most likely due to Hollywood politics.
(Keep in mind, when JJ wrote the script to his version of Superman in 2002, his pet project had been ABC's Alias, a criticially touted program which appeared to be a show people liked, and with a growing audience. In Summer 2004, most people aren't sure if the show is still on the air).
Well, DC and WB kept kicking the development of that script around until this week. For the past year or so, the script has been under McG. The problem was: McG's sophomore effort with Charlie's Angels 2 was a disaster, critically and financially. And somebody at the WB didn't want to hand this guy the $200 million he was asking for to make the movie on a script nobody seemed to like. Plus, McG wanted NYC as Metropolis, and WB is, for some reason, hell bent on Sydney, Australia. NYC was too expensive, the WB said.
Apparently, nobody is quite sure what the new movie would be like or about, or what Singer has in mind. Except that some genius at WB noticed that they've been running a show called "Smallville" over on their TV network. Apparently this show already tells how and where Superman came from. The rumor mill is churning that this movie takes place after the initial appearance of Superman, and, possibly, long after he first appears. This gives Smallville some breathing space and gives fans of the first Superman movies some comfort zone.
AICN seems to believe the movie is going to pick up where Superman IV left off. Or possibly Superman II. (I'd prefer the continuation of John Cryer's character from Superman IV blown out into his own series of movies). I don't know.
All I know is: starting over with a new script and director at this point can't be all bad. And Bryan Singer has handily directed the first two X-Men movies, so you get a fairly good idea of how seriously he'll take the material.
But Singer's attachment to Superman puts immediate development of X-Men 3 in serious jeopardy. The X-Men cast seems to insist on having Singer as a director, and many may not return without Singer at the helm. Personally, I wanted to see Phoenix on film, but I'll take Superman first, any day.
With Batman Begins set to hit next year (the Christopher Nolan directed Batman origin flick), could be a good year for DC.
Except: another rumor hit this week that Jack Black has optioned The Green Lantern franchise and wants to make a wacky Green Lantern movie. Of all the DC characters, Green Lantern is probably the least inherently funny, but apparently Jack Black wants to do a movie like The Mask, and WB wants to be in bed with him.
One step forward, two steps back.
Now I'm just waiting for Beyonce Knowles to begin developing Wonder Woman and Tom Green to get Hawkman. Then I can officially say that WB tries to ruin all that is fair and good.
Check out the CNN.com story
Here's the story from Newsarama.com
SINGER TO DIRECT WARNER BROS. SUPERMAN
Trading allegiances for at least one film, Variety reports that on Friday, X-Men director Bryan Singer signed with Warner Brothers to both develop and direct the Superman film.
According to the report, Singer will work with Michael Dogherty and Dan Harris to develop the film, which is slated to begin production in late 2004 in Australia. The deal with Warner Brothers makes it look unlikely that Singer will return to direct X-Men 3. The other project that Singer was reportedly set to develop and direct, a remake of Logan’s Run may still be on the table, though the trade reported the film may fall now to Constantine director Francis Lawrence.
The studio has also shelved JJ Abrams’ version of the script.
Prior to Singer, Charlie’s Angels director McG was attached to the film, though he left the picture after a disagreement with the studio over location and budget.
Variety also reports that Singer will bring a new take to the franchise for the film, most likely scrapping the original treatment’s focus on Superman’s battle with Luthor, and a mysterious visitor from Krypton who has come to earth to hunt Superman. (League editor's note: This was Brendan Frasier playing Superman's evil cousin who was coming to Earth to kill Superman so he couldn't return to Krypton to fulfill some prophecy about Superman saving Krypton. because brendan Frasier had taken control of Krypton or something...)
Singer told Variety: "My interest in Superman dates back many, many years," Singer said. "In fact, it was the Richard Donner classic film that was my day-to-day inspiration in shaping the X-Men universe for the screen. I feel that Superman has been late in his return and it is time for him to fly again."
The 2004 Mellies, Day Numero Uno
This is too complicated. Next time, we're doing one category and everybody gets one vote.
The thing is, you guys did a fantastic job, and thus... I plan to share all noms and then announce the winners.
One
Day
at
a
Time.
'Cause I'm crazy like that, Leaguers.
Later I'll be posting links back to everybody's blogs for bloggers who sent in a nom.
TODAY'S CATEGORY: Most Loathsome Celebrity
Jim D.
Paris Hilton - Need I say more?
Michael Moore - The self-righteous Moore, though somtimes amusing, is no documentarian. By no means can the sort of film he makes be characterized as a documentary. Social satire, perhaps, but not strictly factual. His tendency to twist facts, rearrange the chronology of events, and omit surrounding circumstances to establish context, illustrate that he is a demagogue by any definition. (See here and here for my previous thoughts on Michael Moore.).
Jamie
Jennifer Love Hewitt. Because she refuses to go away and for her participation in Garfield.
Jilly
Jennifer Lopez--and I'm not allowed to legally get married. she is the example of why nobody should be!
Randy
No answer
Maxwell
Nicole Richie isn't the biological daughter of Lionel Richie and she hasn't made a sex tape. Why is she famous?
Scaljon
Well, Tom Green hasn't done anything in a while. So it probably has to be Ashton Kutcher. Beyond wasting oxygen that clearly belongs to others, he's just annoying and stupid. Actually, taking that into account, he ties with Nicole Richie
Harms
Simon Cowell. It's part of his act to act loathsome, and I know that, I don't like the act though.
Valdez
No Answer
Nord
a. Jessica Simpson b. Courtney Love
The League chimes in...
There are so many tools on the TV to choose from, it's a real shame that we can only pick one or two (or whatever...)
But, wow... People really dislike Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie. And who can blame them? It appears that The Simple Life duo has really drawn the ire of Loyal Leaguers. I've never actually seen "The Simple Life," but everything I've seen of the pair in ads and commercials pretty much makes The League want to begin to support communism if these two are a demonstrable example of the end result of successful capitalism.
In truth, the latest spate of Paris Hilton interviews was what spawned this particular category, but I'm glad to see that I am not alone.
This is too complicated. Next time, we're doing one category and everybody gets one vote.
The thing is, you guys did a fantastic job, and thus... I plan to share all noms and then announce the winners.
One
Day
at
a
Time.
'Cause I'm crazy like that, Leaguers.
Later I'll be posting links back to everybody's blogs for bloggers who sent in a nom.
TODAY'S CATEGORY: Most Loathsome Celebrity
Jim D.
Paris Hilton - Need I say more?
Michael Moore - The self-righteous Moore, though somtimes amusing, is no documentarian. By no means can the sort of film he makes be characterized as a documentary. Social satire, perhaps, but not strictly factual. His tendency to twist facts, rearrange the chronology of events, and omit surrounding circumstances to establish context, illustrate that he is a demagogue by any definition. (See here and here for my previous thoughts on Michael Moore.).
Jamie
Jennifer Love Hewitt. Because she refuses to go away and for her participation in Garfield.
Jilly
Jennifer Lopez--and I'm not allowed to legally get married. she is the example of why nobody should be!
Randy
No answer
Maxwell
Nicole Richie isn't the biological daughter of Lionel Richie and she hasn't made a sex tape. Why is she famous?
Scaljon
Well, Tom Green hasn't done anything in a while. So it probably has to be Ashton Kutcher. Beyond wasting oxygen that clearly belongs to others, he's just annoying and stupid. Actually, taking that into account, he ties with Nicole Richie
Harms
Simon Cowell. It's part of his act to act loathsome, and I know that, I don't like the act though.
Valdez
No Answer
Nord
a. Jessica Simpson b. Courtney Love
The League chimes in...
There are so many tools on the TV to choose from, it's a real shame that we can only pick one or two (or whatever...)
But, wow... People really dislike Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie. And who can blame them? It appears that The Simple Life duo has really drawn the ire of Loyal Leaguers. I've never actually seen "The Simple Life," but everything I've seen of the pair in ads and commercials pretty much makes The League want to begin to support communism if these two are a demonstrable example of the end result of successful capitalism.
In truth, the latest spate of Paris Hilton interviews was what spawned this particular category, but I'm glad to see that I am not alone.
Friday, July 16, 2004
Steven G. Harms sends in the following.
It's a French anti-AIDS ad depicting Superman and Wonder Woman if they were to contract the disease.
As The League is usually not very useful, we thought the least we could do is to promote a little AIDS awareness... even if the ad is in French and we're not sure what it says.
click here for the link.
here is a link to a more complete, but no less French, website with the images.
It's a French anti-AIDS ad depicting Superman and Wonder Woman if they were to contract the disease.
As The League is usually not very useful, we thought the least we could do is to promote a little AIDS awareness... even if the ad is in French and we're not sure what it says.
click here for the link.
here is a link to a more complete, but no less French, website with the images.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)