This is happening: Marge Simpson in Playboy

Apparently, this is actually happening.

I am dumbfounded/ amazed/ amused/ probably still not buying Playboy.

Policy: Nakedness

editor's note: I actually started on this prior to reading this installment of Achewood. It was far more inspired by a diagram I had been working on at work for determining levels of tech support.

So Steven has asked:

What's your policy on nude blogging?

And what about nude reading?

Fair enough Steven.

To the first point, The League does, in fact, have a policy on his own nudity while blogging!

Blogging nude here occurs only after the third scotch has been imbibed.

The math works out thusly for common reviews:

Movie reviews: 2nd paragraph
Comic reviews: 4th paragraph
Television: 1st paragraph
Superman posts: stone cold sober
Political posts: before I even start, I've usually been nude and drunk for an hour

Leaguers who are into dudes are no doubt curious as to what the magnificent physique of The League actually looks like. Well, lucky you, I have decided to include a rather sexy shot of myself that Jamie usually keeps tacked to her bathroom mirror. Attempt to contain yourself.


Like Daniel Craig in "Casino Royale", The League rises from the water, revealing his form.

But the real question, then, is: Does The League have a policy for reading League of Melbotis au natural?

I was certain I'd shared this chart with you before as a helpful hint. In fact, I keep a printed copy folded up in my attache case to hand out to anyone who springs me with this very question.

The abbreviated decision chart looks like this (the full chart has more than 180 decision branches, but this usually works in a pinch and doesn't require 41 sheets of paper to print):


Please click for full flow chart


We suggest you print your own copy and keep it framed somewhere near where you might need to do some decision-making.

The League watches: Paranormal Activity

(editor's note: I just re-read this, and I came off rather harshly. I'm adding some content, because I really didn't think the movie was bad.)

You may or may not have heard about the movie "Paranormal Activity". It's currently in release and showing at the Alamo South in Austin.

I recommend reading about Paranormal Activity rather than viewing the trailer as the trailer probably gives away more than was wise to reveal, and certainly spoiled one or two of the film's tricks for me.

The biggest thing that this movie has going against it is that its been released about a full decade after "The Blair Witch Project", and to not draw a comparison would be sort of ridiculous. Like "Blair Witch" or the more recent "Cloverfield", "Paranormal Activity" purports to be "found footage" of a series of uncanny events, with a small, tight cast acknowledging that there is a camera on and running.*

I suppose my one miscue from the trailer was in believing the movie was about "Ghost Hunters"-style paranormal investigators, when it is really about a couple recording events in their own amazingly plush San Diego home (the most paranormal thing about the movie is how unlikely both the size of the house and "decorate with all the taste of a model home" look the place has).

Like Blair Witch, there also only about four characters in the movie, and that works in the context of the movie. In fact, I'm not really clear on who some of the people listed on IMDB are supposed to be. I suppose there are cut scenes?

I just never really got the same thrill from this movie that I got from Blair Witch. Perhaps because there's so much less geography? Perhaps because Blair Witch truly felt as if the actors were being toyed with, and here, our fiend feels like he's almost just a pest for part of the movie? Maybe because the thing really does have a "been there, done that" feel in its own way?


hope you like this shot, because you will see A LOT of it

In a lot of ways, it's kind of a low-budget "Blair Witch" meets the 1960's version of "The Haunting", and so in that way, the movie isn't half bad, all while not really bringing anything entirely new to the table. In fact, the filmmakers depend so much on their pretense of the "first person" camera shooting that they clearly were worried more about story or, in many ways, character.

There's a lot of pressure on the talent in this movie, as they're left to practical lighting, running their own camera and behaving like people caught on tape rather than actors playing out a scene. I can't really fault them for scenes that seemed like an improv class from time to time, and they certainly carried off the spookier scenes very well. By and large, they carried the enormous weight put upon them. Actor Micah Stone does a good job, but Katie Featherstone has more acting challenges, which she handles relatively well, without becoming oddly unsympathetic a la "Heather" from The Blair Witch, while bringing "production value" to the movie.

I am not a true horror fan. It's not that I dislike horror, but whatever gene sequence one needs to truly appreciate horror (like our friend, Wings) I simply lack. But there are certain things I find myself liking in horror movies. I think every Halloween I mention my love of "The Haunting", and because this movie replicates that same brand of fear, I can salute it. And I do feel the director and producers understood what makes a horror movie work without relying on a factoryline of teens getting it in a grizzly fashion.

But you do wish you had a better feel for who the characters are, and maybe that's what made "Blair Witch" work for me, but less so this movie, and not at all "Cloverfield".




The League's Verdict: It's possibly a renter, or a great option if you're in a Halloween mood, and you're not a fan of slasher pics, the latest Saw installment, etc... It does have some genuinely creepy parts, even if the ending feels completely telegraphed from the first frame.



*It should be noted that I did have the passing thought that the immediacy of self-documentation as a trope in horror is nothing new. After all, Frankenstein and Dracula were written as journals and self-narration. Adding a video camera may be just the natural evolution of that idea.

Planet Hulk to DVD

It seems Marvel has upped the ante a bit in their animation efforts.

I tried their first few movies and... not good.

Now they are bringing the last story I remember reading and really enjoying from Marvel to the small screen.



No, I do not remember how Hulk becomes articulate. Hopefully the movie will remind me.

Interactivity time: Policy Questions?

I always need topics to write upon. I have just written what I consider to be my first policy statement.

Ever wonder why things are the way they are at LoM? Why I may be maddeningly consistent or seemingly wildly inconsistent? Why I don't drop the f-bomb?

After several years of this blogging business, I suppose I must have several policies in place that I haven't ever really expressed.

What are some topics upon which The League should have a policy, or do you wonder if one already exists?

Put your questions and suggestions into the comments section! It'll be good fodder for a future post.

Full Disclosure: Blogging and Shilling

It most likely did not make a blip on your radar, but apparently the FTC is asking bloggers to report when and if the items they are reviewing are free, if they've paid to receive and review the item, etc...

Read more here for clarity or here.

We might as well take this opportunity to set some house rules for reviews/ criticism, free content and how we plan to handle this at League of Melbotis.

In short, my policy isn't going to change aside from me adding boilerplate. And I'll get to why momentarily.

1) League of Melbotis will accept review copies of comics, movies, etc...
2) We will not accept payment from the producer or marketing company of the item being reviewed. This includes financial incentives, unrelated giveaways, etc...
3) If a physical copy of any media is received, we will alert readers if we seek to divest ourselves of the review copy. We may keep items at our discretion. bear in mind, sending you a copy costs us something.
4) From this point forward, we will note when and if the item received in a review came through any means but our own pocket. We will note format, etc...
5) If we just watched, bought, paid for an item ourselves, without a review copy, we will not make mention, as this is literally 99.5% of the reviews, mentions, etc... we're currently doing. So, seriously, guys. Unclench.
6) Were something really wild to happen that were to change the status of LoM as a free website being run with absolutely no moneymaking capacity and as a complete waste of all of our time and energy, I will be the first to at least acknowledge a change of status as the big dollars start rolling in and I forget all of you people (sorry, Randy. As soon as the big bucks roll in, I'm replacing you with Fred Savage.). But, really... 6 years in, I'm pretty realistic about this blogging business. It's in no way lucrative, and its not even really a good idea for a grown man to do anymore.


However...

What gives the timing of the FTC's decision an interesting twist is that LoM was, just this week, added to become "press" according to a rising star comic publisher. This means I am to receive electronic copies of this company's comics.

Being no dummy, and knowing how some of you like to freak out about this sort of thing (JimD), I had planned to mention the slight change in status prior to any reviews down this pathway, as you would notice a certain spike in my reading and reviewing. Now, I'm not just ethically obligated to make mention, but legally as well. And I have enough legal problems, anyway (smuggling illegal parrots into the US in your baggy cargo pants turns out to be more toruble than one would guess).

Rest assured: They are not plying me with money and women at this time (yet).

A while back I was receiving copies of DVD's for review from a marketing company, and was charged by several Leaguers (joking or not) that I was now a shill. I good naturedly put up with your baseless whining, and I think the matter resolved itself once we reached the "Speed Racer" incident which ended that particular gravy train.

But, yes, it does not take a genius of marketing to figure out I might view and enjoy a Justice League DVD, and write about it on my blog. And, if you recall, I gave away my copy of the DVD.

I should also point out that its standard practice for media companies to send review copies of movies, books, etc... to professional reviewers. While LoM is not The New York Times, as long as I play by the rules and fairly review media, and keep you posted as to where I got the media, I have no problem accepting review copies. We'll strive to do our best to remain neutral with the possibility for limited access in the face of a bad review hanging over our head.

For the record, I am in agreement of the spirit of the FTC's decision, and hope that disclosures are taken seriously. In an industry as small as comics, its often difficult to determine the relationships going on between readers, reviewers, creators, and the engine of the industry. Whether it has much effect on who buys what, I don't know, but there's always room for not being a bought loser.

Fist bump for the common welfare!

Apparently, CNN is endorsing the "fist bump" as a means of preventing us from spreading H1N1. Intriguingly, they point out that greeting each other with terrorist fist bumps will save lives as its less likely to spread contagion than the traditional handshake.

As The League could really do without H1N1, and also really enjoys a good dap, we're taking up the fist-bump as our new greeting.

But not only does the leader of our fair nation endorse the fist bump (although I think when Michele Obama tells you to fist bump, you darn well better fist bump), someone we all like, who may not divide us down party lines, would also like for us to greet in a hipper fashion for better health.


Superman is your friend, H1N1 is not