We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, November 12. 2009
This morning I told a friend I often watch idiotic escapist movies. Those who make the better ones need to be creative wonders. A look behind the scenes at one of the more successful reveals that he needs also to be an idiot.
My local newspaper carries a wire service profile of the director of the upcoming $200-million special effects movie “2012.” This director, Roland Emmerich, from Germany, “has earned the unofficial title of ‘Master of Disaster’” for his prior hits, “Independence Day” (1996), “Godzilla” (1998), and “The Day After Tomorrow.” (2004) They were, indeed, fairly good idiotic escapist movies, to me.
His soon to be released topper will have “a collapse of the Earth’s crust, giant floods and hellish rains of fire (yet not enough to kill the main character, played by John Cusak).”
Wow! Can hardly wait.
Emmerich does more, but notice what he doesn’t do: "In fact, the man who rose to fame as a cinematic escapist is an activist in real life. In
As the profile continues: “In 2012, the pope is buried under debris when St. Peter’s dome comes tumbling down, and peace-loving Tibetan monks are not spared by the great floods. No Islamic site is seen perishing, though. ‘We didn’t destroy
Emmerich puts the idiot cherry on his half-baked cake of a mind with this one, why he “couldn’t make a patriotic feel-good movie like ‘Independence Day’ anymore: ‘These days I have a much more pessimistic outlook for our civilization, despite the good America can do for the world under Barack Obama.” OK, we’re waiting for his film about how Obama’s abandonment of oppressed peoples in Tibet, in Iran, in Honduras, in the growing list to include Afghanistan and maybe Iraq, will cheer shmuck Emmerich up. (Couldn’t resist the alliteration.)
BTW, I’d love to give you, dear reader, the url to see this profile in idiocy for yourself. But, due to the past triumphs of idiocy in media my local newspaper’s falling circulation cannot afford to pay extra anymore for the wire service reports in its dead-tree edition to also appear at its website, and the MCT wire service website – unlike AP's, even – doesn’t even steer the reader to a newspaper that does.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
You don't have to go to Hollywood to find schmucks like Emmerich. I've worked in television for the last 25 years and the industry is rife with them. A good friend of mine (who happens to be quite liberal, unless it concerns his pocket), once said TV is the domain of the "idiot son". That is, in a media moguls' family, the first son (Harvard) got the newspaper. The second son (Yale) got the radio station. The third son (ne'er do well) got the TV station because nobody knew what to do with it. As a result, TV became overwhelmed with morons, like the third son, who became fantastically wealthy.
Sadly, this wealth and idiocy gets passed on to the next generation.
Emmerich and his ilk (what else is there in Hollywood?) can keep making their movies. I'm not seeing "2012" because it's a stupid concept movie, just like "The Day After Tomorrow". A one-trick pony with little thought put into it.
Escapist? Sure. Worth my time? Not a bit.
"(yet not enough to kill the main character, played by John Cusak)."
Kill nice John Cusak? Bite your tongue, young man. Has Cusak ever died in a film? None spring to mind.
The reviews on the IMDb generally said that the special effects were absolutely stunning, but the dialogue was a bit clicheic and the plot too closely resembled 'The Day After Tomorrow'. But if you haven't seen a trailer, dig one up. The special effects look awesome. If you're into death, maiming, disfigurement, destruction, explosions, fire, hail and brimstone (and what guy isn't?), this looks like a must-see.
"shmuck Emmerich up. (Couldn’t resist the alliteration.)"
I'm not sure if "shmuck Emmerich" is actually alliteration, but it sure is hard to say five times fast. :)
"and peace-loving Tibetan monks are not spared by the great floods."
Well, sure. Every child knows that one of the first things to go when the continental plates break apart is the snowpack at 20,000 feet. And here I thought this movie was fiction!
BTW, here's the link to what many are calling "a movie that brings modern scientific research to the forefront."
But let's get serious. Here's the question, and it goes for actors, actresses and producers as well.
Okay, their politics stink and their perspectives are warped and their values are misguided.
Do you not see a movie because you don't agree with the lead actor's politics? How about the lead supporting actor's politics? The gaffer? Best boy? How about if it's a decidedly conservative movie like "An American Carol" but you find out the kid who brings the sandwiches to the studio lot is a member of Greenpeace?
That's what pisses me off. I really like Alec Baldwin, for example, but every time I see him in a movie I think "Lefty nut job!" So do I not see the latest Alec Baldwin flick because of these mixed emotions? That Hollywood puts us through these contortions is simply deplorable.
Fun post, big guy. And thanks for not identifying me as the "friend". Reputations have been lost with less. :)
I might see a movie even if I think the lead is a political nutjob, but I draw the line at Jane Fonda, Roman Polanski, and Woody Allen.
Doc: No where did I say not to see the movie because the director is an idiot. It may be a good movie for those who like idiotic movies. Indeed, with $200-million in production costs sunk already, it'll take a lot of idiots to recover that investment, but fortunately there are a lot of idiots around.
On which subject, BTW, try actually reading my BTW. It's not about whether someone has to do a Google search to find what's in one's newspaper. It's about what newspapers and news services have been reduced to by their idiocy.
And, anyone who'd go out of their way to see Alec Baldwin is obviously a figment of imagination of a troll, the troll living on planet Loki, where one-expression smirk actors also come from.
"No where did I say not to see the movie because the director is an idiot."
Oh, you mean directly? No, you didn't use those exact words. You did, however, spend seven paragraphs implying it. Otherwise, your review would have read as follows:
"Hey, everybody, check out this great flick! Awesome special effects! The dialogue is a little clicheic and it comes across as a remake of 'Day After Tomorrow', but otherwise this thing's a blast!"
No? Okay, how about a compromise? I think we can both agree that you weren't exactly urging people to see it in those seven paragraphs. Fair 'nuff?
"It may be a good movie for those who like idiotic movies. Indeed, with $200-million in production costs sunk already, it'll take a lot of idiots to recover that investment, but fortunately there are a lot of idiots around."
Somebody burn your toast this morning? Why are you using a term that denotes mental unfitness with a movie? Is there an implication that, say, only idiots watch action movies? Or sci-fi? Or, in this case, science films? Or is it if you deem the movie "idiotic", then only idiots go to see it?
If you summon all your mental prowess and announce to the world, "This movie is idiotic", don't be surprised when some wag in the audience hollers out, "Takes one to know one!"
Anyway, calling Emmerich an "idiot" isn't any different than the KosKids calling George Bush an "idiot". You don't reach the heights they've achieved by being an idiot. Even if the guy is an eco-nut PC dipshit, that still doesn't make him an idiot, just sadly misinformed.
"On which subject, BTW, try actually reading my BTW."
Well, at least you didn't add "you idiot" to the end.
"It's not about whether someone has to do a Google search to find what's in one's newspaper."
Er, I said that? All I see is "BTW, here's the link". I do, however, agree with you. This wasn't about Google searches. This was about why you simply couldn't be bothered to dig up the link for the post. You said you wanted to give us the link, but then you didn't.
"It's about what newspapers and news services have been reduced to by their idiocy."
Okay, it wasn't the toast. Get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
And, er, you realize there's virtually no money in online advertising, right? So it isn't like these companies can just say, "Okay, let's shut down the press and go online." And, as discussed, you don't get to be the owner of a news firm by being an idiot, so I'm guessing they're putting just as much brainpower as they can muster into the problem. Rather than lashing out, you should be expressing a little sympathy for their plight.
"And, anyone who'd go out of their way to see Alec Baldwin is obviously a figment of imagination of a troll idiot, the troll idiot living on planet Loki Idiotonia, where one-expression smirk actors also come from."
Fixed that for you. Didn't want you to fall out of character. :)
You outed yourself as the friend I told this morning that I often watch idiotic escapist movies.
This may be another one worth watching.
And, I said, the director may be a creative wonder.
And, I do say, he's an idiot.
Yes, there is a lot of idiots out there, like me sometimes, who watch idiotic movies. That kinship doesn't make us less idiotic, and this director must be the king of the idiots.
And, BTW, I speak often with the editors of the local newspaper, with whom I'm on friendly terms, to improve their product, in a difficult environment, and hedge few words that their prior idiocy brought much of it on themselves, and that much of what they're doing now is only making it worse.
Bruce, would you be able to confirm that Meta has been banned. She seems unable to comment. If so I'm beyond belief at the way she has been treated. Unfairly, unjustly and without benefit of being able to defend herself. Certainly would seem to go against everything in that banner up there. It's a shame you folks have allowed yourselves to be hijacked by Mercury. He is an ill individual.
You mention Obama's "abandonment of oppressed peoples in Tibet." What do you think would be a good policy to help the people of Tibet? More pressure on China? How would you exert that pressure? I'm a liberal (and I greatly enjoy reading maggiesfarm), but please consider this a non-hostile comment. I'm genuinely curious ...
Well, I often lay claim to being the "King of The Idiots" although not on the scale of $200 million.
That being said, I enjoy explosions - I mean I really like explosions. The bigger the better. At one time in my life, I actually got to blow stuff up real good. Ain't nuttin like setting an ammo dump up with a healthy dose of HE, standing a half a klick or so away and letting it all go boom.
Just thought I'd mention that. :>)
I probably won't go see "2012" though. There is a point where the CGI and SFx become repetitive and/or derivative. This looks like one of those movies.
With respect to hard copy news - well, they asked for it. Once you start giving something away for free, then it becomes really hard to stop. Most news papers never understood that and never stood up to the challenge of the Internet until it was too late.
My father was a reporter, editor and eventually Assistant Publisher for the Hearst chain - I'm glad he's not around to see what happened to the industry he loved so dearly.
I didn't see anything suggesting we skip the movie because of politics.
But I'll admit I have never skipped a movie because of politics. I have skipped it if it was hackneyed, cliche, or stupid (The Day After Tomorrow - I skipped). Usually, the stupid/hackneyed thing goes along with bad politics, so it's kind've a double bonus in skipping.
Hollywood is full of nitwits. Ayn Rand talked about that frequently, from her screenwriting days.
JD: Thanks for asking.
For one thing, Obama refused to meet with the Dalai Lama, unlike Clinton and Bush, thus indicating to Beijing that we don't care. He has not pushed diplomatically to relieve Han oppression or exploitation or near ehnic cleansing via relocating Han Chinese on to Tibetan lands. One exerts more pressure by loudly and often and publicly expressing support for oppressed peoples, and aiding them via radio and other media, and at the UN, and in speeches, not by ignoring them like Obama has, in every instance across the globe. One provides direct aid, via airlifts, as in Darfur, and via cutting off aid or trade. In short, JD, one gives encouragement to the oppressed and discouragement to their oppressors, the opposite of Obama's tacks. -- I could go on into a dissertation length, but I think you should get the point of his drift.
BK, you're the last man I would have expected to be indifferent to injustice. So surprising.
In reply to your plea in #5 above (which, incidentally ended on insulting a felow blogger on the opposite side of the country whom I've found to be spunky but have no indications he is "an ill individual), I privately informed you (privately because this subject is NOT the subject of this thread, i.e. is far off subject, one of the subjects of another of yesterday's posts) that I am not the one to speak to but boss Bird Dog (also on the opposite coast), and I haven't a clue, and I've already said my piece at the other post's comments.
For that courtesy to you, you insult my integrity and guts, neither of which have literally ever been questioned before, even by enemies.
Way to go, Luther, to alienate friends and not influence people. You may recognize this acronym: YPMTFO.
I don't understand the 'privately', Bruce. As for an individual being 'ill' or not I'll just say that you are unaware of the full story. I was just attempting to get an answer last night, but as in previous acts of shunning here, no one will answer. In my frustration I went too far. Thus my comment to you, which was rude, inappropriate, and incorrect. You have my sincere and heartfelt apology.
You don't understand the privately! I sent you a personal email to your email address, rather than an online reply in this post to your far off-topic request. Can't you recognize the difference?! Then, online, you insult my integrity and guts!
You were attempting to get an answer, you say, and you asked me, and I courteously replied. Does that sound like no one will answer?!
Apology accepted, Luther. And, friend, you should get your act better together. Thus far, as I said before, and I'll spell it out clearer, You've Pissed Me The F*** Off. Way to go bro, to alienate friends and not influence people.
Frankly, I don't want to hear any more about this from you, as there's nothing I know or can do outside of avoiding being sucked into what I know nothing about nor have any way to affect, outside of counseling you that going off the handle and reservation is not constructive.
The email was sent to your email address that you sign on here with. That speaks for itself.
Thanks for taking your "medicine" or "comeuppamce" from me.
That is a legitimate email address. Perhaps you mis-typed. I've always taken responsibility for my actions.
I reverified, and did not mistype.
Thank you for taking responsibility, and hearing me.