Last weekend the remake of 'Total Recall' came out, sans mars, or charming 80's special effects, and this week we have the ageing action hero awesome fest that is 'Expendables 2'. This is all perfect since today I want to talk about Arnold Schwarzenegger. Not about his cheating scandal, or his time as governor of California, but about his career and how his fame actually works against him.
In the 80’s and early 90’s, Schwarzenegger was huge at the box office. He was the perfect action movie archetype. He was big and brawny, armed with killer one liners. His movies range from Fantasy, to Science fiction, from action to comedy.

He was a heck of a success for years as a performer, and has been parodied and impersonated to the point that it’s no longer funny. And that’s why a feel bad for him, not because he’s being mocked, but how being mocked has affected his reputation.
I’ve sat and listened to people impersonate Schwarzenegger, saying; “Get to the chopper!” or “Its not a tumour!” and endless other Schwarzenegger quotes. And when I’ve enquired, “What movies are those from?” I’m usually responded to with blank expressions. People love to mock Schwarzenegger, but have never been truly exposed to him outside of the parodies and impersonations. At this point, he is considered nothing BUT the parody.

The way Schwarzenegger is depicted in most places is as incomprehensible buffoon, because of his accent, and the face value appearances of his films. They’re action films after all, how can there be any depth or substance in a movie built around gun fights and car chases? And regarding his accent, how can ANYONE understand what he’s saying? (I’m being sarcastic there, since every narrative has a theme, and his accent isn’t as thick as people seem to think it is).
If you actually watch his movies, you’ll quickly realize Arnold Schwarzenegger is a comedic actor, stuck in an action stars body, and he KNOWS what he is. You can see it in his performances as early as ‘Commando’. He is not disillusioned into thinking that he’s a dramatic actor, he knows the movies he’s in are silly popcorn flicks! He is having fun with his roles, he is enjoying his job, AND it not only shows, but radiates through the screen and into your living room.
That is what makes him an excellent performer, and the reason I always preferred him over fellow action star, Sylvester Stallone.

Stallone has always appeared to me, as wanting to be a serious dramatic actor, and at times has shown he has what it takes, with ‘First Blood’ and ‘Rocky’. But in his action movie roles, even the humorous ones like ‘Demolitionman’ he comes off as stiff and joyless, where Schwarzenegger has fun.
People miss the fact that Schwarzenegger is having fun, and seem to refuse to have fun with him, like your above enjoying something as ‘stupid’ as a run of the mill action movie. But there is no shame in enjoying it as long as the film isn’t ashamed of what it is.
Lets for a moment personify film. A film that is self aware, knows what it is, and plays itself out knowing the score, is something to enjoy. A film that isn’t aware of the fact that its generic, and has no idea what it really is, is retarded, and I personally don’t enjoy.

Example, ‘Twilight’ is not original or unique as far as narrative is concerned. As a story it’s very derivative. And there is nothing wrong with that in itself. Everything is pretty much derivative of something else. But if you’re derivative, but package yourself as original, then you’re a hack.

To get back on point, is Schwarzenegger ever going to win best actor? No. But is he as bad actor as everyone seems to think he is? No. When you ignore the parodies, and look at him for what he is, he’s as good as most big name stars. The fact of the matter is, he is not the parody, he is a performer, and should be judged as such. And if you’re not willing to hop on, and ride the wave that is Schwarzenegger, then it is kind of your own loss.

Hey there, how about some old comic book movie news? How old? Like two weeks old. So recently (San Diego Comic Con... I said it was like two weeks old.) the announced Marvel Phase 2. Which is essentially post Avengers Sequels. So here are the titles with some thoughts.

THOR: THE DARK WORLD... Wait, its not just 'THOR 2'? We aren't seeing, 'THOR: THE RETURN OF REVENGE RISING'? This is amazing. A personal pet peeve of mine is movie titles that just toss a number on the end. Its lazy. Get a little descriptive will ya? Though to be fair, there is a few words that should be avoided in the title, DARK is fringing.
What is 'THE DARK WORLD' in reference to?... I've only read 'Thor Masterworks volume 1' and Walter Simonsons run on the title (Which I highly recommend). So my Thor knowledge isn't a deep pool. But Dark World makes me think we'll be seeing some dark elves, maybe Malekith the Accursed, and MAYBE my favourite Thor villain Surtur. I at least want to see a shot of a hammer dropping onto the twilight sword, with a huge TANG! That echoes through the cosmos.
Something else I want to see in THOR:THE DARK WORLD is Beta Ray Bill, I love me some good old horse face. If he's not in this movie, he should be in the 3rd.
The film is being directed Alan Taylor, one of the directors of 'The Game of Thrones' television series on HBO. So hes no stranger to swords and sorcery. And speaking of 'Game of Thrones'... WINTER IS COMING!

WHA! Another title with a subtitle!? Well the first film had a subtitle, so its not that surprising that the second would also feature a one as well. I'm just surprised they're taking a subtitle from the comics, not going with 'CAPTAIN AMERICA: FOREVER'
I know exactly what Winter Soldier is. Its a story line that broke what was considered one of the holiest of marvel comics rules. I don't want to spoil anything, but I'll be honest I'm excited for this now.
What I want to see from this one? the return of the Red Skull, and a more defined power set for Cap. In the first, and Avengers, we don't really see Captain do anything to impressive. I want to see less of the soldier and more of the SUPER. There's that part in the first where he love taps a guard with his shield and the man goes flying, that was awesome. I also want to see him be more of a gymnast too.
This one is being directed by the directing duo of Anthony and Joe Russo. Like Alan Taylor these two are usually television directors. Responsible for such television classics as, oh wow, 'the Community', 'Arrested Development', and 'Happy Endings'? Wow that's awe-... Wait a second... Sitcoms? Great sitcoms yes, but sitcom directors are doing 'CAPTAIN AMERICA: WINTER SOLDIER'? Alan Taylor made sense but these two? Lets have a look at these guys.

What a couple of dopy looking fuckers. Anthony is the one with the goofy looking grin, and Joe is the clone gone wrong of Jason Segel. (Being serious, these guys being on board makes my excitement shoot through the roof, these guys pretty much guarantee a fun movie).

Lets continue with the movie everyone is probably most excited for...

IRON MAN 3... oh come on! IRON MAN, IRON MAN 2 and now IRON MAN 3. Okay, so I'll know the proper sequential viewing order, but they couldn't have called it 'INVINCIBLE IRONMAN', or are they saving that for the reboot when Robert Downey Jr. Abandons the character? Okay fine. Rumour is they'll be following Extremis story line, then IRON MAN EXTREMIS could be your title!
CAPTAIN AMERICA is following the Winter Soldier storyline, and has that in his title, then why not do that with Iron Man?... Sigh. All I want to see in this movie is FING FANG FOOM. Bring it on! Giant Dragon!
Directing this is Shane Black who directed 'KISS, KISS, BANG, BANG'. Shane is apparently really good friends with RDJ, and director of IRON MAN and IRON MAN 2 Jon Favreau (who also plays Happy Hogan in the films).
This film should be fine. Apparently Shane advised the guys on the first two films, and now Favreau is advising Shane.

And what movies has Marvel announced?

ANTMAN fuck yes! I know most of the general non comic book readers are probably thinking 'Who? What the fuck does Antman do? Talk to ants?'... Well not just talk to them... Don't roll your eyes at me!
Antman not only can communicate with ants, but shrink and grow! And I love characters that can shrink for some reason (subconscious relation to penises?)... but beyond that, Antman is just an awesome character. He's my favourite character on the Earths Mightiest Heroes cartoon, and a character I've really wanted to read more of.
Edger Write, director of 'SHAUN OF THE DEAD', 'HOT FUZZ', the television series 'SPACED' and of course the comic film 'SCOTT PILGRAM VS THE WORLD' is handling this one. Hes a guy that knows how to handle his action and his comedy.
Rumour is the story will follow Hank Pym the first Antman in the 1960's, then flash forward to the second Antman Scott Lang. I'm actually mostly familiar with Eric O'Grady... the Irredeemable Antman AKA the worlds most unlikable super hero.
What I want out of Antman, is the set up for a villain for avengers by the name of Ultron. Also some good old fashioned Antman and Wasp!

And then there is...

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY Again, you probably responded with, 'Huh? Who?' Well let me just say... Rocket fucking Raccoon. An alien Raccoon. GROOT a sentient tree man! Need I say more?

Okay, two things. First, a story I forgot to tell about when I saw 'Amazing Spider-Man'. When I was in line to buy my ticket for the movie, an elderly women got in behind me. I went through just after hearing her say, “One seniors ticket.”
The woman was a stereotypical, fragile old lady. I looked at her and thought, 'MAN! YOU LOOK LIKE AUNT MAY!' Heck, for all I knew she was dressed up as Aunt May for the movie.
I took maybe twelve steps away. Then I heard a clunk sound, like someone had dropped their large drink. I turned to give the person my silent condolences, since dropping a 5 dollar drink? That blows. Thats not what had happened though, what happened was the old woman lost her balance and did a face plant into the wall, knocking her self out.
In a instant I thought, shit, if she had been in line in front of me, I may have noticed her falling and I could have grabbed her, or helped her. I thought, is there anything I can do? People have already rushed to her care, and someone was already dialling 9-1-1. What was there for me to do? And the answer was... Nothing, so I turned the fuck around and watched Spider-Man.

Second thing. I want to talk about the big violence of the week, the shooting in Colorado during the midnight screening of 'The Dark Knight Rises.' These two things relate in many ways. First off, both happened in a movie theatre, during a screening of a comic book movie. And for me, they both caused me to reflect and think... What would I have done?
I can't honestly answer that, If I had been that theatre there is no telling how I would react. But with every little, personal story I hear come out of this, I get a little more terrified. I've read stories of a guy seeing his girlfriend get shot, and hearing her scream for only a moment before a second bullet struck her in the head.
Or another man who threw himself atop his girlfriend and best friend and took bullets for them, leading to his own death, but their survival. Its scary stuff. Stuff no one ever wants to experience.

The Saturday after the shooting, the day after I saw and LOVED the 'Dark Knight Rises' I saw the cell phone video taken outside the theatre after the shooting. I was nervous watching it, I was concerned for the people that stood around outside the theatre slack jawed, gocking, at the people poring out of the theatre crying, some splattered in blood, their own, or other.
I watched and thought, WHY! WHY ARE YOU STANDING! THERE! This early after the shooting there is no telling where the shooter is, or if he's alone. For all they knew his next stop would be the fucking lobby, or he could have a buddy waiting to start phase two in the parking lot.
I learned a valuable lesson watching these fucking people who just couldn't walk away. I learned that if I see something horrific happen, and I am powerless to stop it (which I often will be). I'll turn to the people I'm with and say, 'Lets get the fuck out of here. We can read about this later.' I don't need to witness it myself.

As soon as I first heard about the shooting, I knew this would mean some irrational fall out. People needing something or someone to blame aside from the obvious people. I was sure we'd hear the usual shit, movies, video games and music caused this. And since it was a movie based on a comic... maybe comics will be blamed as well.
I was right, people think he was inspired by a scene in the 'Dark Knight Returns' by Frank Miller. People are saying that its the violence of the movies that drove him to do it. This all of course distracts from the possibility that maybe, just maybe... James Holmes was an unhappy, fractured human being, who for some fucked up reason could only find relief by doing something horrible. In which case, what made him this way? Probably a combination of a million things.
Gun laws will be debated like they always have after a shooting. And people are going to look for something to blame. One man has already filed a lawsuit. What he went through was traumatic, and I'm sure he was thinking emotionally not logically, but his lawsuit is retarded. Lets look at it.

First he's suing,
The theatre. He claims it was negligent for the theater to have an emergency door in the front that was not alarmed or guarded. It's widely believed Holmes entered the theater with a ticket, propped the emergency door open from inside, went to his car and returned with guns.

Okay, lets look at this in parts. Usually its considered negligent for a theatre to NOT have an emergency door. He's not complaining about that though, he's complaining about it not being guarded or alarmed.
If it had been guarded or alarmed, it may have saved some lives, I'll agree to that. But you can't expect the theatre to have an armed guard at every (or ANY) fire exit. As a far as the alarm is concerned, this would mean that every joe blow, or jerk off kid who walks out of the movie via the fire exit would interrupt the screening.
I've seen hundreds of people go out the fire exit in a theatre, (dark theatres where you couldn't possibly read “Alarm will sound” written on the door if you weren't looking for it) but I've only ever heard of ONE shooting in a movie theatre EVER.
Theatre is not to blame for this shooting. The person to blame is named James Holmes. He is the one that propped open the door and got the guns. You could argue that the American Government is to blame, since you know... laxed gun laws and all. But not the theatre. That being said, he could win this one.

2. Holmes' doctors. He says it appears Holmes was on several medications -- prescribed by one or more doctors -- at the time of the shooting and he believes the docs did not properly monitor Holmes.

Does he know what properly monitoring him means? I sure don't. I guess hindsight is 22, this guy obviously should have been locked up in a institute away from all things pointy, and I like to think that the doctors, if they knew Holmes was violent, would have done something about it. But the second thing I heard about the shooting, was 'He was a nice, intelligent guy'. No one saw this coming from him.
I'm also left thinking about the documentary 'Generation RX'. Its about the effects of psychological meds on teens and children and how it really effects their mind. They claim that meds for depression and bi-polar disorder given to teens actually results in more damage then anything. They give examples like the columbine shooting, where the two shooters were on meds. But again, could be miss placed blame, blame the meds, not the illness, or even blame the meds for the illness. Or maybe a guy named James Holmes shot up a theatre.

3. Warner Bros. Karpel says "Dark Knight Rises" was particularly violent and Holmes mimicked some of the action. The attorney says theater goers were helpless because they thought the shooter was part of the movie. Karpel tells TMZ, "Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today."

This on is the most retarded of the bunch. I've seen the movie, the movie is PG 13, PG 13 is not particularly violent. No more violent then any other action movie. And he mimicked some of the action?... Yes you're right guns were shot in the movie, just like... nearly every other action movie/every other act of violence in REALITY.
I've heard that a lot of people first thought it was part of the movie, giving the shooter a 6 second edge. But thats not the movies fault! Its a movie! Shit like that happens all the time. “Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence shown today” Yes! His name is JAMES HOLMES! THEY ALREADY CAUGHT HIM! And if anyone is to blame for this whole thing, its him.

If you think violent entertainment causes people to be violent, you're a fucking moron. Violent entertainment is a 100 times less violent then it used to be. Because violent entertainment used to be real. 'Hostal' back in ancient times wouldn't have been a FAKE movie, it would be a public display of torture.
I want everyone looking for someone to blame, to think critically, to the point that your brain hurts. Don't just point your finger and stop there. James Holmes shot a bunch of people. He is to blame directly. You'll then ask, WHY? What made him do it? This question opens a unlimited number of more questions, cause no one thing made James Holmes who he is. No single moment created him, but 22 years of moments. When you start to dissect him, his life, his interest, you'll get to the point where you ask yourself a question like, 'How is the fact that he liked crunchy peanut butter, and Stephen King, relate to him killing people?' Your brain will start to hurt, and you'll only be able to answer 'I don't know.' Thats when you stop.
You stop thinking about 'Why?', you stop trying to understand and find someone to blame. And you just go out and enjoy a movie, just like you always have. Remembering that out of the millions of people that have gone to the theatre, something bad has only happened once.
Remember that the world is actually the least violent its ever been, and you are statistically, safe. Uncompromisable, emotionless numbers say so. Don't be afraid.

When it comes to making a comic book movie in my opinion only two things are of great importance. The origin and the characters. You can fudge details all you like but be true to those to things and you have a winner. So how was the origin of Spider-Man handled in the film? Naturally I'll be comparing it to the Raimi film.


The origin in the movie is handled with a limp wrist. That is to say, instead of making something of the moment, it passes by and you hardly notice. Actually his transformation is fast, in movie time like 30 minutes. In our time like 4 minutes... Most of that four minutes is him shrugging off the bite, and making googly eyes with Gwen Stacy.
This origin pales greatly to Raimi's. The spider bite had a build up to it, we tensely see it lower its self on to his hand and bite him. Then later on while sleeping he slowly transforms into Spider-Man after feeling ill. Toby sleeps a whole night, Garfield has a nap on the subway...
The spider bite and transformation are both WAY better in Raimi's film. Everything is glossed over in Amazing. Which makes sense since everyone knows the origin of Spider-Man, so why waste the time... Great question, why did they reboot the series and have 2 hour movie explain everything we already know?...

Their was a great argument in 2001 when it was announced that Spider-Man would have organic webs, not mechanical web shooters like the comics. People cheered when they found out mechanical shooters is what would be in Amazing... but then what was the reason they didn't have it in the first film?
Well its not believable that a teenager could invent such a complex piece of technology... which is kind of stupid in a movie that features a guy that can climb walls. Then again, you can't gloss over such an invention in montage like they did in Amazing.
To be fair, the origin wasn't AWFUL in Amazing, just meh. Especially when compared to Raimi's.

Aunt May/Uncle Ben

The next biggest part of Spider-Man's origin is (Spoiler) the death of Uncle Ben. Let me get this annoyance out of the way... They don't have “With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility” in the movie, instead they have Uncle Ben give a clumsy speech that dances around “With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility.” Why complicate such a simple thing? Everything you need is in that phrase, its simple, yet profound. They clearly did this to distance themselves from the other movie... but its straight from the comics. So you're just distancing yourself from the source material.
Then you have his death, which is done with a whimper. It lacks dramatic impact. Peter in Amazing doesn't attempt to be a wrestler, he just runs around in a warehouse like hes in footloose (I'll get to this more in a moment). Peter is kind of douchebag in the movie.
Where Peter in Raimi's movie loses out on some money and lets the crook go loose, cheating out the promoter who burned him. “You could of killed that guy!”
“Not my problem.”
In Amazing, its not a crooked promoter, its... a convenience store clerk who wouldn't give peter a chocolate milk even though he was only a few cents short. Essentially he was trolled by Randel and decided “Fuck that guy!”

So, really Uncle Ben's death is SUPER petty. Which should have made it a whole lot sadder, but again it lacks dramatic impact. A man dies and you shrug. No one even seems that saddend by it. Peter gets moody for a few days but then his pain is left on the back burner so we can see him make a costume. Its good to have hobbies.

But how were the Parkers presented? Well... They're just as good as they were in the Raimi movies. Sally “I want to be a Comedian” Fields I think is a little to healthy for Aunt May. I like my Aunt May's sickly as shit, on the fucking verge of death with every breath. I want to see Aunt May climbing a set of stairs and have it be terrifying, cause there is a good chance she'll fall and break her hip. Sally Fields though looks... young. She'd probably play a great May though... if she had something to do in this movie a side from wanting omega eggs.

Peter Parker/Spider-Man

Peter Parker has yet to be done perfect in movies. Both film versions are OKAY but not great. They both seem to focus on different parts of Peter's personality. Where Raimi's movie has more of a melodramatic Peter, who is a geek who tries to be funny, Amazing has a funny guy mistaken for a geek, that is kind of douche bag.
I don't dislike either one, I just find that Tobey's Peter felt closer to the Peter I know from the books. Though neither one is played perfectly.

Gwen *Snap* Stacy/Captain *gasp* Stacy

Gwen Stacy is what most people who dont actually KNOW the comics latch onto with Amazing Spider-Man. “ITS MORE LIKE THE COMICS! SPIDER-MAN WAS WITH GWEN STACY BEFORE MJ!”... Well... actually Mary Jane was technically shown partially first. But even then, Peter was chasing after Betty Brant way before Gwen. Lets look at how else this aspect is different from the comics shall we? Gwen didn't go to high school with Peter, nor did she ever know that he was Spider-Man. So, more like the comics? Hardly.
As far as personalty is concerned... Gwen in the comics didn't have much of one, aside form being melodramatic and a woman who knew her place (quiet and in the kitchen... Seriously these comics are from the late 60's early 70's and were written by a man of the 40's.) So the life that was breathed into her in Amazing was much needed.
As for Captain Stacy of the NYPD (Gwen's father) his character is just J. Jonah Jameson. You know since JJ isn't in the movie you need that guy that's against Spider-Man. So instead of being a guy thats FOR Spider-Man, he's against Spider-Man.

HUGE SPOILER! HUGE SPOILER... Actually not much of a spoiler since its happened in the comics back in the 60's...

Anyway, Capt. Stacy dies in the movie. But unlike in the comics his death has ZERO! ZERO! Drama. In the comics Capt. Stacy is killed saving a child from falling debris when Spider-Man and Doc Oc are fighting. But Spider-Man is blamed for killing Capt. Stacy!
When Peter is trying to rush Capt. Stacy to the hospital Capt. Stacy stops him to say. “I know its you Peter! I've always known you were Spider-Man.” You know, since Capt. Stacy isn't retarded, and Peter isn't that great at hiding his secret identity.
He then makes Peter make a promise. In the movie its “Stay away from Gwen you'll only be bad for her, you'll only put her at risk!”... Which makes every comic fan in the audience go 'Snap'. But in the comics, the promise is “Take care of Gwen.”
Lets look at these promises. Now in the comics his promise is a little more difficult to keep... since Gwen is apart of the crew thinking Spider-Man killed her father, she HATES Spider-Man, I mean HATES him (But shes not aware that it was actually not Spider-Man... and well, Spider-Man is PETER PARKER! The man she loves, is also the man she hates! Can you say in a lispy voice DRAAMA!!!)
But the movie promise... well Gwen knows Peter is Spider-Man, and everyone knows its the Lizard that killed Capt Stacy... thus all drama in this death is sucked dry. That promise though... “Stay away from Gwen” (snap) How does Peter honour this dying wish?... He ignores it, and stays with Gwen... (snap & douche).

Eugene 'Flash' Thompson

In the original Spider-Man movie Flash is completely glossed over. You probably had no idea he was really even there. In Amazing however, he makes more of an impact as... the stereotypical psycho bully who tortures his peers. Its like he studied at fucking Cobra Kai!
They go to far in one direction then try to reel it in for a 'Oh he's sensitive' for like two seconds. I really hope that in the future, when they do Amazing Spider-Man Returns they bring Flash back and flesh him out a bit more.

Dr. Kurt Connors/The Lizard

This is the real meat for me. Like I said, I love the Lizard, and I have to say... he was kind of done horribly in this movie. Dr. Connors is a family man, and Spider-Man seems to always have them, and Dr. Connors safety in mind when battling with the Lizard.
In the movie Dr. Connors is just a single man and is free from all emotional ties... and well drama. The movie lacks it all over the place. There is also the complications of the Lizards plan. His thought progression lacks some logic.
He decides he wants to use science to make the world a better place where we're all healthy and happy. The only way to do so? Turn the world into lizards! This would make sense if there was some proper build up, like scenes of Doc Connors speaking creepily about how much he loves and admires reptiles, or even show how upset and traumatized he is about losing his arm. But the movie is to busy spending time on Gwen and Peter making googly eyes, that they cant have the villain be fleshed out.

Run Down.

The Tag Line to the movie was, “The Untold Story”. Which annoyed the crap out of me, since Spider-Man's origins not only had been told a thousand times across all medias, but once already in fucking movie.
Of course once seeing the trailer I realized the untold story was in reference to his parents! Oh, yeah that story was... told a few times already... Alright. But general audience isn't aware of Petes parents so I guess its untold.
Then I watched the movie... and I realized the untold story was actually in reference to the fact that every subplot in the movie is abandoned along the way. Here is how the movie goes.
PETER: “I want to know what happened to my parents!”
*Makes googly eyes with Gwen, get bit by spider.
PETER: “Cool! I have Spider powers!...Huh? Parents? Fuck them I have super powers.
*Make googly eyes with Gwen, Uncle Ben gets killed
PETER: “Uncle Ben! I'll find your killer!”
*Hunts down crooks who look like the killer, makes googly eyes with Gwen.
PETER: “I'll find your killer!... Whats that? A giant Lizard?
*Fights Lizard, googly eyes.
PETER: Holy Lizard! He turned that whole SWAT team into Lizards! Meh, I'll ignore them.
*Close on googly eyes and broken promises.

Disappointing. You have an team of Lizards and you gloss over them? They even had an opportunity to throw Vermin in the story if they wanted to just for an awesome mid movie fight and a lesser known villain. All in all, the movie was 'meh'. Would have much rather they went forward with Spider-Man 4.

I've been to busy to write, and haven’t been home at the right time to post any cartoons. So I'm taking some time to bust something out for you guys. Its an inside scope that may shock you...

I haven't seen 'The Amazing Spider-man' yet. I wasn't even a sure what day it came out. But I have seen 'TED'. I loved it, Seth MacFarlane's transition to film is a step in the right direction. 'TED' smacks you with the laughs and doesn't stop... Plus, Ralph Garman is in it!
Why would a comic fan opt out of a comic book movie to see something about a talking Teddy Bear? Well... Ralph Garman isn't in 'The Amazing Spider-Man' for starters. Yes it has Emma Stone and Dennis Leary, but again... no Garman. (And if they wanted to, they could totally shoe horn him in there).
Second, I was against a reboot of Spider-Man from day one. I remember they had JUST announced that Sam Raimi and the cast was returning for Spider-Man 4, then a week later we see the announcement that they'll be doing a complete reboot of the film series.
My problem was it was WAY to soon to reboot, also I like my movie series to move forward not backward. You may think, well of course they rebooted, Spider-Man 3 was awful!... Awfully successful. Now I know a lot of people hated it, but to hate it, they had to see it... Which means they paid money to see it. It made a shit ton.
I personally think 'Spider-Man 3' isn't as bad as everyone else thinks it is. Honestly when I ask people what they didn't like about it they have to arguments that they like to use. The first is his 'emo' haircut, second is this:

Which... okay, its cheesy, why does the cheese of the first two movies get a pass, but the cheese in 3rd is to much? I'm not saying 'Spider-Man 3' is a good movie, its pacing is painful, and they tried to bash in to much shit into a single film. But 'Spider-Man 4' could have won everyone back easy. It would just require Sam Raimi toning down his zanyness, and Sony's producers meddling hands.
But they decided to reboot. I said from the start that if they get more of Spidy's personalty right in 'The Amazing Spider-Man' it may be better. But then I saw the trailer and the Lizard who is one of my top 5 favourite Spider-Man villians design is kind of lame, and the tone looks like its trying to be to dark, and just looks... meh to me.
I never read much Spider-Man really dug J. Michael Straczynski (Pronounced Stra-...I don't know to be honest), but it wasn't until I picked up some Essential Volumes of Spider-Man that I got really into him. A lot of people (who don't actually read comics, but possess some comic book common knowledge) like to say, “But Amazing Spider-Man follows the comics more closely! Gwen Stacy! Gwen Stacy!” Well... with a slightly more educated opinion, I have to say... This movie based on the trailer looks like it deviates just as far away from the comics as the Raimi movies.
A prediction I made after seeing the trailer a few months ago was they'll gloss over Spider-Man's origins (The death of Uncle Ben) and Uncle Ben will die AFTER Peter has become a crime fighting Spider-Man.

This was my plot outline based on the trailer. A gloomy Peter Parker finds out some info about his parents who are scientist for Oscorp and decides to go talk to their old friend Doc Connors.
Arriving at the lab he sees Doc Connors working on a solution to regrow lost limbs. Peter with info from his parents old paper work helps finish the equation and results in creating the Lizard.
Peter wanders around the lab and gets bit by a radioactive spider, blah, blah, blah.
Peter starts using his Spider powers to try and solve the mystery of his parents deaths, and ends up getting the attention of Captain Stacy whose personalty has been swapped for J. Jonah Jameson. This gives us the 'Dark Knight' the police want to put down the vigilante shit. Giving Spider-Man a little 'edge'.
I believe Peter becomes Spider-Man before the death of uncle Ben because of the scene where Peter is having dinner with the Stacy's and discussing Spider-man... But Gwen also says, “Peter lives with his aunt and uncle... so being Spider-Man and still having a uncle kind of takes away from his origin of “With great power comes great responsibility.” But who knows. This could just be a editing thing. Its just in the trailers format how it appears.
Doc Connors becomes the Lizard and Peter realizing he helped create the formula feels he's responsible to stop the Lizard... then you guessed it, he does. After stopping the Lizard, Peter is about to quit being Spider-Man, but uncle Ben gets killed! And he realizes he has to stay Spider-Man.

But thats just how it appeared to me from watching the trailer and over analyzing it. Anyway, I need to get dressed, I'm going to go see Amazing Spider-Man. When I get back, I'll tell you what I think, and see if my plot guess is right.

Here is a piece of old news. I love superheroes. But I also love my country.

Superheroes, like countries, all have different doctrines and identities. Every country a plethora of heroes not found in the Marvel, or New 52 universes, with their own philosophies and personalities. But unlike the heroes of comics, national heroes have helped shape entire countries global identities.

I am Canadian. And my nations heroes are very different then our close neighbours of the United States. To contrast George Washington, we have Sir Issac Brock. Now my outsiders opinion of George Washington is that he was a patriot, a man that fought to start a country that he loved. My insiders opinion of Brock is that... He was kind of a jerk. Where Washington loved his country, Brock HATED Canada, and wanted nothing to do with it.

Small Canadian history lesson. In 1812 the United States of America invaded Canada, out of fear of a future British invasion. They were simply striking first. One of the military leaders was Sir Issac Brock, the hero of Upper Canada!...
Its a well known fact that Brock hated Canada, he thought his efforts were wasted protecting this back water colony when he could be in Europe fighting Napoleon. Yet he died defending Canada, and is now a celebrated hero, we named a university after the dude.

Another contrast between Canada and the United States heroes. Wyatte Earp, famous for his epic shoot out at the OK Corral, and the Mountie Sam Steel, famous for never resorting to fighting. He'd always talk people down from violence, never drawing his weapon in the line of duty as member of the RCMP.

Those are two stark contrast in my mind. But the Canadian hero, that I think is most prominent in the minds of my nation, is a 23 year old who was named Terry Fox. He was an athlete who lost his leg to cancer, a disease that has affected us all in some way I'm sure.
In 1980 Terry set out on what was called a marathon of hope. With only one leg, he was going to run across Canada to raise awareness and money for cancer research. A little Canadian geography lesson... Canada is fucking big.

Terry didn't make it. The cancer that had taken his leg, had spread to his lungs. 9 months after finding this out, Terry was dead. This depresses me, so I'm going to cheer myself up by connecting Terry Fox to superheroes... Easy! The guy that played Iceman in the X-Men films, played Terry in a Tv movie.

I'm no historian though. In fact the last class I took on history was called “History of Comedy”. So not only am I not qualified, I don't want to take the time to go through the family tree of Canadian heroes to see how our ideals on heroics, and our national identity were created. I'll just say where I think we ended up.

The Canadian identity is that we're peaceful and polite people. Hell its often said Canada is the only country to win independence by asking nicely. I think that's why our heroes are forgotten and unknown. Its not polite to brag.

A Canadian hero, like most great heroes is selfless. But also polite, not naturally aggressive, and always for peaceful resolution. Kind of boring sounding to be honest. But there is more to it, Canada as a nation is reserved, until threatened.
Americans, I believe wear their patriotism on their sleeves, right next to their heart. Canadians keep their patriotism in their back pocket, and it only comes out when its called into question.
The Canadian identity, and the identity of our heroes can be summed up in, stereotypically, in a beer commercial. Back in the late 90's Molson Beer had some AWESOME beer commercials proclaiming I AM CANADIAN.

The one that depicts Canada best features a Canadian, new to an American office. His co-worker says, “So your from Canada, EH?” and goes onto mock the Canadian repeatedly. The Canadian politely nods to his coworker, smiling, until he becomes annoyed, and jerseys the guy. We then hear the slogan and see the graphic proclaiming, “I AM CANADIAN!” The next shot is the Canadian sitting at the bar drinking with his still jerseyed American coworker.
The Canadian klinks beers with the man and says, “No hard feelings eh?” The American giggles, “You said eh.”
That final moment, presents the most important quality of a Canadian hero. What happens on the ice, stays on the ice.

Okay, starting today off with the end of my Rainbow Brite 'review'. I know I said that I was going to watch episodes 4-5, but do to lack of time and personal interest (I feel Learned everything I need to learn about Rainbow Brite) I'm going to end with episode 4.
So my run down. What did I think of the show? In all honesty, it was okay. I'm not going to become a fan, but if some day in the distant future, VERY distant future I have a daughter, or niece and I see 'Rainbow Brite' on RedRay I'd buy it.
For a girls cartoon, 'Rainbow Brite' has a slight edge to it. Its villains are dark, and the tone is adventures. Its themes are nothing special, neither is the art style. It just looks like strawberry shortcake, and the themes are the same old 'Carebear' crap. But 'Rainbow Brite' is LESS gay then 'Carebears'.
Speaking of gay, how is it that 'Rainbow Brite' NOT a gay symbol? How does Madonna with her gross tits, and man arms, become symbol of the gay community but not a character named 'RAINBOW BRITE.'

Anyway, to fill out this post a little more, here is “5 Mixed Media Urban Legends!... Some of which I may have made up myself.”

Alfonso Ribeiro taught Michael Jackson how to moonwalk

Who is Alfonso Riberio you ask? You may know him better as Carlton Banks of Bel-air. The guy that does this famous little dance.

The story starts back in 1983. Alfonso had just stared in a Broadway show called “The Tap Dance Kid.” Showing that he had obvious dance talent, he was recruited for a Pepsi commercial featuring the king of pop, Micheal Jackson.

Not the Pepsi commercial where Jackson's head burst into the flame.

No, this one.

See that move Carlton did? The Moon Walk? That was the first time Jackson had seen it. He liked it so much that between takes MJ had Alfonso Riberio teach him the move... its also safe to assume that, considering the age of Alfonso, Jackson touched him... But that's not the point. Point is Jackson learned his signature dance move from the guy famous for not being able to dance well.

A munchkin hung himself on the set of Wizard of Oz

Dwarfism is a fairly rare condition. And back in 1939 when they were called together to film The Wizard of Oz many of them had never even met another midget. What they found out upon meeting one another in a mass scale, was that they had more in common then their short limbs. They also all loved to party!
Every night after shooting the munchkins got completely pissed. 'Shmamered' if you will. Fraternizing together lead to many relationships and bonds being made. One particular paring involved a little person named David Connelly, and an unknown little lady. They started a romantic relationship, and David fell hard. A lot harder then his lady friend.
No one knows what happened. But at one particular Midget fest, the two had a falling out, and David left the party very upset.
The next day he wasn't seen on set... until they had filmed this particular scene.

See that thing swinging in the background of the scene? Thats David Connelly, a heart broken midget.

Die Hard was based on a true story.

The plot of Die Hard is John McClain an off duty police officer is stuck in a office building with a group of 'terrorist'. Shoeless, and armed primarily with his wit, John McClain must survive, and save the hostages, which include his estranged wife. Believe it or not, this story has its roots, lightly buried in the grounds of reality.
The true story takes place in Japan. Where Fu Nakatomi a off duty constable was accidentally invited to a party at an office building (Fu Nakatomi is a common name in Japan). Moments before Fu was to excuse himself from the party the room was stormed by the Asian Dawn terrorist group.
Fu, being the badass he was, was able to reason with the terrorist and have some of the hostages freed. When things appeared to go sour hours later, Fu was forced to kill a terrorist with his bare hands, and rush the remaining hostages to safety.
There is actually a few references to these true events in Die Hard. Such as the building in the film being called Nakatomi Tower, and the tong in cheek joke about the Asian Dawn terrorist organization.

Jackie Chan fakes his injuries.

We've all watched Jackie Chan movies, bubbling with anticipation for the end 'blooper' reel where we get to see Jackie Chan do his stunts and get carried away by paramedics. But have you ever wondered, how do they ever finish a movie if Jackie is constantly breaking every bone in his body?
Its simple... He doesn't actually break any of his bones. Jackie actually FAKES his injuries for the amusement of the audience. It started out as a gag, but spawned into a running gimmick, where Jackie would add lib injuries and then later have them cut into injury reels.
To take this out of the realm of urban legend (That I may have just made up). Lets talk about a strange FACT about Jackie Chan. Did you know that he started out as erotic film star? Its amazing to think that a former porn star would later on in life be the subject of a childrens cartoon.


Steven Spielberg cut off a mans fingers.

To be fair it was an accident. On the set of Jaws Mr. Spielberg was showing off the giant robotic shark (Bruce) to some grips. He showcased the animatronic monsters movements while the men watched. Afterwords they were allowed to inspect the machines mechanics.
When one gentleman placed his hand inside the giant sharks mouth to inspect a system of pistons... well, Mr. Spielberg had this expression behind the control panel.
Deciding to give the grip a scare Steven closed the jaws of... Jaws, on the grips hand. Unfortunately for Steven and even more the grip, the robot sharks controls were a little fidgety. And it clamped down HARD onto the man's fingers, leaving him with four nubs and a thumb.
They rushed him to the hospital and sowed his fingers back on. Steven Spielberg footed the medical bills and the grip, though lacking some feeling, gained full motor functions.

For a while now I've wanted to watch old cartoons that I may have missed as a child, and present my thoughts of them here on my blog. I always figured I'd start with something in my wheel house of interest. Maybe 'Voltron', or 'Thundercats', something with a great deal of impact on geek culture... Instead I'm beginning with 'Rainbow Brite'.

Not only is 'Rainbow Brite' a girls cartoon, its a 'Hallmark' cartoon. Most cartoons in the 80's were actually half hour long commercials directed towards kids to sell toys. Rainbow Brite didn't start as a toy though, her roots were in greeting and gift cards.
Originally intended to combat the American Greetings franchise 'Strawberry Shortcake', 'Rainbow Brite' quickly found its own footing, developing a following among young girls, and people who love painfully cutesy shit.
Naturally success meant they had to expand with merchandising. Clothing, toys, live road shows, and a god damn television special, all got spewed out. Syndicated television is where I come in. There was 13 episodes of the Rainbow Brite cartoon. That's right, only 13! And thats including the television specials. But when I was searching up popular 80's cartoons, Rainbow Brite was all over the place. People loved that colourful little tart.
Being the curious guy I am, I had to check it out. I began with episodes 4-5. Since they are actually first when it comes to the continuity of 'Rainbow Brite'... Though I imagine 'Rainbow Brite' isn't exactly heavy when it comes to plot.

The story starts off terrifyingly... Not like real terrifying, but like... Disney terrifying. Its dark and gloomy, thunder echos through the land, when out of nowhere teleported to this land of darkness is Rainbow Brite.
Shes been sent there by God? I'm not sure who sends her there, but it certainly seems like God did it. Her quest is to find the sphere of light, so she can bring, “Colour and happiness” to all. She quickly realizes that not everyone in this land is interested in, “Colour and happiness”. And after a encounter with the rape trees from 'The Evil Dead', she runs into Twinky the sprite.
Question. Why do sprites/faeries and pixies always have to have such emasculating names? I'm 98% sure that Twinky is a dude. Maybe its a 'A Boy Named Sue' type situation. Like his Father wanted to toughen him up, so he named him Twinky. If that is the case, it didn't work, cause Twinky screeches in terror every second he gets.
They band together, as Rainbow Brite forces Twinky to risk his life for her, by constantly reminding him, “ITS MY QUEST!”, “BUT ITS MY QUEST TWINKY!”, “CALL QUEST TWINKY TO MEET HOT SINGLES!”

I feel like a slut for posting that... If only I was getting paid for it...

Anyway, Twinky and Rainbow, bumble through the horrors of this land without colour, and discover a bunch of frozen sprites, and a horse. Since little girls love horses, and Rainbow is a girl, shes naturally attracted to the animal.
The duo is attacked by a crazy ass vulture and for some unexplainable reason, the horse is resurrected and thawed. I'm just assuming that whenever something like this happens in Rainbow Brite God did it.
The horse of course can speak. Which surprises Rainbow. She wasn't surprised by the fuzzy sprite named after a hostess treat, or the talking trees that grabbed at her, but a talking horse? GET OUT OF HERE! Horses cant talk. That is of course, unless that horse is the famous Mr. Ed.

The horse is named Starlight and he does a better job then I could ever do describing himself. “I'm Starlight! The most wonderful Horse in the universe! Of course I can talk!”
Starlight, aside from telling us all how awesome he is all the time, informs us that Rainbow Brite needs to have the Colour Belt if she plans on defeating the evil King of Shadows and collecting the light sphere. This is where the plot gets so contrived it may as well be a video game. You have to collect this, to get this, to do this, and collect that, so you can open the door to that other thing so you can beat the final boss.
This is when we're introduced to the mandatory bumbling villain’s, Murk and Lurk. I have no idea which one is which. All I know is I like the one that looks like Snufflopicus. They are bumbling morons, who I think technically are mentally retarded. They attempt to stop the Rainbow crew but they screw it up... and by chance they stop the Rainbow crew... Huh? Yeah. They fail upward, by forcing Starlight the most awesome horse in the world, Twinky and Rainbow Brite into a river, full of piranha, towards some rapids.
It seems like they're about to A: drown, B: be smashed against rocks, or C: get eaten by fish. And after watching this episode four times now, I have to say, I'm hoping for 'all of the above' . What happens instead is they reach the shore and discover a baby wrapped in a cloth. They take this baby to a cave for shelter... This part concerns me. We have a child being taken care of by a little girl, a sprite named Twinky and a horse. It was scary enough when it was Tom Selleck, Steve Gutenberg, and Ted Danson.
Of course, the hand of god also placed the Colour belt in this random cave they chose to hide in. And thus episode four of Rainbow Brite Ends...


People always have something to bitch about in comic book movies. Collected here are the top five complaints about comic book movies that annoy me. Enjoy!

Giant Squid Monster

I'm here writing about 'Watchmen' without my copy of 'Watchmen' nearby. So bare with me if I get some facts wrong.
If you've seen the film 'Watchmen', you know in the end Ozymandias has framed Dr. Manhattan as a mass murder. This plot is tightly wrapped, very secure. All the pieces fall into place. The only problem? Its not what happened in the comics.
When ever an adaptation is made, a group of people get their panties in a bunch. This group is called, the fans. Fans usually are purest, and any changes are a slight not only against the property, but to them personally.
Example: “Kristen Stewart doesn't look anything like ME! She can't be Bella Swan.”
'Watchmen' has a huge fan base. And when it was announced that a film was being made, their pants not only bunched up, they were back drafted into their ass. People would not subtle for anything less then a exact adaptation, zero changes...
...Naturally they had to make some changes. Some for the better, some for the worse. But none got as much back lash as the ending (They changed the ending).
In the graphic novel, Ozymandias does not frame Dr. Manhattan, but instead frames a fictitious giant alien squid. The squid was designed and created by scientist and artist who believed it was for a Hollywood blockbuster.
To understand this, imagine Steven Spielberg on the set of 'Jurassic Park' had his crew create a super realistic T-rex, then killed them all. That's what Ozymandia's plan was. Its really not that big of a plot point, and I personally think the movies ending is better.
To most 'Watchmen' fans? The lack of Giant Squid Monster was the movies greatest flaw, and instantly made it shit. Which is retarded, it REALLY changes nothing in the plot. Its a superficial complaint, actually most complaints about comic book movies are superficial complaints.

Lack of costume

I'm going to admit something to you all. Its a personal belief of mine that you have to be tiny bit gay to be into wrestling, and super hero comics. Other wise, why would we be so into guys in flamboyant costumes? And comic fans are VERY picky about the costumes.
You'll get some serious backlash if your super hero movie isn't loyal to the costumes. Example, lots of people are against the new Spider-man reboot because of the costume. Lots of people were against the X-men films because of their lack of costumes. They didn't want those black leather costumes.They wanted this:

The fact is not all super hero costumes are suitable for reality. Bright yellow and blue doesn't translate well into film. Though 'X-Men First Class' did a great job mimicking the Jim Lee's yellow and blue uniforms from the 90's.
The X-men costumes are fine, but if some studios had it their way, many costumes would be altered to retarded levels. Example, Fox wanted Ben Affleck as Daredevil to NOT wear a mask. Famously Kevin Smith has told of his experiences writing a Superman sequel, where the producer (Jon Peters), didn't want Superman to wear a cape, or tights... or fly.
One of the greatest shames though is the Green Goblin in Sam Rami's 'Spider-man'. I liked the helmet version, but when I saw the test footage of the mask version? I fell in love.

Fans are picky though, and will bitch endlessly about every nitpick they can pinch between their fingers. Whether its the CGI, the costume or the characters RACE.

Changing Race

Lets go to 'the Hunger Games'. There is some character named Rue, who was black in the film and the fans were annoyed. Having not realized that Rue in the book was in fact black. Luckily racial ambiguity in comics isn't a problem since its a visual medium. And in the event that you aren't sure about a characters race, (for what ever reason), its easy to tell.
If a character is black, It'll be clear by their name. (Black Bolt, Black Panther, Bling, Brother Voodo ect). Some reason black characters don't hit it as big in comics. Maybe there is no real interesting black characters (since most are characterized by the fact they're not white), or maybe we're all just a bunch of racist.
The strange truth is, a lot of the black characters in comics, kind of need to be black. Most where made during the civil rights movement, and thus a African American super hero was quite poignant.
On the other hand, its not very crucial now a days that Peter Parker is white. He could easily be black, or Latin American, and his character would stay the same... Sadly, must people don't feel that way.
People are more enraged by a change in race then any change to plot or costume. There was serious backlash when Micheal Clark Duncan played the King Pin. There was great annoyance when Heimdall of Thor was black. And there was serious rage when a British Actor was cast as Superman.
How did all of this racially incorrect casting affect the quality of each of these films? Not at all. Comic fans just like to bitch and whine.
What is a personal nitpick of my mine is when the films affect the comics. Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) in the Marvel Ultimate Universe is not only black, but they requested that they base his design off of Samuel L. Jackson. Before that in the regular Marvel Universe (616), Nick Fury was white... At least for the 47 years leading up to the Avengers movie.
Now, for whatever reason, marvel was in love with their Ultimate Universe line for a while. Every video game based off a marvel character had the word 'Ultimate' wrenched into the title just for some kind of recognition. And the characters all wore their 'Ultimate' comics costumes... but retained all their 616 universe stories... Its all kind of confusing.
Regardless. 'The Avengers' movie needed a splash of colour beyond green, and Samuel L. Jackson was an obvious choice. Marvel worried they would confuse the general, none comic reading audience, when they decided to finally check out the source material and discover a white Nick Fury. So in their infinite wisdom they concocted a masterful plan.
It had been revealed that Nick Fury had at some point (Probably the 60s) splattered his seed into a sista. Meaning he had a illegitimate black son, named Marcus Johnson. In a mini series named 'Battle Scars'. Nick Fury retires... But not after Marcus loses his eye... here is the ending...

I'm looking for a word right now... and its not subtle.

Indian Slums & Adopted Joke

These last two are lumped together, since they're both kind of equally retarded, and both about the same movie. 'The Avengers'.
If you recall, early in the movie (I'm assuming everyone has seen it), we're introduced to Bruce Banner in what was apparently a Indian slum. He's using his medical knowledge to aid the sick there. Hes being a regular Norman Bethune... Except not a communist.
This scene didn't even register to me. I was just like, “Good Dr.Banner helping these poor sick people.” But India was just like, “Enough of this slum dog shit! We're not all that poor! We don't need fucking whites helping us!”... Yes I am paraphrasing slightly... honestly, only slightly. Also it helps if your read that line as if its being said by an angry Gerry Bednob.
Here is what I think. That 3 minute scene in 'The Avengers', didn't have people walking out of the theatre going, “Damn is India in the dumps.” By the end of 'The Avengers' people were to busy talking about the other 120 minutes. No one gives a shit about India, when their is a fucking giant green monster in the movie.
The second thing, was something that probably got a chuckle out of you in the theatre.

Thor: Have a care how you speak. Loki is beyond reason, but he is of Asgard. And he is my brother.
Natasha Romanoff: He killed eighty people in two days.
Thor: He's adopted.

Everyone in my theatre laughed, or at least it sounded that way. Apparently there was a group of people out there whose pouting was over shadowed by the yuks of the audience. This small group was the adopted.
An adoption group was highly insulted by the adoption joke. They felt it was unnecessary that they should be reminded of the fact that their parents didn't want them. So insulted as they were they did what anyone would do. Started a petition.

As noted in a petition created by Jamie Berke on Change.org, “According to your scriptwriter, the fact (Loki) was adopted is the reason he is a bad guy!...Being adopted is not something to use for the butt of jokes! Marvel, immediately cease using adoption as the butt of jokes AND issue a public apology to the adoption community!”

Holy shit. Fuck you, you adopted shit heads. Do you not shower because your worried the water will damage your thin skin? First let me explain the joke to you adopted fucks.
The fact that Loki was adopted isn't the reason he was a bad guy, the reason he was a bad guy was the fact that he's a power hungry asshole. The reason Thor points out that Loki is adopted was to distance himself by making a point of the fact that they're technically not blood.
So fuck you, and your public apology. I hope marvel makes MORE jokes about adoption just so you'll continue crying. Cause news flash asshole. No one feels bad for the kids that were adopted. People feel bad for the kids that HAVENT been adopted.
And I'm willing to bet those kids weren't offended by the joke in 'the Avengers'... Mostly because they haven't heard the joke, since they don't have parents to take them to go see it.

Rebecca Black has released a new single, to which most of the world replied with groans of annoyance. Having heard only a smudge of the song, I can say that its no where near as annoying as 'Friday' was, and of course, will not be nearly as successful as 'Friday' was.
Believe it or not, she made a some decent coin off her song 'Friday'. As of March 2011, she had made 40,000 dollars. Seems that we all mocked her all the way to the bank.
I was eavesdropping on some strangers one day... judge me all you want... And I over heard this college girl talking to her mother about Rebecca Black, and about how there's all these poor kids that put videos of themselves online and are bullied for it. If I had been apart of that conversation I would of said, “No. They're bullied because they suck.”
You spend some time looking around on Youtube, you'll find some seriously talented people, who are praised for their skills. You'll also find a bunch that suck, who are criticized and mocked.
Obviously I do not support bullying, or... cyber bulling. BUT when you're performing, when you're presenting yourself in a media, or to the public... You'll be judged. In fact, you're ASKING to be judged. The moment you upload yourself, singing a cover of 'I Touch Myself' by Divinyls, you're putting yourself in the sights of millions of people. And... well, not everyone is going to like you, some will down right HATE you.
That is the risk you take by opening yourself up to world. You have to be aware of that risk. It takes a degree of confidence, balanced with stupidity to put yourself out there. Which are attributes that are very powerful in the younger generations, you know since, criticism is being flushed out of schools. But thank god for the internet, where everyone can criticize, without the fear of being face to face with the subject of criticism.
Naturally I'm way off track from where I'd like to be. Since, this post is in fact about... Rebecca Black, and how her song, is on my list of top five worse songs I've ever heard, and how its actually #5. Meaning this list is actually more like... four songs WORSE then Rebecca Blacks 'Friday'.
If you aren't already tone deaf... you'll be wishing you were. HERE WE GO!

Friday- Rebecca Black

Its stupid, plane and simple. The lyrics are retarded, everything in the video is so cliched that I thought it was a joke first time I saw it. Its bad... But its also done by a 13 year old girl.
She has no idea what shes singing about, this girl doesn't know what 'partying' is. What she does know is the days of the week. Is her music anything special? NO its not. But neither is half of the music on the charts. So shes not an AMAZING singer, and its kind of stupid that her parents would fork up all that money for such bad song. But in the end she made back that money, and some.
Besides, what do you want a 13 year old girl to sing about? Sucking dicks and snorting coke? Shes a wholesome, stupid, teenage girl. This is what she should be doing. Besides... Shes nowhere near as bad as the next few on this list.

3-second rule - Lisa Gail Allred

No one is sneaking a peek at you Mrs. Allred. You're like a uglier Long Island Medium, except instead of faking a career as a psychic, your faking a career as a singer. She reminds me of a comedian, who would, record his sets.
He'd often play back the tape, and question; “Where did all those laughs I heard go?... I swear I killed it.” He couldn't hear the laughs because, well... they were in his head. How does Lisa Gail Allred hear a recording of herself and go, “Yep, I can hit some downright angelic notes.” I mean look at her... is that the face of sanity?
Much like 'Friday' I heard this song and assumed it was a joke. Since first an foremost, she resembles that dog from Lady and the Tramp? You know, this one:
And Second, well... she clearly can't sing. Listen to her back up vocalist. They just don't give a shit and with good reason, the back ups cant out shine the star.
Of course, like all horrible things that make me laugh, this isn't a joke.

Kris Jenner/Kardashian 'I love my friends'

People always say that there is no talent in the Kardashian family... aside from booty shaking, while being ploughed from behind. This video proves that... right. Completely right.
Here's a shocker, you know how Rebecca Black's parents payed the bill for her music video? Well Robert Kardashian gave his wife Kris the money to make this little gem of video as a birthday present. She then, in a stroke of genius, gave the writing duties to her three children. This is back in the day when Kleo was nothing but a Ewok.
In the video she visits all of her friends, who she loves. Her friends consist of people that... serve her, in her day to day life. Like the guy at the cheese cake factory, or her gay hair dresser. My personal favourite is O.J 'I didn't do it' Simpson. Looks at his face, as his smile fades away, that's the look of a killer. They really should have used this as evidence.

Double Take – Hot girls

Ever just have too much time on your hands? Double Take has twice as much time on their hands. They decided to dedicate an afternoon to making a music video chronicling how hard it can be to be a 'hot girl.'
Their lyrics are as bad as Rebecca Blacks, but they aren't protected by their age, and their vocals are as horrendous as Lisa Gail Allred's. You know, like a cat sitting on a power drill, er, I guess two cats sitting on a power drill in the case of Double Take.
If you watch the video and think, this must be a joke, you'd be right actually. In a interview Double Take was asked, “Is this a joke.” They answered in a awkward manner, “Well... I guess its a kind of a joke.”
The joke is, the lyrics. Its supposed to be a 'funny' song, can't you tell? Weren't you doubling over in hysterical laughter? Thankfully, the songs humour was salvaged by how fucking awful they are. I think double take can benefit from a double tap to the back of the head.

Willow Smith - Whip My Hair

Well, Kris Jenner's husband paid for her music video, and Rebecca Black's parents footed her bill. I'm sure you all know who paid for Willow Smiths.
If you're thinking Will Smith, you're wrong. WE'RE ALL PAYING. Every time this song is played the hole in the ozone layer grows an inch. The earth is attempting to commit suicide because of this fucking non-song.
I hate very few celebrities. Rarely do I see the point in it. I made a jab at Kristen Stewart, but I don't hate her. I don't hate Micheal Bay or Shia Lebeouf. I do however HATE Will Smith and his whole fucking brood.
Will and Jade Smith are pieces of shit in my eyes. They're trying so hard to manufacture their kids into super celebrities, that they should just change their names to Disney.
Now its nothing new that celebrities kids try to gain fame off their parents names, but a lot of the time they at least pull their own. They audition, and work to get where they want to be. Yes their last names help, their connections help, but their parents rarely go. “Here, I'll pay them off to get you that part.”
Willow Smith wasn't discovered by some talent agent! Her dad handed a blank cheque to some dude and said, “Make her famous!” And this is what was produced. In short... Its exactly what happened with Rebecca Black. The difference being Rebecca Black actually did some fucking work.
The reason this song is worse then all the rest, is because Willow Smith has a fucking unlimited resource in her parents. And she's clearly a spoiled brat, so with all that, she could have actually MADE something WORTH IT. But instead she did this trash!
There is something seriously wrong when Jimmy Fallon can improve on your song.