Batman 3 Casting Rumors

Christopher Nolan looks to be taking Batman 3 in a, well, slightly different direction.

So this video really isn't all that funny. The concept itself is pretty funny. Batman is a dick and horndogs his way into Robin's date with some lady (actually Callie Thorne from Rescue Me), the lady calls Batman and Robin out for beating up women and fat dudes in tuxedos before her real boyfriend shows up to emasculate the dynamic duo. What's more of note here is that Batman and Robin are played by Sam Rockwell and Justin Long, respectively.

The video is a short film by James Duffy from 2007. Who knows why this is popping up now, but who cares. What IS exciting about this whole thing is that there is going to be another short called Robin's Speed Date, where Rockwell and Long will reprise their roles, and, wait for it, John Hodgman will be playing the Penguin.

You'll know Hodgman as PC from the "Hi, I'm a Mac" campaign that also starred Justin Long, but for me, I'll know Hodgman because I dream about him before I go to bed every night. I've never been one for role models or hero worship, but if I had the resources to fashion a marble bust of him for my living room, I would make three. So, this is possibly the best news I've ever had in my life. He'll be hilarious even if the short film blows, which it won't because Hodgman as the Penguin will bring about utopia.

Also, props to Justin Long for exposing his bare white legs in that uber-retro Robin costume. The reveal of his legs and the bottom half of that costume when he greets his ladyfriend for the first time is probably the best joke in the clip.

via /Film

Fashion and Common Sense Vs. Superheroes

I know these videos can be seen about anywhere on the internet but I like them too! so I'm posting them.

I love how Tim Gunn takes this completely seriously and never seems to be patronizing Alan Kistler. He seems like a genuinely nice and funny guy. I DON'T CARE IF HE WAS ON PROJECT RUNWAY!

The first one is here.

via Topless Robot.

Spooooon!

WIGATI: Eastbound and Down

This week on When I Get Around To It, Danny McBride's Eastbound and Down. Excited? I bet not.
So I was going to write about how, despite this show's hype, I've found Eastbound rather underwhelming. You see, I read an article on /Film about how the second season was moving to Mexico. The article talks very positively about the show, and as I scrolled down the comments, many people spoke of the show as if it were the second coming of whatever Christ's equivalent on HBO would be. Then, hitting up IMDB to see all-who's-in I see a nine star rating. Mental process: I love edgy HBO comedies; hey, its only sex episodes, just like a BBC show; I love edgy short run BBC shows (they get in and get out like any good man comedy); oh, just watch it you coward. But tonight as I check out the Meta-Critic score for the show, I see it's got a 62%. So my voice, really, is unnecessary. That review, after the jump.

First off, the protagonist, Kenny Powers, is a huge prick. I never see anything remotely redeemable about this guy, and while I cringe (cringe humour) at the things that he gets himself into, never do I feel bad for him. Now, I don't need a protagonist to relate to a show, comedy is allowed to be difficult sometimes. Think Curb Your Enthusiasm. Larry David is not a likable character, yet I really enjoy the show. I think the success there is that while you dislike Larry, you can relate to him. He is often the person we'd like to be ourselves, the man that stands up to ridiculous social etiquette or their breaches (depends on what side he finds himself on really). But Kenny Powers is just hopelessly self-involved and never on the right side of anything.

I bet I could get passed the reprehensible protagonist if the show was funnier, though. I'm not a big believer in the complete subjectivity of funny, so I will say, yes, I may not find this show funny where someone else might, but, really, I think Eastbound and Down is a very lazy funny. The majority of the humour in the show comes from Kenny's actions. And like I've said, he's awful, so most of the humour is derived from watching a douche do douchey things. Subjectivity: some people might find this funny, I think its lazy comedy writing. Here as a writer, jokes come from setting your character up in a situation where he can be a prick, and then having your character act a prick. This lacks the more involved comedic structure of set-up and exploit. You don't need a clever trick for a punchline, just a character to curse and hurt people's feelings.

The show isn't hopelessly funny. There are usually a couple of moments an episode that are pretty funny and the show is well written in terms of dialogue and its not sitcom-y in terms of narrative. But I could see the last episode's plot, and how it plays out, coming from the second (maybe the first) episode. It goes exactly where comedies like this do. Being edgy isn't just about fucks and tits (or racism and dicks), its about pushing the norm. Yes, you have a non-typical set of characters, no you have the paint-by-numbers narrative arc.

NOW, I really want to address Katy Mixon's character, April Buchanon. But I'm going to get SPOILERy to do so. So WARNING: HERE THERE BE SPOILERS. When we first meet April, she has a life in which Kenny has absolutely zero presence in and it's been so for a very long time now. And she hates him. He disgusts her. Really, she could not be less happy to see him now. He obviously treated her like crap at some point in their past and she is bitter about how things ended. Given Kenny's behaviour, its safe to assume he's mostly to blame for the relationship problems (if there were any, and he didn't just dump her when he got bigs or when he wanted to have sex with someone else). BUT, as the series goes on she falls in love with Kenny. Why this happens is not really apparent. He still acts like a douche around her, isn't respectful of her at all, and really seems to be mainly interested in her tits. There are moments where he shows something good around her, but it's usually in connection to the fact that he wants to be with her. You don't score points with a woman that hated you a week ago just because you exhibit signs of wanting to be with her.

MORE SPOILERS!! So the real reason that she falls in love with him is because the narrative arc says so. She's the leading lady so she necessarily falls in love with the leading man, despite everything about her character saying she would NOT. So what her husband is a wanker; so what she might have some pent up sexual desire for whatever dirtiness that she could get with Kenny; she still would not "fall in love" and decide to leace her life behind to follow him back to stardom-ville (the stardom-ville which manufactured his extreme sports level of douche to begin with). You know what April would do? She'd fuck him on the DL and feel slightly guilty about it. That's it. She'd exorcise her sexual demons, and move on. The character she is, would not love the character he is--nope, not unless the script says she would. So fuck that, give her character a little more dignity.

SPOILERS OVER!! The show is gearing up for another season down in Mexico, and maybe it will be better with more interesting characters, but I'm not optimistic. The writers don't seem to be able to create humorous and believable characters, or even unbelievable but funny characters, so making all of these new characters Mexican, probably won't help anything.

Watch it if you have nothing else on your plate.

Are you my caucasian?

South Park Creators, not the Assholes in this Story

I keep trying to come up with something insightful to say about the whole South Park versus RevolutionMuslim.com thing, but I'm really left with the impressions that I think everyone has.

It sucks that Comedy Central censored the show the way they did, but I don't necessarily blame them for wanting to avoid the potential problems that would arise by depicting the prophet Mohammed. They want to protect their company and their employees from potential violence. I certainly understand that.

And whomever runs this site and were behind the posted threat, and don't for a fucking minute pretend like it was anything but a death threat, these people are monsters, awful people that don't deserve even the slight amount of civility that they are being shown throughout this whole ordeal. I'm glad your site got hacked. Seriously.

Also, I have trouble coming up with anything to say because, again!, The Daily Show has done such a sincere and moving job of addressing the issue, that my voice seems like just a pointless echo.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
South Park Death Threats
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Canadian link.

How To Train Your Audience

This movie, kicked Kick Ass's ass this week. I don't know if Kick Ass is any good, nor do I care. I'll see it, be disappointed or not, and then move on with my life--because that's the sort of movie it seems like. But How To Train Your Dragon, three weeks in, matched Kick Ass at the theatre.

I saw it a week ago, matinee, with only hobos like me on a Wednesday afternoon. It's a great movie, deserving of the love its getting. No, seriously, this movie has... fuck... heart.

The movie stars Jay Baruchel, of Undeclared fame, but also Craig Ferguson, Jonah Hill, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse. In terms of comedy, fairly solid cast. Baruchel, sort of untested in big films, does a voice, not that extreme, but not his own, and after the first 5 minutes you'll forget the voice-acting completely. Voice cast, excellent job here.

The real problem with the film is the script. It's not bad, its just good by numbers. It's a story about realizing difference, and the community (as focalised through the father) coming to respect what "the other" has to offer. The family dynamics here are played, done and done, and the emotional arc of the film has a clear trajectory from the start. But it's a kid film, and the last 10 minutes surprised me enough in terms of message that it warmed a place in my heart that normally stays cold. In the end, the film is radical and emotional enough that I give it more credit than it may be worth. Messages worth sending, really worth sending for kids, get a free pass for me.

But the most important part of this movie is the dragon. No it's the 3D!

Wait, I can't have in-fighting in one review. Let's set this out. The 3D is fantastic. Makes the flight more sensational than any flight I've seen in film. These scenes are emotionally evocative due in part (great part) because of the 3D's power. The flight scenes in the film are always very emotional moments. They have their metaphorical purpose, but the visuals add a vitality to them that I think really adds to their impact. These flight scenes are emotionally charged, and the 3D, as it adds to the experience, adds to the emotional involvement.

But, the DRAGON! Yes, the dragon is a cat. And that's enough for a lot of people. Slagathor, and people around me continually mentioned throughout the film, Oh, he's soooo cute!. And he is. Toothless is adorable, because he's a big kitty. His bum moves like a cat, he plays like a cat, and he's distrustful of humans like a cat. It helps that I just had a cat die that really was the feline epitome of this sort of representation. Its sort of heartbreaking to see a filmic/draconic version of his cuteness, but that's neither here nor there. This dragon is cute, and that's one of the huge selling points of the flick. THE DRAGON IS FUCKING ADORABLE! Simple as that.

So if you want your CGI cartoon to be a success, put in a cuddle character. It's why Monsters Inc. was one of my favourite Pixar flicks for so long.

Boo!

The Gospel According to Stewart

Now, I don't want to give the impression that I would give Jon Stewart a blow job in a dark alley if I could pay him to be there, but christ do I love the Daily Show. Remember when I thought they'd go to war against Glenn Beck? Well, not having cable does leave me out of the loop in terms of how Fox News covers Stewart's attacks. Really, I only get to see their retorts on The Daily Show itself. Does that skew my perspective? Sure. But I've seen enough of both Fox News programming and The Daily Show to know whom I'm going to put more stock in.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Bernie Goldberg Fires Back
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Canadian link here. Have I mentioned before how much I hate region blocking? But anyways.

My favourite part of that clip is when Bernie Goldberg calls TDS's audience unsophisticated and Bill O'Reilly laughs. Of course you know, O'Reilly has done research and knows that TDS's audience is predominantly stoned slackers so he's right right to laugh at us, we don't know our heads from our rumpholes. Thus, it's easy for Goldberg, O'Reilly, and anyone on Fox News to right off Stewart's derision. Really, his words don't escape the pot clouds of dorm rooms or mom and dad's basement that they enter anyhow.

But then why do so many Fox commentators feel such a need to strike back at Stewart when he pulls off his stunts? I know he makes salacious and sensational slams against them, but if his voice matters so little, why do you feel the need to volley back? Is it because he hurts your feelings? Is this a matter of pride? Or, maybe, you just need to fill some time on your forever long shows? Beck can only cry for so long before an audience will think they're watching a soap.

I think the real issue here is that Fox News uses Stewart's attacks as just another example of the, GASP!, liberal enemy/media. A huge reason for Fox's success is its ability to simplify every social or political issue in America down to simple black and white. Things are either American wholesomeness, or they are unamerican blank-ism. And Stewart can easily be constructed as the buffoonish liberal media element. Even more so because he's so wonderfully terrible at reporting the news. Indeed, he is neither fair nor balanced. This may be of course due to the fact that TDS is a comedy program that has an obvious political and social agenda. But fuck, that sort of complexity doesn't play on Fox. On Fox, everything is either Black, or American.

So maybe Stewart only plays into their hands when he does this sort of thing, provide Fox commentators easy material with which to juvenilize the liberal media. It is easy to undercut Stewart's argumental ethos when you show outrageous clips of him doing comedic stunts. This guy doesn't know shit, he's a jester. But by the midpoint of the above clip, Stewart shifts into a southern preach, and a full blown call and response by the end, culminating with him and choir singing "go fuck yourself." Now Fox could try to use this clip to show TDS's complete disregard for anything holy, of its out and out buffoonishness, but maybe that's the point. Can Fox News self-righteously show the clip of Stewart dancing in front of a choir singing "go fuck yourself" and have its audience still see him as a threat? He's obviously just being a ham.

If as a stoned slacker I can see this, surely Fox will respect its sophisticated audience enough to know they will too.

The Critic (Lovitz, you've let yourself go)

Seriously this shit is fucked up.


Hope you didn't plan to sleep tonight. Or ever.

Well, it's been a week of writing "academic things" and now it comes time to write about things that are important. Like Mr Plinkett.

I watched the AotC review. I had to watch the first part the day after I watched the rest because apparently some people at the cartoon network are ironically hypocritical. The review is pretty funny, and has a good number of smart things to say about AotC. Again, though, the scary violence against women, not so much the funny. That's it in summation. If you want a long version, jump.

So the new Mr. Plinkett review essentially succeeds at its goal. It delivers a fairly intelligent analysis of Attack of the Clones, and does so with humour. Unfortunately I think the review suffers slightly from the previous review. Not that that review was so perfect this couldn't live up or anything, but more because Mr. Plinkett has already explained why these new Star Wars movies lack the heart of the originals. So in this new version he has to come up with a bunch more reasons to explore why no one but kids really like these flicks.

The points he raises in the review are sound: the romance is presented rather than developed or even shown, lightsabers do not a real jedi make, and the plot doesn't make a lick of sense. This review lacks a moment like the one in first though, where he jumps between lightsaber scenes from Phantom Menace and the original trilogy, and addresses how the original trilogy used lightsaber battles as physical manifestations of the inner conflict that existed in primary characters and how the new one's are just big action set pieces. Yes I realize this is too nerdy to handle, and I know those first scenes were also actual set pieces, but Mr Plinkett is right, those scenes in the first trilogy are emotionally charged, but in Phantom Meance, the lightsaber dual is a highly choreographed dance number. And this difference is the in-a-nutshell problem between the new and old movies. Hollow action scenes disconnected from any sort of emotional connection to the characters.

Mr. Plinkett has already addressed this and so it's hard to go back over without being repetitive, and there isn't an equivalent revelation in this review, which sort of makes it suffer. There's the bit about Yoda and his lightsaber, which I totally agree with, but its sort of a cannon/spirit of the world sort of criticism not a problem with the film on its own.

It's also not as funny. It's not unfunny, just not as funny. I'm not going to describe any examples or anything because it's not that big of a deal: it's just not as funny.

Review of the review done. NOW!, let's talk about the shit with the prostitute. Knock this creepy women violence crap the fuck off! It is not funny, and it is disturbing. The pseudo-firsthand depiction of the torture and murder of women is unsettling, and it makes me want to turn the review off. Now, I didn't say shit about the use of women stereotypes when you talked about what women look for in men because it's a comedic trope, but the shots of you abusing women are painfully unfunny. And I'll explain why they aren't funny, because I need to position myself as someone who finds many terrible terrible things funny. These scenes are not funny because they are graphic and because they seem like you are trying to hard to be edgy. It all just comes off as a little sadistic and sick. There. I'm done with that topic.

Who am I addressing in that paragraph? Anyways, the review's good, but suffers from the critical thoroughness of the original.

Oh, and the whole time I watched it I couldn't stop thinking about one of my favourite things in the world.

Full of green penis... wait, that's terrible.

RedLetterMedia Reviews AotC

I told you it was Star Wars day.

So one of my most favourite of things is the RedLetterMedia reviews on Star Wars and Star Trek movies. The Star Trek reviews are really funny, and quite intelligent regarding the difference between the TNG movies and the series. Did I mention they are funny? They might not be as amusing to non-Trekkies, but this is the internet, are there even non-Trekkies on here?

In regards to the Star Wars, up until now the dude has only reviewed The Phantom Menace. This series was a) epic (70min) b) hilarious (what's wrong with your face!?), and c) really critically insightful. I don't mean to disparage the guy, but who knew this sort of review could exist on the internet, and on YouTube no less. The review is a prime example of how comedy can be used as a rhetorical device to drive points home. His ideas regarding the lack of a protagonist and suggestion to create one in Obi Wan (as opposed to multiple non-protagonists) would have genuinely made the film more concise and interesting to watch.

As it is, RedLetterMedia has released his review of Attack of the Clones, and its 90 frickin-minutes!. I'm looking forward to watching it and I may post a review if I feel up to it. Critique a critique!? Never you say, but we're revolutionaries here at NtC. I promise you.

Caveat time: the video's are done with a persona, which at one time is hilarious and a fault. The persona has developed over the course of the videos and has become increasingly distracting. Most of the time he is funny, but other times the aspects of him murdering prostitutes and his wife interrupt the quality review for some obvious and painfully unfunny interludes. I hope that these asides are less frequent in the new review, rather than more as the trend has been thus far.

UPDATE: It looks like Part 1 has been taken down because of some copyright problems with cartoon network. Really Cartoon Network? The channel that uses old cartoons to make stoner comedies? Remember that thing I just said about finding levity in Star Wars George?

Star Wars S(h)itcom

Seriously!?

Apparently they're making a Star Wars sitcom. From the Variety article:

Daytime Emmy and Gemini Award-winner Jennifer Hill ("The Backyardians") will produce with Todd Grimes ("Back at the Barnyard") directing. Brendan Hay ("The Daily Show") will be among the writers and Seth Green and Matthew Senreich, creators and executive producers of "Robot Chicken," will have "creative involvement.

Man, this is such a dumb idea, I don't care who's involved. I read a bunch of the comments after the article on /Film (where I initially learned about this development) and not enough people are waving their hands wildly in the air and screaming for this to not happen. Let's examine why this is a bad idea shall we?

Robot Chicken's Star Wars parodies are funny. The Family Guy parodies are also funny (though I begrudgingly admit it). Spaceballs is also funny. Alright, lots and lots of Star Wars parodies are funny. AND!, Star Wars itself is funny. But a dedicated Star Wars sitcom, will not be funny:

1. Parodies are parodies. All of the Star Wars parodies mock Star Wars. Yes, they embrace the source material, usually with love (especially in the case of the Robot Chicken dudes) but they are still irreverent. These parodies extend characters and ideas from the show into absurd places, that cannot be cannon.
2. This is a sitcom. Sitcoms are not sketches like Robot Chicken has excelled at in terms of their Star Wars humour. Family Guy and Spaceballs tell a story, but they tell the same fucking story as Star Wars. Are we suddenly going to break off and have Han and Leia living on Coruscant, with Chewie dropping by as the obligatory, racist depiction of a minority neighbour? How is this going to be structured? I can't express how little I think of the idea of a situational comedy starring Star Wars characters, or in the Star Wars universe. Anytime I think of something amusing, it's because of irreverence, and it would not be congenial humour, the sort of humour sitcoms are based on.
   
3. Isolated instances. All the Star Wars comedies I can think of do their funny and then end. They're all specials, not long running shows. This is important for two reasons. A) the humour doesn't outstay its welcome. Parody is something that is difficult to sustain. Many would say Colbert has done it (I don't watch it myself because I've grown a little tired of the parody), but I think as a general rule, parody itself does not lend itself to longevity. The novelty of the superiority humour dwindles, and you're left with the same joke: isn't x silly? B) You're going to run out of jokes. Wait, you can't really run out of jokes, because they are like invention (inventio!), but the writers for this show are going to find difficulty mining for humour after a while. How many jokes can you do about the Millennium Falcon failing? And with Star Wars, let me tell you, the writers are going to need to be uber careful not to get too obscure because as a Star Wars comedy, they are already flirting with a small viewership.
   
4. Finally, is this for adult or kids. Star Wars has become progressively more and more childish. The original material was entertaining for all ages but as the movies went they skewed towards juvenile audiences. This is no more clear than in consideration of the humour. If you've watched the movies, you know it to be true. So, if the humour is for kids, I really don't want to watch a dumb, racist, and homophobic Star Wars saturday-morning-cartoon. I doubt its going to be adult-centric, since how do you suddenly tell the majority of your audience (ie kids) that this Star Wars isn't for you. So I imagine it would be in the middle, like a sitcom, and I seriously doubt that Star Wars can walk the line between adult and childish humour, all the while refraining from irreverency.
   

I think my problem(s) come down to this: a Star Wars comedy will necessarily be irreverent, and irreverent isn't funny when it's done by the people that own the source material. That statement may not be true in general, but I'm damn sure it's true of George Lucas. I don't want to watch George Lucas make fun of his own material. He has taken his shit seriously for so fucking long that for him to suddenly find some levity in his creation would be down right insulting. Where was levity when you refused to release the original cuts on DVD because they weren't your vision. Where was levity when you sued all the people you sued for stupid shit and/or stopped them from releasing their own stupid version of a Star Wars thing? I mean, you can't just one day stop taking yourself and your Star Wars seriously because it'll make you a couple of buck and not expect to look like a douche.

This show will suck because either it will be a bland generic sitcom with Star Wars template overtop masking the bland genericness, or it will be irreverant, possibly good for a bit, and a perfect example as to why I libel George Lucas.

Douche!

Aggregation Trepidation

So I've only been, sort of, aggregating recently. Well, that's because it's April and I have school to do and all that stuff. As it is I'm still trying to post something every day or so, but that doesn't always mean the most original of content. Also, I've been seeing lots of things that are worth posting. Hopefully as the month progresses I'll have an opportunity to write some reviews and not just link you to things you could find on your own.

That said, here's a funny story about a dude who fought the law, and won. Even if it was the parking enforcement part of the law.

Also, tomorrow's Star Wars day. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Bacon vs. Worms(z)

Okay, so remember Tremors? Starring Kevin Bacon? And Fred Ward? Reba McEntire? Hmm... Oh! the movie was about them trying to not get eaten by a handful of ugly subterranean worm dinosaurs.
Yeah that's the one. As a child I watched this movie more times than I can count, including the sequel. But then they kept making movies (one with things called ass-blasters... seriously ass-blasters?) and a TV show and so the franchise became, well, fucking ridiculous.

But anyways, the original is still lots of fun and now you can play its protagonist, Mr. Bacon, and save the town from the evil (and fast as sin) graboids in the new flash game Tremerz.

I managed pretty well on my first attempt. I saved everyone but Reba McEntire (no big loss) and the girl on the pogo. Strangely only men made it out of the tremerz attack alive. I SWEAR THIS WAS A COINCIDENCE! Strangely Rhonda isn't in this, which I assume is due to the fact she does not have a picture on her IMDB actor profile.

Anyways, enjoy.

via Kotaku.

Can you fly mothafucka!?

Follow Up Crisis: Weird Al Knows his Grammar

What the fuck Weird Al!?

I can't just keep posting things about you and the muppets, you know!

Jesus.

Muppet Revelations

Alright so I blogged about the muppets yesterday and then bam! /Film reports on a whole set of new muppets stuff (well not super new, but new enough that it's news to me).

In their article I learned about the following three projects:

1) Stuffed and Unstrung - A live, adult only, comedy show with Henson puppets (they don't use the word muppet for image/ownership reasons I believe)
2) Muppet Man - A fictionalized biopic on Jim Henson
3) Happy Time Murders - a crime thriller-comedy with puppet americans, so like Roger Rabbit but with puppets I'm guess (though Puppets Who Kill and Greg the Bunny may have beat them to the punch on puppets in the real world comedies)

Wow. It's pretty exciting too to see the Henson Company working on more adult oriented projects. Really, that's a large part of their fan base now that we all grew up.

I've got a promo video for Stuffed and Unstrung after the jump.

Must... find... Canadian... date...

I am not a shrimp, I am a KING PRAWN!

The Easter Bunny Sings "Stand By Me"

Christ I love the muppets.

I hope he eats Wil Wheaton next...

This is actually one of my least favourite of the recent viral muppet YouTubes, but that's not saying a lot. If you haven't been seeing them, check their YouTube channel. Make sure you watch Bohemian Rhapsody and Habanera.

via /Film

P.S. Did you know Jason Segel (Freaks and Geeks and some other more popular movies and shows) is writing and starring in the next Muppet movie? I just hope he keeps his pants on.