Don't bring me down, I still believe, my heart is a better place
Not that anyone who ever reads this (which there are few of you, but you are all dearly loved!) will care, but I want to say something about the poor quality of the MSN articles.
Sure, I know, I know, MSN is hardly the mecca of intelligent newscoverage, and really, I should expect idiocy from their articles. Still, on seem deep dark level that still likes to believe in the innate intelligence of people, I like to think that sometimes, people will, at the very least, do their homework.
Not so, unfortunately.
The author of this gem of an article: Worst. Movie. Titles. Ever. was complaining about the stupidity of titles of movies. I admit, many (far too many) movies have incredibly stupid titles. On the other hand, I refuse to believe this:
Disclosure: I haven't seen this film [Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium]. Confession: I am mildly intrigued by this film's premise, and the special effects it will no doubt generate, because I have a soft spot for corny movies that bring a tear to the eye. Promise: I will never, ever see this film -- not even on an airplane. Why? Because there comes a time when even the most avid film fan feels the need to take a stand against Hollywood's insulting tendency to equate creativity with marketing.
Are you kidding?
A movie has a creative, clever, rhyming title... and we have to ignore its existence? Has the man gone daft?
He then proceeds to complain about a dozen other movie titles that he doesn't like, sounding like a stuck up, so called "expert" with a stick so far up him he hasn't sat down in ten years. Every movie with a bad title is automatically lousy, no matter how good the movie itself ended up being - it had a bad title, it was pathetic. Now, I'll give you that Jeepers Creepers was no Oscar winning stunt, but I enjoyed it for a night. And Hope Floats got a lot of critical acclaim, even if I can't bring myself to watch it because it's a Sandra Bullock chick flick.
My biggest, baddest problem with this article, however, was the author's inability to research. So he didn't like the titles "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" and "Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood"... sure, I thought they were dorky too, but they were extremely popular, and oh, might I add: critically acclaimed books written by Ann Brashares and Rebecca Wells, respectively. It's not that the movie directors chose these horrendous names for their movies - the books' original authors did.
And Octopussy was great, no matter what stupid entendres it stands for. I know it's bad. That's what makes it great.
And Free Willy? Sure it's bad, sure it's suggestive... they took the name from the whale at Sea World... not much they could do about that.
I hate article writers that are pompous jerks. Oh, I know, in three seconds I'm going to get a response telling me I'm a pompous jerk, but at least I'm not a pompous jerk that pretends to be lofty and above asshattery.
Grr. Good idea, article writer, stupid article itself. Pompous jerk.
Also, I am twenty-three today. Go me.
Sure, I know, I know, MSN is hardly the mecca of intelligent newscoverage, and really, I should expect idiocy from their articles. Still, on seem deep dark level that still likes to believe in the innate intelligence of people, I like to think that sometimes, people will, at the very least, do their homework.
Not so, unfortunately.
The author of this gem of an article: Worst. Movie. Titles. Ever. was complaining about the stupidity of titles of movies. I admit, many (far too many) movies have incredibly stupid titles. On the other hand, I refuse to believe this:
Disclosure: I haven't seen this film [Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium]. Confession: I am mildly intrigued by this film's premise, and the special effects it will no doubt generate, because I have a soft spot for corny movies that bring a tear to the eye. Promise: I will never, ever see this film -- not even on an airplane. Why? Because there comes a time when even the most avid film fan feels the need to take a stand against Hollywood's insulting tendency to equate creativity with marketing.
Are you kidding?
A movie has a creative, clever, rhyming title... and we have to ignore its existence? Has the man gone daft?
He then proceeds to complain about a dozen other movie titles that he doesn't like, sounding like a stuck up, so called "expert" with a stick so far up him he hasn't sat down in ten years. Every movie with a bad title is automatically lousy, no matter how good the movie itself ended up being - it had a bad title, it was pathetic. Now, I'll give you that Jeepers Creepers was no Oscar winning stunt, but I enjoyed it for a night. And Hope Floats got a lot of critical acclaim, even if I can't bring myself to watch it because it's a Sandra Bullock chick flick.
My biggest, baddest problem with this article, however, was the author's inability to research. So he didn't like the titles "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" and "Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood"... sure, I thought they were dorky too, but they were extremely popular, and oh, might I add: critically acclaimed books written by Ann Brashares and Rebecca Wells, respectively. It's not that the movie directors chose these horrendous names for their movies - the books' original authors did.
And Octopussy was great, no matter what stupid entendres it stands for. I know it's bad. That's what makes it great.
And Free Willy? Sure it's bad, sure it's suggestive... they took the name from the whale at Sea World... not much they could do about that.
I hate article writers that are pompous jerks. Oh, I know, in three seconds I'm going to get a response telling me I'm a pompous jerk, but at least I'm not a pompous jerk that pretends to be lofty and above asshattery.
Grr. Good idea, article writer, stupid article itself. Pompous jerk.
Also, I am twenty-three today. Go me.