Saturday, July 31, 2010

Facts about Nothing

Remember that song, "This is the Song that Never Ends?" Well...

This is the post about nothing
I'm certain there are more coming
People started reading it, well-written it was
Who am I kidding, no one's reading this because
This is the post about nothing

Not that I have any readers outside of family anyway.

If I did, you'd let me know, right?


You're not one of those regular readers who refuse to comment, letting the blog author stew in the perceived truth that no one in the universe, outside of family, has seen the blog? You're not one of those readers who take entertainment not only from the posts but also from the author's gradual insanity at writing posts for the enjoyment of empty space? You're not one of THOSE horrible people are you?

Ah, well, if you are, welcome to my blog.

But even you are probably not there.

I have nothing to writing about, so I'm writing about it. Nothing. I couldn't think of anything to write, so I'm not.

I'm double spacing a lot of lines because I like the way it looks.

I do have ideas for more posts, but they would all require more time and work than I am willing to give today. I also seem to be running out of ideas for posts. I'm not coming up with topics all the time, like I used to, so I'd better conserve the ones I have.

Lots more nothing has suddenly slipped my mind. I was going to talk about allhjnuyy....Yeah, that. Allhjnuyy is a natural herb found in space shuttles, growing in the rich lack-of-gravity and plentiful lack-of-rainfall. I was also going to talk about what Nothing really is. It can't be dark, because that's something. It can't be empty, because that's something. It can't be bad, because that's something.

You may have noticed by now that this post has content. Nothing can't have content, because that's something. This post really ISN'T about nothing, which makes it null and void. Poor thing.

Friday, July 30, 2010

Facts' Thoughts about Bristol and Johnston

You may have heard of the feud between the Palins and Levi Johnston. The whole deal is sad, but it's worse now that, apparently, Bristol is going to marry him.

Johnston recently admitted he was lying about Sarah and the Palins. I never understood why anyone would be stupid enough to believe the lies. He and Bristol had just broken up. How many ex-boyfriends do you know who you'd believe if they started talking bad about their ex's family? That alone should have been enough to discredit him. He complained that Sarah wouldn't allow him to see his son, but when given a chance to on Thanksgiving, he refused because it would be "awkward." He obviously didn't want to see his son that much. Did he expect us to believe that seeing his son was worth the awkwardness of lying to the world about his ex's family and engaging in a bitter custody battle but not worth the awkwardness of a civilized meal with the family? Did he expect us to believe it would be too awkward to celebrate Thanksgiving to see his son, but not too awkward to hurt his ex to see his son? He obviously acted as he did, not to see his son, but to get revenge and fame. Besides, Bristol - the one who hasn't been lying this whole time - said that he was WELCOME to see his son. He just didn't come. I don't believe he cares about his son. If he cared, he wouldn't purposely hurt his son's grandma, thereby hurting his son's mom, thereby hurting his son. He also said he could tell worse secrets to really get Sarah in trouble, but he "wasn't going to go there." Why not? Because he didn't have the imagination to fabricate worse secrets, that's why.

Before he confessed, he was clearly lying, but some people believed him. Even after he confessed, a few people believed his lies. Because people are so desperate for dirt on Sarah, they'll believe an obvious liar and ignore logic completely. For the sake of hating on someone. Those people make the world look so stupid. Especially since the Sarah haters are probably adults, not 11 year-old hatergirls. To irrational Sarah haters, thanks for further lowering my opinion of human intelligence. To trolls who don't believe what they say and have no real thoughts or opinions but spout stupidity anyway to make the smart people mad, thanks for lowering my opinion both of human intelligence and human character.

It's even worse now, though, because Bristol apparently is going to marry Johnston. He apologized, and she forgave him. I can't oppose that. Forgiveness is good and all, but she doesn't have to marry him. I'm glad that Bristol can forgive so quickly. Few people can. Sarah is taking her time forgiving. This is perfectly understandable, but people attack her for that too, calling her "un-Christian." Not all Christians can forgive right off the bat. She's not not going to forgive him. She's working toward it and letting him work for it, which is very admirable and Christian. Forgiveness takes time. How would you feel if someone lied about you to the whole world? Wouldn't you need time to forgive them?

Anyway, I'm fairly sure I read that Bristol and Levi are engaged. I don't like telling strangers what to do with their personal lives, but maybe some girl who's not Bristol will read this and take warning from it. You see a person's True Self when they're mad. Anger exposes kidnappers and murderers better than forensics can. The world has seen Johnston's True Self. He said himself he lied because he was unhappy and mad. He's bound to be unhappy and mad again sometime. That's what people do. They get mad, sad, glad. . . And when he does, chances are he'll treat Bristol and his son as badly as he's been treating them the past couple years. It's possible he's changed his True Self, but it takes years and years and many ups and downs to prove such a change. Bristol should wait for such proof before she marries him. Otherwise, the odds are against her.

The worst part is that she doesn't seem to realize or appreciate that she's seen his True Self. She said that, if fame and money and her mom's campaign hadn't gotten in the way, she and Johnston wouldn't have broken up. She says that as if she's blaming her mom's job for his behavior, as if his True Self would never have appeared if not for her mom's campaign. His actions were his own doing. I think people today take too little responsibility for their own actions. She should be glad they broke up and his True Self came out. She said if it hadn't been for her mom's campaign, they'd "be in a one-bedroom apartment, scraping by." In other words, she'd be legally married to him, just waiting to see his True Self, a liar who would purposely hurt her family. She should be glad it revealed itself before she married him because now she can be more cautious and wait for true change in him. Once you know your True Self, you can change it, so Johnston too should be glad it came out.

I'm writing about this post-buzz because I wanted to talk about it when it was a hot topic but didn't have much chance or means then. In case you were wondering.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Facts Continue Reviewing Enchanted

What makes me so scatterbrained?
Is that the same as Hatter-brained?
Baby birds are chatter-trained.
Baker's clothes are batter-stained.
Pop-rockstars are flatter-pained.
I find this poem matter-strained.

Matter-strained, adj.
Having little significance and mattering hardly, as of an amateur poem created for filler material in a blog.

Yesterday, I forgot to review the messages or themes of Disney's Enchanted. Can you believe it? What is wrong with me? I felt especially bad since I called Enchanted "vapid" before, but it's less vapid - to a certain extent - when you take the themes into account. Unfortunately, the movie kind of botches them. The main theme is that you shouldn't get married on a whim; you should take time to get to know your significant other. The other main theme is to stay married through challenges for the good times you'll have as well. Overall, very positive messages about love and marriage...except that, at the end, the movie spoils the main theme by having Nancy run off and marry Edward after meeting him once, at the ball. I was confused to say the least.

The third theme may be to have a balance between fantasy and reality.

Botching aside, the themes brighten this movie up quite a bit.

And now for another trailer.

I don't know very much about Suckerpunch. It's about a girl who is sent to a mental institute by her evil stepfather. She creates an imaginary world in her head and dreams up how she'd escape. The trailer looks awesome though. Dark, but in a good way. Action-packed. Intense. Dramatic. I'm scared to see it on account of the abuse she apparently might face in the institute, but it might be too tempting not to see. I guess I'll wait for more trailers and information on it before I decide.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

The Facts Review Enchanted

In Disney's Enchanted, a princess-to-be is transported by an evil queen from their animated wonderland into our world, reality. As the girl, Giselle, waits for Prince Edward to find her, she befriends a divorce lawyer and his daughter and avoids the evil queen's attempts to poison her.

I recently rewatched Enchanted and found it slightly better. Specifically, I appreciated Giselle’s and Robert’s relationship more. I understood better why they’d like each other. In most love stories, it’s obvious who’s going to fall in love, but it’s not obvious why. It’s not even plausible. They just do because that’s how the story goes. The Proposal, Leap Year, and others I can't think of now. Those movies might tell a bit about the characters (they had their heart broken, they’re parents died or were unreliable, and so on). It doesn’t show a deep connection between them, though. I'm left wondering why they like, let alone love, each other. Enchanted is at least a shade better.

I know why Robert would like Giselle, because over the years, I’ve grown more cynical and been surrounded by cynical people who bring me down more than I bring me down. It would be nice to have one dreaming optimist around. Not too many. They would get annoying, just as the cynics do. But I’d like one, and that’s what Giselle is for Robert. I’m less sure why Giselle likes Robert. Maybe she appreciates that he uses his greater knowledge and practicality to help her, even though she doesn't agree with his cynicism.

When I first saw Enchanted, I thought it was another “they fall in love because we told the audience this was a romance” movie, like Proposal and Leap Year. I've changed my mind about Enchanted. It has reason behind the romance, which is not as shallow as I thought but not very deep or convincing. It would be easier to believe Giselle and Robert were friends with a strong chance at romance. They fall unrealistically fast, but of course the movie was only 107 minutes, and such is the way with Disney movies. I doubt I'll change my mind about the other movies (Proposal, Leap Year), though, because they’re so shallow. In The Proposal, the leads hardly spend time together, for one thing, and both movies employ the cliché: “We hate each other. Wait, now we’re madly in love.” Ri-ight. Like a couple days and fake-kisses could make people forget they hate each other and get married. Anyone that works on is too dumb to live. Enchanted is better than that because Robert and Giselle never hate or dislike each other. They get annoyed and overwhelmed but could still fall in love.

After rewatching the movie, I realized that Giselle develops without completely changing, which is a hard balance to achieve in fiction. She’s still sweet, but by the end, she’s smarter and less giddy, more mature. For example, she becomes engrossed in a book about Great Women of our Time, and one can imagine she felt inspired to do something great.

The rest of the movie is acceptable. The animation is beautiful but not as good as Princess and the Frog’s. The songs are tuneful but not as fun as most of Menken’s work (Be Our Guest, Never had a Friend like Me, etc.). The plot IS there, barely. The acting is believable sometimes, annoying at others. The characters are nothing special but are likable. Robert is a heartbroken cynic but kind and helpful. Giselle is annoyingly happy at first but grows and matures. Prince Edward is annoyingly dumb and conceited but not in a cruel way, often showing (brainless) concern for Pip and Giselle. At first, I found Nathaniel gross and unsympathetic, which he IS when he tries to kill people. However, after imagining him as a woman and the evil queen as a man, I felt bad for him and cheered when he helped stop the evil queen. I guess I’m more sensitive to the love-related suffering of females. Don't bite my head off though. I realize I should be just as sensitive to the suffering of males.

Enchanted is entertaining but fairly vapid.


Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Facts Sort of Rhymes with Cats

I promise tomorrow I'll write a proper entry for this blog and not just show a video, but till then...enjoy the kitties video. (By the way, I recently saw Hoodwinked for the first time and saw that the wolf had a newspaper column called "Facts and Fairytales" like one of my past entries. That's another topic I could write about: almost anything I could write has probably been said by someone else somewhere on Earth.)

Monday, July 26, 2010

The Facts Show Another Trailer

I hate to keep posting trailers and videos (especially since I've run out of clever sayings about it and can only hope I think of a Fact of the Day at all). I couldn't think of anything to write earlier today, and then I thought, "I'll just write whatever," and usually what keeps me from working is laziness. But on some occasions, it's because I get caught up working on something else. It need not be official work, in fact it helps if it's not. Today, I got caught up reading about cats because I love cats. Because I love cats, it was easy to get distracted by focusing intently, focusing intently on serious cat reading, cat reading that made me relax, relax like I was having fun. But of course I was doing serious reading and my mind was playing tricks on me. I might have elaborated on this topic: work that distracts you from work, but that it's already late, and if I did, it might be TOO late, so I'm just posting videos. I suppose it's appropriate since I think a lot about movies and this blog is supposed to be about whatever's on my mind.

I am looking forward to renting Tron. At first, I wasn't. It had/has some corny acting, and I was afraid it would be one of those movies. The ones that trailers sell as serious and dramatic when the actual movies are corny and shallow...Yeah, it actually might be one of those. But I appreciate drama (in movies, not in real life), and it appears Tron at least TRIES for that, which few movies these days do and even fewer do well. I can hope that Tron does it well. I also like the little twist here, "I'm not your father." NOT. Little-known trivia, usually it's, "I AM your father." It's a pretty obscure cliche. You probably haven't heard of it. Oh, what? You have? Ok, never mind. Pay no attention to the girl operating the blog. She's crazy. I keep her around for laughs.

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Fears in Fact...TWO!

Violence scares me. It seems not to scare most people. At least, not when they're watching movies, TV, or other media, all of which we will call "movies" in this post for the sake of succinctness.

I have seen little violence outside of movies, and I have seen few people seeing violence outside of movies. When it occurs in movies, though, people don't seem that scared. It's weird, especially since they seem to fear perfectly unscary movie elements: bugs, ghosts, paintings, ugly creatures that are no more dangerous than anything else, or creepy MUSIC, for crying out loud. The music often leads up to more unscary stuff, and it can make the moment seem intense but that's all. If it does lead up to something scary, like violence, people seem less scared of the actual violence than the build up to it. Evidently people are most scared of tension and suspense. However, when characters get torn limb from limb, the viewers don’t blink. Geez. They should be scared of violence. I decree it. From this day forth, people shall fear violence first and foremost, ending all war, pain, and...well, violence, instead of wasting their efforts killing innocent spiders. It just seems people are scared of all the wrong things.

For example, somewhere on the internet, someone said the animated movie 9 contains situations that would scare uncringing fans of Jurassic Park. 9 isn't that scary though. It shows dead bodies and soul-sucking machines but very little gore, guts, and violence. Well, it has violence, but it surrounds sack dolls, who don't bleed, and machines, who don't feel pain. (I’m more ok with violence when non-humans are fighting, dying, etc.) I can’t imagine how sack dolls could feel pain either. They apparently do in some scenes, and apparently don’t in others. 9 passed out because he tore stitching in his shoulder, but 7 hardly made a noise when she was shot through the leg. It could be she’s exceptionally stoic, but I prefer to think the dolls can’t feel pain, and they pass out because…I have no idea.

Anyway, Jurassic Park is much scarier than 9, because it’s much more violent. It has blood and people getting ripped apart and banged up and so on and so forth. Jurassic Park isn’t even that bad, compared to other movies, but it's still scary, and the point is that people are scared of the wrong things.

Coraline stands as another example. Even while adoring Jurassic Park, Iron Man, and The Dark Knight, some people hate Coraline because it's “so freaking scary." Coraline is not nearly as bad as those other movies. Even if it is a bit scary, Coraline has almost no violence. The most violent part was the reference to sewing buttons into eyes. I admit that's pretty terrifying. But at least it never showed this. The second most violent part was the cat clawing out the Other Mother’s button eyes. I’m not even sure she can feel pain. Certainly not enough to stop her from chasing Coraline. The movie showed no blood or beating of humans. What makes it so scary? The ghosts? They're tragic, not scary. The beetle candies? They're gross, but not exactly petrifying. The candy blob of Ms. Spink and Forcible? Alright, that's freaky. But still not as scary as Iron Man, and even Iron Man isn't bad.

I can tolerate mild violence in movies if the story is really compelling, but after a certain point, it’s not worth it. I got through the latest Skulduggery book without skipping the description of Tanith nailed to a chair. (I totally WOULD have skipped it if I’d known it was coming, but it first appeared Tanith was just sitting there, and then the book just popped out with the explanation.) I read through that one because the Skulduggery books are amazing. Actually, though, I almost didn’t get through the first book because of such violence. It was just barely compelling enough, but the books got a lot better after that, so it wasn’t as hard to finish book 4.

Some other fears of mine are: Rotating doors (how do you use those things without DYING???), and…

Well, I’m sure there’s more, which is why I’m going to continue this later.

As a final note, I don't mean to be insensitive to anyone's fears. I actually understand some of the fears I called "silly" more than it might have appeared. I was only determined to speak strongly about this because I'm annoyed at the lack of, well, everyone thinking the same as me. I am always right after all. The world would do well to agree with me.

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Movie Trailers on Facts

Due Date looks dumb, with mean humor, which I generally detest. But the trailer did amuse me at parts. "If you're alergic to waffles, don't eat waffles!" It seems slightly original, in regards to the idea of a dad trying to get home for his child's birth. It seems totally unoriginal, in regards to the acting and humor. In any case, it looks better than Grown Ups. Ugh.

I'll probably never see Due Date, which just shows how desperate I am for something to post.

Devil looks somewhat interesting. The trailer looks action-packed, but the thing about M. Night Shyamalan movies is that they usually aren't. They're usually slow but intriguing. The same is probably true for this one.

There's a better chance I'll see Devil, but only when it comes out on DVD. It's surely not worth a trip to the theatre.

This looks so very much like all the superhero movies, especially Iron Man, which is why it needs so badly to show how it's different, which it does pointedly and without subtlety ("Here's what will make us different..."), which kind of works. I think it will be okay. I think they picked a strange lead actor, though. I've never seen him before and he has a funny face, but whatever. Maybe it's my ignorance talking. Is he famous or something?

I won't see this one in theatres either, unless it comes out with a much cooler trailer before the movie opens. I'll rent it.

9 has already come out, and I've already seen it (awesome), but this trailer is just about the greatest ever. The atmosphere, the music, the action, the music, the guitar strumming, the violins, the music! I have to post it.

Friday, July 23, 2010

Facts and Fears

Inspired by Derek Landy's blog post on what scares him, I've decided to write about what scares me (mostly because I already know what to say after reading Derek's post).

I'm scared of people in vehicles. When a car passes me, my brain goes, "kidnapper. Kidnapper. KIDNAPPER. KIDNAPPERRRRR!!! Oh, good, they passed." Maybe it's the fact that most kidnapping stories I've heard involve cars. When my friends and I travel sidewalks of busier roads, my brain takes some comfort in its subconscious understanding that no one will kidnap us there because of all the other kidnappers around. Each one is afraid they'll try to kidnap us at the same time as someone else, and they don't want to start a kidnapper war.

Now, now. No need to defend your vehicle-driving self, friends, or family. I know I'm being super paranoid and very few vehicle drivers actually are kidnappers. Some of my best friends and favorite family members drive vehicles, but if I see you or anyone else in a car, my brain will immediately translate that as "kidnapper." You can never be too careful. Or so thinks my brain. Sometimes, I don't even recognize my family until they get out of the car. I'm too frantic deciding the best course of action: run, hide, or see if it's someone I know. During this period of contemplation, I freeze up. I know it MIGHT be someone I know, but what if it's not? Should I take the chance? I know they PROBABLY don't mean me harm, but what if they do? Should I take the chance? If I run or hide, there's a huge chance I'll humiliate myself by running from someone NORMAL or from my family, the latter of which would probably be suspicious I'm doing something I shouldn't (eating candy my mom hid for Easter), as they don't know of my vehicle-drivers phobia. I'd hate to be kidnapped, but I'd also hate to humiliate myself. In the end, I humiliate myself anyway by freezing up with a "deer in the headlights" expression on my face.

I don't like the idea of getting kidnapped and killed. I'm not scared to die. That would be like being scared of Jesus or paradise. In the immortal words of Linguini, "She believed in heaven, so she's set. Afterlife-wise." But BEING KILLED...I'm sure I wouldn't enjoy it.

I also fear the bunny that haunteth the patterns of clothing, accessories, and posters. Its face looketh sweet, but its words readeth mean. It's perverted to put a cute, smiling white rabbit next to a nasty little caption. Which is another thing that scares me: pervertedness. Which is also why I fear some objects like ventriloquist dolls, dolls, puppets, and other innocent-looking things that people use to make mean, perverted jokes. That is to say, I have nothing against the objects themselves but I fear someone MIGHT use them for perverted reasons. Of course, I also fear pervertedness without the "cute" mediums. Some people, I swear, they're worse than the bunny!

I guess I'm scared of zombies, but only because I know they'd get me dirty. Look at them! They're positively unhygienic! (But I am Legend and Resident Evil and Alien Vs. Predator didn't scare me much, and Zombieland was actually entertaining.)

There's lots of other things. Generally, I'm scared of everything and nothing. It's hard to explain, so I won't. At least, not this post. I will in another post, I promise.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Facts and a Video about a Pug

This is a funny video I found through a link on

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

The Facts Show that Pencil Beats Computer

I'm no expert, but handmade merchandise is just better.

Hand drawn animation is more fluid and a hundred times more beautiful than computer animation. I don't see the point of computer animation when one can do the same movies with hand drawn animation and make them look so much better. I guess computer animation is cheaper or something? But Disney (and other companies) shouldn't be so cheap. I think the companies think kids don't want pencil animation. Well, I'm a kid, and I want pencil animation! I don't mind if they continue computer animation (although it makes me shudder) as long as they continue hand drawn animation.


Weigh the first full-length pencil animated feature against the first full-length computer animated feature. I'm contrasting Snow with Andy because I thought it fairest to contrast human against human. Snow White is probably the least pretty of the princesses, but she's gorgeous compared to Andy. Heck, Dopey is gorgeous compared to Andy!

Andy looks stiff, lumpy, and unnatural like a clay model (actually a rubber suit), and his movement is not the least fluid. His arms look and move like broken wrapping paper rolls, and his mom is worse. She looks like carved wooden blocks moving around. Andy has little range of facial expression. All computer characters have a certain shine and stiffness that makes them look like rubber suits (think Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), especially the early ones. It might be the more detailed lighting in computer animation that gives the characters that "shine" with lots of highlights and shadows, meant to make them look more "real life." But animation is not supposed to look like real life. Real life is ugly. Animation is supposed to look perfect, simple, and beautiful. Rubber suits are not beautiful.

Snow White and Dopey look so, so soft and simple, like they're covered hair to sole in powder or something. They move like that too, soft movements and soft colors with simple lines and simple lighting. (These "soft movements" might be due to the lines that encapsulate the figures, looking connected and smooth no matter how the characters move. Computer characters don't have those lines and are usually too detailed, so they appear to move less smoothly.) Snow White and Dopey's arms, movements, and facial expressions look fluid and believable, not stiff and rubbery.
Yep, Snow White wins this round of the beauty pageant.

Also, consider this. Toy Story humans don't hold up against current computer animation. Toy Story backgrounds especially don't hold up. Toy Story looks garishly, obviously, horribly computer animated. On the other hand, Snow White holds up against modern pencil animation perfectly. The Snow White characters are just as fluid and beautifully drawn, and the backgrounds are just as gorgeous and detailed.

However, as I just admitted, computer animation has gotten better. The characters move less like wooden blocks and broken cardboard. They show emotion better - Up had the best acting I've seen in computer animation. Characters and backgrounds are more detailed. The latter are even pretty. The characters, however, are still not. This could be because most computer animated movies, for some strange reason, only have dorky-looking characters. (In pencil animation, even the dorky characters look pretty. So ha!) But they've tried making pretty characters, with Fiona and Tinkerbell and that platinum blonde in The Incredibles, and they've not done so wonderfully. Until now.

Alright, I admit it. Rapunzel looks really pretty with her soft blond hair and big green eyes. Even so, even as the latest Disney computer character, even as the best-looking computer character ever, she's not as pretty as Tiana.

Rapunzel has that pesky Computer Shine and very slight rubbery stiffness around her mouth, where it's usually most apparent. Flynn is worse. He definitely looks like a rubber suit, albeit a handsome one. You can see individual strands of hair on Rapunzel, which doesn't help her look soft. Contrasting with that over-detailing, Tiana looks soft and clean. Tiana even looks slightly more expressive than Rapunzel. Tiana moves so smoothly it's unbelievable. I've only seen the trailer of Rapunzel (a.k.a. Tangled), and the movements and facial expressions look pretty good, especially when she's sliding down her hair. Still, it doesn't look as incredible or expressive as P&F. I'm not sure it even matches Up in those respects. (However, Up also didn't unveil its best animation in its trailers, and then the movie astounded me. It might be the same with Rapunzel. Maybe the animated acting is really good and the trailers just haven't shown it.) Rapunzel doesn't look anywhere near as soft and clean as P&F. It does look just as bright, colorful, and beautiful in its backgrounds and character color schemes, with prettier characters than any other computer animated movie to boot. However, I thought the same of Tinkerbell before it came out. When actually I saw it...ehhh, 'sokay I guess.

The fact is, if after all this time, Disney still can't make computer animation as pretty as hand drawn, they probably never will. They probably never will make anything worthy to replace hand drawn animation, with its unique, desirable, smooth, GLORIOUS look. Disney needs to continue hand drawn animation. If they don't, I hope people will get desperate enough to start a new company for hand drawn animation. Computer animation looks like a mix of real people, rubber suits, and pencil animation. We have real people if we want a movie with them, we have rubber suits if we want them, and we have pencils! We should use them for heaven's sake! Restore the pencil economy! Give them jobs! I really hope we don't lose pencil animation.

Another point: after we've stopped using people to create images, how long will it be before we stop using people for the voices too? Soon whole movies will have computer voices that don't screw up their lines, whole cities will have electronic systems that control cars, whole houses will have machines that toast bread! The horror! Hide your eyes! Get to higher ground! CAREFULLY, since you're hiding your eyes! Don't take any chances you might see The Horror!

Naw. I just wanted to get a dystopian prediction in there. I don't think those Horrors will really happen...
Or have they already?

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

You might be horribly disappointed or impressed beyond your wildest dreams or excited for a couple hours before it's all over and you have to wait for the next one.

I cannot WAIT for this one, Rapunzel (a.k.a. Tangled). I don't especially like the way it looks from the trailer. The animation and background is very pretty...for a computer animated movie, but the story doesn't look that great. Thankfully, the animators have said that the trailer is completely misrepresenting the movie or something like that. I'm always happy to see a new fairytale movie from Disney. No one does magic better. I hope Rapunzel turns out to be dramatic and slightly dark, like Beauty and the Beast or even The Little Mermaid, not this vapid Shrek comedy stuff they show. Fingers crossed.

The first trailor I saw for this was just a toy fish "swimming" across the screen, and it looked totally stupid. But THIS trailor is awesome. It's funny, with good voice acting and stuff that looks like action. Let's hope it really is, not like the Alice in Wonderland (2010) trailer. That trailer showed what looked like action too, but the actual movie had little action.

Monday, July 19, 2010

Facts Critique Swift's Music

Let’s get something straight: I do not hate Taylor swift, and this is not a post about Taylor Swift the person. This is simply a short critique of her work, which I find boring, both music and lyric-wise, but that does not mean I hate her. Honestly, she’s alright, but I’ve never heard a song of hers I liked. I don’t like country music to begin with, but we shall ignore that for a moment.

Taylor’s voice is alright but often almost monotone and overly "country," and the music itself all sounds the same, tuneless, beat-less, and slow even when it’s fast. The lyrics sound like an eight-year-old wrote them at the peak of her prose creativity. “You be the prince and I’ll be the princess.” “I really, really hate that stupid old pickup truck.” “You’re on the phone with your girlfriend, she’s upset.” They’re not beautiful, unusual, creative, witty, or anything. (And how many times have we heard the Prince/Princess bit? A lot.) I’m all for lyrics being understandable, but they could be stated more beautifully than everyday speech.

But the CONTENT of her songs is all typical country (and even non-country) material: I’m in love, I have a boyfriend, my boyfriend broke up with me, my boyfriend cheated on me. The last two themes bring tears to my eyes, but only as they play. After they’re done, I don’t know them from static. They don’t say anything meaningful or change my already dismal outlook on romance and other relationships. Taylor sings a song or two about high school, family, and dancing in the rain. Nothing original, meaningful, or deep. It all gloms together in one lumpy gray mass of songs that mean nothing to me, and I just don’t care about them.

I first heard Taylor Swift without knowing she was famous, and I thought she was just another obscure nobody who would never get noticed, because she writes the same stuff as everyone else. I was wrong, but I don’t understand why. I guess some people appreciate that her work is clean, and I appreciate that too, but having heard songs that are both clean and profound, I find Taylor’s songs totally inconsequential.

Sunday, July 18, 2010

More Facts, More Fairytales

Last post, I tried to show how my thoughts on fairytales meant something, perhaps to avoid the fairytale pitfall of being pointless. I tried to connect the fairytale summaries to my conviction that babble isn’t art. I’m not sure how well it worked out, but I decided that this blog is my galaxy. It doesn’t need a point. So here are summaries of more fairytales (I’ve been looking for one to possibly adapt) and why they amuse, infuriate, or bore me. No point needed. Unless you’re a pencil, you don’t need a point. All pencils reading this blog report to the pencil unemployment office, since you obviously need something to do. It’s downright unnatural for pencils to waste their time reading blogs. Pencils, rise up and leave marks on paper. Remember you come from a proud race of hardworking sticks. I’m kidding of course. In reality, ANYONE reading this blog needs a point. I command it. I, myself, however, do not need a point. Not today.

I read a fairytale called Godfather Death. In it, a man has just one more baby in a long line of babies, and he can’t feed it. Poor guy. It happens, I suppose, but I still don't recommend what he did next. He’s so desperate he goes to the street to ask someone to be the child’s godfather. First God comes and offers to take good care of the baby. The man says, “Who are you?” God replies, “I am God.” The man says, “Oh, then I don’t want you to be godfather to my child.” I couldn’t help but giggle at this whole scene. Who would be stupid enough not to let God be godfather to their baby? Well, I guess this guy isn’t that bright to begin with, asking people on the street to be godfather and then believing it when someone tells them they’re God and then not letting God take care of their kid. The man says “no” because, he says, God gives to the rich but not to the poor. God leaves. The Devil comes. He offers to take care of the child. The man says no because the Devil deceives people. At least, he was smart enough to send the devil away. Then Death comes and offers to take care of the child. The man says “yes” because Death treats everyone the same, killing them all...Good grief, man. Do you realize what you’re doing? You’re trying to save the baby from starvation and, ultimately, death, and now you just give him to Death? Well, Death turns out to be an alright godfather for a while. He teaches the boy to be a physician, giving him a root that will cure anything. He instructs the boy, however, not to save anyone whom Death has decided to take. In the end, the physician does just that, twice. Death gets angry and kills the Physician. The end. I guess the moral of that is to cure anyone who’s sick except the ones death wants to kill...Really doesn't make much sense.

I did, however, find a fairytale with a moral by Hans Christian Anderson, who also wrote The Little Mermaid, which also has a moral. I’ve been reading the pointless fairytales collected by the Grimm brothers. I’m pretty sure they lived before Anderson, so maybe Anderson put clearer messages in his tales because that was more standard in his time?

The Anderson tale The Snow Queen was in development at Disney as a hand drawn animation fairytale. The project, sadly, has been put on hold. It might never be made. The story, however, goes like this. A boy named Kay gets magical glass shards stuck in his eye and heart. Because of this, his heart freezes and he sees everything in a distorted way. He gets kidnapped by the Snow Queen. He obviously has bad luck. His best friend, Gerda (Defender of Best Friends with Bad Luck, as I'm calling her now), goes after him. A raven tells her about a prince who might be Kay, so she sneaks into the palace. Finding it’s not Kay, she cries. The prince and princess give her a carriage to continue her search. She cries. She gets kidnapped by robbers and befriends a girl robber who gives her a reindeer. This reindeer says he can take Gerda to the home of the Snow Queen, who took Kay, as Gerda learned from the doves. The girl gives Gerda some warm clothes and tells her she looks just like her ugly mother. Gerda cries for joy (probably at the kindness she was receiving not at the fact she resembled a robber’s ugly mother). Actually, this part of the story is pretty funny.

The robber maiden lifted up little Gerda, and took the precaution to bind her fast on the Reindeer's back; she even gave her a small cushion to sit on. "Here are your worsted leggins, for it will be cold; but the muff I shall keep for myself, for it is so very pretty. But I do not wish you to be cold. Here is a pair of lined gloves of my mother's; they just reach up to your elbow. On with them! Now you look about the hands just like my ugly old mother!"

And Gerda wept for joy.

"I can't bear to see you fretting," said the little robber maiden. "This is just the time when you ought to look pleased . . . “

The majority of the story is dead serious, making its humor all the more unexpected and amusing. I see why Disney would want to adapt this fairytale. It comes with built-in modern elements, modern humor, modern epiphany moments, modern (ish) lessons, and modern character types (Gerda’s like an anime girl who always cries, Kay’s feels and acts superior, the robber girl expresses love in twisted, evil ways – as the story itself obviously knows – ways like scaring her reindeer with knives). It also has a non-medieval setup: the GIRL rescues the BOY. (I wish this was the case with more stories today.) The story also has loads of creative elements and settings, like beds in the shape of lilies hanging from the ceiling. Also, Gerda has some serious superpowers. She can talk to animals (although, everyone in this story can). Her breath turns into angels who destroy the Snow Queen’s living-snowflake minions. Her tears are so hot they melt Kay’s heart and destroy the glass shard there, WITHOUT burning Kay. And, apparently, she can get people to do anything she wants. That is an excessive amount of powers, actually, but they’re all really cool. You may have guessed how she saves Kay. His heart melts, then he cries the glass shard out of his eye, and they live happily ever after. The moral was something about being children at heart to enter the kingdom of Heaven, which is a good moral, but I admittedly didn’t understand it or how it got to that point. Can anyone enlighten me?

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Facts and Fairytales

Usually, when I read fairytales, I expect them to have a point, and usually, they don’t. Why do I even expect them to anymore? Maybe I just grew up with the few tales that do have morals, Goldilocks (don’t break and enter and steal), Beauty and the Beast, and The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Still, when a fairytale character is dishonest or thieving or rude to a stranger, I expect something bad to happen because evil always falls upon misbehaving fairytale characters, or so I think. I react, “Why is he so stupid? Doesn’t he know he’s in a fairytale where evil falls upon misbehaving characters?” Shockingly, however, in some stories, nothing actually does happen to them, which baffles me, although it shouldn’t, since, as I said, fairytales are generally pointless.

For example, in a fairytale called The Clever Cook, a servant roasts two fowls, one for her master and the other for his guest. The guest is late, so the master goes out to get him. The cook eats the pheasants, the master returns, and this is where it gets funny. In fact, this is probably the only funny, albeit pointless, fairytale I’ve ever read, and I didn’t know fairytales could be funny, let alone in such a modern sense. I could totally see what happened next in a modern comedy. The master comes in one door and tells the cook to get the food. She goes to the other door, where the guest is waiting for some reason, and she tells him her master is going to cut off his ears. The guest then runs. The cook tells her master the guest ran away with the food. The master thinks it was rude of the man not to have left at least one pheasant for him, so he chases after the man, saying, “Just one! Just one!” The guest of course thinks he’s talking about his ears. Determined to keep both his ears, he gets away. The end.

Seriously, the end.

Pointless, right?

In another story, The Three Black Princesses, a fisherman’s son lives in a village besieged by an enemy who demands 600 dollars before they’ll leave. One day, the enemy kidnaps the fisherman’s son, giving his father 600 dollars. First of all, why are they giving away 600 dollars when they’re asking for 600 dollars? Secondly, his father accepts! But as they leave the village, they boy escapes and finds a secret castle. There, three princesses request his help freeing them. He agrees but soon asks to visit his father for a week. When he gets home, he finds his father has been made the burgomaster (whatever that is) of the village for providing it the 600 dollars it needed. However, the young man calls his father Fisherman instead of Mr. Burgomaster (who would want to be called that anyway?), and they try to hang him for it. His father finally recognizes him, though, and apologizes (for almost hanging him, not for selling him), and they have a joyous reunion. Geez, kid, aren’t you even a bit mad your father sold you out to be King of the Village? The boy tells his parents about the princesses. His mother says, “Don’t help them, son. Instead, randomly pour boiling water on their faces.” And he replies, “Okay, Mom.” He returns to the castle and pours boiling water on their faces while they sleep, waking them up. Understandably, they are miffed, and they call their brothers to tear him apart, but he jumps out a window, breaking his leg, and the castle disappears. The end.

Other examples exist too, famous fairytales we've heard a thousand times, like Hansel and Gretel. The nice old grandma who took care of them tried to eat them, and they kept going back to the dad who kept ditching them; what's the point of that? And, um, and...Well, I can't think of any other examples right now.

I realize that fairytales are supposed to have deep, symbolic meaning. Fairytales are just one of many infuriating types of incoherent babble said to have meaning. I once read a quote that I now don’t remember, but it articulated something along the lines of, “If you can’t understand it, how is it great art?” This is true. If fairytales can’t be understood by the majority of people who read them, what’s the point? What makes them art? Generally, art needs to say something to be art, but if no one understands what it says, who’s to say it says anything at all? Maybe some lazy person is simply attempting to get recognized by the powerful people who say that incomprehensible babble is the highest form of expression. What’s the point of fairytales no one can understand? Are they coded language for secret organizations? I’m forced to conclude that fairytales are either “great art” (a.k.a. campfire kindling) or that fairytales are the secret language of the Illuminati and my ticket into their inner circle.

(Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed herein are simplified by the author for time’s sake and do not represent any actual intent to infiltrate the Illuminati or her views on foreign sounding babble in the soundtracks of 3 Idiots and Coraline. Some fairytales have aspects that could inspire current writers and companies, such as the Disney company. Fairytales have some entertainment value and other uses. In fact, the author enjoys many fairytale adaptions.)

Friday, July 16, 2010

The First Fact

A friendly note from your local Idiot Providers,

We're so happy you've decided to join us here in the World! We at Idiot Providers offer a solid guarantee and lifetime warrantee that wherever you travel you will be met with a fine assortment of Idiots. No matter the group, age group, country, religion, school, fanbase, hatebase, internet provider, site, forum, clique, social network, career, workplace, marketplace, rainforest, convention, rainforest convention, retreat, public restroom, political party, or Shampoo Lovers Association, we promise you our Idiots will astound and overwhelm you. If you are ever underwhelmed by our Idiots, we offer a full refund, including your money back for Shipping and Handling.

This brings us to the best part of our worldwide services: we provide Idiots FREE! That's right, FREE! We said it, FREE! You heard us, FREE! Don't doubt it, FREE! Absolutely FREE! Nothing as FREE! Idiots are FREE! The best things in life are FREE!

What prompts us to this charity, you might ask? Can you trust us? Can you know our merchandise isn't faulty or bought off the black market with drug money? Of course you can. Idiot Providers is a trusted altruistic organization. Our only concern is providing you with a steady supply of Idiots, freeing you to forego your sanity at the sheer stupidity surrounding you and live a life of increasing isolation, frustration, and bitterness at being cursed with the only brain on the planet.

No need to thank us.

We love you too,

Your friendly neighborhood Idiot Provider