Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: February 2009

My apologies once again for not posting two weeks ago or this past weekend.  I was far busier on Sunday than I was expecting, and besides, I didn’t have a good subject to write about.  Okay, that last part isn’t entirely true.  I have a few topics stockpiled, but those are usually for emergency use only, when I have absolutely nothing else that’s come up in the past week or so, something fresh.  I prefer to use those rather than take something I might have wanted to write about a month ago but have by now forgotten most of the points I wanted to make.  Anyway, on with this week’s Rantable.  I’ll try to get back on schedule this weekend, and post another one in the middle of next week so I’m caught up for the year.

I wasn’t sure if I was even going to post about anything this week, but thanks to a local radio station, I found out about the following story posted in The Sun, a British newspaper:

If you don’t feel like reading the whole article, I’ll give you the jist of it: a 13 year old boy in England got a 15 year old girl pregnant last year (technically, he was 12 at the time).  A few days ago, she gave birth to their child.  You are now up to speed.

Now, here I go.

What in the name of Edward James Olmos are these kids doing having sex?  They’re KIDS.  They should be out doing what kids, nay, what CHILDREN should be doing: running around a field, playing stickball, reading books, going to school, and other things that children do.  There is no reason that they should be having sex.  Sure, they’ll play games like doctor and whatnot, but those are usually for children younger than that.  And if you play a game like doctor or house or “you show me your wee-wee and I’ll show you mine,” (thank you, George Carlin) there’d be no reason for a boy and a girl to have sex.  Mostly because their genitals haven’t developed yet.  But I’m gting off topic again.  These are CHILDREN we are talking about.  I don’t know if they think they’re adults or what, but they have no idea what they’ve gotten themselves into.

Here’s another thing that bothers me quite thoroughly.  I’m reading the article while I’m writing this, and I just came across something that would scream “Why, god, why?” to any even somewhat intelligent human: “They (the girl and her daughter) are living with Penny, Chantelle’s jobless dad Steve, 43, and her five brothers in a rented council house in Eastbourne. The family live on benefits.”  That household is entirely insufficient for any family to be living in, and they’re adding a baby to the mix?  These people have no idea what they’re doing, do they?  This smacks of another story I’m sure you’ve all heard about by now: that of Nadya Suleman, otherwise known as the Octuplet mom.  You know, the woman who just gave birth to eight babies, and she already had six, all under the age of seven?  And she doesn’t have a job and is living off government assistance IN HER PARENT’S TINY HOUSE!  I just don’t understand the mindset of these people.  They’re unemployed, living off the money that taxpayers like you and me send to the government every goddamned year, and they think that everything’s going to be just fine because the government is taking care of them.  That doesn’t work forever.  It shouldn’t work forever.  People with no money to their names should not go out having eight or nine children (or even one for that matter), because it’s just going to end up with the baby/child growing up in a household that will make it difficult for them to live a vaguely normal existence.  How are you going to explain to your friends in sixth grade that your dad was in sixth grade when he knocked up your mom?  That’s just disturbing.  Or how are you going to convince people that you live a perfectly normal existence with your thirteen other brothers and sisters, all of whom are no more than six years older than you?  I realize that there is no such thing as a truly “normal” life, but these kinds of things are just too far off the deep end to be considered even close to the realm of normal.  These are the statistical anomalies that need to be wiped away.

I know I’m far away from my original point that children shouldn’t be having sex.  Myself, now being 24 (happy birthday to me yesterday), am horrified that a 14 year old girl has had more sexual partners than myself.  She’s supposedly had around ten boys ranging from 12 to 16 have sex with her.  That frightens me thoroughly.  This kind of behavior is apalling.  But where does blame lie (because that’s all we ever do in this society is blame something on something else)?  Does it lie with the girl’s parents?  They must not have done a very good job raising her seeing as how she’s having sex at 14 and doing god knows what else.  Is it the boy’s parents’ fault?  They probably didn’t do very well with him, either, seeing as how he’s having sex at 12.  Or do we blame society, for its seemingly careless attitude towards the oversexualization of everyone?  I’m probably going to be one of the last people who thinks that censorship of any kind is important, but when you’ve got these 10 year old girls wearing thongs and wearing “Juicy” pants, there’s a serious problem.  This was (sort of) addressed in an episode of South Park I watched recently, called “Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset,” in which Paris Hilton opens up a store in the South Park Mall called Stupid Spoiled Whore, and all the young girls of the town turn themselves into stupid spoiled little whores.  The episode kind of goes off on a few tangents from there, but the main point is still there.  Somehow, it became okay for young girls to turn themselves into much more overly sexual versions of themselves, imitating people who should not be famous or imitated in the first place.  People like Paris Hilton.  Who needs to get dragged under a bus and killed, or eye-socket-fucked by a biker and given cancer of the AIDS of the leukemia (thank you, Patton Oswalt).

So what am I trying to say with all this ranting and whatnot?  Well…I think I’ve said it several times already.  Children should not be having sex.  Wait till you’re in high school, at least, so your awkwardness and strange behavior can be justified because you’re a teenager.  Society is partially to blame for all of this, but at this point, there isn’t much we can do.  Except kill Paris Hilton and burn all those stupid spoiled whore clothes at all the boutiques and clothing stores.  We don’t need 13 year old children giving birth to more children.  Leave the baby-making and the sex to the adults, please.


Apologies to everyone who reads this (I know you’re out there). There won’t be a Rantable today.  I’ll try to get one up in the next day or so, and I’ll be back on schedule next weekend.  I just don’t have one in me tonight.  Hopefully I’ll have one tomorrow or the next day.  So until then, have a good evening.

Well, the Super Bowl is over and done with.  Let us never speak of it again.

Though I must say, while watching the terrible crop of ads this year (ONE good one from  Come on…), I noticed a trend that’s been developing for years now, and seems to be surging in full force now: the trend of “remaking” or “reimagining” a movie from years past.  There is no reason whatsoever to do this.  The only possible explanation I can think of for anyone remaking or “reimagining” (a disgusting word in and of itself) a film is because there are no original ideas left.  I saw no less than three ads for remakes during the Super Bowl, and at least one or two more over the past couple of weeks.  And there are others I’ve heard about that are in production that just horrify me.  Let’s just go through a short list of the few that I’ve heard about recently.

Friday the 13th – Supposedly this is going to be a remake of the first two movies crammed together into one 85 minute package.  First off, if you’re going to condense the first two movies down into approximately half the time, you’re going to leave out some key points from both movies.  There’s no way getting around it.  I don’t really have much else to say about this one that won’t also apply to every other film I’ll be talking about, so this one gets off relatively easy.

Return to Witch Mountain – I just heard about this one today.  First off, “updating” a movie for this generation is a pointless and stupid endeavor.  There is absolutely no reason for anyone to bother “updating” a movie.  Kids can accept that things were not always so technologically advanced as they are these days.  From the trailer I saw, it actually looks more like an action flick than whatever the original was (I have not seen it, but I’d imagine it was a children’s movie).  And then you’ve got The Rock starring.  I’m trying to like him, I really am.  But some of these choices he’s made are just so stupid they boggle my mind.  He’s already a millionaire, why does he bother with such idiotic ideas?  If he wants to be taken seriously, he needs to branch out and do something other than terrible action movies made by Disney.

Land of the Lost – Now we’re getting into the truly absurd: movies that are remakes of old TV shows.  When you’ve run out of movies to destroy, take down TV shows!  This has happened a lot recently, with movies like Speed Racer (which I refuse to see because I know it will be beyond terrible).  I’ve never seen the show, but this, I can’t imagine, will be very good.

The Karate Kid – This is one I heard about on the radio.  It’s the same title, but Will Smith’s kid is playing the kid, it’s set in China, and JACKIE CHAN is playing Miyagi.  That just threw me over the edge.  It’s no longer The Karate Kid.  It’s Young Black Kid in China Gets Trained By a Chinese Guy Pretending to be Japanese.  Fucking ridiculous.

All of these movies, I fear, also share a couple of common themes: the need to “update” the movie for people (mostly children) of this generation, and the seemingly incessant need to use today’s mega-stars in the title roles in order to help the audience “connect” to the characters merely because they’ve heard of whomever is playing the lead.  The first part (“updating” the movie) is silly.  Kids are kids.  They have an imagination.  They can certainly imagine what it was like way back when in the 1970’s or 1980’s when everything wasn’t computer-generated.  They’re getting too spoiled on terrible-looking CGI that pushes the graphics off the bleeding edge and into the “well that just looks silly” chasm.  Nothing looks real anymore.  The last piece of decent CGI I’ve seen was The Sandman’s first scene in Spiderman 3.  That looked pretty cool.  The rest of the movie looked awful (as well as the entire rest of the movie being awful, but I digress), and since then, I have yet to see any CGI that hasn’t looked just plain silly.  It’s all too shiny and fantastical to be taken seriously.  I know that the purpose of a movie is to have the audience suspend their disbelief for two hours, but with CGI that looks as garish as some of the work I’ve seen, it takes me out of that state of disbelief completely and ruins the movie for me.

The second common theme, that of using big stars in title roles in order to help the audience to connect to their characters, is also, quite simply, ludicrous.  There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that a child cannot sit down and watch the original Return to Witch Mountain (or whatever movie is being raped and pillaged) and just enjoy the movie for what it is, no matter who’s in the lead role.  That obviously applies as well for every other remake being made.  You don’t have to have a huge star making $50 million per film so people can go watch it just because they’ve heard of the guy who’s acting the lead.  This is also something that’s bothered me about animated films for quite some time now (I know, another digression, but let me get this one out now so I don’t have to spend an entire extra entry on this subject).  Just about every animated film, be it made by Pixar or Studio Ghibli and dubbed by some American company, is seemingly obsessed with only using famous actors in nearly every major part instead of using great voice actors who will actually portray the character instead of the onscreen character merely being an extension of the famous actor voicing said character.  Follow me?  I’d rather hear Maurice LaMarche or Billy West or Townsend Coleman playing parts than Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, and Jennifer Anniston (or however you spell her damn name), because the first three names will adapt a voice to the character, whereas with the latter three, you’ll simply get the animated character molded around the actor lending his or her voice.

So, really, I don’t think that any of these movies, be they classics or not, should be remade in the first place.  I don’t care if the new director thinks he has some “new and fresh” ideas that he wants to dump over our heads like a three-week old bucket of oatmeal, because those new and fresh ideas usually turn out to be the same boring shit that 75% of movies today are doing anyway.  Maybe more like 95%.  The fact that there are so few truly original ideas coming out of Hollywood these days is, no doubt, a huge factor in this influx of remakes and “reimaginings” (god I hate that word).  What the movie industry needs is a fresh batch of writers and directors, people who aren’t afraid to toe the line or boldly step right over it without fear of what audiences or critics might think.  That is when you get the truly great movies.  When a writer and/or a director make a movie for themselves, it almost always ends up as a better movie than any made with the audience, and especially with the critics, in mind.  So don’t go see these remakes.  You’ll more than likely end up being disappointed.

By the way, +1000 bonus points if you actually know who those three actors I mentioned are, and +10,000 points if you can name two characters each of those actors I mentioned portrayed.