Was Rick Snee right again?

Last Wednesday, SeriouslyGuys.com columnist Rick Snee gave it to you about the pronunciation of “2010” (again). And while he routinely projects volleys of predictions in these pieces, hoping one of them may stick, it appears he’s on the cusp of being right.

On the topic of future wars in the “Twenty-Ten” chain of events, he said the following:

“But, the Future War could be with anyone or anything. Imagine fighting aliens! Or time travellers! Or maybe even Communazis! Could the British want revenge for losing Samoa in 1900?! We can only hope!

Not one week later, the Yemeni government said that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian charged with attempted unChristmaslike crotch behavior on a plane bound for Detroit, was “radicalised and recruited by al-Qaeda while a student in London.”

London. As in London, England. That’s where British people come from.

It appears that the U.K. is harboring terrorists. Sounds like invadin’ time to us!

UPDATE: Holocaust denier denied for denying to undeny

Bishop Richard Williamson, who was the topic of a Take it from Snee on February 11, was denied getting his parish back by the Pope. This announcement from the Vatican comes after a half-hearted online apology by Williamson, saying he was sorry his comments, which denied the scale of the Holocaust, caused “distress.”

So, while now-normal-person Williamson has a shot at heaven again (with really long odds), he has lost his job because he was unable to reconcile half of the History Channel’s stock footage with some crackpot theory he heard in the 1980s.

And, really, in this economy? That’s punishment.

Let this be a lesson to us all: sometimes, you’re an idiot and better off admitting it.

Take it from Snee: No more satire

If you’re a regular reader of “Take it from Snee,” then you’re probably expecting some satire. Well, not this week and never again.

You see, I’ve learned something this week: satire isn’t funny unless everyone agrees it is. In fact, the only successful satire ever written was A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift, and that’s only because people don’t read it until high school after a teacher explains the joke. (Spoiler alert: British people love to eat Irish babies.)

I could go ahead and just explain every TifS, but I’m still a lazy man even when I’m no longer satirical. Instead, I’ve chosen to denounce Rick Snee’s most inflammatory statements, which I find offensive and wholly inappropriate. Continue reading Take it from Snee: No more satire

We’re not laughing, ‘Onion’

Look, before we get into it, let’s just say we like The Onion. We think it’s adorable that they make up news to joke about. Very creative, boys.

That said: did you think we wouldn’t notice? It was a nice try, putting it in your print edition. You know The Guys are way too awesome to sit in coffee shops and read ratty little newsletters.

(Not that we’re implying your print edition is ratty. We’re sure it’s much more distinguished than that local fanzine about marijuana-oriented jam bands from Kinko’s.)

And we quote from our site two weeks ago:

“So I caught a few previews for Austin Powers 4: The Love Guru and noticed Jessica Alba is in it.”

That’s the very first sentence in “Take it from Snee: Jessica Alba kinda sucks.”

What’s that saying about ‘any publicity?’

SeriouslyGuys -- because you can't drink cosmos on the job.As part of this summer’s blockbuster movie fest, Sex and the City promises to be a rollicking good time for the entire family. In fact, The Guys often pretend we’re the Fab Four when drinking. We put on some strappy sandals, order nothing but cosmos and talk about all the sex we’ve had in the past week.

(McBournie insists that we call him Samantha. Schools, with his profound addiction to horserace betting, is our group’s Carrie.)

However, not everyone shares our excitement. New York’s Time Out magazine is protesting the movie because it premiered in London instead of NYC. They slapped the Sex girls hard — the way this blog understands they like it — by featuring them on the cover, but with the title of “No sex! Enough already — we love ’em, but it’s just too much.”

Just to recap: they’re protesting the movie with a Sex and the City-free issue by featuring the film’s stars on their cover. It’s obvious they haven’t read “Take it from Snee: Protest effectively or kindly go home.”

Take it from Snee: Television actually getting better

When I wrote a review for Reaper a few months ago, I started with a polemic on the current line-up of horrible television. Programming appears to be divided into three categories: reality, doctors and cops. And while reality will most likely persist for the rest of my lifetime like genital warts, the other two categories are mercifully winding down.

Now that TV characters don’t jump shark tanks on motor cycles, how do I know when a series is all but over? A musical episode is a very good clue. And so is a live episode. And if it’s a live musical episode, then the series isn’t just ending, but the actors will be shot on the backlot after the broadcast.

Musical episodes are the equivalent to rock bands recording an album with a symphony orchestra: the creative period is over; now we laugh at follow-up efforts until merciful retirement. And like the occasional reunion tour, the show gets one shot at a direct-to-DVD movie. All of this will be recapped in the E! True Hollywood Story.

So why do a musical episode? If I knew what television producers were thinking, it would mean my life has descended to the bottom-feeding level of Hell where paparazzi call to upgrade your phone service. So, I can only guess why, but I’m pretty sure that, at some level, I’m right on the money.

Other than a clips episode, the musical episode is the easiest to write. Instead of using a narrative plot to speed the series to a rapid finish, the writers team up with some Broadway flunkie to create a fan service. It answers one sole question: can my favorite TV vampire sing? At the end of the episode, the overarching storyline has been left untouched, except for a dance-numbered monologue in which Dr. John Dorian figures out whether or not he’s a good doctor.

Really, that’s the problem with all musicals. The rule for “good” musicals is that the characters launch into song when the emotion of the scene can no longer be expressed with words. So instead of hitting someone like we do in the real world, they retreat into a self-directed song and dance about their feelings. In short, musicals are like emo kids: instead of responding quickly and meaningfully to a situation, they hold onto it for years, pretending to strike back with horrible rhyming poetry.

Musical episodes are indicative of a show’s imminent end because of the combined factors of its uselessness (see previous paragraphs) and that it’s an audition. Think about it: whenever an actor has been typecast, where do they look for work? Broadway, or Disney/Pixar voiceover work.

Live episodes work along the same audition theory. Because shows frequently show outtakes of flubbed lines during the credits, people believe that television work is the easiest form of acting. If you’re a stand-up comedian, you get multiple takes to perfect a punchline someone else wrote for your character with the same first name.

Speaking of which: do they give stand-up leading men the same first name because they can’t remember their cues? My guess is yes, and transcripts from the original pilots look like when Homer Simpson entered the Witness Relocation Program.

    Everybody Loves Ernie, Original Pilot Transcript (9/1/1995)
    DEBRA [Patricia Heaton]: Ernie, are you paying attention to me? I’m mad because you went golfing and your mother insulted my cooking.
    …Ernie?
    Oh, for [deleted]’s sake. Ray!
    ERNIE [Ray Romano]: What? Was that my line?
    DIRECTOR: Cut! [Deleted]! Hey, Phil [Rosenthal, writer]! Change the character’s name to Ray! This is the third [deleted]ing day of filming and we still don’t have anything for the [deleted]ing network.

There is a flipside to live episodes, though. Actors with the giggles (see: Jimmy Fallon) are exposed as hacks. The real question is whether live episodes are last ditch stunts signaling the end of a show, or if live episodes kill shows by proving that the actors are really horrible.

The good news, though, is that a lot of bad shows are embracing these motifs.

Nip/Tuck has announced a live episode, which means a lot of M*A*S*H type banter over bloodied dummies, only about ex-wives and Botox. No word on who will lose a penis, yet.

House is considering a musical episode. Which is weird, because I didn’t think there was enough room for two angry, singing doctors since Scrubs’s final season opener. Arivadarci, House. Twenty bucks says that House discovers a rare disease that causes everyone to sing, but he will have to exploit his bad leg to get everyone to agree to be treated.

The unfortunate news is that not everyone has gotten on board yet.

Law and Order can only draw so many more stories from the headlines. Seriously, where do you go with a series after an SVU episode about neo-Nazi rape? Why, to Richard Belzer singing about dead babies. Ice-T can segue into a rap about cops being targeted for gun violence. Let’s end these depressing series on a high note (ha!), for once.

If there’s one show that needs a live episode, it’s Desperate Housewives. Imagine all the pseudo MILF porn lines, but delivered without interruption. It’ll sound like the actual web sites that the show’s writers clean up for the script. It’ll also be interesting to see Teri Hatcher ignore the other cast members “accidentally” calling her Michael Jackson.

So be on the lookout for these signs that relief from the two of the big three TV categories. Other signs to look out for are very special cancer, marriage and pregnancy/baby; however, these are no longer guaranteed since many series now start with these premises. (Yet another writing device to replace actual character development.)

Take it from Snee: We gots ourselves a boycott!

Somewhere, a filmmaker is already writing a screenplay about this child speaking in a British accent, ending World War II and rescuing their parents by saving the land of the living teddy bears.

Two opposing groups, the Catholic League and the National Secular Society, are each opposed to the new Lord of the Rings …… Narnia

Harry Potter

What in Peter Parker’s emo hair is His Dark Materials? Another story about children whisked away to imaginary world to save it from evil represented in the real world, eh? British, too, again? ::sigh::

Well anyway, these two groups are against this new Golden Compass movie, which is presumably the first part of a trilogy based on the His Dark Materials books. The Catholic League says the villains are thinly-veiled stand-ins for the Church. The Secularists say the villains’ veils aren’t thin enough and want more Christians fed to armored polar bears.

Yeah, there’re armored polar bears. Not giant elephants or talking beavers or even S&M house elves. This film uses bears.

You know what? They’re both right. This film does deserve a boycott.

First: how many movies do kids need about British children saving Imaginationland?

    This story’s already been written, animated and raped by Spielberg; it’s called Peter Pan. But not one year goes by without a “brand new” story of underprivileged white kids battling witch queens and goblins. Interestingly, children cannot get any whiter than British Caucasian.Of course, most of these stories are written by parents for their children, but it’s not a profound gift if they’re using the same tired formula as two other movies in the same year. We get it, Hollywood: your experiments in breeding have succeeded and now you see the world through the magical eyes of your crotchfruit.

Second: how many more film trilogies do we need, particularly in this genre?

    There hasn’t even been a second Narnia film yet. Haven’t filmmakers learned from The Godfather and The Karate Kid that three is often too many? If it weren’t for the unexplainable demand for trilogies, we could have seen a coherent and succinct Matrix sequel.And why trilogies? Why not two-parters or quintrilogies? Or, here’s an idea: how about making a movie that tells a story without an arrogant writer believing that he or she has created yet another Tolkienesque universe. Making sequel after sequel of elaborate background and philosophical meandering does not make a work profound. Let the fanboys argue about a film’s meaning and quit trying to do the work for us.

Third: what the hell happened to atheists?

    These nuts are worse than the holy rollers nowadays. I’ve always expected some degree of evangelism in religious movies, though some lay it on thicker than others, but since when does atheism require propaganda? It’s a simple idea that everyone, even Mother Theresa, has thought of: what if there is no god?I’m not arguing either side’s position here because I don’t need to: the entire internet is already at it. Any mention of religion is met with pompous arguments regarding the foolishness of evangelical Christianity. Likewise, every mention of evolution or other so-called atheist dogma is countered with Christians screaming bible verses.

    In short, atheists are turning into everything I already dislike about organized religion. Everyone is fighting for a cause that won’t be resolved until the world ends. The crux in the argument is that every year that doesn’t end in the Rapture means that atheists are right, so even if it does happen, the atheists are correct until then. It’s Schrödinger’s Cat all over again, only we’re not arguing whether the cat is alive, but what happens to it if dead.

    And of all the groups to cast as villains, why the Catholic Church? It’s not like there’s a new Inquisition in the works. Even if the Church fired up the old confession mills, I doubt they’d be after atheists. Besides, if we really want to pigeon-hole Christianity as conspiratorially oppressing human thought, then wouldn’t evangelical Protestants make a more plausible threat? And if they’re looking for a really easy target, then why not do what every other filmmaker has done in the past and cast the villains as Nazis?

Obviously, we can’t expect anything original from movies at this point. We, the consumers, continue to gripe about remakes and formula-driven plotlines (see: this entire rant), but we aren’t doing anything about it.

Maybe we should go on strike. Forget the writers: they’re part of the problem, so I don’t think this current batch will be missed. I mean, has anyone really minded their absence over the past couple of weeks? Sure, I miss having new episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, but I hope Heroes, Lost and Grey’s Anatomy never come back.

But that’s just it: we can’t go completely on strike. We still need television and movies to get laid without talking to our dates. But we can follow through with a boycott of The Golden Compass and every other textbook genre flick and remake that Hollywood foists on us.

Postscript: I know, you’re thinking, “But Rick, Lord of the Rings wasn’t about children.” Yeah? Then what are hobbits? They’re afraid of wizards and adventure, believe they don’t matter much in the world, and will smoke and drink too much if given the chance. Plus, weren’t Frodo and Company extremely young compared to the other hobbits? Coupled with their crisp delivery of the Queen’s English, this makes even Tolkien’s creations part of the problem.