Why is “Cheaters” so contagious?

Why is Cheaters the best show on television?

 

I’m not sure how many of you know of this cultural phenomenon, but Cheaters is probably the best reality show on Earth. It’s the best combination of Jerry Springer circa 1998 and MSNB’s To Catch a Predator. People are caught cheating, the person who is being cheated on is allowed to confront their significant others and most of the time a fight ensues. What more could a TV fan want?

 

The show is a reality show where the host Joey Grecco takes very suspicious individuals and confirms their worst suspicions on TV for the whole world to see. But wait, he’s not done. After speaking in a creepy comforting voice throughout the whole torrid presentation, he then takes the person to go meet up with the cheater and the person which they are cheating with. But wait he’s not done. What better way to confront your cheating spouse, than with a entire camera crew, a stampede of body guards and a heard of boom mic guys? And Joey always waits until the person is actually in the act to bust them. Joey’s like the cast of SVU, busting in at the most inopportune times….wait, what are you doing, giving your valedictorian speech in front of 1300 students at USC, well now is the time to haul you away for aggravated flashing you sick son of a bitch!!!

 

Most of the time, there are fights, crashes, busted furniture, broken hearts and endless hours of laughs. My roommates and I have seen naked men jump iron cast fences, women tied to beds about to shoot a S&M videos, men hiding under beds, a man dressed up as a Bee get his ass kicked by his girlfriend at a gas station and women throwing other women through windows But this weekend my roommates and I saw something we’ve never seen before.

 

I warn you, if you’re not a fan of Chris Brown currently you may not want to watch this. For the rest of you enjoy.

 

 

 

I’ve only seen one other show use this format, and To Catch A Predator had a nice run, why aren’t more networks cashing in on this?

Salvaging Salvation

Question. Has the Terminator franchise already predicted its doom?

 

I’m a huge fan of the overly convoluted plot hole ridden story of The Terminator and most of its subsequent franchise. What’s not to like about a time traveling half ton robot from the future sent back in time to kill someone it couldn’t kill in its own time? Nothing I tell you…nothing!

With that aside, I believe being a fan entitles you to certain critic liberties not normally granted to non-fans. Trekker’s (not to be mistaken with trekies…who apparently don’t exist,) seem to be allotted the privilege of bashing the new Star Trek movie, because of loyal dedication and ridiculous attention to detail. The laymen however is only allowed to criticize in the comfort of his own circle of friends for fear of being called out for his/her sheer lack of knowledge on the subject and subsequent flawed critique. That being said, I have a few critiques and questions for the Terminator franchises and its newest attempt to revitalize the story.

 

First…studios need to buy by every copy of Terminator 3 ever sold, pay every network to STOP showing it, erase every left over ad, burn every piece of literature associated with it, and pretend it never existed. That movie was awful and really had no bearing on the franchise what so ever.

 

I’ve suspended disbelief for over 17 years, where is my pay off. Please show the end of the war. I’m tired of the franchise stringing along the viewer with the hint of the prophesized end. Since The Terminator first began, the triumphant human victory has been mentioned constantly by human and machine combined, but never actually seen by either. The previous three Terminator movies all took place in the relative past where showing the futuristic human victory would have been irrelevant, but Terminator: Salvation was the franchises chance to finally give the fan/viewer a glimpse if this monumental victory. Instead it teased the fans again, like your high school freshman girlfriend who would only rub you over the “outside” of your pants to get you excited then left you to finish the rest.

 

What started off as a unique concept of man versus machine in epic time jumping battle has now become a water downed version of the Matrix trilogies. John Conner, the leader of the human resistance is now being portrayed as the chosen one prophesized by himself. Instead of John Conner the man who lead a group of remaining human survivors to victory against an over matched threat to the human species.

 

I understand there are inherent fallacies which come with time travel, but in the context in which it originated, there should still be certain rules which the story and characters should abide by. Like in the original Terminator, John sent Kyle (his dad) unwittingly back to defend his mother from a Terminator assassination attempt. Since then John now not only knows who his father is, but has to rescue him in order to send him back to start this whole weird father-friend cycle over. It was better left to chance that the man he sent back happened to be his father through circumstance, rather than some loop breaking, time bending design.

 

Another issue I have is the latest terminator design. James Cameron and the writers are once again shown to be ahead of their time  18 years later. The T-1000 was a liquid metal prototype which was almost impervious to all attacks and had no discernable energy source, so it essentially could kill forever effectively was and seems to be the best killer of all the Terminators. It encompassed all of the best key characteristics for a Terminator. Stealth, self sustained weaponry, minimal maintence, and one sole objective, kill at all cost. Since then, the fans were given a liquid metal over an actual metal endo-skeleton which could use a flame thrower, in the form of a hot lesbian. The newest Terminator while better than the previous shape shifting Maxim cover model, still isn’t the efficient killing prototype from Terminator 2 or the indestructible T180 from the original movie. This terminator has an actual human heart and a brain. For what reason other than making it a extremely vulnerable to attack is unknown to me. It is mentioned that it’s very design was what Skynet previously failed to account for. This machine unwittingly brought John Conner and Kyle Reece into the grasp of Skynet (who again couldn’t capitalize on its new found fortune). The chances that a machine which has been offline for years, looks and acts completely human to the machines which hunt and destroy humans, winds up running into both John Conner and Kyle before being found out seems almost astronomical and quite frankly retarded of a design. Either low jack its ass or you’d better have made a shit load of disposable ones similar to it.

 

I’m starting to believe the humans WON’T win this war. As the old saying goes…“there is no money in PEACE”. I think the writers, and studios have a fear that showing the triumphant victory will be the end of the saga, and they may be right. This franchise was never meant to be a movie-after movie spawning sequel machine. Showing the end would without of a doubt probably cease the creation of more sequels, but that doesn’t mean that remakes won’t spring about. Remakes are popping up almost faster than the movies they’re based on these days. So fuck sake, please just show the end of the War. Make it a 3 hour movie if it pleases you. Have Mc.G (who apparently thinks he’s still in high school with a name like that) and Jerry Bruckheimer combine forces to blow up shit after shit in a CGI orgasm. Grab the writers of the Dark Knight to tailor a script for Christian Bale that keeps him speaking in that gargled Batman voice forever, and grab every cameo and hot piece of ass (i.e. Megan Fox, Scarlett Johansson, Jessica Biel…) you can call in for a favor to be in scene after scene of unrelated appearances, and just make this movie.

 

Why is this so hard?

Uncomfortable=Inadequacies

Why is it impolite to stare?

“It’s impolite to stare honey.” They would warn. But have you ever wondered why?

I mean you aren’t doing anything but looking. The same behavior generally encouraged at movies, theme parks, zoo’s, museums, sporting events, fashion shows, concerts, award shows, red carpet events, seminars and almost every other social gathering. But when you look at one individual for too long, you’ve crossed the line and have now become an impolite dick.

 

My roommates and I were discussing the origin of staring and what is so offensive about the act. I believe my inquiry all stems from an encounter I had a while back with this very attractive female. She was wearing all kinds of chic clothing and jewelry, hair stylishly cropped and several perfectly placed tattoos. So I was entranced by the woman’s appearance I will admit. She apparently didn’t take to kindly to my admiration, and decided to confront me about it. She walked over to where I was leaning and very harshly asked, “what the hell are you staring at creep?” Being completely off-set by her demeanor, I responded sarcastically with “You. Oh I’m sorry I do this thing…when I find something visually appealing I tend to look at it.” I believe she was expecting a half hearted ass lie, something along the lines, “…uh, nothing. I mean I was looking at you but my mind was somewhere else.” Needless to say she was thrown off, slightly flattered and completely confused.

 

All of this got me to thinking, had I been one of those people embarrassed about staring, why would I need to lie about it? Why do people become so offended when you “look” at them for extended periods of time? As a person who stares, I haven’t said anything offensive, I haven’t done anything offensive, I’ve kept my distance and I haven’t invaded your personal space, and once you’re out my line of sight, you’re gone to me. Yet people become self conscious, suspicious, and nervous when people stare at them.

 

I think the psychology of the situation stems back to personal inadequacies. If a hot woman sees a hot man staring at her she’s pleased and vice versa, because its wanted attention. But if a hot woman see a not so hot man staring she’s immediately put off and becomes nervous, paranoid and offended. Why? Here’s the answer plain and simple…people are self conscious and they lack mind reading abilities. We all have a certain image of what we see ourselves looking like in the mirror. Images that seem like they’re chalked with blaring flaws and ugly truths. And when someone stares at us, we feel like they’re staring at not only those same things but others we may have missed. This coupled with our inability to master telepathy, we project what people are thinking while they stare at us, all the negative things we see in ourselves. Then we get offended they would think that when they don’t know us at all.

 

A better question is, will this issue only be resolved with telepathy? Or we will be even more offended by their thoughts than we were with their blank stares?

The Perfect Picture

Question: Why do most women take the same picture?

 

I’m not a very photogenic individual, so I may be the wrong person to discuss this but, I’m going to anyways. In the pictures I do take, I try and vary the posses up as much as I can remember at the time. From frowns to surprises, from ecstatic to grumpy and what have you. Do you wanna know why? Because over the course of life, believe it or not I do express those emotions quite often. My life isn’t all smiles, and a picture of that moment should convey that. I think most people who end up taking pictures of their friends, lovers and family members want to genuinely catch those emotions but instead get the pre-manufactured smile.

 

This is especially the case with women in photos. I’ve noticed that women in photos, a majority of them have very similar poses regardless of age, race or region. If you have the time, glance back at a collection of photos of your female friends and bear witness to the phenomenon.

 

I’ll even help you a little and break it down for you.

 

By herself: Head always tilted, sometimes  over lowered shoulder. 

 

 

 

 

With a friend: Faces smashed together like they’re trying to become Siamese twins.

 

With a boyfriend: Posing very cutely by smashing her face into his while holding a boyfriend who is looking elsewhere (sometimes at her cleavage, off into the background, just slightly below the camera) 

In a group: Hand on waist or arms interlaced (hand placement depends on the group…if the group is posing to the left, then hand will be placed on left hip with left shoulder lowered)

 

At a club: Drink in hand, often times huge open mouth like a crazed Julia Roberts or a hyena.

 

At home: Cuddled up next to favorite pet. Usually smashing her face into it like her friend or boyfriend.

 

On vacation: Standing on something (usually a step or a statue) with big arms (arms spread far apart to show how large the environment is in comparison to how small she is)

 

A note to keep in mind when examining these photos, notice how exact the smile is. It doesn’t vary, it’s never caught mid placement, and it’s always from the same side of her face…eerie huh?

Darth Vader=Samuel Jackson

 

How do you get a title you actually haven’t done anything for?

 

My roommates and I were sitting around the other day and discussing the social phenomenon of Samuel Jacksons “Bad Ass-ness”. Two of us agreed, “yeah, he’s bad ass. He’s mutha-fing Sam Jackson, of course he’s a bad ass.” But as one of my roommates questioned, “what exactly has Mr. Jackson done to be hailed as such a bad ass nigga!?”

During the course of discussion we were sure we had pinned it down to his role in Pulp Fiction. In particular his wallet which had proclaimed his bad ass-ness.  But looking back on that movie and Mr. Jackson body of work in its entirety, we all realized he actually hasn’t done anything which by modern definitions would constitute being a bad ass.

 

Brief (abridged version of his work)

 

• In Pulp Fiction he assisted in one kill and talked a whole bunch the rest of the movie.
• In Snakes on a Plane, he does kill a bunch of snakes on a plane (I suppose that’s bad ass)
• In Die Hard 3, he was the comic relief.
• In Unbreakable, he was a very breakable comic geek who gets put into a insane asylum after trying to get the attention of a single white male. (kinda gay if you ask me)
• In Coming to America, he was the crack head thief who was easily thwarted
• In the Negotiator, he was the framed red headed hero who didn’t do anything bad ass (unless holding a bunch of middle aged white people in a government building for the majority of the movie is bad ass?)
• In SWAT he was the Captain who, again didn’t do much but talk. All the shooting and fighting was done by his team.
• In Deep Blue Sea, he got eaten.
• In his appearances in the Star Wars Early Trilogy, he talked a bunch, killed one guy and got his handless ass tossed out of a 256 story window.
• In A Time to Kill he played a grief stricken father who avenged his daughter’s rape by killing two white men and was imprisoned most of the movie.
• In Jumper he chased down two white guys and ultimately was put in a whole in the middle of a cave in the middle of the grand canyon.
• In Lake View Terrace, he played the role of a bully black cop in LA and ended up getting shot by other cops at the end.

 

In short Mr. Jackson hasn’t really been in a movie that has fully embodied the notion of his bad ass-ness. So why do we persist that he is a bad ass?

 

Another Bad Ass figure who hasn’t lived up to his title, Darth Vader. What exactly has Darth Vader done in his illustrious evil career that warrants a Bad Ass title? Nothing.

As far as his body of work is concerned, he’s killed one light saber wielding enemy in Count Duku, a tribe of vagrants who enslaved his mom and a bunch of younglings. He’s lost to everyone else. He was beaten by Duku on their first encounter, he cheap shots Mace (part of that whole incident that gets Sam Jack thrown out of that 256 story window) he gets his ass handed to him by Obi Wan, he’s practically beaten by him again 20 years later, and he loses to his son to end his career. This guy sucks, he lost the same hand twice, he bitches and moans like Frankenstein on anti-depressants after his wife dies, he follows the emperor around like a 7 foot sheep dog (which makes no sense because he’s like 6 at best when he puts on the costume…fucking George Lucas) and he bullies around people without the Force to compensate for his lack luster career as a sith. By all accounts Jar-Jar was more bad ass then him.

 

How do you get the title of  “Bad Ass”? Is it just people repeating something they have long forgotten to be true? If that’s the case, I’m a Bad Ass who blogs…pass it on.

Susan Boring

Why is Susan Boyle’s story worth mentioning?

 

I want to meet the individuals who sat around together and collaborated to make this story a worldwide event. “Hey you know what I saw the other day? A 48 year old Scottish singer with learning disabilities who received a standing ovation on a single performance televised on a British talent show she herself hadn’t won.”

“We should make this an event that gets worldwide attention..”

“Why?”

“Well until David Hasselhoff gets drunk again we really don’t have anything.”

 

 How and why is this a story that deserves national recognition? I don’t want to take anything away from this woman’s beautiful voice but she’s not a performer, she’s not a songwriter, and she is far from marketable, so why is she even being passed along as something worth mentioning?

 

She’s making appearances on television shows, she’s having camera crews follow her around, she’s being offered large sums for interviews, she’s having contracts set up with Syco Music to try and become their next big “pop” sensation (which is bull because she can’t sing pop music in traditional pop fashion). All of this attention because she sang a song from Les Miserables. “I dreamed a dream” has been sung by over 525 actors in over 11 languages over 29 years, yet most of those names have gone unmentioned. Many of the previous singers have not only sang it better than Ms. Boyle but more often and consistently, why are these people not being held in Forbes Magazine as possibly being the next potentially rich people based on no actual skills?

 

Susan Boyle has no personality, she doesn’t have a marketable sob story, she’s not attractive enough to overcome her previous two situations, and she’s 48 years old, a little old to start a music career based on just having a voice to sing “I dreamed a dream.” With all that being said, people please stop giving her this much attention. I understand she’s an ugly Scottish woman who’s socially awkward and seems like a fish out of water, but this doesn’t warrant her this much attention. Give her a standing ovation, give her an interview after the show, let her win the competition and sign her to another shady Simon Cowell music contract and let her fall into 2009 history of obscurity. She’s not worth giving a makeover to (because under all those hairy eyebrows and down syndrome looking foreheads, is more hairy eyebrows and down syndrome looking foreheads.)

 

Perhaps it’s just me, but I don’t care that she’s only had one job her entire life she only worked for 6 months, I don’t care that she’s lived at home for all of her life, I don’t care that she’s never been kissed (and rightly so, you’re a 48 year old virgin who hasn’t actually done anything in life), I don’t care that she sang Karaoke in bars (not as impressive when little Japanese business men that are tone deaf can claim the same thing). I don’t care that she volunteers at a Roman Catholic church (nuns do this, not that impressive), none of these things should be put on magazines, in interviews or in the media, Susan Boyle, sad enough to say, is just a person with a boring life.

 

Are you that boring of a person to find this boring ass person, entertaining?

Seance…say no

Ever wonder if the people who speak to the dead actually speak to the dead or just close their eyes and count their money? 

Séances must be the largest and longest running scams known to man. I unfortunately caught an episode of that show Medium last week and it really doesn’t do the whole gypsy scam artist creed justice. This show apparently chronicles the life of Allison Dubois, some spirit talking pan handling swindler from Arizona who dooped a bunch of law enforcement into believing she can help solve crimes with her psychic-spiritual abilities.

 

It’s one thing if a person has a dream or two about a loved one and tells someone about it, it’s an entirely different ball game when you capitalized on someone’s fragile mental state, then it’s another thing to make an hour long show about it with fugly ass Patricia Arquette.

I find it funny that many of these so-called Mediums out there protest that they can’t control this ability, but can definately charge you for their supposed ability. As a Medium you’re just a “telephone-wire” communicating what comes through. To me, this sounds like a cop-out. So I come in, pay you to talk to my dead grandmother, and you tell me… “thanks for the money…lets’ see who can we get on the line today?”

 

My biggest issues with Mediums, is their vague references, their all encompassing over-generalized questions, their redundant relay of information, and their uplifting comments from beyond the grave. I mean if there is an afterlife then it’s reasonable to believe that there are people not enjoying their permanent vacation. How is it that no Medium is ever given the message… Shit! This shit sucks! I’ve been stuck in purgatory forever.” Or worse yet, “Fuck! All that money I’ve been embezzling and all those mistress you didn’t know about landed me in hell.”

 

Second question, if you’re a person who has paid to speak to your deceased loved one, why are you always given information you already know? Shit like “…I’m getting Dec 23^rd as a date, does that date mean anything to you?”, “yeah that’s the day she was born” congrats-u-fucking-lations, you gave me a date I already knew. Hey could you get them to tell me something I don’t know…maybe like, “having crossed space and time, I’ve seen it all, you might not want to go out on Nov.1^st it’ll be a bad day.” Or, “Hey sweetheart, I’m so sorry I cheated on you for two years and you never knew about it, I just feel so bad.” 

 

My third question has to do with the vague questioning these Mediums present the emotionally fragile individual with. Shit like “does the number 3 mean anything to you?” “yeah, there’s three different colored lights a stop sign.” “Great, great, that’s what they want you to know.” Bullshit.

 

My fourth question, why can’t these people tap into the larger deceased figures throughout time? Why can’t I get a statement from Nietzsche, Stalin, JFK, or Jimmy Hendricks. For a person who is “only a telephone wire”, why hasn’t Hitler jumped on the line to give a shout out?

 

Finally, the Mediums seem to end all psychic-spiritual links with words of comfort from the persons deceased loved one. Things like “…he says he really loves you and will always.” Or “She’s always been proud of you, and no matter how many dishes she threw at you, they were all thrown with love.” Forgive me Medium, but my pastor, priest, or spiritual guru does that for free. Again, give me some information that I can use.

 

The whole gimmick seems so shaky, no actual evidence, no actual closure, no actual information, and no actual answers. But you’d better sure as hell bring actual money.

Question your moral conduct????

While I worked in restaurants, a group of us servers would get together and come up with hypothetical situations and questions to pose that got us thinking about any and everything that didn’t have to do with our shitty ass job.

 

I thought I’d share some of the more controversial ones.

 

Disclaimer:

1. I think this needs to be stated beforehand. I don’t in anyway shape or form condone the act of homosexual rape, necrophilia, baby assault, mass genocide, sex with half-dead old people or incidental manslaughter. I do however encourage survival and greed. So I guess it’s a catch 22.    

 

Question 1.

As a male, if you were forced at gunpoint to either be sodomized or have to give fellatio to the assaulter, which would you choose?

The psychology behind the question:

This type of assault is usually reserved for men in prison and the unfortunate women who are victims of rape. It’s not a common occurrence for the average male to encounter such a decision. But with certain death looming in the balance, where is his mindset resting? 3 out of 10 of the guys who were asked this immediately said they would give the assaulter head. The rest said sodomy. What’s puzzling is that the individuals (who will remain nameless for fear of proposition) in an attempt to protect their assholes, totally blanked on the fact that giving head requires YOU to get the other person off. While the case in sodomy tends to rely on the other person getting themselves off with your equipment.

 

Question 2.

If you were forced at gunpoint have sex with a freshly deceased corpse of someone you consider very sexually attractive or a 80 year old individual, which would you choose?

The psychology behind the question:

This questions works for both sexes. It initially began with guys, but it can be applied to both. Imagine (if a guy) that Megan Fox who has been dead for 10 minutes was presented in front of you like she passed in her sleep with no struggle, and next to her was 80 year old woman on nursing bed with a colostomy bag and an IV running along her arm, and a mysterious person put a gun to the back of your head and said… “SEX! NOW!” who would you choose? (If as a girl) the same situation, but you have Ryan Reynolds laying there recently deceased or an old guy of the same situation as the old woman…who would you choose.? Mind you, one of the options labels you a necrophiliac.

 

Question 3.

For 1 million dollars, would you nudge a baby off a one story roof, if no one would find out?

The psychology behind the questions.

If a random individual took you to a roof and offered you 1 million dollars tax free to gentle or violently (depends on you) remove a baby who is already sitting on the edge of a one story roof, and no one would ever find out about you, the random man, or how you procured the money and the baby, would you take the money and do the deed? You wouldn’t know what is below the building, you wouldn’t see the baby or man ever again, the baby doesn’t belong to you or anyone you known immediately, and the money would be handed over immediately, what you do for money?

 

Question 4.

If someone offered you a chance to go back in time in any one moment and re-live your life from then on, would you, knowing that someone would die the very second you went back?

The psychology behind the questions.

Someone offered you a chance to borrow their time machine to go back and re-live your life from any moment (i.e. starting high school over knowing what you know now) but if you did, someone would die, and you wouldn’t know who it was before hand or have any control over it. You would however know who it was once you time traveled. Is there something in your past that you could change  worth killing someone?

 

Question 5 (By far the most controversial)

If some random individual handed you a vile for the cure for AIDS and offered you two choices, one being 100,000,000 dollars tax free to destroy it immediately (and no one would ever know you had it to begin with) or they allowed you to hand it to someone else who would receive full credit for it, and again no one ever knew you had it, which would you choose?

The psychology behind the question.

You’re offered a chance to give someone the credit for curing a worldwide disease or you’re offered a chance to practically live a new found wealthy life, which would you choose. Depending how you’re life is (i.e. credit debt, high mortgage payments, children in college, nursing home fees, broke down cars, doctors fees, living from pay check to pay check, recently unemployed…etc) would you continue to live like this probably until you past away or give up the chance to change all that by doing something no one would ever know about?

 

Asking these questions gave me and the other servers a brief glimpse into the psyche of our co-workers, and it was enlightening. Needless to say, don’t leave your baby sitting on a roof.

GYM=Whole other world

How exactly do gym politics work?

 

I go to the gym about 2 to 3 times a week, and it wasn’t until recently that I began paying attention to the gym politics. Like most I usually went to the gym and tuned everything out by drowning myself in my headphones and music. But recently I noticed that the gym is a whole other world with its unspoken rules and conduct. It’s crazy.

 

Social customs

Like the glares, ogles, and stares unfit people receive when working out. I thought the gym would be the one place where physical judgment could be left at the door. Everyone should be there for the same reason, to better themselves physically. But apparently that’s not the case. If you’re fat or lack muscles you shouldn’t be at the gym or you’re going to be gawked at, just like you are in your everyday life. Never mind the fact that  going to the gym is the first step to fix the situation, you might as well accept your fate and leave the gym to the already physically appealing. If you’re not  already attractive or fit, then don’t try.

 

The avoidance of eye contact. I mean you’re in this building with these same people for like 30 minutes to an hour and you refuse to make eye contact. I mean you know they’re on the machine next to you and they’re making noises and moving around and you’re supposed to pretend they don’t exist. I mean your IPod can’t be that entertaining that you have to stare off into space to comprehend it. It’s ok, I swear to you, giving eye contact won’t ruin your work out, it may sometimes make it better.

 

Poaching work out equipment. Huddling around the piece of equipment you’d like to use next without ever letting the person who’s currently using it know that you would like next. What ends up happening, someone is using the abs machine and you walk over briefly engage in eye contact (not too long, you don’t want to mistake a gaze for a glare and start a fight) and just huddle over the person, the equipment and area. The problem with this is, someone else will walk up and do the same thing. And since no words have been exchange d nothing is definite. The person on the equipment is stuck in limbo. They silently promised the piece of equipment to you but now there’s a third party and he/she has to figure out how to give you the piece of equipment without actually saying “they were here first”. So he/she works out slower to discourage the incessant third party, or they time their departure to coincide with the third parties brief break in attention, and they’re out like a bandit in the night. And no words ever had to be exchanged.

 

Watching classes. I don’t know who designed the gyms but every room that class is held in usually three walls of glass. What’s the purpose of that? The people in the class can only see themselves through the mirror  at the front of the class. Why are there three other glass walls for everyone who isn’t in the class to look through? I’m sure the people who are in the class are self conscious to begin with. They may not know the material or feel right doing the moves. Crazy thought, they may have self image issues and chose the class to help fix that. Instead of granting them a stint of privacy, we amplify their situation by putting them on display.

 

People to look out for

This one gets me. The hot girl who wears nothing. I mean don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the eye candy at the gym, but if you’re the treat don’t get mad at me for looking (often times starring). You’re the one in the raised sports bra and spandex booty shorts. I understand you work hard on your body and you want to show it off, but the problem with showing it off is sometimes (very rarely) people will look. Crazy I know.

 

On the same note. The guy who wears nothing. It’s usually the larger, hairier, sweatier guy who decides he’s too good for his clothes. Most people find out that the gym is a very humbling experience quickly in their gym career. This guy missed that lesson. Walking around in these John Stockton like biker shorts, with these oversized tank tops that are basically stings of cloth tied together to cover about 6% of their “massive” upper body and (usually unsculpted) arms. A simple wife beater or t-shirt will suffice Atlas.

 

The screamer. For whatever reason, this is usually a guy, who looks like he’s been roiding it since he was 8. The guy who screams, grunts, yells, curdles at the top of his lungs for no reason. Hey Lu Ferigno, if you have to scream like that you probably shouldn’t be lifting that much weight. All screaming does is draw attention to the massive weight you’re probably lifting incorrectly anyway. Shut the hell up.

 

The squatter. This person sits on a single piece of equipment the entire time you’re at the gym. You could go from machine to machine working out everything from your deltoids to the retinas and cones in your eyes and this piece of shit is always on the last piece of equipment you need to finish up and they’ve been there since you got there and they’re not going anywhere. You end up saying “well I’ll finish that up tomorrow when the squatter moves to another machine and ruins someone else work out.”

 

The naked old man. He lurks around the aquatic area of your gym like a wrinkly old Swamp Thing. He lives in your sauna. I don’t know at what age it becomes cool to walk around butt ass naked and just sit around with other people like it’s an everyday occurrence. This creature from the Blue Lagoon is always dripping wet (I don’t know why), older than dirt and is constantly touching various areas on his body.

 

The weirdo. Someone who comes in dressed like a runaway clown, who doesn’t quite do or say anything that is settling. They’re usually older individuals who find the gym as a safe haven for their weird behavior. The person you have to stop and think, “if they’re like this at the gym, how the hell do they function in society”. For example, there is a guy at the gym me and my roommates call “Whiskers”. A 40 something looking black guy who rocks the La Suvorov A sideburn / mustache combo where the sideburn curves downward toward the corner of the mouth and then curves upward into the mustache. Similar to a curvy version of the Franz Josef. Needless to say he looks a black Red Barron, a Black Barron. The man looks like a fool, he struts around in a sweatshirt custom made hoody combo. He cut the neck line down to his navel and ripped the arms off and tied the hood in some gay ponytail extension. I mean what does he do when he’s not at the gym, audition for extra work in the next series of Pirates of the Caribbean movies?

 

The multi-tasker. The person who hogs two to three machines while they work out. This person never actually uses any his/or her newly gained territory correctly. They jump from the curling machine to the leg press and back to the abs machine and screw them all up in a rush to use all of them. They also seem to have some homing beacon on the second you attempt to use the unmanned machine running over out of breathe,  “Hey bro!…I still got like a 1,000 sets left on this one.”

 

The talker. The person who showed up at the gym just to discuss to the person on the other end of their phone exactly what they’re doing at the gym. This person whips out his/or her cell phone and gives a detailed step by step description of what they’re doing at the gym the entire time they’re there. Why didn’t the person on the other end of the phone just come to the gym with you? Obviously they’re not that busy if they can listen to the book on tape of your entire boring workout.

 

There are so many more, I’ll update soon.

Wolverine vs. Movie Go’ers

Why can’t studios and screenwriters get together and make a decent adaptation?

 

So last weekend my roommates and I went and saw Wolverine and were meagerly entertained. It had a few action scenes, and some iconic character references but by all accounts just sucked as a movie in general. This half hearted attempt got all of us to thinking, why is it so hard for a studio to execute a decent adaptation? Studios like to boast about their movie budgets, technologies, and actor contracts but rarely seem to fully take advantage of any of those. I mean they usually have references to fall back on and seem to blatantly ignore them or use some blind-selection process on what to include and how to covey it. I’m blaming the studios, but I would like to clarify my definition of studio for this particular question. I define studio as in screen writers, producers, and directors.

 

It seems action movies have been a particular itch that studios have yet to fully scratch for their viewers. I’m just puzzled as to how a movie like Wolverine can be done so poorly when the screen writer has volumes of references. Many references which would make for a great movie in and of itself.  Just follow the blueprint already published by (apparently better) writers than yourselves and just sit back and let the money drown you.

 

I don’t know who created this comic book adaptation formula but with this current recession and abundance of action comic movies, the studios will begin to see a decline in their opening weekend sales and ultimately a decrease in the movies longevity if they persist. My roommates and I  have a few suggestions to the revitalization of the comic book adaptation formula

 

Stop with the “origins” movies

• Screen writers seem to think their task is to take already proven successful material and cut and paste it together to make “their” version of it. They remind me of the high school student who read 1/3 of the cliff notes and piece that knowledge together to sting along a 7 page report on War and Peace. The problem with “re-creating” a comic book character is that it took several writers over the course of several years in several comics to create the character so widely known today. Characters like the X-men, Wolverine, Hulk, Iron Man, Punisher, Batman, Superman, etc, have all been around 30 years or so, some much longer. As a screen writer,  you should realize you’re not going to sum up in 2 hours and 23 mins what took 30 years to develop so just stop trying.

Tip: You have two types of viewers, fans and not fans. Neither are there to see an “origins” movie. Fans already know the origin, and not-fans don’t care. Both are there to see the action they saw in the trailers. Your fan has read countless comics, spent countless hours in discussions, and knows the characters inside and out. As a screen writer, you’re not going to show them something they haven’t seen before, so don’t try. Your not-fan doesn’t care what the origin is, they saw something flashy and want to how well you put together the scenes in between the flashy.

 

If you have the CGI, USE it.

• While watching Wolverine my roommates and I notice the lack of CGI in what was billed as a blockbuster comic movie. There were a handful of scenes that used CGI, but for the majority of the movie, it relied too heavily on acting. It was like watching an episode of heroes, I paid 11.50 to hate.

Tip: The premier trait that distinguishes a comic from a graphic novel is the fantasy and unrealistic. Comic book characters live in worlds where walking on the side of building is common place, where individuals wielding fire are everyday occurrences, where flying is something that can be seen on a regular basis. If as a studio you’re attempting to adapt a comic to screen, bring everything from the comic and put it on the screen in its entirety and occurrence. If a character is routinely seen wielding their “ability” then maintain that on screen. Wolverine known by his iconic 3 prong adamentium claws rarely pulled them out. And please don’t try and cheat by bringing in people with telekinetic abilities, showing them waving a finger and lights come on. It’s not CGI, it’s just 5 unnecessary seconds of them making a face and someone on the other end flipping a switched, we know the difference, and it’s not impressive.

 

Casting is key.

• You can overcome, a shitty script, bad acting, and horrible directing by having two key components. CGI and casting. I’m not encouraging studios to round up all of Hollywood and put them in these movies. I am actually speaking to the contrary. Cast individuals who actually look like the characters they’re pretending to be. Perfect example, Ray Stevensons as the Punisher. Halle Berry as Storm. While Rey isn’t as well known as Mrs. Berry, he did however look most like the Punisher fans are accustomed to. Halle Berry looked nothing like Storm and as the movies progressed in the series she was less and less Storm and more Halle Berry with electrical powers.

Tips: Fans will forgive a lot if their well know character looks and “act” consistently like the characters they’re used to. Not-fans will not know either way so why not error on the side of caution?

 

Please stop with Love stories

• I know that’s where Hollywood makes their bread and butter, but a majority of comics were not made popular by their love stories. I think the common fans is becoming annoyed by the amount of “LOVE” which occurs in  these movies. I mean every story seems to revolve around a love interest or sappy love story. There are hundreds of issues where the character does what he/she does that has no correlation to their love life, so stop grabbing the handful of issues where it’s involved.

Tip: Not every movie needs to have an interpreted/often times made up love interest to keep the story progressing. Some of these comic stories stand alone on their action, deceit, betrayal, or secrets. Try exploring those and leave the love interest for a sequel or something.

 

And above all else brainstorm. Sit down with at least three other people when coming up with the concept, when discussing the story, when proposing direction. The more eyes on it, the better off the movie should be. 

 

Are these foreign concepts or am I just ahead of the curve?