Funny Fish Number 13

One very simple reason why I never give money to charities supporting financially poor africans.

They have more money than me. I have an overdraft and several loans. They don't even have bank accounts. Ergo, they have ZERO, whilst I have minus money.

Simple.

They owe ME.

5 Delicious looking animals

Now now, here me out. Do you have any idea what this would taste like? Me neither. But I can make you three promises. One: you would not need to season it. AT ALL. Two: Variation is the spice of life. And three: It would be DELICIOUS.

Fat is flavour, and what this is is one very very very fat chicken fish. And that, my friends, is a faultless culinary conception.

Don't pretend for one minute that if these animals breed like rabbits, and were as stupid as rabbits, that we wouldn't all eat them all the time. Look at it!!! Look how supple and smooth and tasty it looks! Plus, considering that it has a diet of mostly fish, its saltly taste would be just PUUURRRFECT. Thank you very much, i'll order the dolphin tail with extra crackling. Probably served with mushrooms and cabbage.

So delicious people eat you raw just to get you on the plate quicker? Wow. Get me some of that.

Would I eat you, King of Birds? Yes. Would I enjoy it? Yes.

An animal that feasts on already tasty things, it could only be improved by the sense that you're eating royalty, which in turn makes you some sort of Demi-God.

Power is addictive after all.

You know I'm right.

Funny Fish No. 12

Avatar:The offensively terrible film

I'm posting this simply because I saw the most offesnively irresponsible piece of journalism listed on Total Films website today. Check this out... they had the audacity to suggest that it was one of the 100 greatest films of all time. That it would make the top 5000 is offensive, so this I see as a travesty of justice, and thus have resolved to right a wrong, and explain why this is a terrible film.


This is not a rant by the way, but a perfectly reasoned argument, and as such it is split into consituent parts.

The first concerns the requirements for greatness, or at leats the conditions that I think reasonably should be met for a film to be make it onto any top 100 list. (Obviously for all you pedants out there, this does not includes lists that are thematically similiar to 'the top one hundred films that are like avatar' or any such shite.)

Anyway, it seems to me that greta films have great dialouge, great story telling, and great charcter development. Avatar had none of these. Point me to a scene stealing piece of dialogue, and i'll note that you were either high on talking about the wrong film. In short, this film, at a little over three hours, had a basic plot, a dialogue that was written on the back of a napkin, at a bar, at two, whilst on a special needs trip, and charcters so one dimensional that the seemed like the subject of some sort of philosophical debate. (there's a prize for the reference i'm making there. Big bang theory fans should get there first)

Anyway, the point is, avatar was liked because it was good at the things it sold itself on. Action, and Graphics. As an addedum, the 3D thing was shit. Really it added nothing. Look me in th eye and disagree with me, I dare you.


I wont deny that the setting, the visual realsim, and the coneptualisation for a new world were all awesome, and that the action was incredible, but in return I do expect everyone to acknowledge how obviously terrible the script was.

An example: "Don't shoot at that thing, bullets wont pierce the skin"
2 hours later "oh no, everything we try and fight with gets shot and dies"
the a further 10 minutes
"yay, the spirit tree has sent animals that can't get shot. What. A. Surprise"


See. Shockingly bad.

But this in itself does not make Avatar offensive. What is offensive is that shocking ignorance it betrays in reference to the heritage of cinema.

Check this.

If Cameron knew anything but at all about the heritage of his medium, he would know that early cinema, as in really early cinema, was termed 'the cinema of attractions'. The point of this was to showcase brand new technology demonstrate things taht audiences had never seen before. Whilst it had its upsides, in essence it was a cheap parlour trick, wowing audiences with new technology and demanding money for priviledge.

Sound familiar? Coming up with something brand new, launching a shock and awe campaign of advertising, basically in an effort to get rich. Yep, thought so.

Trouble was, this industry had no future. The lumiere brothers, widely considered the grandfathers of the industry, openly admited they saw no future beyond the showcaisng of their technology (at the time it was simply the capture of the moving image), whilst their greatest rival, who tried to intergrated plot and special effects, was destroyed comemrically by his much less daring rivals.

Point is, back then, cinema based soley on a party trick had no future, and the same is true today. Unless people like cameron up their game on a multitude of fronts, cinema will become, ulitamtley shit.

History teaches us this also. The spawn of early cinema was merely a series of terrible adaptations of literature, or formulaic romances, with an appeal to the masses but no intellectual depth whatsoever. It took basically till the 50's to change this, and even then, that was only thanks to a series of (admittedly douchey) French intellectuals being really snobby for a really long time.

The simple fact is... cinema isn't excellent by accident. It take sreal effort by all the people involved to make it good. And, and here's the rub, excellence DOES NOT mean success. just cause people loved it doens't make it good, and in fcat its success could be the most damning death toll of all, because people wiuth imitate it without questioning the implications.

Its offensive because Cameron basically reset the switch. In making the future of cinema, he actually went all the way back to the start, but didn't learn any of the lessons of history. Thew industry isn't based on technology, but on intellect, and the sooner he understands that, the better we'll all be.

Ps, it would help if everyone stopped sucking his dick so much.

Remember JS Mill? me niether, but he siad its better to be clever and unhappy than stupdi and happy, and i'm inclined to agree.


So cuk it up, and banish avatar to the basement bin.

FANKS

Funny Fish No. 11

Secretly Brilliant Things - Battery Farmed Chickens.

This week, I'd like to inform the world about how brilliant battery farmed chicken is, and contrary to popular belief, why its perfectly morally acceptable to eat it.

so, firstly, why is it so good?

check this, they put so much water in them to bring up the weight, its impossible to over cook them. Leave it in 15 minutes too long and it makes no difference, its still moist as anything in them middle. Gone are the days of precise cooking when battery chickens are in play.... and in are the days where one more game of fifa is not such a bad idea after all.


So, a blessing to us apathetic chefs, but to many this isn't enough. There are those out there who care about the feelings of our poor feathered delicious friends. We'll call them lonely people, and/or lesbians, but for some reason they think keeping poultry in these sort of environments is a bad thing. I say, not in the long run, if you think about it.

check this. Science now means we can rear a bird to eatable levels in 21 days, meaning the misery is shortened, and further more and most importantly, i promise you a bird in that condition wants to die. And therein lies the rub. You wont find a free range hen, with fields and a decent bed who longs for death, but battery farmed chickens pray for it every day. See, i'm really doing them a favour.


See, simples. Battery farmed chickens are brilliant. Volia.

Funny Fish No. 10

Flaws in things you like: Harry Potter

This week, the internet has been awash with news of the sale of JK Rowlings manuscripty for one of her books. By awash, I naturally mean that I read about it once and it stuck. But that's not the point. The point is, simply, that everyone has waxed lyrical about how well thought through the books were, and how detailed the prep was for the world of potter and chums.

Well, call me crazy, cause whislt I loved Harry; I wrote my dissertation on him and stayed up till midnight to buy both numbers 6 and 7, detailed and well thought out are not words that I would use to describe the franchise.  

In fact, whilst JK is obviously a genius, she is also a massive ideas thief who lacked a whole lot of common sense.

I can hear the cries of indifference from here, but for fear of boring you all to death, below are all the faults in HP.

1) This may not really count, but JK-R's decision to edit her own novels has to be one of the worst in history. they went from being, compact, neat and delightfully subtle to a terrible mismash of appallingly rendered dialogue and boring over description. She co-edited number four, then had total autonomy over the last three. Seriousl, think about it.... what would have read as

"Harry, Ron and Hermoine all greeted each other warmly"

changed to

" "Hello Ron" said Harry

 "Hello Harry" said Ron

 "Hello Hermione" said Harry

 "Hello Harry" said Hermione

 "hello Ron" said Hermione

"Hello Hermione" Said Ron"

See? SEE? Dire. Just cause you thought it, doesn't make you the best person to polich it. Thanks a lot Rowling. Thanks to you I've probably read 10,000 more words than i needed to. THANKS A LOT.

2) Did any-one else think Harry is a total fanny when it comes to women? Well, you should've. This is a man/boy idolised by a generation, and all he can do is score one lousy kiss with cho before hounding his best mates sister? That, my friends, is WIERD. You can read this two ways. Either he's a LAD trying to root his best mates sister, which is kind of funny, but then there's a paradox cause he is useless with women. Seriously, ONE KISS before the women he marries? ANTI-LAD surely? Paradox there, and thus an impossible reading. The other is that he's got principles, which makes him nice, but then going after Ginny makes him a DICK. Seriously, get some freaking consistency.

3) The Wizarding world makes absolutely ZERO sense.

Where oh where to begin in this one.

There is clearly only one school. Inferred by the schools involved in the Tri-Wizard tournament, the lack of sports matches, and the fact that all wizard familys send their kids to the same school.

So, one school, roughly 560 kids. 20 kids per year per house, four houses, seven years. Maths, Dickeheads. If you trible this to get an accurate view of generations, then divide it by two, to account for a generous 2.4 kids per family, then that gives roughly 700. Account for muggle borns and you only have 600, thats SIX HUNDRED wizarding familys.

EVEN tripling this, there is still no need for a ministry of magic.... they could all just live in hogsmeade.

It also means the ministry makes NO SENSE. why is it so large if the population is so small? And is it also the only area of employment outside of shop/inn kepper, quidditch player, and rockstar? Oh yeah, journalist. Sorry.

Whilst the world of hogwarts, and the plot, all make senese, the wider setting has had no thought put into it WHATSOEVER.

3) Educational standards. Why, just cause they're wizards, do they not need basic writing and reading skills. Or maths skills? No English or maths classes? Horsecrap. AND no uni? Bollocks. Inconsistent again my friend.

4) Did anyone notice that if Harry hadn't turned up to the mirro in book one, Voldemort would have NEVER got the stone?

5) If Dumbledore is so awesome, how come he, or no-one else, knew about the MASSIVE cavern where the chamber of secrets was? Any basic muggle surveyor would have spotted it. 

6) Dumbledore makes no sense. Supposedly the best/most clever wizard in his generation, he misses basic points. LIKE A HORCRUX BEING IN HIS SCHOOL. OR THAT IT HAS SLAVES. Or that moody wasn't actually moody. or that that Lockheart was actaully want at being a wizard. OR that voldermort was ON THE BACK OF SOMEONES HEAD FOR A YEAR!

7) How come the wizard duelling switchy thing that basically saves the day doesn't apply in the OTHER six books? 

So, its good, i'll admit, but its not perfect, and often makes no sense whatsoever.

PS, just cause JK-R said that she always 'saw dumbledore as being gay' doesn't make him gay. Its either in the books or its not.

And I promise you, nowhere in the books is there any reference whatsoever to Dumbledores sexuality. Therefore, he's not gay. FACT 

John O'Shea: World Great/Gay Rights Activist

He's a fact for you.... Good old Jonny has done more for gay rights in the last 10 years than any other professional athlete, simply by being awesome. He came out aged 17, and since then he's played in EVERY position for United. Every Single One. In goal, he didn't even concede. Midfield? SUre, both attacking and defensive. SS? Not even an issue, he'll probabaly score too. What a lad. In terms of breaking down barriers, he's running through them quicker than that episode of Takeshis castle where they let the incredible hulk compete.

Don't believe me? Look it up. He dated Will Young for 18 months, Roy Keane wouldn't shower with him, and Arsene Wenger couldn't sign him because it would make things 'complicated'.

All I can say is... Good on you Jonny, keep it up

Funny Fish No. 9

Meet me halfway.....

Ha, us men right? Always been useless and whatnot. Like when we fart and stuff, and Mexican showering instead of regular showering. Lucky we're so loveable, otherwise we'd be in trouble.

Wrong.

Its called equality bitches, and too long have we suffered under the yolk of oppression, or as I like to call it the hangover of success. Allow me to explain...

Because for so so so long it was a mans world, and for so so so long those of us blessed with a good three inches hanging low were at a distinct advantage, it has been socialy acceptable, in fact, scratch that... a social requistite to stereotype Men. Furthermore, we suffer under insane social practices like standing up when ANYONE NEW enters a room, ALWAYS getting the first round in, and he's the kicker, that heavy manual labour is deemed our responisibility. Alright, I'll accpet that fact that for a while we were cool with it, 'cause, you know, we could vote and stuff, but all is square again, so I'm drawning a line.

That line is the toilet seat.

For years, if a man wanted to pee as God intended, he was required to lift the seat up. Then, THEN, when done, to be nice, and clean, and NON-MANLY, he had to put it down again! TWO seperate jobs? All for a piss? NO THANK YOU.

Tell you what.  If I want to pee standing up, i'm more than happy to lift the seat. But if you want to sit down, is it too much to ask that you do the equivilant job? If we're all equals here, how come I have to do both?

Remember, just cause it's socially acceptable doesn't make it right. Be the Ghandi of the modern toitlet sharing world, think about it, and realise i'm right.

That is all.

Funny Fish No.8

The Best Religion On Any Planet: Preston Loganism

Now don't get me wrong, I am a man of faith, but when thinking, as i am wont to do, I decided that whilst I believe in Jesus, I don't agree with everything he preached. Hence, I have converted to a brand spanking new religion, one that kicks serious ass and has two dead simple mantras.

PRESTON LOGANISM.

There is a prize for whoever gets the reference, but the two rules are as follows...

Be excellent to each other.

AND

Party on Dudes.

Fault if you will, but if in any situation you chose the path of excellence towards each other, no harm can happen.

In fact, here's a challenge. Fault it as a moral code. I DARE YOU.

By the way, the bit that Jesus said that I didn't like was

"judge not lest ye be judged."

If you are at fault, it should not matter what transgressions your accuser is guilty of. Morality should be and is, intensely personal, and regardless of others; how they are judged or compose themselves, if you are in the wrong you ARE WRONG, and should accept both the consequences of it and the need for change. 

So there. I am now a preston loganist. We have no desire to convert you, but are quite happy being excellent to everyone.

Bye bye.

xxx

Funny Fish No.7

Funny Fish No.6

Funny Fish No.5

Nauseating Everyday Item No. 1

Behold, the atrocity that haunts every day I spend at home, and one that mother's everywhere berate their children for not using. Especially after curry night. The Toilet Brush.

This is a deplorable piece of machinery, and one that makes me gag every time I even consider using it, yet for some reason, civilised society seems content to use it, to tell it, and even to need it. Massive fail.

The case for it's defence is one I can understand, and is highly seductive. When one has a wayward 'motion', lets call it that, a motion, one uses the above item to remove any evidence from the porcelain. This is in order to leave no trace of the more base necessities of the human condition, and looks nice. Sure, I can dig that. Was kinda just going to piss it off after a couple of beers, but whatever. 

But think about it, really think about it. This is a brush, a brush that sits in your bathroom ALL THE TIME, that you willingly wipe in shit. Wait, what? Yes, willingly wipe in shit. And then you just put it back? Excuse me, but i may not shower that often, and farting may be more a hobby than anything else, but that is disgusting.

So you wash this thing? Where? Where exactly is it OK to wash a toilet brush? Cause the only places i can think of would not get the job done. Its freaking rank.

My advice? Either be a dude or live with one, and challenge him to clean it away au natural. Much more hygienic. 

Funny Fish No.4

LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL

A massive thank you this week to the most wonderful football team in all of mainland Europe.... Hercules of the Spanish First Division. What wonderful people, for beating a team that employs and starts possibly the worst thing to happen to football since Titus Brambles dad bought enrolled him at the local club.

Xavi is a disgrace; he's a greasy bastard, a rude little fucker, and to top it all off, not actually that good at football.

Now, I know for a fact that more people than you think agree with these claims, especially the one about him being shite on a football pitch, but up until now its been quite a hard claim to vocalise, because it stands, seemingly in stark contrast to the facts.

And there are many many facts about Xavi, facts which show him to really be rather good. 

He NEVER gives away possession

He has an exceptional pass rate

Teams he plays in often win

And most damningly, for me at least, people who know lots about football, (Sr'Alex for one) all seem dead eager to suck him off. 

But facts are what you make of them, so lets go into detail....

Firstly, Xavi is a pussy on the football pitch. The reason he never gives away possession is because he never makes a daring play. This works too for his passing stats. He only ever passes backwards. watch him play, i dare you. He gets passes from the defence, and passes back to them. His stats are so good because there's no rick involved in the game he plays. None at all. He also never passes very far, its always about ten metres or so. He is a massive fanny, so terrified about rep that he takes zero risk, and I promise you he only looks good because he plays on a good team. World greats would make any team better, any team at all if they join, but not him. Blackburn would still be blackburn, and Xavi is nothing more than a polished turd.

Lets elaborate. 

Football is about goals, pouring forward, taking risks, and taking a fucking shot every now and again, and Xavi epitomises a mindset that stands firmly against this. Him and his lot over at Barcccedlllooooooooooonha all wax lyrical about how they honour the beautiful game by play passing loads, and playing keep the ball, but I disagree. Passing alone is not the spirit of the game, and I do not watch football to watch an exercise in possession. I want daring, speed, and power, and more importantly, I want the players to want to score EVERY TIME they get the ball. Xavi does not do this, and in actual fact he reputation has made him worse.

He's so concerned with being flawless that he actually cost Barcelona a champions league final place.

Does anyone else remember? Against Inter, at the Nou Camp, he ambles into the box midway through the second half, lines up to shoot, and pussies out....... instead he passes. Any decent midfielder in the world would have shot had they been in that position, and one as supposedly as good a s he is would have scored, but no. Not Xavi. You could actually see it too, in that one instant, the pressure of manning up, of seizing responsibilty, and simultaneous embracing the fact that he could potentially disappoint people was too much for him, and he crumbled.

So no. Xavi is not good. All he does is pass backwards, pussy out and bore me.

AND... AND ... AND, he is a total wanker too. If and when you're good, you don't say it, you let others say it. It's called modesty, you dumb fuck.

He's arrogant as hell. Now don't get me wrong, arsenal aren't perfect, but I'm fairly certain they've been good, really good, to good old Cesc, and to bad mouth them like that is neither right, nor good, nor decent. Just because you think you're brilliant, don't just start slagging others off. (Derbies are a different thing, I'm not ignorant enough to want to foster a new era of love between real and barcelona)

And he's greasy. Too greasy. Shower once in a while.

I leave you with this to ponder on

would you trust him with your wife? I used to judge JT by this stick way back when, and look how that turned out. 

Funny Fish. No. 3

Spider-man: The world's worst superhero?

Now this isn't just aimed at the third film, where good old Tobey becomes so cringe-worthy that he makes Richard Curtis look like a purveyor of serious drama.... If you remember it he was 'laddish' enough to tear up a bar by swing-dancing..... in fact, this isn't aimed at the films at all.

Its aimed at the source material, and the original comic book spider-man. Atomic spider bites shit teen who then becomes good at climbing. With only a passing knowledge of any comic books I can safely say that Spider-man is without a doubt the worst super-hero EVER.

The facts here are simple.

In the films, Spidey has a 'web' ability, whereas in the comics he does not. his primary superpower therefore is...wait for it... that he's quite a good climber. Wow, sign me up to that.

He manufactures a bloody web-substitute to make him more spider-like. Honestly, if you've got the brains to  that, why not pick something practical. Literally anything would be better here. A freeze gun.... sure, scientifically impossible, but this is a half man half spider whose genetic code re-wrote itself over night, so that ship has sailed. Why not a gun, or if travel is the issue, why not just build a fucking micro-copter or something.

Simply put, this is a guy so enamoured with his slightly better climbing skills that he's convinced that arachnids are the way to go. If he's a role model, the only lesson here is to be fully retarded.

All this has the potential to distract from the other MASSIVE flaw: Spider-man can't travel. its hard to imagine him swinging through town in Edinburgh, it'd take fucking ages to get anywhere, or in fact ANYWHERE at all in the countryside, cause he'd have to run everywhere. He doesn't even have pockets for a mobile phone, so calling a cab, or the 5-0, would be impossible. He's limited to New York, which, when put in world context, makes me more helpful as a superhero than he is. Phone-Boy, I call the police from a reasonable distance whilst not getting involve.

Should've built that micro copter mate. Much better idea.

Fucking Parker eh?

Funny Fish. No. 2

Inception: Seven shades of balls

Inception. Impressive? Sure, but not for the reasons you think. The phenomenon that fell out of good old Chris Nolan's rectum and swept the nation has been impressive, but only for the simple fact that it convinced so many people that it isn't an absolute pile of wank. 

Trust me on this one. inception is a terrible film, and here's why:

Firstly, don't think that the obvious plus points have been overlooked, because they haven't. It is visually stunning, very well acted, and the idea, the basis, is awesome. But these do not a good film make. 

Being visually stunning is fine if all you want to do is root footballers, or impress a retard baby, but this was trying be a thinking man's blockbuster, a new age showstopper. So, the image had to be supported by intellect. Which it was not. 

Breaking inception down simply makes this easier to understand, as i can hear the chorus of boos manifesting already. 

Inception is not a film about the subconscious, this is merely the setting. Woody A sets his films in New York,    Star Wars is set in space, and Inception is set in the mind. But we do not judge a painting by its canvas, and we should not judge Nolan's creation on ins setting. Especially one that stopped being original in the 60's.  

What the film is about is a robbery, or rather an inverted robbery, and this is where it becomes fully retarded. It is a fully terrible heist film.

1.Planning.  If 'inception' is so difficult, why do they come up for the idea of how to do it in ONE meeting? i'll paraphrase.

'how are we going to do it?''errr, i dunno, maybe, get his dad to tell him?'

'perfect'

For something that's meant to be basically impossible, that was far to freaking easy. DID YOU EVEN READ THE SCRIPT NOLAN?

Any good heist film has a good plan. This one was so concerned with bending the ground it forgot about it, evidently.

2. The actual heist itself. Again, for something so difficult, it was far to easy. The only difficult bit was the minions that appeared to protect the main enemy dude. AND THEY WEREN'T EVEN MEANT TO BE THERE. Without them, there was NO fucking challenge. None. Again, don't tell me something is difficult when it clearly isn't. If something isn't hard. why am I watching a film about it? (Lad)

3. That whole time thing was clearly unplanned bullcrap. So each level extends the passage of time. I didn't carry a watch, but it definitely didn't match up. That car fell off the bridge for as long as all the other bits put together. Horseshit, and the consistency of Custard. Call me crazy, but if you set up a premise, I expect you to at least stick with it.

Failing as a basically coherent, well-thought out heist film isn't the only problem with this turd masquerading as a diamond, there are innumerate other flaws. The ones that really got me are listed below.

It was probably inspired by some book with the entirely flatulent title 'psychology for dummies'. Sure, lets try and filmicly represent the subconscious. Lets do it by just having four levels. Where physics is slightly wacky. WOW. NAAAAAAAT. Freud is rolling in his grave. Anyone with even the slightest bit of education could've done it better, and anyone who even knows a tiny bit about the human mind would know that any level past the first one would be far more nuts, and wholly irrational. Fairly certain mine would have an awesomely cool dad/horse/dolphin cruising round being hilariously racist. 

It had fucking Juno in it. The weird foetus/woman who stole two hours of my life moaning about emotions during pregnancy. And then someone pulls her. fairly certain there's a law against that. 

It ends with the a laughable piss-take of DALLAS. And anyone spoofing that should be shot.

Simply put, thanks but no thanks. I'd watch Toy Story 3 any day. 

Funny Fish. No. 1