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.