Low Art « What Is Funny?

Archive for the ‘Low Art’ Category

Ranking the Weekend Update Hosts

Monday, January 11th, 2010

In part 17 of our series “Ranking Random Things I Think About While Trying to Fall Asleep,” WIF proudly presents an authoritative ranking of the SNL Weekend Update hosts. I realize there might be debate on some of these, but I assure you the rankings are not subjective and instead are based on objective (but at this time largely secret) criteria.

1. Kevin Nealon. Just solidly funny without any gimmicks . Perfect deadpan needed to pull of the job. So damn consistent, and I guess it probably helps that he held the job during one of SNLs most talent-rich period, with Dana Carvey, Sandler, Farley, Spade, Rock and the like surrounding him. My favorite line: According to researchers, the leading cause of pregnancy is still sex. The second leading cause? Sex twenty minutes later.

2. Chevy Chase. In truth, you watch the old shows and he wasn’t always that good. Or maybe even he wasn’t often that good. But he did it first and humor doesn’t age so well, but his best bits are still funny. And really, he did it first. And he’s Chevy Chase and you’re not, so there you go.

3. Tina Fey/Amy Poehler. A lot of people think that most woman aren’t very funny and they are totally right. What they forget is that most men aren’t very funny either. In any case, these two were better than anyone would have expected given how mediocre the cast was when they were holding down the job. This was a huge step forward for what had been a pretty bad run of Weekend Update hosts following the post-MacDonald meltdown.

4. Norm MacDonald. On any given night, he could be really, really good, or not so good. He had some good staffs working with him, and some bad, but when he would get on a roll, he might have been as funny as they get. And he reminded us that German’s love David Hasslehoff.

5. Dennis Miller. Before he was an unfunny MNF commentator, and an even unfunnier right wing dingbat, he was actually good at this.

6. Seth Meyers/Amy Poehler. Maybe this team should be higher. I think Seth Meyers is funny, even if others disagree. They had some classic moments like when Palin was on, but they also had some annoying bits like their “Seriously?” thing which was only a little funny at first and went down from there.

7. Tina Fey/Jimmy Falllon. Good news/bad news. Good news, this was our introduction to Tina Fey on-air, which lead to many great things like 30 Rock and the VP candidacy of Palin (few realize that Fey created the Palin character before Palin became the VP candidate and that really, Palin has forever since been trying to imitate the character Fey created, with mixed results). And then there is Jimmy, who sure found himself funny at least, laughing over every punchline. He’s better on his own show.

8. Jane Curtin. This is probably way too low, but she had to deal with being on the tale-end of the shows first good years, and she followed Chase which is tough. Really, it’s the bias of time that puts her down here, because looking back, she was pretty funny.

9. 1981-1985. God knows what happened in these dark, dark years. There were various foregettable anchors and sometimes no anchors and it was pretty bad all and all, but it can’t be last place. Oh no, that place is already taken.

10. Colin Quinn. The bottom of any Weekend Update list starts and ends with Quinn, who was really the only host to actually achieve not being funny on a regular basis. Everyone else on this list had moments of brilliance. Not so with Quin, who yelled his punchlines nervously and just reminded everyone how Norm MacDonald’s firing was a really, really bad sign for the show. These were some dark years, saved only by Mr. Will Ferrell.

Tags: weekend update
Posted in Low Art | 1 Comment »

What is Real?

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

The conventional wisdom goes something like this: At first, there was standard TV, largely dominated by formulaic sitcoms and hour-long dramas. Then, Reality TV started taking over around the turn of the century, and from that point on, it’s been “bye-bye” traditional sitcom, hello people you’ve never heard of eating bugs.

Reality TV (or as its producers prefer to call it—Unscripted TV—though both labels are equally misleading), offers an opportunity to indulge our voyeuristic impulses, while adding a dimension of unpredictability—without scripts, who knows what will happen.

In a traditional TV sitcom, it is unlikely that, for no good reason, the two co-stars will just sleep with each other, unless this is an integral plot point that’s been developed over many weeks. But in Reality TV, one night boozing and suddenly there’s a three-way in the shower. One of the things that makes “real life” drama so satisfying is the knowledge that it’s unscripted, which means there is no limit to what salacious things can happen. And just knowing they are (sort-of) real, gives it all an extra kick of intrigue.

And Reality TV is a lot cheaper to produce. Making it, so very attractive to networks.

All of which seemed to imply the days of the two act sitcom were at an end. And good riddance right, because if you’ve seen one episode of Family Ties, you basically can predict how any future episode will end (with the possible exception of when Alex gets hooked on diet pills-even Jesse Spanos didn’t see that coming).

But now, a funny thing has happened. As producers have discovered some of the limits of reality (i.e. it’s boring), they’ve become more and more, shall we say, “hands on” in shaping/editing/(scripting) storylines for so-called reality TV shows, so that now, watching an episode of Keeping Up with the Kardashians (see previous blog post for explanation of why I would ever dream of doing this), I realized that it wasn’t reality TV that is displacing traditional sitcoms—it’s actually the other way around.

In other words, Reality TV is now more scripted, more formulaic, more predictable, than so-called “scripted” programming, employing the kind of conventional plot resolutions that make Leave it to Beaver look unpredictable and edgy.

Case in point, in the Kardashians episode I watched, Kris (the mother), gets her hand on some herbal male-enhancement pills from a friend. She decides to sneak them into her husband’s coffee to “spark” their love life. Having done this, she starts coming on to him and they engage in a lot of extremely long, love making sessions (all implied because we only see the closed door with the kids one by one knocking on it, asking when they’ll come out, until in a comic scene-ender, the dad slides his credit card under the door and tells them to go shopping).

Then, of course, comes the twist. One morning, Kris’s son accidentally gets the coffee meant for the dad with the herbal pill slipped into it. A few hours later, he has an erection that won’t go away (tee-hee). He has to be rushed to the doctor’s office. The doctor asks him if he’s taken and ED medication, which he has but he doesn’t realize it, so he says no. So they plan on sending him to the hospital for more tests, confused about why this could be happening.

This forces Kris to finally admit what she’s done in front of the whole family in the waiting room of the hospital. The husband and son are furious at the deception, but Kris explains that she only did it to rekindle their love life, and the husband explains that it wasn’t the pills that rekindled their love life, it was the fact that Kris was more amorous because she thought the pills would make him more interested in sex.

The misunderstanding is buried at a family dinner with some light humor and the episode wraps (there was a B story line too, equally formulaic, but that’s for another time).

I’m thinking if this storyline were proposed for a show like, Two and a Half Men, a show that is fairly formulaic (see my amazing spec of the show for an example of how formulaic works), it would have been dismissed as preposterous. But because it’s “reality” TV, they can get away with it. Kind of.

Which all leads to the conclusion that it’s only a matter of time before we get laugh tracks on reality TV shows and disclosures indicating that “Keeping Up with the Kardashians was filmed before a live, studio audience.”

And patient readers, I promise, no more Kardashians in this blog from here on out. Unless I get a job writing for the show…

Tags: reality tv
Posted in I Could Totally Do That, Low Art | No Comments »

Celeb Sighting #48

Saturday, December 19th, 2009

In a sighting that falls somewhere between the Brooke Shields/Neve Campbell/Fran Drescher trifecta and the Sammy Hagar shoulder bump (sightings #13 and 29 respectively), sighting #48 took place at the second best deli in Los Angeles, Nate & Als (Canters holds down the first place spot, with Langers in third).

No, it wasn’t Larry King, whose a regular there, but rather three of the Kardashians, shooting an upcoming episode of their riveting TV dramedy, “Keeping Up with the Kardashians.“ OMG, OMG, OMG!!!

For those unfamiliar, this is one of the HOTTEST reality TV shows on-air, and let me tell you, from what I witnessed, it doesn’t get much realler than this.

True, they had to keep doing takes to get their lines right and a makeup woman would come touch them up in between bites of their corned beef sandwiches, and yes, there were seven cameras pressed within inches of their faces, but that doesn’t make it any less real.

That said, since it’s clear that what people crave is the real story of what it’s like to be a Kardashian, my idea is this: There should be a crew of camera people filming the filming of “Keeping Up with the Kardashians.” When you consider that the main thing they are known for is being the stars of a reality TV show (which in the reality TV show they can’t mention, since the premise of the show is they have some interesting life outside their roles as reality TV stars, or why would they have a reality TV show to begin with?), you realize that the real story is not them eating at Nate ‘n Als, but the experience of being filmed eating at Nate ‘n Als for their incredibly popular, hot TV show.

I’d call the show: “Keeping up with Keeping Up with the Kardashians,” and it would be a great way to know the real story of what it’s like to be a reality TV star. I call the concept, Reality Squared.

All you TV producers out there–call me.

Tags: keeping up with the kardashians
Posted in Low Art | 4 Comments »

Movie Review: The Goods. Is not.

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

TheGoodsLiveHardSellHard

The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard (now available on DVD) is not a good movie, though this is hardly interesting to note. There are lots of not good movies, particularly comedies which bomb at disproportionate rates, both in film and on TV (and certainly in this blog). What’s interesting about The Goods is not that it isn’t very funny, but why it isn’t funny, because for all practical purposes, it should be at least kind-of funny.

First, the cast is pretty funny. Jeremy Piven, Ed Helms, Rob Riggle, Alan Thicke (!). Though a cast is only as funny as their material, that’s at least a promising start. The screenplay is by Alan Stock and Rick Stempson, though how much share of the blame they deserve is hard to tell—bad comedies usually can trace their downfall to many, many hands mucking up potentially interesting ideas.

The concept behind the story is simple, and while it may be too limited to support a feature length film (even one clocking in at under 90 minutes), it should provide more laughs than it does. A team, coming into a struggling car dealership to help them move cars off the lot. That holds promise in two ways. One, it’s always funny to watch people who are bad at something, so seeing the car salespeople suck at selling cars should be funny. Second, selling cars is funny, as we’ve seen in many movies before this (I, for some reason, can’t help but think of Fargo—a different kind of funny to be sure).

There are many reasons the movie isn’t funny which need not be explored (such as, the fact that nothing funny happens). But as is often the case, looking at what isn’t funny in this film is a good way to better understand what is funny in other films.

Specifically, the reliance on sexual, gross-out/raunch-out humor is definitely one of the lamest elements in The Goods. From scenes in strip clubs, to dildo jokes, to uncomfortable storylines about people sleeping with people far older/younger than themselves—it’s all so very, very painful. One conclusion might bet hat this kind of 4^th grade, sophomoric humor is inherently unfunny or that maybe I, your humble reviewer, am a total prude.

But of course, this same material in a better movie, could be very funny. Jud Apatow has built a comedic empire by tackling explicit material, as filtered through a never-ending stream of witty banter. Whole scenes of guys bullshitting about masturbation, pubic hair, oral sex—scenes that are both shocking and, more importantly, really funny.

So what’s the difference?

I think the key is, in an Apatow film, the characters are smarter than the punchline.

The humor comes from the way they take these crude (but essential) concepts, and then elevate them to the role of philosophy. For example, in 40 Year Old Virgin, Seth Rogen’s character poses the idea about a game where he takes Tylenol PM then sees if he can jack-off before falling asleep. The great thing about the game, he explains: “you always win.” It’s funny, not because Rogen is talking openly about masturbation, which we normally don’t discuss in polite company, but the way he’s talking about it—the elaborate scenario he’s crafted that brings an absurd level of intellectual reflection, to something that is the definition of base instinct.

But in The Goods, the characters are not smarter than their punchlines. The joke about the strip club is that they are in a strip club and women are dancing suggestively for them. The joke about the dildos is there is a woman who has a lot of dildos. The joke about the guy who just wants to “make love” to a woman is that we see him making love to a woman. The punchline and premise are identical. Or maybe there is no punchline. Or maybe it’s all punchline. What it isn’t is funny, unless you happen to be shocked and titillated by seeing strippers or dildos.

But who can be shocked by this stuff anymore?

Maybe little kids.

How cruel then, that the movie is rated R. It’s target audience is clearly so much younger.

Tags: review, sell hard, the goods live hard
Posted in Low Art | No Comments »

Book Review: Heathcliff Does it Again!

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009

heathcliff

Too frequently dismissed as a “poor-man’s Garfield,” in this seminal collection by George Gatley, Heathcliff finally steps into his own, asserting through a combination of sly wit and linguistic subterfuge, the type of feline humor that would come to define the mid 80s.

Often called “second term” comedy, for its association with President Reagan’s second term in office, Heathlcliff projects both the class anxiety of the shrinking middle class, with a sometimes not so subtle critique of capitalist materialism, embedded within a special construct in which the cartoon as text is both object and interpretation.

Heathcliff certainly “does it again” in this collection, raising hell on the streets, tipping over garbage cans, and generally making life miserable for owner Mr. Nutmeg, as clear a representation of bourgeoisie excess as can be found in the Sunday funnies, save perhaps the short-lived strip, “Mr. Weatherbelly and His Golden Grapefruit Peeler.”

There is no question that underneath the thin veneer of humor, this collection relishes in its own dark impulses. This is not, as it were, traditional post-semantic irony, nor does it allow, even in its most capricious moments, a glimmer of what Marxist Theresa Walenberg has called, “the inflated ego of neo-capitalist suburban comedy” (see, for example, Marmaduke).

Heathcliff forces us to question contemporary socio-religious ideas such as guilt, heuristics, moral ambiguity, and the placement of certain dumpsters near certain restaurants that sell fish. It is not, on any means, an easy read. But it is, ultimately, in both its flirtation with what Charles Olson called “the projected image” and what Ronald Reagan deemed, “the shining city on the hill,” the most important feline comic strip up to and including present day (apologies to Krazy Kat).

In other words, a must read!

Tags: heathcliff, review
Posted in Low Art | No Comments »

Celebrity Quizz Where the Answer is Always C

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009

The disclosure about David Letterman’s affairs with staff members means that finally:

We can have a healthy conversation about sexual infidelity and power relationships in the workplace.
Leno will have fresh monologue material for his new talk show.
Sarah Palin’s campaign headquarters can unload the 500,000 “Fire Dave” t-shirts they have been sitting on since July.

News that Miss California USA officials want former Miss California Carrie Prejean to repay $5,200 she spent on breast augmentation proves that:

Making slurs against homosexuals has karmic consequence.
Our obsession over plastic surgery and breast size affects every aspect of our culture, from fashion to politics.
The California budget crisis is way worse than we suspected if the Miss California pageant is that desperate for $5,200.

Now that Jon and Kate Gosselin have officially split, fans of their show can comfort themselves with the knowledge that:

Now the kids can have a chance to grow up out of the public spotlight and regain some sense of normalcy.
Jon and Kate can now move on to more healthy relationships with people they actually care about.
It’s only a matter of week before Jon and the Octomom team up for a new, exploitative reality show based on the premise that watching people with mental illnesses harm their children is funny.

Mixed review from Spike Jonze’s movie, “Where the Wild Things Are,” just goes to show that:

It’s very hard to duplicate the magic of a classic childhood book in a 2 hour movie
Inflated expectations inevitably lead to disappointment.
Putting a Saphic scene with Neve Campbell and Denise Richards in a movie aimed at children is never a good idea.

The most surprising thing about Rhianna’s new racy album cover for her new single “Russian Roulette” is:

The way violent images shown on the cover are meant to be empowering, yet end up offering stereotypical view of women as sexual objects.
The degree to which this can this be read as a reaction to the abuse she suffered with ex-boyfriend Chris Brown.
The fact that they still make album covers.

Tags: celebrity quizz
Posted in Low Art | No Comments »

If you enjoy late night TV, you may or may not enjoy not-so-late night TV

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

jay-leno

Despite the fact that critics find him largely unfunny, and his squishy middle-of-the-road politics can be annoying, I generally have a soft spot for Jay Leno. I’m not claiming he’s the funniest guy to ever grace the planet, but he’s certainly not unfunny in the way someone like Dane Cook is—the kind of unfunny that make’s you angry and sad. Whenever I hear him speak or give an interview, he seems nice. I’m not saying I make my TV choices based on how nice a person seems to be through the false lens of a soft-ball interview (that’s how you pick a president), but if your going to be only moderately funny, it helps if you’re not a jerk too.

The Tonight Show under Leno was rarely hilarious. But it often made me giggle, if quietly, or at least smile. At its worse it was just fine, not funny but not boring. Which, it occurs to me, is all I really expect from a TV show that airs when I really, probably should be sleeping. As a general rule, the later the TV program airs, the lower my expectations. When your competition is another rerun of Becker and the juicer infomercial, the bar is relatively low.

So what to make of Jay’s new show, now it a sort-of prime time slot? Having watched only the second episode, my snap judgment is that the show is remarkably similar to, well, every late night show. While many genres have come into and out of fashion (the variety show, even sketch comedy other than SNL), the late night talk show format has stayed remarkably similar (and popular) since Steve Allen. You have an opening monologue, some skits, followed by celebrity interviews—all spurred on by some band/sidekick. Each new show introduces twists (Conan had his sidekick with him on the couch, Jimmy Fallon does his skits live, Chevy Chase removed the comedy aspect), but the changes are minor compared to what remains constant.

That’s weird considering that a major component of the format (celebrity interviews) is usually so dreadful. Celebrities may be interesting when they perform or are filmed having sex, but when they talk about their work, their family vacation in Turks & Caicos, and their new pet project to circumcise poor people, they are predictably dull.

Leno keeps basically the same format of his old show in his new show with a few, seemingly unnecessary twists. He doesn’t sit in a chair behind a desk. He interviews celebs via video in a segment called 10 questions (where we learned that Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz both like to laugh. That Cruise has never been to a strip club and doesn’t know if he’s better at sex or flying. Hopefully he’s better at both than he is giving improvisational answers to silly questions), and the set rotates to reveal different rooms for different bits.

It’s all fine. The monologue is good enough. In the episode I watched, a guest comic riffed about various things in the world he didn’t like and it was fine. The interview was boring but fine. In other words, it’s all the same. I didn’t like or dislike it.

The question is, will viewers tolerate three hours of basically the same show in Leno/Conan/Fallon? Three hours of jokes about how Mark Sanford is crazy and Joe Biden doesn’t know when to shut up? Three hours of Cameron Diaz telling us she likes sun screen? In one sense, the people watching at 10 are different than those watching at midnight, so maybe it’s not a problem. But the real challenge for Leno’s show is that will fine is better than fine at 11:30 pm, I’m not sure it is good enough for 10, when people have choices. Late Night TV provides one of the few opportunities for a captive audience as most watch from their beds or, at least, as they start to think about their beds. But at 10 people are moving around. There are crime dramas on TV. Lunches that need to be packed for the next day. Kids to put to bed. Twitters to twit.

Ratings were great the first show (as expected). Less so the second show (also as expected). On one hand, NBC must be betting if you liked Leno at 11:30, you’ll also like him at 10. As one of those people who likes Leno, I’m not sure that’s a bet I’d take.

Then again, I predicted Lost would be canceled after one episode and that Lipstick Jungle would be a smash. So what do I know.

Tags: jay leno, Low Art, review
Posted in Low Art | 1 Comment »

John Hughes RIP (and other stray thoughts)

Sunday, August 9th, 2009

John Hughes 01

Back from a week of fun and binge eating in Chicago. Fun fact: Chicago produced the world’s first window envelope. Strangely, and sadly, while in Chicago, John Hughes passed away. As a tribute to the king of the north suburban comedies, I present some strange musings on some of my favorite Hughes films.

Mr. Mom (1983)

I actually didn’t know Hughes wrote this. What I do know is when I was little this was one of three things I had taped on VHS (along with Tiger Town and Fraggle Rock), so I watched it quite a bit. It’s strange to think how many strides male housewives have made over the last 16 years, while the city the movie takes place in (Detroit) remains a shit hole.

Sixteen Candles (1984)

The movie serves as a sobering warning that the things we find most pleasurable and funny today, will one day be embarrassingly racist.

The Breakfast Club (1985)

My favorite scene in this movie is the lunch scene when they’re comparing what everyone packed for lunch, but here’s the thing I keep wondering–how disgusting must that sushi Molly Ringwald’s character ate have been? I mean, we’re talking mid-80s, north Chicago suburban sushi (I don’t think Asians were allowed in the north suburbs until 1989), packed in a backpack and then stored at room temperature for 4-5 hours before eating. Come on.

Weird Science (1985)

The blueprint for the billion dollar internet porn industry. In retrospect, of course, it’s all so obvious.

Pretty in Pink (1986)

For some reason, as a kid, I thought this movie would have lots of sex in it. It didn’t.

Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986)

Probably my favorite Hughes flick, but more than being one of the most rewatchable comedies, the film stands as proof that Hughes was, in fact, a technological visionary. Younger readers may not be aware that, before the internet, computers were essentially really fancy typewriters that you could play video games on. Beyond printing out custom greeting cards (yes, this was really popular for a while), the PC didn’t really do much.

Yet, somehow, in 1986, long before Al Gore claimed to invent the internet, here is Ferris Bueller, hacking into the school’s computer system to change his grade. How? How could his shitty, 2MB RAM computer connect to the high school computer’s database? How could Hughes have even imagined this possibility if he was not (conspiratorial drum roll here) the actual mastermind behind the information superhighway?

Uncle Buck (1989)

Another film that led me to believe school parties would be a lot more fun than they turned out to be. Re-watch the high school party scene and you’ll know what I mean.

National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation (1989)

The promo for this movie was “Yule Crack Up!” proving that there is no product so cheesy that advertising can’t make it worse.

Home Alone (1990)

Hughes only acted as producer on this, but his fingerprints are all over it. I offer this: the entire premise of this movie has been completely negated by the prevalence of the cell phone. I’m not saying the concept was believable to begin with, but give everyone in the film cell phones and not a single scene would make any logical sense.

Tags: john hughes, Low Art
Posted in Low Art | 6 Comments »

Wipeout: Most. Efficient. TV Program. Ever.

Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009

Wipeout_TV_show_logo

The show Wipeout on ABC may be the first television show in the history of television in which the title can serve as the concept, pitch, and synopsis for the entire show. If someone were to ask, “What is the show Wipeout about?” they would have inadvertently answered their own question. The show is so simple, that watching 5 minutes of it the other day is enough for me to fully understand what the show is about and why it is (apparently) popular.

First, Wipeout is a testament to American efficiency and impatience. I find its parallel in Pixie Stix from the candy world. Pixie Stix is basically the acknowledgment that what kids really like in candy is sugar, so why waste time and effort on the complicated artifices through which the sugar is delivered (i.e., the candy) when you can just dump a bunch of colored sugar in a paper wrapper and call it a day? Why suffer through the tedium of chewing and processing through non-sugar foodstuffs just to get to what you really want?

Wipeout works from the same premise. For centuries, humankind has invented complicated systems to produce the desired effect of being able to watch grown men and women horribly injure themselves. The Greeks had their athletes run around buck-naked, covered in oil (and mostly drunk), all in the hopes that a few might crash into each other and then land in uncomfortable positions. In modern times, we’ve created sports wherein really athletic people moving at full speed, run (or skate, or jump, or drive, or whatever) toward each other in ways that are sure to, eventually, produce ligament-busting, career ending, collisions.

But really, it’s a whole bunch of pomp and circumstance for very little payoff. Even a football game produces only a handful of concussion-inducing collisions or nauseous bone snaps. In Boxing or even MMA, the fighters spend sooooooo much time avoiding getting hit—it’s really a waste of everyone’s time.

Wipeout, like Pixie Stix, cuts out the facade. The point of Wipeout, purportedly, is to run through an obstacle course, but I’m pretty sure it’s actually impossible to do. I don’t even know if there is eve a prize for the person who finishes. I don’t know if anyone ever has finished. Frankly, it doesn’t matter. The show is literally 30 minutes of people falling down and hurting themselves. It’s the Holy Grail, what previous shows like Americas Funniest Home Videos aspired to, but could never achieve because inevitably, there was that video of a kitten playing the piano that came between the man being whacked in the face with a 3 Wood and the woman burning her face in a waffle iron.

Wipeout is just people getting smacked in the face with waffle irons over and over until it’s finally over.

I think the next step in the show’s evolution is obvious. Right now, there still is a lot of time wasted where the contestants don’t wipeout. Sometimes, through some loop-hole in the laws of physics, they manage to run over the inflatable bridge, that is only being supported by a single wisp of air, without falling into the reservoir of raw sewage below. This, clearly, is wasted time.

I suggest Wipeout 2.0, in which contestants are, one by one, pushed off a 500 foot ledge where they fall, bouncing off inflatable protrusions on the way down, sort of like a helpless pinball in a pinball game. When they reach the bottom, they get their prize—the chance to compete in Super Wipeout 2.0, which is basically the same as Wipeout 2.0 but this time when they get to the bottom there are also crotch-biting crocodiles.

Even if ABC won’t buy it, I’m sure Fox will be interested.

Tags: Low Art, wipeout
Posted in Low Art, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

The WIF Book Club, Book of the Month

Wednesday, July 1st, 2009

sinister signpost

This month’s WIF Book Club selection is arguable one of the top 50 Mystery Thrillers of all time, ranking somewhere between War with the Evil Power Master and Sound and the Fury (or, as it was originally titled: The Mystery of the Missing Quentins).

The Hardy Boys classic, The Sinister Signpost is not only nonstop adventure, it is also, per Wikipedia, “one of the most dangerous and intriguing cases” of Frank and Joe Hardy’s careers. Just looking at the cover tells you that’s definitely true. That sign is literally shooting lasers at that red sports car! What’s worse, it appears someone from a completely different angle is rolling a tire at the Hardy Boys!! This can only add up to one thing: Danger!!! Never before have the letters SS conveyed so much excitement and fun than they do in the Sinister Signpost!!!!

A couple of thought provoking questions as you read this literary classic:

In the story, Frank and Joe’s father is hired by a mysterious racecar inventor, Mr. Alden, to figure out why his racers keep getting in wrecks. Yet Frank and Joe do all the work in solving the case. Why is Mr. Hardy such a shitty dad?
Horses appear often in the book, and for no particular reason. Do you believe horses are capable of human emotion? Could the fastest man in the world run faster than the slowest racehorse?
In the seventh chapter, Frank says to Joe, “Looks like we’ve got ourselves another mystery to solve.” Would it have been morally justified for Joe to hit Frank at this point?
Mr. Alden’s son Roger is a total jerk throughout the book. Is it possible to be raised by a genius race car scientist and not end up a little messed up? Does this explain what went wrong with Lindsay Lohan?
The criminal masterminds in this book have an array of horrible secret weapons, but nothing can be more horrible than the existential angst of knowing that no matter how many mysteries you solve, we are alone in a cold, uncaring universe that will eventually be swallowed in plumes of hydrogen and that every thing that has ever lived will soon be dead. Who do you think will realize this and suffer a nervous breakdown first, Frank or Joe?
If God does exist, then why do bad plot obstacles always happen to good protagonists?
Were this novel to be adopted to a film, who would you cast as the signpost? Steve Buscemi, or David Alan Grier? How does race play into your decision.
Here’s a fun exercise. Rewrite the novel from the perspective of a two-dimensional inanimate object. Remember that two-dimensional objects can’t use pronouns!
Were you surprised by the mysterious twist ending that the twin brothers Vilno Sigor and Baro Signor were in fact the villains behind all the accidents?
SPOILER ALERT: Don’t read the previous question if you have not read the book yet. It will totally RUIN IT for you.

Tags: Book of the Month, Low Art, review
Posted in Low Art | 2 Comments »

What Is Funny?