The ad itself is fine. Some of it’s funny. Some of it is uninspired. Matthew Broderick definitely doesn’t seem to be having much fun throughout. It’s a little weird because the premise is he’s playing hooky from coming into work. What work? Hasn’t he been playing hooky for like the last 10 years?

Also, this is one of those tricks you only get to play once, so it’s kind of a shame it had to be in a commerical for a rather boring car.

Speaking of which, in all the debate over whether this ad is good or a travesty, what I don’t hear people talking about is the car. I have seen the spot several times and I still can’t remember the name of it. I think it’s like an SUV like thing? I don’t know. I don’t know any of its features or any of the things it does. Sometimes I think it was a Toyota until I remember Toyota only makes boring ads that sell cars.

But why worry about a little thing like working? If advertising were held to that standard, all of us who make a living at it would be taking many, many days off.

American version

I’ve never read the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo books, but I have seen both the Swedish and American film adaptations.  Both are pretty good. And while each has some differences, they are very, very similar. Okay, that makes sense–they are adapted from the same material.

Swedish version. Like the American version, but with a few more subtitles.

But I mean, even when you are working off the same source materials, there are certain details you think would be different. Like how the two leads have sex. Not that they have sex (that’s obviously in the book), but how. As in the very specific positions and facial expressions and gyrations that are used during sex. I guess the books must be pretty graphic in this regard, because the sex in each movie is exactly the same, from the speed of intercourse to the positions used to the way the woman orgasms.

It just seems odd. You have two filmmakers, working independently, given a scene of two people having sex and they decide they are going to recreate that for the screen in exactly the same way.

And then what else is odd is that I hear people talking about how the books (predictably) don’t follow the plot of the book. But they follow the plot of each other.

Which really leads to my main question: was the American version an adoptation of the book, or the Swedish version of the film?

I understand that screenwriter Steve Zallian and director David Fincher (claim they) never saw the Swedish version prior to making their version, but obviously people around them did. I can just imagine all these people offering Fincher suggestions on how to shoot certain scenes that are essentially copied from the Swedish film and Fincher, having never seen the Swedish version thinking,  ”Yeah, great idea. Let’s have her get on top of him and gyrate violently for thirty seconds, cum, then role off him. Genius take on the material.”  And then of course, the inevitable moment when Zallian or Fincher watch the Swedish version and realize they basically just did a shot-for-shot remake of a movie that was made two years ago.

It’s really easy to look at a finished TV show (or film or whatever) and say, “How did this crap get made?” Truth is, the process is pretty complicated and sometimes good ideas get watered down or there are conflicting directions or political pressures that take promising projects and turn them into stinkers. And sometimes that piece of crap was designed to be a piece of crap because someone knew it would be a really profitable piece of crap (I’m talking to you Scary Movie VII).

All that said, I cannot see how, on what universe, in what parallel world people thought that Work It, a comedy that looks like a D-rate Bosom Buddies would be popular.  I mean, is there any evidence anywhere that suggests people still think men dressing up as women is funny? Haven’t we had plenty of evidence–recent evidence in fact–suggesting just the opposite? That as a “joke” a man dressed as a woman fall somewhere between a pie-in-the-face and calling someone a fag. Meaning, it’s dated at best, out-of-touch at worst.

It must be terrible to be one of the people associated with a show like this. You want so badly for it to be a success but you must know (and I’m talking about the writers, actors etc.) in your heart of hearts that there is NO WAY it can be successful. Even if you are talented at what you do, this concept cannot work. Woody Allen in his prime couldn’t make it funny.

The good news is, this makes me all the more optimistic that my TV Pilot about a white kid who dresses in black-face to take advantage of a company run by former Black Panthers will find a home. Because even midseason replacements need replacements.

Oh Beloved Leader, we hardly knew ye.

When an important political figure dies, as Glen Greenwald explains here, we tend to see it as an opportunity to “put politics aside” and pay our “respects” (which means say only nice things about how great they were. This was true of Regan, Nixon and others. It should also be true for the Beloved Leader, Kim-Jong-Il, who passed away this week.

Kim Jong Il was an important political figure and a unique personality.  Some of his political decisions may have been controversial (like starving his own people, holding the world hostage with threats of nuclear war, and generally making North Korea a pit of human misery), but now is not the time to dwell on them. Instead, we should remember the positives: his invention of rainbows and how he helped Korea win WWI with his bravery and cunning. Also his amazing hair.  You will be missed beloved leader, if not by people per se, then at least by exporters of high-end cognac, which he enjoyed squandering his nation’s scarce resources on.

Traffic from BUSY C on Vimeo.

4.  Statistician.  I just heard a statistic that consumers have not felt this bad about the economy since the 2009 recession.  I don’t know who is doing this research but mind blowing data like this is out there for all to discover.

3.  Protestor.  As long as you are okay with a pay cut / life style change.

2.  Special education teachers.  This is still an area which tends to have openings, particularly in middle and high school levels.

1.  Compiler of “top lists” .  Send resume to yahoo.

Which brings up an interesting related point. Remember that game Gyromite for the Nintendo with the robot? Did anyone ever successfully get that game to work? All my stupid Nintendo Robot would do was shake back and forth like he was trying to swing a hula hoop around his robot waist.

The one you bought because you thought it would be a fun, easy way to get exercise, but now it just sits in the corner of your bedroom filling you with guilt every time you look at it. That’s at least what writing this blog is like for me.

The other similarity is writing this blog has given me amazing triceps.

Not married in real life.

Also not married in real life

So, the surprisingly quick end (72 hours can be a long time actually) of TV character Kim Kardashian’s wedding to “alleged” NBA player Kris Humprhies is creating a bit of a backlash, maybe because people feel the marriage might have been about something other than love.

Frankly, I don’t get it. As I’ve argued before, the Keeping Up with the Kardashians is the most traditional sitcom on the air right now, with a structure that makes Leave it to Beaver look inventive. Every story has 3 predictable arcs, usually focused on something very mundane (like one sister being jealous of the other, or a fight over cleaning up the garage), culminating with complete resolution and lessons learned. Given that this “unscripted” series is in fact a traditional sitcom, why are we surprised when what happens on the show doesn’t carry over into reality? Just because Kim Kardashian’s character on the show got married to Kris Humphries character (for simplicity, everyone’s character name is the same as their real name), doesn’t mean they are going to stay married in real life. Newsflash: Jim and Pam got married on the Office, but John Krasinski isn’t married to Jenna Fischer in real life.

I mean, do I need to remind everyone what we tell little kids when they get confused about what they see on TV? It’s just a TV show. It’s not real. The exception to his is of course the Real Housewives of Whatever City–you know that’s real because they put the word Real in the title of the show.

Now, I have discovered, I am not alone. I wonder what my generation will be known for? A quick primer on how each succeeding generation has been viewed provides some hints:

Baby Boomers: Spoiled, entitled flower-children who experienced amazing prosperity thanks to nothing they did.

Gen X: Spoiled, entitled slackers who eventually experienced dot.com prosperity thanks to nothing they did.

Millenials, Spoiled, entitled tech-kids who will eventually experience prosperity based on nothing they did.