Jesus Wants Revenge

Most Christians believe that Jesus died for our sins, that he heroically took whatever violence Pilot had to offer if not with a wry smile, at least without a tear.

What if Pilot just had a great PR team and this is not the case? I mean, none of us were there. Nobody we know was there. As far as we know, the world is only about 100 years old and everything from ancient artifacts to pyramids to the moon landing was faked by Hollywood effects personnel hired by Halliburton to confuse/mollify us.

What if Jesus was pissed off, felt betrayed by his only friends, tricked by his father, and desperately did not want to die, begged for his life like a sniveling Nancyboy, even offered his soul to the devil for one more day running through the long grass along the river at sunset?

What if this whole time Vengeful Jesus has been flying around the world like a mischievous ghost, wearing a white sheet over his head, causing trouble wherever he can, putting evil thoughts in people's heads, and biding his time until the 2000th anniversary of his murder, when he plans to drop the big one on us?


It is just as likely as anything else ever postulated about this chap, you realize. People like to think he is nice and sweet as he beatifically looks down on Earth from the heavens, but people like to think George Bush and Katherine Heigl are sweet--it doesn't make it true.

With the 2000th anniversary of his death looming within reach--in 2030--most of us will live to see this day. Should we be scared? Will this factor into the plot of Roland Emmerich's parting turd, as he prepares to leave this world at the ripe old age of 75?

Roland, if you're reading this right now, swallow an entire bottle of sleeping pills and finish that vodka in the freezer. Because I said so.

If you ignored me and you're still reading this, I've already got the tagline/poster, asshole:

2030

We Should Have Expected It After What We Did

I get five points off the gross of every movie you make from now on and we call it even.

_

His and Hers Apocalypse

If I must choose, I will go with Team Jacob, since his lone fan in this photo
is also the only one with whom I would ever consider having sex.

There has been a lot of barking from the men around here lately that New Moon is one of the foretold horsemen signaling 'the end of cinema as an art form,' or something to that effect, and that women--especially teenage girls--are to blame.

I have no bone to pick with this assertion, as I am inclined to agree, but I wonder if we would have the same opinion as to which horseman it was, although I'm sure we would all agree it wasn't the first.

After all, many of these same poo-pooing men paid money to see Transformers 2, even though they figured they wouldn't like it--and were correct.

Was the first Transformers movie not a previous horseman of said apocalypse? And yet they allowed their ticket revenue to fuel at least two sequels (yes, a third one is already slated for a 2011 release), thereby actively supporting the creation of the same awful movies they lament.


The problem here is not that women are supporting movie franchises that pander to the fifth-grade-educated masses, like Harry Potter and Twilight, but that men are doing the same thing on the other side of the aisle with Transformers, G.I. Joe, and Star Trek (I won't mention the second Star Wars trilogy, out of reverence for the first, but I should, so I kinda half-did).

The bottom line: It's the same as it was with Bush's eight year reign--people from all walks of life and of both sexes are to blame.

If Lord of the Rings proved anything to movie executives, it's that special effects tied to a popular fantasy book series can reap billions of dollars for rich white men, whether or not there is an interesting, enjoyable, well-paced story. As a result, we live in a PG-13 world and our movie screens are now filled with little but superheroes, animated toys, hobbits, wizards, and vampires.

Until everybody realizes their money is their vote, as far as which movies get made, and starts treating their moviegoing decisions more seriously, there will be no reversal of course. Nobody is going to take the time, effort, and risk required to make good movies if they can make more money making bad ones. It is simple supply & demand economics: the more money these awful movies make, the more awful movies there will be to choose from at the multiplex.

Hell, there may be 100 Transformers/Twilight movies by the time they stop turning a profit. How long was Cats on Broadway? 18 years. How many episodes of Guiding Light have aired so far? 15,000.

Perhaps we have slipped into a second 'age of the serial' without even knowing it, where $300 million tentpoles have replaced 10-minute Keystone Cops shorts. If this is true, at least we can assume it is cyclical and we will once again see the light, once again have a decade like the 1970s. If it isn't...the Earth will either need to be blasted by an intelligence ray or a Roland-Emmerich-style world-exploding death ray.

I'm rooting for the intelligence ray, although my wager is modest.


Speaking of the apocalypse, beloved film icon Michael Bay has decided to put his spin on the Mayan 2012 prediction. Here is a summary of 2012: The War for Souls, set for a 2010 release, courtesy of imdbpro:

An academic researcher who opens a portal into a parallel universe and makes contact with his double in order to stop an apocalypse foreseen by the villainous ancient Mayans. And he also discovers that there are multiple copies of the Earth that co-exist in different dimensions. All of the versions of Earth are threatened by an apocalypse that is to occur in December 21, 2012! December 21, 2012 is the date of an apocalypse prophesied in the ancient Mayan calendar. The researcher makes contact with another version of himself on another Earth by opening a portal into a parallel universe. He contacts the double to try and stop the prophecy from being fulfilled at all costs.

Summary written by Anthony Pereyra

Not the best grammarian, that Anthony Pereyra, but I think he was able to communicate clearly on one point--this movie will suck in many dimensions.

_

Just When You Thought You Were Tired of '2012' Ads...

2013?: Roland Emmerich, the director/producer behind next week’s apocalyptic 2012, is planning to extend his disaster franchise into television. Despite popular belief that there is no way to follow up on a White House-crushing tidal wave, Emmerich told Entertainment Weekly that there is still “plenty to do in a TV show.” Along with Mark Gordon of Grey’s Anatomy, Emmerich wants the show to focus on the resettling of earth, picking up with “a group of people who survived but not on the boats … maybe they were on a piece of land that was spared or one that became an island in the process of the crust moving.” Emmerich is reportedly in talks with ABC. [EW]



Oh. My. God, Becky...is Roland Emmerich remaking Lost before it's even finished? Brilliant! Almost as brilliant as Grey's Anatomy...OHHH!!!

[Sorry, Roland/Mark, but y'all got served. --Ed.]

_

Who Keeps Letting Roland Emmerich Make Shitty Movies?

For your consideration:

Universal Soldier (1992) --- 'The Muscles from Brussels' as a flexible, muscled, French robot trying to act...and failing. Dolph Lundgren tried almost the same thing--except his robot was Swedish; he also failed.

Stargate (1994) --- This one was actually pretty good. He must have had a ghost writer/director. Or maybe James Spader hypnotized me or something. James Spader is the single greatest human being in the history of mankind, by the way.

Independence Day (1996) --- Atrocious. Except for Liv Tyler, who will always be my one true love, even though we must forever remain 500ft apart... Wait--that was Armageddon. Are they the same movie? Should be...

Godzilla (1998) --- Unapologetic shite.

The Patriot (2000) --- Mel Gibson as Braveheart...but in America! Who knew the vaunted British military was actually defeated by one 5'8" Australian racist! It was! I swear!
[sidenote: did you know Mel Gibson is actually American? Moved to Australia when he was 12...]

The Day After Tomorrow (2004) --- Only turned a profit because foreign audiences loved the poster--the Statue of Liberty crumbling into the ocean. They were disappointed by the lack of a point, the cardboard characters, and by the fact that America was not crushed into rubble and salted.

10,000 BC (2008AD) --- Did not even cover its production budget with domestic receipts. Once you add in marketing costs...yikes. And you wonder why there's no money left to make good movies? American military forces abroad were able to force enough customers into theaters for this clunker to clear $173 million in foreign receipts, but still...who should we be making movies for? Americans or terrorists?*
*please note all foreigners are terrorists. It's not my fault. They are.

Trade Marks of Roland Emmerich Films, according to imdb.com:

- Often features an object crashing into the camera.
- Often features a zoom-in shot of a villain's eyes widening when the villain meets his demise
- All of his major films have featured a couple kissing in front of a luminous background
- Often features the number "44" somewhere in his films in reference to his movie Moon 44
- Movies frequently feature a scene with rain.
- Large-scale disaster films.
- Often uses a shot of a teacup and saucer rattling wildly to demonstrate a strong vibration

Wow. Now those are truly original, artistic additions to the treasure trove of cinematic technique. Thank you, Roland.

Wondering what's next on his slate? Heck! I know I am!

2012 (2009) --- The end of the world is nigh, but don't fear--everyman John Cusack, a part-time limo driver and writer, will probably save the day in some farcical manner.

Fantastic Voyage (2010) --- Two-hit wonder Coolio dusts off his ride for one last spin around the block--to save the world!


Was it, counterintuitively, the staggering losses of 10,000BC that prompted his latest two deals? Do they not blame the director when a movie fails, only when it succeeds?
"Ah, it was the writer's fault this time."
Well, Roland Emmerich also wrote 10,000BC and 2012 (and Godzilla and Independence Day and Stargate).

"Um, it wasn't marketed properly."
You mean ensuring everybody in the solar system was aware this movie was coming out somehow confused your target demographic? What was your target demographic? Cavemen who stare in wonder at flickering lights, impressed by computer-generated saber-toothed tigers?

"No comment. Please join us again next year for the same movie--but with lovable John Cusack!"

Proof yet again that once your foot is all the way in the door--no matter how it might have gotten there--it is impossible for it to be removed. Think the Wachowski Brothers (well, actually now they are brother and sister, technically, if the rumors are true) will ever live down the stink-bomb that is Speed Racer?
I do! They have hundreds of millions of dollars! They made The Matrix! They can do whatever they want, no matter how shitty the concept/execution! Get ready for more embarrassing failures at a multiplex near you--on all eight screens!

Meanwhile, Woody Allen has to go to England to get a movie made...

[Speed Racer---Production Budget= $120 million; Marketing Budget= $4 trillion; Global Box Office Receipts after 18 days in Release= $67 million]

[Match Point---Production Budget- $15 million; Marketing Budget= $5; Global Box Office Receipts=$85million]


Interesting factoid found in my exhaustive research for this seminal article---

Roland Emmerich is supposedly referred to as "Das Spielbergle aus Sindelfingen" in his native Germany. Translation? "Little Spielberg from Sindelfingen." Do you think it's mere coincidence that they both suck? Do you think it's mere coincidence that each has warranted a blog entry on consecutive days, despite the fact that I hadn't written one in three weeks? Do you think it's mere coincidence they both use toothpaste? Or, will you finally believe in the legend of the Curse of Das Spielbergle?



And so, for all you millionaires out there, perk up those hairy old ears--your money is better invested in the stock market (or Woody Allen), even in these dire times, than in Roland Emmerich.

Yet, shadowy figures keep arrogantly betting on him, giving him bigger and bigger budgets, and blaming audiences when they lose, and in the process, willfully aiding and abetting the dumbing down of our culture.

Insanity.


Oh, wait--silly me--I forgot to answer the question! It's been so long...

And the answer to the question is:

The person who keeps letting Roland Emmerich make shitty movies is...Roland Emmerich! (Well, at least in part--you also have to blame the distributors who pony up advance capital in exchange for exclusive rights, as well as the gullible, Diet-Coke-swilling public.)

Emmerich and his partner, Dean Devlin, have produced all of his movies through their own company--Centropolis Entertainment, founded in 1985. I think they raise funds through some kind of pyramid scheme, but, as of press time, this could not be confirmed--OR denied...