Four Nerds

Global communications are like trying to hit the bulls-eye on a dart board after a bottle of Riesling. The target moves without rhyme or reason.

When I was with my former employer, a global tech company, my team was charged with developing the interactive “Holiday” card.

As we all know, the Greek God Politicocorrectalis has been lording over corporate communications since he won a game of Connect Four against Zeus. So any mentions of color, creed or gender were instantly deemed verboten. Hmmm…so what do we say for this message?

Since this was 2001, we decided a message of peace or at the very least solidarity would be an appropriate feather in the cap of a very turbulent year.

So, I crafted a beautiful message and our Flash designer added some nice snow flakes gently falling to the ground for a touch of ambience.

The day after we sent out the message the flood of calls and e-mails came gushing in. “Alo Mates, it’s summer here in Oz, ow about some sandy beaches next year”, wrote one perturbed customer from Australia. “It hasn’t been a turbulent year for the entire world ey?”, chortled a heartless bastard from Canada.

So now references to climate and world events will get you a firm talking to by the good taste Gestapo. Whatever shall we do?

Golf! Yes, everyone loves golf, especially fat bald white guys in suits, which is our target audience. Because only fat bald white guys rise to the level of purchasing power to rubberstamp the exorbitant cost of our products. So how can we tie in golf to the Holidays in 2002? A game! A Flash based game of mini-golf.

I pull out my Laugh-In thesaurus of bad puns (thank you Nick at Nite), and start tying golf to the “holidays”. The Flash developer likewise starts putting in obstacles based on the same theme. Hit Santa with the ball and he gives a hearty Ho-Ho-Ho, whack the menorah and the candles come on, bump the Kwanza bush and it plays traditional African music. We even built two courses one with a winter theme and the other based on the sunny shores of the Southern Hemisphere.

January 1, 2003 after a restful break we come back once again to a flood of e-mails. “Golf and the Holidays how utterly gauche”, came a response from our friends on the little island across the pond. “Kwanza is an African-AMERICAN holiday you fools”, was written by an irate individual, who I guess had a hard time negotiating the shrub and was pulling in bogeys.

When August 2003 rolled around, my boss came over to my cube and told me it was time to work on our Holiday message again. I told him I would send him an e-mail shortly with my initial pass. When he opened the e-mail it simply read, “Let’s play it safe this year:

Happy December!

The morale? When it comes to international communications, craft your message carefully. Political correctness has not only permeated the global stage it has devoured it.

Okay, here's the deal with Paris Hilton: *

She's probably the most worthless person in the world.

Here's how to deal with her:

Change the fucking channel.

Honestly, turn off VH1, stop watching E! (which I think stands for Excrement!), and for God's sake, pay no heed to the top half of the TV Guide channel.

If you've ever read anything I've ever written on the subject of celebrities, then you know that, for the most part, I think they are the most worthless, selfish, egomaniacal, self-centered and self-congratulatory people in the world and they have completely lost touch with what life is like for the other 6 billion of us.

Paris Hilton is the ultimate edition of that phenomenon with one exception. Most of the tabloid fodder out there got to where they are because they had a dream and some modicum of talent (even if it is the tiniest little bit).

Paris Hilton has neither. She had no dreams of fame and fortune because she was already rich. The money she had was not earned. It was bestowed upon her. She has enough wealth to make Solomon blush.** She has had every advantage in the world. What does she do with it? She whores herself on a “reality series” on national television.

If she truly had a dream to perform, she could have taken her vast resources and tried to become a true performer. Agents could have been hired, acting coaches and personal mentors could have been retained. She could have gotten into movies or on the stage. Hell, she could have produced her own movies.

But instead, she went for the lowest of the lowest common denominator. Perhaps it was just for fun. Perhaps it was because she was bored. But here’s the thing: She keeps on doing it. She keeps making home porn movies and bad music videos; she stays on the Stupid Life season after season, despite the fact that the two stars hate each other now. She keeps her face in the press as much as she can.

And I have a theory as to why. She is looking for purpose. This is a person whose entire life is without meaning. She is making a desperate and sad attempt to make her mark on the world but has no idea how to do it. Why else would she try to trademark the phrase “That’s Hot?” She was trying to say, “Hey world, this is my contribution!”

Unfortunately for this nitwit, it’s a phrase that is in common parlance. That’s like trying to copyright “Good morning” or “Merry Christmas.” Way to go Paris. You know, I think I'm gonna follow your lead and try to get a patent for air.

Paris Hilton has decided that the only way to make her existence count is by being famous. It doesn’t matter what you’re famous for, just so long as your face is on TV and the magazines in the checkout line at the supermarket. Instead of trying to find purpose and meaning through, oh, I don’t know, helping your fellow man by doing Great Works of philanthropy with that vast fucking fortune of hers, she blew her boyfriend while he videotaped it with a nightvision camera.

That’s hot.

How does Paris Hilton have a career? I truly have no problem with her being rich; after all, her great-grandfather earned it. I also understand that money breeds money. So fine, go roll around in your money and spend the rest of the day making more future rich babies, but for fuck’s sake stop infiltrating my entertainment mediums.

First we were forced to succumb to her and Lionel Richie’s talent less daughter acting retarded in the mid west. I have 400 channels and still couldn’t escape the vortex of awfulness created by these two. Here’s the first law I will initiate when elected President, anyone past the age of 12 that can’t spell a state name, will not be allowed in. These two twits don’t even know what country they are in, much less trying to build a cognitive map connecting nowhere back to Rodeo drive.

My feelings about the show aside, I have come to accept this show exists and it has made these two famous despite the fact that their collective IQ is 10 points less than Forrest Gump.

So what has spurred this tirade against the bronze anorexic one?

The video, Stars are Blind, by Paris Hilton!

If you clicked the link above and watched the video, first I’m sorry. Second, assuming you didn’t kill yourself, I hope you will agree that the lyrics are insipid and her voice sounds like a cross between a three old with a skinned knee and air being let out of my tires.

Please, help put a stop to this woman’s success before we vote her into the White House based on her keen fashion sense.

I know our generation is changing all the rules on the definitions of masculinity and gender roles, but I see the latest addition to the new Batman movie line-up is just too much of a Nancy Boy to pull it off.

Filling the shoes of the barely existent Billy Dee Williams in the Tim Burton original Batman and the over the top Tommy Lee Jones in the first Joel Schmaker train wreck, Ryan Phillipe will be the new Harvey Dent/Two-Face.

So let’s recap: Heath Ledger is the Joker, Ryan Phillipe is Two-Face, all we need now is Jake Gyllanhal as Robin and we have a pivot man for the rogue gallery circle jerk.

I guess maybe I’m starting to show my age, but I just think these guys are too young and too dam pretty to convey the emotional scarring that’s at the heart of all these characters.

Well, it took me a while, but I've decided to weigh in on the Heath Ledger/ Joker "issue." My official position at this point is that, as of this writing, there is really nothing to say.

At this point the only thing that concerns me about Heath Ledger is the fact that he doesn't exactly fit the role physically. I mean, I don't really have much else to base my opinion on, from a performance basis at any rate. There's nothing he's done that would preclude him. I haven't seen anything that he was particularly horrible in. Sure, he's been in some bad movies, but bad movies aren't always the result of bad acting. Put it to you this way: Michael Caine was great as Alfred in Batman Begins. Michael Caine was also in Jaws 4.

As for Ledger, the problem is the fact that his face isn't long enough. He could pull of the grin, sure, but then again, so could I. Doesn't mean I could play the Joker. The Joker has a face that is long and gaunt, like his flesh has been pulled back on his skull, twisting it into that hideous smile. He's also got a thin, lanky body, almost like a doll. Crispin Glover's was bandied about for a while there, and I thought that he could probably do the job and do it well. Heath Ledger seems to be too bulky and his head's too wide. I thought the same thing about Jack Nicholson, except his bulk wasn't muscle.

So, we'll see.

Well, it seems my esteemed colleague Fogelmatrix missed my point. I wasn't saying, "Well could you do better?" I'm not asking you to come up with 180 million dollars and make a new movie. I don't want you to write a screenplay or anything like that.

What I am saying that it is easy to point the flaws in a movie we don't like. We all do that. It's easy to tear apart a movie. You were disappointed with this movie, so what would you have changed to make it better? An idea, that's all. It doesn't even have to be a complete sentence.

For example, you didn't like the fact that we find out Superman had a kid, or that Superman finds out. Fine, we take that revelation out. Okay, so now we have this kid who's just thrown in for no reason, other than to show that Lois has moved on. He's got no real purpose to the story now, so we take him out completely. Fine.

So now we have Lois and her boyfriend, who she dated when Superman left for five years. Without the kid, (and the possibility that he's the dad) the new guy doesn't stand a chance. He'd be out of the picture in five minutes. So, we can get rid of him.

So, now we just have Lois, five years later and nothing's changed. Superman comes back, and Lois is still there, a bit pissed, but hey, she's always been a bit pissed. Personally, I would have a lot harder a time with that than the idea that Superman had a kid. I would expect something to be different. Why not a Super-Bastard?

How about Lex's plot? Okay, you're okay with Lex as the bad guy, but think the idea of him using Kryptonite was cheesy. Fair enough. Ultimately he and Superman are going to have to face each other. Since Lex is only human, the final showdown will either be really quick, or Lex will have to come up with something to put him on an equal footing. In Superman 1, he had kryptonite. In Superman 2, he had three kryptonians to fight his fight for him. In the third one, we didn't have Lex, but the very human villain had a supercomputer to fight the boy in blue. In #4, Lex had a mutant nuclear clone of Superman.

So what could he use this time? A giant robot? Maybe, but frankly I'd be upset by Superman fighting a CGI robot. Personally, I'm fine with the kryptonite.

And don't hand me that overly sarcastic plot synopsis. It's always used "not as a valid point to an argument, but as a sarcastic..."This is SOOO cheesy" statement. It's a statement that relies on sarcastically overemphasizing certain parts of a story as to make it seem less believable. The CAPS Lock is essential at making your point. (Yes, I'm paraphrasing you.)

You can do that with any movie:

"Oh, she's REALLY going to get on that plane and not stay in Casablanca. RIGHT. GIVE ME A BREAK. Humphrey Bogart is so much cooler than the other guy."

"OOOH, he builds a world wide newspaper business, is one of the richest men in the world, and the one thing he wants on his death bed is a fucking sled? YEAH RIGHT. I'm so sure."

"Han Solo just happens to get back just in time to save Luke from getting shot by Vader. Please. Vader couldn't sense Han behind him with the Force!?! HOW CAN YOU BE SUPRISED WHEN YOU COMMAND THE FUCKING FORCE?"

As for the masses, I'm sorry dude, but there's no way in hell fanboys are the masses. Maybe your parents and mine didn't see Superman, but it wasn't just comic book geeks either. The movie made $52 million its opening weekend. Average about ten bucks a pop, that's about 5 million people watching the movie in three or four days. Do you honestly think it was all a bunch of dweebs like us? No, it was parents with their kids, teenagers, and yes, 18-35 year olds. But it wasn't just limited to them. Superman is arguably one of the most popular superheroes of all time. People from all walks of life wanted to see him.

But if you want a target demographic or a majority audience, then I'll help you out. Who do I think is going to this movie? Hmm... Let’s see... Could it be kids maybe? Kids who never saw the Christopher Reeve movies, Lois and Clark, Smallville, or the animated series. Kids who don't read the comics because they're still working on learning their ABCs. Kids who, with any luck, will ask their parents for those cool new Superman toys this Christmas, sleep on Superman bed sheets, watch that new Superman cartoon that will premiere on Saturday mornings this fall (I have no idea if they'll make such a show, but it's likely if the movie and toy sales do well.)

That's why revamping the franchise is important. Do you think the origins of Superman were a mystery in 1978? Yet they spent a significant portion of the movie explaining that. They were restarting the franchise back then, and bringing the current generation up to date. Same thing happened with this movie.

Thirty-somethings aren't the target market for anything other than baby formula and aluminum siding. Thirty-something comic book and Sci Fi geeks aren't the target market for anything found outside a comic book store. Sure, they'll want to appeal to the geeks, create a buzz at the latest comicon, and get a good word of mouth going. But the real money is in people with no responsibility. (Incidentally, the demographic that studios and networks generally like to target is 16-24, not 18-35. These are people that generally have disposable income and aren't tied down with things like car payments, mortgages and children. Sorry dude, you're a real grown up now.)

As for our parents' generation, Superman is almost 75 years old. They grew up on Superman just like we did. Instead of Christopher Reeve, it was George Reeves. Hell, he had been around for 13 years when my parents were born. You think the only people who grew up on Superman are the ones who watched Superfriends on Saturday mornings? You should have paid more attention to the people in the audience when you went to the movie.

Not to put a stop to our war on Superman, but Variety announced today who the new Joker will be for the next Batman installment.

Drum roll please...

par rum rum rum rum rum rum rum rum...

Heath Ledger...

Wait did you hear the drum roll?

As an extremely amateur actor I always try to have the faith that an accomplished thespian can put themself inside any roll. I mean at the ripe age of 31 I just played a 17 year old somewhat convincingly.

When Nicholson was announced as the Joker in the original Batman back in 1989 I was elated. Even at the age of 15 I had the world wisdom to know that this was a perfect fit.

Heath Ledger though I'm just not sure. It just doesn't seem like a natural fit. Shit I would have casted Ashton Kutcher before making this call.

OK boys open the flood gates!