Wednesday, March 30, 2011
contiguous!
Monday, March 28, 2011
Is it just me, or are Captchas getting a little out of hand?
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Eeeeeeeuuuuuuuch
DISCLAIMER: I don't know for sure if the trailer for the movie "Paul" actually shows the ending or it just seems that way. I haven't seen the movie will probably not see the movie.
Maybe I'm EXAGGERATING, but the trailers I've been seeing for (what I feel safe assuming is) the remake of the movie "Arthur" (see, because it has the same plot and title!) are the most pathetic things I've ever seen. (You can tell it's hyperbole, because I see a lot of pathetic things in our culture every day, starting in the morning when I brush my teeth in front of a mirror [see fig. 1] —and specifically today, this first chunk of text that I've already decided not to delete and rewrite less poorly.)
Figure 1
A n y w a y, let me type a look at these to sum up my sorrows:
Jokes I recall from the trailers:
-the use of the word "winky" in reference to somebody's winky.
Ho ho ho, this is something that's good for a giggle, but let's hope they don't overdo it!
(See now if you can guess what my complaint is going to be as I list the next few gags)
-Arthur and companion dress up as Batman and Robin and drive a Batmobile.
-A kid, hearing Arthur's British accent, says he sounds like Harry Potter.
-Arthur puts one of those voice-changing Darth Vader masks on a person who —and I'm assuming is his mother because of the following- repeats the line about winkies.
I can't help but get the impression that the movie was written by some people as they stood in lines for movie-themed roller coaster rides in Orlando. But let's be less bric-a-brac and more brass tack. The trick here is getting more and more familiar: Get the nerds' attention, and then wait for them see your movie just because you put something they like in it.
We nerds love our favorite nerd things (sometimes in disturbing ways [see fig 2]). Having a reference to something nerds like is a pretty good way to grab our attention, and it can even be pretty clever/funny if it comes as a little surprise. Did I mention that a little surprise is something THAT ISN'T IN THE TRAILER? (Sort of like how the Paul trailers seem to show the plot's resolution?)
Figure 2
So pretending that I'm right (MISTAKE), why put these little "homages" into the trailer if doing so takes away that cuteness that makes them worthwhile? And why are all these references applied so pallet-knife-liberally that they become the entire essence of the trailer? Because they know they can trick nerds into going to see their movie.
Movie studios are hoping that when a fan sees the Darth Vader/Harry Potter/Batman reference, they'll say "Astral!" or "What a corking good reference!" or...uh..."Schway!" I guess, "followed by "I've got to see that movie for that reason alone!" And it works. Family Guy and Robot Chicken have been profiting from this kind of thing just by doing Star Wars episodes of their shows filled with jokes I'd always assumed were meant to be made up on the fly by those improv groups that do shows at conventions. (I'm assuming these exist for Star Wars, because I avoided seeing an anime one once.)
So. Nerds. Don't fall for it. Don't puke your money out into every bucket on the street. Puke your money with discretion. If you want to see something you'll enjoy all of, rather than a few minutes of pandering qua$i-tribute, maybe take in the original you enjoyed so much.
Labels: Arthur, batman beyond slang, bed head, movie trailers, nerds, quotation marks that imply that an "homage" is not actually an homage at all, Wait, was "winky" a Harry Potter reference too?
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Shampoo review
This month, I ran out of my usual shampoo (see figure 1). I am all kinds of broke, so I started using some shampoo that was apparently here when we moved in. It is called "J/Ā/S/Ö/N® Fragrance Free Daily Shampoo." First of all, I don't know how to pronounce the name. I know my way around umlauts, but an A with an overbar is hard enough to find the special character for, let alone say out loud.
As for what the name is supposed to mean, I've thought of two options. Either Ā: Somebody named "Jason" thought they were really clever, or Ḇ: I am using this at the wrong time of year because it is only supposed to be used in the months July, Āugust, September, Öctober, and Ṋṏṿȅ₥ƃēr (This one seems likely, because of the slashes.) 
Now, the most important thing for me in a shampoo, aside from not smelling awful is that my hair still feels like my hair after I use it (IE hairy). My old shampoo
Fig. 1
Fig. 1
did this very well, and with no tears, knots or split ends! J/Ā/S/Ö/N® had potential here, according to its label, which claims that it "gently cleanses hair, without stripping away essential moisture" and "never weighs hair down and adds silky softness, shine and manageability..." This is good, I don't need my hair weighed down with additional silky softness or shine, and manageability only applied to my hair when I had a buzz cut.
However, the label also claims that the shampoo is "for all hair types" on the front and then says "For external use only" on the back! Too bad, internal hair (I think butt and nose hair are internal). So it was no surprise that the label was shamming me with fancy talk about not giving me Capgras syndrome about my own scalp.
So in the end, I give this shampoo a 76.ɝ for doing the job, even if not the well.
PS: I think one of the major ingredients in this shampoo is Purell® hand sanitizer.
PSS: It hurts a ton when I get it in my eyes.
Labels: gentle cleansing, I forgot how to spell "Capgras", shampoo, smart ideas, symbols instead of letters, violent cleansing
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Things you may think are helping your advertising but are actually not
If you follow me on twitter (see diagram), you may have noticed how I often talk about or at least reference commercials. Or maybe you didn't, because there aren't many context clues. It's twitter, okay? I don't have enough characters to not pretend you always know what I'm talking about. (Just this week, I think I've assumed things like "you know what the movie 'I'm Still Here' is," "you know what products are endorsed by the voice of Tim Allen," and "you have any idea what Weekly Shonen Jump is.")
I realize you might be a member of the twenty-first century and watch TV on your own schedule where you can skip commercials, or maybe an extra-nice pirate has edited them all out. Maybe you watch regular TV, but you use the commercial breaks to
exercise or -more believably— get more snacks. Sorry, but I don't care about what you do, because I am busy watching the commercials. And often responding to them. Out loud. By myself.
Usually what I'm saying is not positive. I get that they can't all be as clever and well done as Virgin Mobile's stalker ads, or even as overrated as the original Macintosh one, but I can tell some of you aren't trying. (Some of you are McDonald's or most beer companies, and let's make it clear that I understand that you don't need really need to do anything other than remind everyone that you exist. Let's also make it clear that I was specifically talking about you when I said "some of you aren't trying." Then let's all look at Doritos, who are in the same boat as you, in terms of business security, but are still trying and sometimes succeeding in their advertising at doing something more worthwhile than just putting their logo on the screen for thirty seconds. Finally, let's end this parenthetical, which has gone on way too long. I'm honestly not sure why I even put this paragraph in parentheses anymore.)
Lately, I've noticed that a lot of advertisers seem to have their heads in the right place but their feet have ended up somewhere that makes me not want to associate with the brand they're representing. So I've put together this ramblingly-introduced list of some tricks you might be trying that are not as helpful as they may have originally seemed.
2. Even if the sitcom you are advertising has a laugh track, (that's not your fault!) you don't need to add a laugh track to your sitcom advertisement. Especially if it is footage filmed only for the commercial.
3. There is a very thin line between tribute and copycatting. I doubt anyone who has seen the show "Oh Mikey!" before rushed to buy pajama pants at the nearest Old Navy after one of their talking mannequin ads. I felt like Taco Bell's shrimp taco ads with the Beaver Boys-like behavior was a tribute, but it seems the majority doesn't agree with me. (This paragraph might have revealed a little too much about my psyche.)
4. Going back to Old Navy, if you are one of the people who made the most recent commercials they've been rolling out, don't kill yourself. It might seem right, but it won't guarantee that the commercials will improve in the future. Killing yourself is never the solution to a problem, unless maybe you are in a SAW movie (sometimes, I pretend I know anything about what I'm referring to). Plus, you haven't performed any of the enormous compensation you owe society yet.
(If you make a commercial now that's just your logo for thirty seconds, I'd appreciated it if you at least took care of my student loan payments for a month.)
Labels: advertising, lameness, mistakes, old navy, rambling
