Posts Tagged ‘sex’
7 items.
So the first week of Theater Hopper has come to a close. I have to say it’s been a moderate success. Thanks to everyone who has visited the site. Here’s to many more hits in my counter. Er, I mean… laughs and ever-loving friendship! Yea, that’s the ticket!
Today’s strip is basically an indication of how badly my wife doesn’t want to see XXX.
That’s right, I said wife. I really haven’t made any attempt to explain it in the past, but like most strips, the characters are representative of real people in my life. The blond haired fella is supposed to be me, the woman (obviously) is my wife Cami. She asked to be in a strip and she got her wish.
The brown haired dude you saw in the last two strips was the toon alter-ego of my good friend Jared. As far as I know, he never asked to be immortalized in four-color glory, but sometimes life throws us curve balls, y’know?
Whether or not these are the names of the characters, I’ll leave that up to you to decide. I may end up giving them different names down the line – I may just leave them nameless. If you have an opinion in the matter, post it in the forums. Better still, you can now e-mail me at theaterhopper@hotmail.com. I finally got Microsoft Outlook to work, so I can now receive all your comments.
Speaking of which, if you have any suggestions on how to make the site better, I’m more than willing to listen. I’m thinking about adding a section underneath the blog area for movie news. If you can think of any other features I can add, send them in.
One last bit of business and then I’ll let you go about your merry way.
I’ve got to give major shout-outs to a few people who linked to me in their news blogs and for whom I would like to return the favor. Each of them run awesome strips and you need to check them out immediately.
Muchos gracias to:
Zach Miller of No Pants Tuesday
Zach of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
Mike and Aric of Fish Strips
Sean of Force Monkeys
Regular gracias to these fellas for being such extra nice guys:
Eric Drobile of Mall Monkeys
David Stanworth of Snafu
Carrington Vanston of Movie Punks
[ No Comments ]
If you’ve been reading the blogs at all – and if you’re reading this right now, chances are you have been – you’re aware that I made a deal with Cami to see Because I Said So when it comes out in two weeks in exchange for her seeing Pan’s Labyrinth with me this weekend. The more I think about the arrangement, the more I’ve been able to mine humor from it. All I know is that when this movie finally comes to theaters and we go see it, it can’t possibly live up the level of awefullness that I’ve made it out to be. It’ll probably end up being a really good move and I’ll be eating crow. But that’s cool. It’s all entertainment.
Cami and I saw Pan’s Labyrinth on Saturday and I think I’m still processing it. The movie certainly as fanciful as I had hoped. There is a certain level of harsh contrast set against the Spanish civil war. But, in terms of it being an effective fairly tale, I think it accomplishes it’s goals. Frankly, when you compare what Guillermo del Toro has created against many other popular fables, the level of violence is appropriate. I mean, Hansel and Gretel are nearly cooked alive! Pretty scary stuff when you’re five years-old. That said, I don’t think your average five year-old can appreciate some of the political and societal references made in the movie, so it’s very much a fairy tale for adults.
I read a review that complained that the movie spends a little too much time focusing on the villain and finding ways to punish him rather than focusing on the small girl for whom the fantasy realm reveals itself to. I have to agree a little bit. Mostly because there is only so much cruelty that can be shoved in my face before I have to step back and say “Alright! We get it! He’s not a nice guy!”
Of course, I’ve also read reviews that have said the villain is supposed to be a representation of director Guillermo del Toro’s brutal relationship with his father. So, within that context, it makes a little more sense.
Cami enjoyed the movie and recognized it as fine film making, but noted that it doesn’t leave you with much of a warm fuzzy feeling. And, in that sense, the movie oversells itself. The wonderment. It comes in small doses. The rest is fairly tough to digest. Still good work all around.
If you’re interested, we’ll be talking about Pan’s Labyrinth tonight at 9:00 pm CST in the third installment of The Triple Feature talkcast at Talkshoe. By “we,” of course, I refer to myself, Joe Dunn and Gordon McAlpin. We’ll also be talking about the announcement that the MPAA has been hosting open discussions with filmmakers at Sundance this weekend about revising the ratings system. This is a monumental change. There hasn’t been a change in MPAA policy in the organization’s 40 years in existence.
I hope you guys join us this evening. Joe, Gordon and myself have been having a lot of fun putting these shows together.
[ No Comments ]
When I came up with the joke for today’s comic, I thought it one of the most clever things I’d ever written. But I think something got lost in translation because I’m not sure I executed it at the level I was imagining it. I feel like I’m trying to find my sea legs after spending so much time on the Shia LaBeouf arc.
I saw Beowulf over the weekend and liked it. I’m kind of surprised at some of the reactions I’ve been reading online. Some people like and and some people really hate it. I have to admit that there is some pretty bad dialogue in the film and there are some shades of “THIS! IS! SPARTA!” in the delivery. But for the most, part I give it a pass simply because it kind of makes sense that people in the middle ages would kind of talk like idiots, right?
I saw the movie in Digital 3D which I wasn’t aware was even an option until a few hours before I went to see the film. I haven’t seen a 3D movie in years, so it was a real treat. The effects weren’t all that obnoxious, but there were a few you could tell were thrown in to tweak the audience. Obviously I don’t have the basis for comparison seeing it in a “standard” format, but I felt watching it in 3D really put me closer to the action and I felt like I was able to pick up much more detail in the animation that I wouldn’t have been able to otherwise.
There’s lots I want to talk about with this film. Everything from the story to the performances to the rotoscoping technology behind the animation. But I’m sitting on my comments. Part of me wants to write a complete review for tomorrow and the other part knows that we’re probably going to talk this one to death on The Triple Feature tonight.
I guess if I was going to encapsulate Beowulf in a sound bite, I would say that my expectations were really low for the film because I was kind of offended by the concept that this motion capture stuff could be considered animation. I’m a traditionalist in that regard and part of me thinks that what Robert Zemekis is doing is a shortcut in the process.
On the other hand, I didn’t want to cast myself as a Luddite and as an animation fan in general, I owed it to myself to investigate this new technology.
The animation has problems, but you can tell they’ve made huge leaps forward since The Polar Express and now I’m kind of interested to see what’s next. My expectations were low and I think that’s why I ended up enjoying the film as much as I did.
Be sure to listen to The Triple Feature podcast tonight at 9:00 PM CST over at TalkShoe.com. I think all three of us have seen the film, so I’m sure there’s going to be a lot of crossfire. More than likely you’ll hear something you can attach yourself to, so check it out!
That’s it for now. See you tomorrow!
[ 2 Comments ]
I can’t tell you how long I agonized over how to write this strip. I think I came up with 5 or 6 different treatments and felt like the “silly name” approach was the least complicated. For example, I read a review for Quantum of Solace that said it had another parkour chase sequence similar to what was in Casino Royale and I was trying to find a way to make a joke out of that. No dice.
So I ended up racking my brain trying to come up with a Bond parody title that wasn’t a direct reference to either Quantum of Solace or any other Bond film like Dr. No or Goldfinger. It was really hard, for some reason. I was bugging Cami about it. I even turned to the people following me on Twitter. At one point Cami said “You’re putting WAY too much thought into this” and she was right. But my mind was on a loop and I couldn’t get out.
This is where it would be extremely advantageous to be part of some kind of comedy-writing team. You could take a completely terrible idea and bounce it off of others until it became completely medicore idea. Hey, it works on MadTV.
I made a joke about Quantum of Solace earlier in the year and really wanted to use the line “it sounds like a math problem again” because, to me, it really sounds like one. But I’ll make due with an Ignar Bergman reference instead.
The title really isn’t a sticking point for me, though. It’s just the most obvious thing to make fun of without having actually seen the movie. First appearances count for a lot, do they not?
For what it’s worth Quantum of Solace was a title that Bond creator Ian Fleming used for a short story that was part of a collection of short stories titled under For Your Eyes Only. Of course, people recognize the title of For Your Eyes Only as that of the 1981 movie starring Roger Moore. The point is that Quantum of Solace wasn’t plucked out of thin air during some marketing meeting, but is actually a throwback to the original Fleming stories as a means to honor the franchise in a similar manner to Casino Royale in 2005.
I think that’s a good thing. Obviously stripping things down worked for them in Casino Royale. I’ve read in reviews that Quantum of Solace literally picks up right were Casino Royale left off. So they’re not taking any chances with the franchise flying off in another direction.
But, at the same time, I kind of miss the tongue-in-cheek randiness of the Roger Moore era. I mean, Octopussy is actually a very terrible title, but it’s also very evocative. Not so grim and serious. I guess I just find it interesting how Bond continues to reflect the tone of society throughout the years. Daniel Craig’s version is much more angry and self-destructive. I’ve read a few articles that explore that as well as the wider phenomenon in modern action movie that don’t project the ideal of physical strength and brutality like they did in the 80’s. But, instead, reflect the inner torment of driven individuals. The next great war will be one of the mind. How does Bond – a relic of the Cold War – fit into that New World Order? Easy. Make him Jason Bourne.
Ooo! Snap! I WENT there!
Anyway, that’s it for me. Just wanted to encourage you guys to check out Monday’s recording of The Triple Feature. We talked about Role Models, JCVD and Kung-Fu Panda (now out on DVD) and I thought we put together a really good show. Lively discussion and hit on some great topics. Had a blast recording it and I really want you guys to check it out. You can subscribe to the podcast through iTunes as well, if you’re interested. But if you haven’t listened before, give it a try!
Later!
[ No Comments ]
Jennifer’s Body comes out today and it is Diablo Cody’s follow up to 2007’s indie sensation Juno.
Everything I’ve read about the movie insists that it’s some kind of horror/comedy. But the advertisements for this film leave me with the impression that it’s not very effective in either genre.
It doesn’t help that Diablo Cody’s “too clever by half” reputation as a screenwriter kind of labeled her a one-hit wonder after Juno. Personally, I’m kind of on the fence in regard to how she writes dialogue.
For as many things as Juno gets right, there is no teenager on Earth that would use the phrase “Honest to blog.” That kind of ridiculous phrasing sounds like something an ad executive would come up with for a McDonald’s commercial in an effort to sound hip.
Limp-noodle catchphrases aside, the biggest strike against this film for me is Megan Fox. I’ve never liked her. I didn’t like her in either of the Transformers movies and she has an incredible knack for saying some of the most stupid things in public. She comes off as shallow and self-centered in interviews, she cakes on more makeup than Charro and she does that parting of the mouth thing that makes her look like a porn star.
I know if you’re a 15 year-old boy, you don’t care about any of these things because she’s hot, right? But take it from me – she’s not attractive. I’m talking about more than the superficial exterior.
I just get a bad vibe from her. All she has going for her are her looks – which I find harsh to begin with. Once those fade (along with the most ridiculous tattoos I’ve ever seen), what’s left? Where’s her substance? She seems completely humorless and – worst of all – lacking in intellectual curiosity. She has nothing of value to say. Nothing artistic to contribute. In other words, she’s boring.
So go ahead, Megan. Vamp it up in Jennifer’s Body. Because by the time you turn 25, it’s all going to be over.
QUICK REMINDER: The Theater Hopper Fire Sale is still going on in the store and I’ve posted a little reminder at the top of the page so you don’t forget that prices go back to normal at midnight, Sunday, September 18.
If you want to buy a shirt for $7.99, now is the time to do it. And if you want to pre-order Theater Hopper: Year Three, this is the last time you’re ever going to see a deal like this.
Sales have been good, but I would like to finish strong. So be sure to tell everyone you know about the big sale. Talk about it on Twitter or Facebook. Help me spread the word. Funds raised from this sale will go toward the production of pre-order Theater Hopper: Year Three and I need every dime I can scrape together.
Many thanks to those of you who have lent your support and taken advantage of these great deals. I sincerely appreciate it!
In the meantime, are you planning on seeing Jennifer’s Body this weekend? What’s your motivation? Diablo Cody’s script? Megan Fox’s assets? Are you some kind of horror junkie? What’s the appeal?
If you’re not going, why are you staying away? Is there something else coming out this weekend that looks better to you or are you a contentious Megan Fox objector like myself?
Leave your comments below and have a great weekend!
[ 41 Comments ]
I had a difficult time writing today’s comic because the joke is kind of crass and I kept trying to censor myself as I was constructing it. That’s a lose-lose situation every time. So I decided to just kind of go for it.
I prefer to think of Theater Hopper is a family friendly comic. But sometimes, you just have to throw caution to the wind.
I don’t know if this joke is particularly funny, but an imaginary sexual euphemism was the first thing that came to mind when I was thinking about How To Train Your Dragon.
I actually got a chance to see the movie on Saturday and I’m surprised how much I liked. Or, rather, I’m surprised how much my enjoyment of the film mirrored critical and fan response leading up to the release.
In the few days before Friday and on Friday itself, I was seeing all kinds of effusive praise for the film and thought it was almost going over the top. I was skeptical that if the film was the first moderately good film of the year that people were going overboard heaping praise on it just so they would have something to talk about.
Well, it turns out the praise is justified. The movie is spectacular. Even if the film lacks some of the wit and heart of your average Pixar film, Dreamworks was finally able to put the cap on the annoying pop culture references they’ve been making since the first Shrek movie.
And while the film’s story of an outsider who finds acceptance (and his reticent Daddy issues) won’t win points for originality, you never really notice the tropes as you’re watching the film. The plot moves briskly, explains it’s rules succinctly and never treats the audience like idiots. Kind of a tall order for what is otherwise a kids film.
At the insistence of others, I watched How To Train Your Dragon in 3D and I strongly recommend you do, too. The flying scenes alone are a wonder to behold. Talking with my friend Joe Dunn from Joe Loves Crappy Movies, he said “It does for flying sequences what Iron Man did. It’s almost becoming its own genre.” He couldn’t be more right.
Bottom line, the movie looks fantastic. And I’m not talking about the computer animated bells and whistles. I’m talking about the cinematography, the lighting.
It should look good. Directors Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders hired Roger Deakins to make sure the film looked top notch in this department. You may not know it, but you’ve seen Deakins work before. He performed the same role for Pixar’s Wall-E.
If I could make one complaint about the film, it would have to be the voice casting. Jay Baruchel can sometimes come off a little too nasal and whiny. Kind of like Woody Allen’s grandson snuck into a Viking village.
Similarly out of place are Gerard Butler and Craig Ferguson as tribal leaders. Their thick, Scottish brogue’s on full display in a Scandinavian village. If I were Nordic, I’d be kind of peeved. What? They couldn’t at least cast Stellan Skarsgård?
I was also very distracted by the inclusion of America Ferrera, Jonah Hill, Christopher Mintz-Plasse and Kristen Wiig as Baruchel’s friends in “dragon training.” Every time I heard their characters speak, I was distracted by trying to figure out where I had heard their voices before.
Hill’s character in particular, Snotlout, threw me because he looked like he was modeled after Jack Black. I kept expecting the character to break into song and over-enunciate his consonants at any minute.
But these are minor distractions, really. For the one or two things the movie gets wrong, it gets four or five things really, really right.
The dragon referenced in the title – a “Black Fury” Baruchel names Toothless – is an excellent reflection of the animators skill of showing without telling. Toothless does not speak, but we know exactly what he’s thinking throughout the entire course of the movie. His facial expressions flow effortlessly between snarling distrust to wide-eyed playfulness. His body language is equal parts dog, cat and jet-black gila monster.
How To Train Your Dragon does an excellent job of accessing that part of your childhood that fantasizes about dragons all day. The part that doodles them on a sheet of paper when you get distracted. It is an immensely enjoyable film and if you don’t leave the theater wanting a dragon of your own by the end of it, then you must be one of those people who likes unicorns. If that’s the case, then I don’t know how to save you.
If you saw How To Train Your Dragon this weekend, feel free to leave your comments below. Let’s talk about it, shall we?
[ 24 Comments ]
Quick bit of business to take care of this morning and then I can tell you the story behind today’s comic.
Remember my Captain America comic last week? I talked about having an alternative punchline in my back pocket and talked about producing a second comic for it?
Well, I was getting ready for Wizard World Chicago last week, so it kind of got away from me. But yesterday evening I had a little extra time to throw something together. So here you go! Check it out and enjoy!
I’m actually kind of shocked that I was able to produce that comic along with today’s comic. I don’t know if in 9 years I’ve ever done two comics on the same day or not.
That’s something to take note of… on Friday, August 5, Theater Hopper will celebrate it’s 9th anniversary. That’s nuts! 9 years? I’ve had this comic longer than any FULL TIME job I’ve ever had.
Kind of says a lot about my generation, doesn’t it?
I don’t know if I have anything special planned to mark the celebration other than I have a script for Cowboys and Aliens kicking around in my head that I would like to get to before it becomes untimely. Considering James Bond and Han Solo broke even with The Smurfs this weekend, I don’t know that it’s going to be around much longer. I haven’t heard very much in terms of word-of-mouth.
One movie I DID see this weekend was Crazy Stupid Love. And the exchange in today’s comic was 100% for real. That’s right. I actually walked up to the ticket booth and asked for two tickets for “Crazy SEXY Love.” Which, when you think about it, kind of sounds like a 1960’s comedy starring Michael Caine.
However, unlike Comic Tom who knew he tripped up and tried to correct himself, I stood in front of the box office confident that “Crazy SEXY Love” was the correct title of the movie. I had to wait for the attendant to correct me. Not embarrassing at all!
Tickets retrieved, Cami threw me a wink and asked me what I was thinking about and – at that point – I figured it was best just to own it.
100% verbatim, folks! Sometimes these things just write themselves!
So… how was the movie? I had several people ask me that question after I tweeted “Am I the only dude here?” shortly before the movie started.
I can tell you this: Crazy Stupid Love certainly has a lot on its mind for the first two act. It’s juggling a lot of characters and has a lot to say about the nature of relationships. Everything from one-night-stands to high school sweethearts with long-term relationships.
As someone who married his high school sweetheart, the movie really spoke to me and gave me an interesting outside perspective from a couple maybe 10 years ahead of us.
I’m not saying Cami and I are anything like the couple played by Steve Carrel and Julianne Moore. I’m just saying that when it comes two couples who kind of started out at the same place, it’s interesting to compare and contrast where things might diverge.
I’m not explaining that very well, so I’ll drop it.
I can say definitively that Ryan Gosling walks away with this movie. A very tight, controlled performance of a character that is by his nature a very loose and improvisational. Watching him on screen, I became convinced of two things: 1.) I need to start lifting weights and 2.) I need to find a reputable tailor.
For some additional insights about Gosling’s performance, read Owen Gleiberman’s article over at Entertainment Weekly. He pretty much hits it right on the head.
Gosling’s scenes with Emma Stone’s are some of the movie’s best and I wish they spent more time exploring their relationship rather than hopping around from couple to couple. I found Gosling and Stone to be very relaxed and authentic around each other and it was a joy to watch.
This said, I will confess that the movie completely falls apart for me in the third act. There’s a dramatic shift in tone near the end and the movie practically becomes an outright farce. Coupled with some truly befuddling choices that force the characters to behave in a manner that no human being would actually behave… well, it left me a little cold.
The film salvages itself slightly in the final scene. But most of that third act is a real dog and borderline insulting considering how much I had invested in the characters up to that point.
I will say that Cami loved the movie outright. Considering I loved roughly 2/3rds of the movie, I still think it’s probably worth your time to check out. Despite its flaws, Crazy Stupid Love feels like the first “adult” movie I’ve seen in ages. It’s certainly the most adult film so far this summer.
Your mileage may vary, of course. Part of me kind of wonders if you have to recognize something in the relationships depicted in the film to get the most out of it. Married 10 years, a father of two, I’m certainly in a different place with my relationship than, say, someone in their 20’s is. But maybe there’s a little something for everyone here.
As long as you have your radar up for the curve ball in the third act, you’ll probably be fine.
Did anyone else see Crazy Stupid Love this weekend? What were your thoughts? Leave your comments below!
[ 10 Comments ]
