The Conspiracy Is Afoot

My Fellow Internet Blogging People: The most annoying thing about the Internet is once someone does something -- like, say, a list -- then everyone else has to bitch and moan and make up their own something -- like, say again, a list -- too.

Of course, there was the New Yorker's list, followed up yesterday by Dzanc's list (and let's not mention the pure marketing genius of announcing their huge sale right around the time this list came out), and I noticed something very alarming in both of the lists, something that is almost too shocking to even share but which I feel I must because for lists such as these to exist and gain respectability and, perhaps, legend, they must be well thought out and diverse and yadda yadda yadda, and the most disturbing thing I found from both lists is that -- ready for this? -- there are no Roberts included anywhere.

Yes, yes, it's true. See for yourself. Check the New Yorker's list again, and then Dzanc's list. No Roberts at all. But that, you may think, is not a big deal. Robert isn't a very common name. To which I say, all right, then how do you explain this extra layer? There are no first names that start with R! None at all! Don't you see? The New Yorker and Dzanc aren't just trying to box Roberts out of the glory of being on lists, but also anyone whose first names start with R! Obviously, they didn't want to tip everyone off to this massively global conspiracy just yet, which is why the New Yorker included Karen Russell, because at least her last name starts with R.

Isn't it clear now? Isn't it obvious? The New Yorker and Dzanc and everyone else involved is for some reason trying to wipe out writers whose first and last names start with R. It's not just Roberts. I don't know what it is they find morally objectionable about writers whose first and last names start with R, but this is a very slippery slope. If we let these lists continue, at some point the letter R will disappear in the middle of names too. Who knows, maybe their whole plan is to sta t wiping out the lette  f om the enti e wo ld! Somebody  eally needs to stop these i  esponsible hooligans now!

Thank you for you  time.

Since ely,

obe t Swa twood

P.S. Today's post b ought to you by the lette P.

The Last Great Cartoons

On Monday my wife and I went with a friend to see Toy Story 3. It was a great movie, just as good as the other two (it's impossible to pick a favorite, as they're all great, which says a lot as usually sequels suck), and I will admit, I got a little teary-eyed at the end. See, the first Toy Story came out when I was in the 8th grade. Toy Story 2 came out right before I graduated high school. In a sense, I grew up with those characters ... though that doesn't necessarily excuse the tearing up. Hell, I teared up at the end of The Iron Giant. I even teared up at at first ten minutes of the newest Star Trek. I mean, if you didn't find the scene where George Kirk listens to his baby being born seconds before he dies, then you're a robot (and no, I didn't ruin anything in case you haven't seen the movie yet; it all happens in the first couple minutes).

But anyway, seeing the movie made me think about the movies I saw when I was a kid, namely the cartoons, and how back in the day Disney used to make some really great movies. Classics like The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King come to mind, mostly because they came out when I was a kid. Jeez, I'll even include the Duck Tales movie and The Rescuers Down Under, and pretty much anything that Disney made before, oh, 2000 or so. From there it always seemed like the Disney movies went downhill. The quality just wasn't there anymore. No longer were those movies events to go to, but just movies, a way to waste an hour and a half. Movies that you saw and then forget the next week.

Or am I wrong? Obviously I'm older now, and maybe can't enjoy some of the cartoons for what they are, but it just seems like nowadays Disney and other movie houses making cartoons try to dumb down the films as much as possible. They want to please everyone, be as politically correct as they can, so nobody -- nobody -- gets offended. And in doing so, they sacrifice the chance to make great stuff like they used to. Which is odd, because I don't remember that much offensive stuff in those early Disney movies, though I do fondly remember those rumors about the subliminal messages throughout some of the cartoons.

Anyway, what made me think about all this? Because the attached trailer on Toy Story 3 is for a movie called Tangled, which is about Rapunzel, and while it might be a good movie, the trailer I saw just seemed to lack that spirit the cartoons made twenty years ago had. Plus, it's in 3-D. Of course it's in 3-D! Everything just has to be in 3-D now, doesn't it?

So ... maybe I'm not being fair. You tell me. Is it a generational thing? If I were growing up now, would I think these Disney cartoons like Home on the Range and Meet the Robinsons and Bolt would be instant classics? If I'd grown up fifty years ago, would I think less of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King?

Oh, and Toy Story 3? You better believe we saw it in 2-D.

We All Go A Little Mad Sometimes

Gus Van Sant's 1998 remake of Psycho was an interesting experiment that failed, despite being a reverent, shot-for-shot remake. The reason was simple: It's impossible for us to be that shocked, surprised and horrified a second time. Not just because we know what's coming, but because we can't forget what we know and imagine what moviegoing was like before 'Psycho' changed the rules. We live in the world 'Psycho' made, and we can't go back.

I'm not a big fan of remakes. Occasionally you'll get a decent remake, but most times you just can't beat the original ... unless the original sucked pretty bad. Of course, the reason so many remakes get done is because the studio (oftentimes) already owns the rights and hope they can capitalize on a film that had done well previously. Some movies just can't be remade, though I'm sure people have thought about it and some will try. Like Citizen Kane and Casablanca. You just can't remake those. And Psycho, you can't remake that either, right?

But they did, and I'll admit I went and saw it, though now I wonder why. I disagree with the assessment in that article that says the reason the remake bombed was because it's impossible for us to be shocked again. I think we can be shocked again. Just as long as it's done right. But a shot-for-shot remake? What's the point? The idea behind remaking movies is remaking them. Doing something different. Trying to improve upon. Otherwise if you're just going to copy exactly what was done before, but with new actors and make it in color ... that's just a waste of time. And hence, that's why I believe the Van Sant Psycho is the worst remake ever.

But whatever. Be sure to check out the article. Some really interesting fun facts. Like how Hitchcock "bought the rights to Robert Bloch's source novel on the cheap, then bought as many copies of the book as he could to keep the plot twists hidden from potential moviegoers." Hey, at least the book was selling well, right?