Today in fictional murder sprees:

So at 439 kills across four movies, Wick
more than doubles history's worst serial killer.
Which is weird, because he's the good guy?

So I kind of liked John Wick. I mean, as a movie. It was mind-numbingly violent and while puppies are inarguably adorable, and the Russian mob as portrayed in the film--and probably in real life--is monstrous, but killing seventy-seven people is well beyond a proportional response and puts it firmly into war crime territory. And while I've never really bought the idea that movie violence breeds real-life violence, that it sells the way it does is, I don't know, unsettling? But again, despite my qualms about all the murder, I thought it was a good movie.

I mean, at this point, just call it Fast & Furious:
Narratively Linked Content and be done with it.

But then there was another movie. And then another movie. And then--wait for it--another movie. There's also a spin-off series called The Continental, and oh, another movie. This one is also a spin-off and it will be entitled John Wick Presents: Ballerina. Which is both a lazy, and a clumsy way of making sure you know that it's connected to the series, but isn't a direct sequel. Sort of like that time Fast Ampersand Furious Presented some other movie.

"Must...voice...unqualified opinion..."

-me, evidently

I mention all this because there's another, other movie in the Wickiverse just announced today. This one starring Donnie Yen as his character from JW4 (which is what all the kids call John Wick 4*). And no, I've not seen JW4, or JW3 for that matter. Or the TV show. And I don't really have any interest in the movies themselves, I'm just having opinions about things I have no connection to because the internet exists and I find myself thinking about the stupefying proliferations of various CU's. That's cinematic universes I'm acronyming there.

An era inn which everything was in
black and white, and Glenn Miller's
In the Mood played on a constant loop.

This phenomenon wherein all visual narrative media (is that a thing?) has some connection to some other, previously successful piece of visual narrative media. And we as consumers (a term I hate), now use phrases like IP's and Franchises like we're marketing people or something. I think it's generally accepted that this is all Kevin Feige's fault. He didn't invent the idea, like, Universal Studios was doing this back in the days of war bonds and fedoras with their monster movies, but he did, you know, steal it and use it to make twenty eight billion--with a b--dollars. Yes, of money. Can you believe it?

Yup, it takes a real visionary to take a thing someone else did before and apply it to other people's creative works. 

Movie executives are like remora, except the sharks are grossly underpaid.

Pictured: the role Sir Keanu
Reeves was knighted for (source?).

But then I guess that's just business which I suppose is what I'm talking about. Like, we don't need another John Wick. That's not a knock on the movie or the writer and it's certainly not me ragging on Keanu Reeves who, by all account, is the single nicest human being who has ever lived and truly shined in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. But it is an observation--and not an original one--that popular entertainment is, or at least feels (I don't have statistics or anything), more driven by financial factors than creative ones. 

There're not four or five John Wick sequels, or half a dozen new Star Trek and Star Wars streaming shows, or another season of whatever because these are stories that must be told. They exist because an algorithm told the marketing people: "thing=money, so more thing=more money." Is this a bummer or just an it is what is it thing and I should just up and binge X-Men '97?

A secret, unseen world that coexists with our mundane reality and has its own rules,
terminology, and even currency? Is John Wick just Harry Potter with assassins?

*no it's not.

Nobody asked you JK, nobody asked you.

Before moving on to exclusively hate-
filled tweets, Rowling previously
wrote children's fantasy novels. 

Recently, noted transphobic shitshow, and self-appointed arbiter of everyone else's genitals, JK Rowling decided to lay into the manager (that's British for coach, I think. I'm not sure, I didn't really watch Ted Lasso) of the Sutton United women's football (that's soccer to those of us who call lifts elevators and live with crushing medical debt) club (team? It's both British and sports-related so cut me some slack) in Britain for daring to be trans. And, I mean that's whatever. Of course she did. 

What exactly did she say? Doesn't matter. It was mean-spirited and she sucks. What I do want to talk about is these headlines:

I remember when a Double Down was a
sandwich with chicken in place of bread and
not a phrase meaning "leaning into vitriol."

"JK Rowling row continues after she doubles down on mocking trans football manager Lucy Clark"

-The Hindustan Times

"JK Rowling is accused of cruelty as she mocks transgender football manager by comparing her to a 'straight, white, middle-aged bloke"

-Daily Mail

To be clear, even Elon Musk thinks she's gone
off the rails. And he came up with Cybertruck.

"JK Rowling accused of bullying transgender women's football manager"

-The Telegraph

Notice anything about them? That maybe they all, in general, frame the party who starts tweeting hateful nonsense at a complete stranger as being the aggressor and in the wrong?

I ask because this is the Fox News take of the story:

Suddenly Fox News cares about soccer?

Pictured: Lucy Clark, football managing.
Not pictured: Literally anyone asking
JK Rowling what she thinks about it.

JK Rowling leads criticism? Wow, not all heroes wear capes I guess. This kind of makes it sound like the celebrating of Lucy Clark's position as manager warranted not only comment but criticism and only JK Rowling was brave enough to look at something that was in no way her business, or really anyone's business but Lucy Clark and I guess her boss, and give her take. Her unprovoked, shitty take that basically took the form of a funny funny joke about how trans women are just dudes.

"More on the woke agenda turning your
kids gay after these commercials for gold."

-Fox

Beneath the headline is a subheading reading "Lucy Clark, who manages Sutton United, fired back on X." Like this is a dispute or a debate when really Rowling just started tweeting at this woman. It's almost like Fox News deliberately tailors their headlines to appeal to a particular type of person who feels threatened by change and by the increasing visibility of people different from them. And just reassures them and reinforces their worldview instead of asking them to think critically or question their values.

Now, I know what you're thinking, is this--huh? No, it's a figure of speech, I have no idea what you're thinking. Although, you might be wondering if the other news outlets quoted above are editorializing when approach the headline from the position that Rowling is out-of-line in making her comment? Maybe? I don't know. But I don't think so. You wouldn't describe an armed robbery with a headline like: Mugger liberates wallet as random passerby walks down the street. Unless you were like, pro-mugger, so...

Although, in a sense, Fox News kind of is pro-mugger.

Always read the room, specifically the floor.

Did you know why you shouldn't walk past the line on a bowling lane? I didn't. I'm a forty--cough--something year-old adult, and until yesterday, I didn't know this.

"Yeah, we knew."

-everyone in the world, evidently

Why anyone would willingly agree to
not only watch, but entertain fifteen kids
that aren't even theirs is beyond me.

I was attending a friend's child's sixth birthday party at the bowling alley/family fun center and--huh? Yes, I did a sport yesterday. I even knocked down most of the pins each, uh turn? Period? Whatever a bowling match is divided up into. Let's say quarter. Doesn't matter, the point is I acquitted myself quite well and ate three entire slices of pizza I knew to be terrible and yet kept coming back for more. Anyway, back to my humiliating discovery of a fact that literally everyone in the world knew but me. 

No, I don't know how much they make,
but it's a safe bet they're underpaid.

So we're bowling, when one of the kids--I don't know who's, kids all look alike--anyway, one of the kids got their ball stuck in the gutter. The bowling alley has these automated bumpers that can be deployed to eliminate the frustration and entire point of the game, and this particular number was damaged and causing the bowling ball to get stuck. We kept having to call the underpaid bowling alley attendant whose job it was to retrieve it and I felt badly for them and took matters into my own hands. "I'll get it!" I said, heroically striding up to the stricken bowling ball.

Above: some dumb idiot haplessly
attempting to cross into the forbidden zone.

To be clear, on the floor there is a line that separates the place where one approaches the lane and the lane itself. It's known as the foul line, and beyond it is a forbidden zone where none may tread for fear of incurring a penalty. There is even a warning not to do so, but there was this kid whose bowling ball was helplessly stuck in limbo so I figured I could just grab it and we could all resume the game. I figured it was just against the rules of the game to cross that line, I didn't realize there was an actual slip hazard.

Pictured: me, yesterday.

Interestingly and in the defense of the bowling alley proprietors, the aforementioned warning reads: SLIP HAZARD--DO NOT CROSS THE FOUL LINE. Ok, what followed may have been at least partially on me. Upon crossing into the zone and triggering an unimpressive alarm buzzer, I, as the kids might say, wiped out. My feet flew out from under me and I comically sailed into the air. Like Icarus I had flown too close to the sun and for my hubris was pushed. Mine was a humiliating prat fall, which, to the credit to those around me, was met with concern and not the peels of laughter such as I deserved, but for real. 

Fortunately, the only thing injured was my pride, and possibly my ulna, we're still waiting for the x-ray.* I tell you this not to illicit your sympathy, nor to amuse, but to urge you to heed warnings you read on the floor of bowling alleys. 

How could I possibly known?

*I'm just kid, I kid. This is America, I can't afford an X-ray.

Welcome to Lassie Lunch

I ask you, what even is this? What's what, you might reasonably reply? Why this:

"Wait, what? Is Jesus about to make out with that Scottish woman?"

-everybody

To be clear, Amazon is garbage and 
I used a private window to cover my tracks.

Ok, well obviously it's The Lassie Eunuchi by Laurie Perkins, but more to the point, why is it? And furthermore, is this even real? Because I have my doubts. The subtitle "The Savior's Love Story" sums it up nicely, as this is--and I'm quoting the Amazon description here--"...a uniquely tender love story about a beautiful, yet resilient, woman who marries The Saviour, even [sic] Jesus Christ." Even Jesus Christ? What does that mean? It's...just tip of the iceberg...a weird, possibly fake iceberg. 

Typos are the least weird thing about this, although check this description out from the book's website, exactly as it appears:

You all know the renown hero Jesus, right? 
He's famous for protecting the woman He loves?

"Rightly so, the literary world is inundated with famed story lines disclosing the struggles between the forces of good and evil. In the fictional novel. "The Lassie Eunuch". the antagonist is none other than Lucifer, himself, the Master of Darkness! Lord Jesus is the renown Hero! He must do what He does best. He must protect, restore, redeem the woman He loves."

-actual quote, presumably from someone 

who stared into the abyss too long

Above: some of Jesus's wives.

That's from www.thelassieeunuch.com although the title tag reads "welcome to lassie lunch" which is bananas, but only slightly more bananas than the actual title: The Lassie Eunuch. Speaking of, who's the eunuch in this equation? What is a renown hero? And how does one use a comma anyway? There're no rules, right? You can just throw one anywhere? And I'm no theologian, but isn't Jesus famously single? Except of course when it comes to nuns who are all married to him. Or Him, I guess. Look, like I said, I'm no theologian.

Pictured: Lylyana, a person who exists and
who wrote a review that isn't at all fake.

The whole thing sounds a little, I don't know, blasphemous? Which is weird because author Laurie Perkins describes herself as religious in the "about the author" page of the site. But whatever, let's see what the reviews say, and again, these are taken directly from the website. Specifically from the "Our Satisfied Readers" section. According to Randy, who is definitely real: Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet..." While Lylyana raves "Ut enim ad minim veniam."  

So between the Lorem Ipsum reviews, the befuddling grammatical errors, and the ludicrous premise of the book, I'm beginning to suspect we've been had. Is the book real? Is Laurie Perkins real? Is this whole thing just AI nonsense? And not even like, good AI. AI that, when assigned the admittedly difficult task of writing copy, took a Burger King ad, replaced "all-beef patty" with "books" and "grilled" with "written" and called it a day. 

Personally, I only read books that have been written to perfection.

Today in staying the course:

Ideally, companies prefer earnings to go up.

(source: business)

You might not know this about me, but I am not a movie executive, nor do I know anything about movie executive-ing...executing? No, that sounds like you murder movies. Whatever the verb is, I don't know thing one, but I did feel somewhat smart today when the news came that Disney CEO Bob Iger announced that going forward the company would limit itself to a maximum of three new Marvel movies and two new Marvel TV shows per year. This comes as their quarterly earnings report showed a decline.

Who are these people and what are they
doing? I have no idea, and I watched
a whole ass movie about them.

Hey, get me. Did it sound like I knew what I was talking about? Largely I didn't, but what I do know is that many of the recent Marvel movies have been pretty forgettable, and this might have something to do with the sheer volume of entires that they've been cranking out. I mean, I thought I was just being sophisticated and snobby when I rolled my eyes at Endgame, yawned my way the third Guardians, and straight-up skipped the last two Ant-Mans. Ants Men? But there are two things I still don't get.

One, they already do three Marvel movies per year. Like, since the first one, Iron Man, there've been about three per year, so in many ways this new plan to stave off the general fatigue audiences feel, sounds a lot like the old plan to put out as much CGI nonsense as possible and hope we just get numb to it. 

Pictured: CGI nonsense. For real, I mean, what's even happening here?

No, we haven't yet. I see some room in the back.

But secondarily, how come it took them this long to catch on? Of course three movies in the same series is too--huh? Yes, I said series. I don't read Variety, and normal people don't say use words like franchise, or content, or IP's in normal conversation. Wait, where was I? Oh, right, over saturation. It's a thing. See? I do know business words. There have been thirty-three movies in the series since 2008. That's bonkers. We could fill the oceans with the Blu-rays of these movies. It's just too much, and without getting too critical, the quality kind of suffers, you know?

Also, how come it took them this
long to X-men? I mean, seriously. 

And look, I don't want to back in my day this, but back in my day you had to wait for things. There were fully three years between Batman and Batman Returns (the best Batman--fight me). Fourteen between The Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace. It was interminable, sure, but it made a new installment in a series feel, you know, special? There's just something disposable about these movies. Don't get me wrong, they've got my twelve dollars for Deadpool & Wolverine, I am a huge hypocrite. 

But are we saying that it took Disney this long to figure out that it was time to slow down with these things? And that they need to pay Bob Iger thirty-one million dollars a year to come up with a plan to scale back his studio's output? And also that that plan is to keep making three movies per year, which was kind of the problem in the first place?

I know literally every nerdy, cis white dude thinks he knows better
than the people who actually run movie studios, but I mean...do I?