A hundred million disappointments!

Look, I'm not an economist or a movie industry person, but how is a hundred million dollars not a shit ton of money? Becuase Disney is reportedly disappointed that the film has only made a hundred million so far, which is like fifty million less then they'd anticipated, and sure, they probably could have taken their time and made a better movie, but they could have also had more realistic expectations.

Pictured: Disney's expectations.

What? I don't know how else
to convince you. It wasn't great.

Let me start by saying that I liked the movie. I mean, it wasn't the best Star Wars movie, but it was far from the worst. In fact, I'd say there are at least three non-animated, non-Holiday Special, not made for TV Ewok nonsense movies in the series that are objectively inferior to Solo. Ok, it wasn't the most financially successful St'Wars (it's like, an abbreve for Star Wars-no? Ok...) but how much a movie makes has little relation to how good it is...yes, that's a dig about Infinity War.

Also, it wasn't helping Solo's chances that there was a ton of negative news surrounding the troubled production. Like, the directors getting fired, the star needing an acting coach, Ron Howard having to come in and re-shoot the whole thing. It was a super-public mess so we all went in with an attitude of 'how bad can it be?'

Above: how bad it could have been.

Hollis, seen here pilloried in the town
square answered questions and endured
rotten vegetables throw by the crowd.

With that in mind, I think it was better than anyone expected and certainly better than Disney seems to think it is. Here's a statement a Disney executive released today:

"We are all over it and will spend a lot of time digging into why things happened the way they did in various markets."

-Dave Hollis, Disney President 

of Worldwide Distribution, and chief 

executive in charge of mea culpas

He went on to suggest that maybe a movie-a-year isn't the best strategy and I think he's right there. I mean, they churn out two or three Marvel movies a year, and they usually make money, but are they all great? For every Black Panther or Thor: Ragnarok isn't there an Iron Man 3 or a Captain America? They need to take a break...unless they're going to make a Lando Calrissian movie, then by all means do that, and then take a break.

My harshest criticism of Solo is that it wasn't Lando.

"Solo: It's ok. See it, don't, whatever."

-Disney's marketing people

But really, I don't think this is about Star Wars-sorry, St'Wars (yes, I'm still trying to make St'Wars happen) wearing out it's welcome yet. Again, I'm not like a business analyst or anything, but I kind of think this is on Disney's marketing people. Solo is a decent summer mindless popcorn movie and that's cool but Disney spent like months marketing it that way. They put it out there that it would be an inconsequential, one-off, stand-alone, just for fun, fill in the gaps side-story, so why get excited? Of course it's not Episode IX, but they could have made it feel a little more like something to look forward to. Instead it felt like they just chucked it out to hold us over for the next real entry in the series. And that's not how you get the nerds to bring plastic lightsabers to opening night, that's how you tell us it's ok to wait for it to come out on Netflix.

Anyway, as I've mentioned before, I don't really do movie reviews on this blog unless I want to nitpick plot holes (again: this), so I'll just say Solo was fun and you should see it if St'Wars is your thing. But go to a matinee, Disney's got enough money.

"Take that back you will. Right. Goddamn. Now."

-Disney Spokesmuppet 

Yoda, not screwing around

DnWrd SpyRyl™

Look, I don't want to be a cynic and I know that I've never come up with an idea that's changed the world or anything, but Jabbrrbox™? It's a phone booth. Like, a fancy, members only one, but it's a still phone booth. I'll explain.

I can't decide if we're coming full circle, or just
passing phone booths again on our downward spiral. 

Above: The 'Fernsprechkiosk,'
which would be the last good idea
Germany would have for a while.

I did a quick wikipedia search, which I'm pretty sure makes me an expert, and the phone booth was invented in Berlin back in the nineteenth century and was called a 'Fernsprechkiosk' because German is adorable. You payed a fee and then could talk to someone on the phone in relative quiet and privacy for an amount of time. Cool. The idea eventually caught on and phone booths were everywhere in the world for a hundred years. Like, a hundred goddamn years. And then cell phones came along and phone booths went the way of polio and civility. Sad story, march of progress, whatever. But then Brian Hackathorn™, a businessperson who found it difficult to to find a quiet place to work on business things in between business meetings in Manhattan came along and had an idea. An idea that some German had over a hundred years ago, but still, an idea.

But Hackathorn had something most people with ideas don't: access to start-up capital. Well, that and a willingness to look potential investors in the eye and sell them on bringing back phone booths.

"Wait, hang on, hear me out: it's a phone
booth, except people pay us to use it..."

-Brian Hackathorn, innovating

"Could you hurry it up? When I'm old I 
want to reminisce about how great the
50's were and you're not making it easy."

-People waiting to use the phone

Anyway, he found some partners, some airports willing to give them a try (including Laguardia), and then slapped a stupid, deliberately misspelled, trademark-able name on it and-yeah, Jabbrrbox®. Two b's, two r's. I don't care how good these people are at start-upping, you just can't do that to the english language. Anyway, in fairness it's not exactly like a phone booth, like, you have to bring your own phone so these things are more about being a temporary office with wifi. To use one you have to sign up and then schedule a chunk of time which I suppose is a little more civilized than waiting for a phone booth to free up.

"The design aesthetic we went with was:
what if you could crap in the Apple Store?"

-Jabbrrbox design team

Speaking of civilized, you're probably wondering how long one of these can be out in the wild before being used as either an impromptu sex booth or say, a toilet. Fortunately, JbbarBrx (what? it's not a real word in the first place) has an FAQ to answer these questions. According to the site, while the box can fit two people, it's not recommended. Which, I'm not hearing a hard 'no.' As for the toilet thing, Jabbadab says that the cleanliness is up to the members meaning if the one you reserved is filled with the unspeakable, they'll try and set you up in a new one. Interestingly the company doesn't seem to take any responsibility for hosing these things out should the worst happen. Huh, I guess that's LaGuardia International's janitorial staff's problem.

Yes, I know I said all mobile games are
objective garbage, and I stand by that,
but still, take a break once in awhile.

But I don't know, is it me or is there a whiff of, I don't know, twenty-first century classism that comes along with this idea? Maybe I'm just projecting my own gut reaction to any start-up with a gibberish name, but the idea that people will pay for a private space to work away from the rabble at Starbucks or whatever feels a little elitist not to mention workaholic. Sorry, I hate that term too. Like, workahol isn't a thing. But the point is can't a forty minute layover at the airport be time to catch up on some shitty Dean Koontz novel or a mobile game?

I know time is money or whatever, but we kind of live in a stressed-out, frustrated world full of divisiveness and anger where our only outlet is to be rude on Twitter. Maybe trying to cram work into every waking moment of our lives isn't necessarily the best way to cope? But I've never started a start-up, so what do I know?

"Need a quiet place to work while away from your office? Sign up
for Jabbrrbox, and work uninterrupted until the sweet release of death."

-Jabbrrbox's perhaps somewhat 

ill-advised marketing strategy

Today in respect through the threat of fines:

I only enjoy cultured, intellectual activities,
like playing video games and then blogging
 about how I think sports are lame.

As you may recall me mentioning, frequently and without provocation to anyone who will listen, I'm not in to sports. Like, at all. It's a big cultural blind spot for me, but I'm comfortable with it. That said, I have feelings about this. Yes, it's a link, and no, you don't have to click because I'm about to sum it up. That's how this works. You don't click, I pretend to grudgingly explain. It's a thing we do. Anyway, the NFL-which I understand to be some kind of football authority, has released a statement about a new policy it has adopted regarding players who kneel during the national anthem.

Huh? Yeah despite being actively disinterested in, and needless condescending about (see above), watching other people play a game, I have been following the shitstorm surrounding the question of whether or not it's appropriate to kneel during the national anthem to call attention to racial injustice.

Above: The three rich white guys the NFL decided were
the best choices to send out to talk about the new policy.

"My God, how could we have been
so stupid? Thank you Captain Kirk,
you've ended racism forever."

You probably remember back in 2016 when former San Francisco 49'ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick first decided to protest racial injustice by sitting and later kneeling during the national anthem. His protest attracted media attention and inspired other players to do likewise and the country was very quickly dived into two camps: people who supported Kaepernick's move and white people who feel threatened by the idea that maybe racism wasn't solved in 1969 when Star Trek did that episode about those aliens who were half black and half white. Yes, of course I found a way to bring Star Trek into this.

Sorry, tangent. So back to the NFL's statement :

"Well, sometimes money isn't the most
 important...sorry, I almost...it's just..."

-NFL Commissioner Roger Goodall

almost saying it with a straight face

"The efforts by many of our players sparked awareness and action around issues of social justice that must be addressed. The platform that we have created together is certainly unique in professional sports and quite likely in American business. We are honored to worth with our players to drive progress."

Cool, so the NFL is onboard with social justice. That's really surprising given how much money is on the line for what is, after all a business interest. Good for them for-oh wait, there's more:

Here's a tip, if you're on the side of
an issue that opts for clipart, then it's
probably a good time to reevaluate.

"It was unfortunate that on-field protests created a false perception among many that thousands of NFL players were unpatriotic. This was not and was never the case." 

Well, yeah, it was unfortunate, but the jackasses behind the #boycotttheNFL movement created the impression that the players were being unpatriotic. No reasonable person would suggest that protest is somehow un-American. I'm glad the NFL sees through all negative coverage and hashtags and recognizes that-

"This season, all league and team personnel shall stand and show respect for the flag and the Anthem."

Pictured: The President humping
the flag, but don't worry, it's not
disrespectful. He's white. And rich.

-um...the players who protested weren't showing disrespect, they were using their positions to draw attention to a grave issue facing our country at the risk of their livelihood. I can't think of anything more patriotic. And didn't they just say, like earlier in this statement that they 'are honored to work with our players to drive progress'? Because this sounds like the opposite of that.

"Personnel who choose not to stand for the Anthem may stay in the locker room until after the Anthem has been performed..."

Can I fine the NFL for not
respecting William Strunk?

The rest of the statement is headed by the title 'The membership also strongly believes...' but it's more of a list of rules outlining the new policy. Of the six items on the list, four of them end with the phrase 'show respect for the flag and the Anthem.' Which, first of all, you don't capitalize 'anthem.' I'm not being unpatriotic or anything, I'm just being pedantic about capitalization rules. And secondly, is it me or is it like super screwed up and, I don't know, fascist-y that they're backing up their demand for respect for the national anthem with threats of fines and punishment? Look, I'm not a lawyer or anything, but the NFL is, when you get down to it, a business. I'm not sure they're allowed to dictate how people wait out the hazily remembered lyrics to the national anthem. And again, not being unpatriotic here, just realistic. Oh, like you know all the words...

But I guess we can all take solace in the fact that players are still free to protest, just as long as it's in the locker room and nobody has to see it.

"Isn't this great hon? Football is so much more fun now that the NFL has
banned kneeling during the anthem. It's like our nation isn't even haunted by
racism, social injustice and violence! Yup, football's the best...more chips?"

Chief Godzilla Officer

"Gotcha! Had you going there for a year
and a half, didn't I? President Trump...
you should see the look on your face."

Brace yourself for probably the greatest news ever. The-huh? What's that? No...no, sorry, Hillary Clinton didn't pop into the White House briefing room, high-five Sarah Huckabee Sanders and announce that the last twenty months have been an elaborate prank and that she really is the President. So let's say what I'm about to talk about it the second greatest news ever. Still braced? There's going to be a Godzilla movie universe. The announcement comes from Keiji Ota, the Chief Godzilla officer for Toho studios, the film company that makes Godzilla movies.

Oh, and incidentally, the fact that 'Chief Godzilla officer' is a legitimate job title is the third greatest news ever. And in further incidental-ism, where was that career option on career day in grade school? Like, I would have tried in life if I knew that there was a chance that I could have an office with a door that reads 'Chief Godzilla Officer.'

"For all sad words of mouth and pen, the
saddest are these, 'It might have been."

-John Greenleaf Whittier on

this exact situation

What? I'm not saying it was a bad movie,
I'm just saying it was...yeah, it was bad.

Where was I? Right, there's going to be a ton of new Godzilla movies, possibly as many as one every year or two. It's all part of a stunningly original plan to weave a complex story over the course of multiple films which when taken together will provide audiences with a...a...wait, have they seen an actual Godzilla movie? I ask because they're not exactly full of deep plots. I'm not complaining, I love these movies, I'm just not sure it's the kind of dense narrative that would support a shared cinematic uni-oh, right, Infinity War.

As well embalmed as he must be, Tom
Cruise doesn't actually play the title role. 

Anyway, if it sounds like cinematic universes are what every movie studio in the world is doing right now, that's because they are. After Marvel made all the money in the world with the MCU, Fox jumped in with X-Men/Deadpool/Fantastic Four (no, really), Disney's got its Star Wars spin-offs, and even Universal tried to hop aboard the whatever-verse train with that one Tom Cruise meets the mummy bullshit. Didn't see it? That's ok, no-one did. I mean, no one. In the world. Anyway, the point is everything is a goddamn universe right now.

But before we all jump on Toho for bandwagoning, it's probably important to remember that they've been doing the whole shared continuity thing for like sixty years. First was all the MST3K-fodder Godzilla movies from the fifties, sixties and seventies along with standalone monsters that started in their own movies and then verse'd Godzilla, like Mothra, Rodan and even King Kong.

Above: Jessica Lange in the 1976 King Kong remake which,
think technically puts Tootsie into the Godzilla canon.

I didn't forget about this one, we're
just not going to talk about it, ok?

Then they started over with Godzilla 1985 which was a sequel to the original, but ignored the sequels. This was followed by another reboot with Godzilla 2000 which ignored all the previous movies. So that's three mainline, Toho-produced Godzilla shared universes, and that's leaving out the animated series, the later animated series, an anime series (different), the Brian Cranston one from a couple years ago that is itself the first part of a completely different Godzilla movie universe made by Legendary Pictures.

Oh, and also there was Shin Godzilla, the 2016 Japanese reboot which is reportedly not part of this new, new, new Godzilla universe. Still with me? Cool, because they didn't invent shared cinematic universes either, and even if they did, it's just meaningless branding jargon and we should all just relax.

"Bullshit: it's literally our job."

-Marketing people

Shit, did I just write Hangover 4?
Tell me I didn't write Hangover 4...

Back in the forties Dracula was crossing over with the Wolfman who in turn was crossing over with Frankenstein. Then Abbott and Costello got involved which is weird, because those were legit horror movies and they did a comedy mash-up with the 'Who's on First?' guys. I don't know if there's perfect 21st century equivalent, but I think it's a little like if the characters from The Hangover were human centipede'd and then stuck in the room from Saw with the ghost from The Ring.

Anytime characters crossover from one thing to another, it becomes a kind of shared universe, doesn't it? Scooby-Doo used to hang around with Batman, but do we really need to construct a universe about it? The point is I am super-thrilled that there's going to be more Godzilla movies, and monster team-ups and crossovers with King Kong and Mothra. But for real, this is not a new idea.

"Good work kids. Thanks to you, the families of the many, many
people the Joker has brutaly murdered can finally get some closure."

-Batman, on one of his tonally

inappropriate crossovers

Silt crazy after all these years...

Rivers, my old foe...we meet again.

Is it me, or is the political situation getting increasingly hopeless? I ask because I just read this story about how Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama in a congressional hearing about climate change argued with a scientist, an actual scientist about the cause of sea level change (here at around the hour and twenty-four mark). According to Brooks, it's not that human industrial activity is increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere leading to higher temperatures which then melt polar ice and raise the sea levels. It's rivers.

Finally...

Rivers wash silt into the ocean displacing the water and causing the terrifying increase in sea levels that will soon inundate our coastal cities. Well, I say thank God. We almost had to re-evaluate our impact on the environment and take responsibility for the state we leave it in for future generations, but rivers? We can't control rivers, and that means we're off the hook. In fact, since climate change is out of our hands, we should just go ahead and roll back whatever environmental regulations we have left, right?

Yes, rivers. Of course! It's been rivers all along and-wait a minute...that doesn't sound right. It kind of sounds like...what's the phrase? Like bullshit, but the kind of reckless bullshit that threatens to drown our civilization?

"Damn you rivers! Damn you all to hell!"

"Sorry kids, but Grandpa earned that
money and he'll be damned if he's gonna
let those hippies in congress take it."

Just for some background, Representative Brooks of Alabama, a Republican-try to act surprised-is a signatory of the AFP No Climate Tax Pledge, which is a pledge to vote against any climate change legislation that would raise taxes. It was drawn up by the conservative group Americans For Prosperity and includes Senators, Governors and congresspeople who I guess love prosperity for America so much that they're willing to die for it...well, willing to let succeeding generations die for it anyway. Same thing. You know, the word hero gets thrown around a lot these days...

Ever since Mo Brooks has been on the
planet, he's been kind of a dick. Why is that?

Anyway, I think it's fair to say Representative Brooks hates children, especially yours. But let's start at the beginning, when it became Mo Brooks' turn to ask questions at Wednesday's hearing. Going from zero to aggressively ignorant douche, he began with:

"Ever since human beings have been on the planet, sea levels have risen relative to ground levels. Why is that?" 

-Representative Mo Brooks,
going in so strong he doesn't
even need supported facts

In many ways Representative Brooks was setting the tone for his line of questions. A line that would be rooted in the scientific method: First start with an observation that supports your worldview, then bully and harangue those around you until they stop questioning you. 

Science: It's whatever you want it to be!

"The Nobel committee said my cancer cure
was just Sharkleberry Kool-Aid, but I guess
everyone's entitled to their opinion, right" 

There was a brief moment where none of the scientists gathered corrected Brooks on his flawed premise, but then the congressman waved dismissively and said: "Any of you can opine as you wish." Sigh. And I think this is kind of emblematic of the problem here, like, these scientists didn't come to opine, they came to give the panel the benefit of the science behind why cities like New York and Miami will soon be goddamn Venice. I mean, he knows science isn't opinion based right? Like, it's open to questioning, but not opining.

Willful ignorance and an intern?

Anyway, Doctor Phillip Duffy, a climatologist and physicist who's devoted his career to addressing climate change, graciously explained that no, sea levels have fluctuated with the cycles of ice ages over the last three million years and that the recent, crazy-high increases over the past century is attributed demonstrably to human activity. But of course credentials and a lifetime spent specializing in a subject is nothing compared to, you know, whatever Mo Brooks has got.

"That wasn't the question, I appreciate your wanting to expound on that. My statement is that since human beings have been on Earth, sea levels have risen. What are the factors that have caused it [sic] to rise?"

-Representative Brooks,
asking all the tough statements

"I...I'm not sure I can make this any simpler for you without putting together
some kind of Schoolhouse Rocks-style animated film about how our descendants
will fight wars over fresh water. Would you...would you like me to do that?"

-Dr. Phillip Duffy, grasping at straws

Factors like this guy bailing out his boat?

Confused, Duffy started to explain again only to be cut off and again pressed to list things other than three hundred years of human-produced industrial age carbon being spewed into the atmosphere that could explain climate change:

"I'm talking net, not fluctuations. Let's assume for a moment that what you're talking about has some kind of factual, rational basis. That ice has melted. Are there other factors?"

Huh? Yes, this is a U.S. member of not only Congress, but of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. Duffy, for an heroic third time tried to explain only to again be interrupted:

Can you concede something
that's part of the geological record?
Isn't that just accepting facts?

"Hey Doctor, Doctor, you're not answering my question again. I'm conceding for the moment that there has been ice meltage [sic] compared to three million years ago or whatever since that's the time frame you used. I'm asking another question and it is: what other factors have caused the sea levels to rise relative to dry land? Is anyone else having-I mean in particular Dr. Duffy, you said there's going to be massive, isn't that the word you use? Massive sea level rises, don't you think that if you're going to have that kind of statement you aught to have some idea as to what all the causes of sea level rises has [sic] been?"

Because if that's on the table, I don't
think Brooks and I can be friends. 

So first of all, was he listening to some other climatologist? Maybe one that didn't thrice explain, in increasingly simple terms how and why sea levels are rising at an alarming rate? And second of all, did you notice when Brooks was weirdly dismissive of Duffy's use of three million years as the time humans have been on Earth? Is it possible that this member of a congressional committee on science was fighting down the urge to argue with him about how long humans have been around? I mean, let's pick our battles, but still.

I really think we need to address the more troubling issue of a Congressperson who again is on the congressional science committee, interrupting a scientist who was patiently and politely offering expert testimony on an incredibly complex topic with world-ending consequences in terms that even someone like him (a layman. What'd you think I meant?) can understand.

"Carbon bad, make hot, water more higher."

-Dr. Duffy dumbing it
down as far as it can go

Which is to say, these
 seven billion idiots. 

So why in the name of fuck is Brooks Republisplaining climate change to a climatologist? And in further fuck, why is he arguing with him? Oh, right, because this isn't about addressing climate change. It's about worldview. Brooks isn't harping on the other factors that contribute to the sea levels rising because he's concerned about them as well, he's insisting Duffy come up with other possible causes he we can blame because he wants to construct an argument that supports his preference to not do anything about the only factor that matters.

And that's why people like Representative Brooks scare the shit out of me. As long as we let any jackass able to convince enough jackasses that their flag pin and folksyness makes them experts on everything, we can pretty much resign ourselves to life under the sea.

"Yeah, but I'm 64, so even if I conceded that climate 
change isn't just a conspiracy cooked up by Obama and 
the gays, it wouldn't really to be a issue for me, would it?"

-Mo Brooks, Congressperson from 

Alabama and part of the problem

Today in premature noms:

Hey, remember when North and South Korea were going to hold historic peace talks and finally end decades of hostility?

"Wah, wah."

-State Department spokesperson

Sad Trombone, earlier today

What's wrong with tanks? Oh right, the
precarious peace negations that could
fall apart at the slightest provocation.

Yup, North Korean officials announced today that they will be suspending the talks in response to "provocative military disturbances with South Korea." Yeah, that would be the joint military U.S. and South Korean military exercises that were held in preparation for possible military action against the north. It turns out that the timing wasn't the best you know, because of the tanks and stuff. It's got the north a little rattled, and I'm not sure they're being unreasonable this time.

Which is to say, not great. But as movies
made under the threat of death go, it's ok.

Look, I am in no way leaping to the defense of a regime that oppresses its own citizens, routinely murders its critics, and once kidnapped a Japanese director and forced him to make an off-brand Godzilla movie but-huh? Oh, it's called Pulgasari and I think it's about as good as you'd expect it to be. Anyway, just weeks after making what might have possibly, optimistically, fingers-crossedly been something like actual progress, did no one in the south foresee that maybe rehearsing for war with the north might come off a little, you know, needlessly aggressive?

Above: a ruckus. So this, but
on more of a geopolitical scale.

Oh, and if we were thinking of slinking away unnoticed, the statement also mentioned that the exercises have imperiled the up-comming talks President Trump (ugh...) was going to have the the North Korean leader:

"The United States will also have to undertake careful deliberations about the fate of the planned North Korea-U.S. summit in the light of this provocative military ruckus jointly conducted with the South Korean authorities..."

Ruckus? So while this is all a huge setback, but I'm not sure that avoiding a scenario in which the former host of The Apprentice is trying to hash out peace with North Korea is necessarily a bad thing. His diplomacy track record so far consists of shoving the Prime Minister of Montenegro, demanding that Mexico pay for a racist border wall and moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem which has already resulted in violent protests.

Could we maybe sub in a different host from the Apprentice? Tyra Banks maybe?
She also didn't win the popular vote in the 2016 election making her equally qualified.

Pictured: Rep. Luke Messer.
Not pictured: a sense of irony.

Oh, and did I mention that eighteen House Republicans and seven governors have signed a letter to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize? Yes, that Nobel Peace Prize. So, the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu and Donald Trump. The push is led by Representative Luke Messer from Indiana who is currently running for the GOP Senate nomination and is hitching the shit out of his wagon to the President. So, good luck. Although it seems like maybe he should have waited for the hail of gunfire to cease before rolling out noms.

And speaking of forbearance, could we really not have held off pretending to invade the country we're trying to settle a technically ongoing war with? I'm not a diplomat or anything, but that just seems like it would have been a start move.

Man, we were totally shipping Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un.
We were going to call them Moon-Jong and everything...