People are Stupid: An Ongoing Series

Cracked.com linked me to an article on pictures of the end of the rainbow…complete with comments of people who have not only seen the end of the rainbow, but in some cases STOOD in it.  Yes, people.  Apparently you can stand in a rainbow.

Look, I know there are a lot of things in nature that many of us don’t understand.  So let me clarify.  Rainbows are created from light refracted off of rain or other moisture in the air.  To put it simply: “A rainbow does not actually exist at a particular location in the sky. Its apparent position depends on the observer’s location and the position of the sun.”  What this means is that the position of a rainbow is different for every person in every position.  When you move, the rainbow moves.

This means you cannot possibly reach the end of the rainbow, let alone stand in it.  Theoritically, I suppose someone could stand in the end of your rainbow, and vice versa.  Also, I suppose it’s possible to see the “end” in the distance.  But a rainbow does not actually exist in any particular space.  It’s refracted light.  Go look up characteristics of light.  So when you move closer to a rainbow, it moves away.  I DON’T KNOW HOW ELSE TO FURTHER EXPLAIN IT, PEOPLE!!!

Look, skim the article yourself, and then browse the comments.  I’ve included some of my favorites, in hopes of making you as simultaneously entertained and disappointed in humanity as I am.

NOTE: The following comments may cause nausea, vomiting, disgust, laughter, increased pride and any number of additional made-up side effects.

John Wilkinson says:

February 11, 2009 at 11:42 pm

This is great. My sister, mom and I saw this sight back in the 80’s in our yard in Oklahoma. After a rain there was a rainbow right on the ground in the dead center of our yard. We couldn’t believe it. You could see all the colors on the dead grass in the yard. Yes it did look golden at the end. We ran out and stood in it and looked up into the bands. It was the neatest thing I’d ever seen or probably ever will. The colors are so blinding and intense. We would look directly up into the rainbow and move our eyes though the colors and look at them. I have told this story many times, and would have been more convincing if I’d said a UFO was in my yard, cause no one has ever believed me until now when my wife saw this on FARK. If I’d had a working camera then, my story would have been more convincing. I was nearly laughed out of college classes when I mentioned having seen the end of a rainbow. I guess if you live long enough, you can be vindicated. Love the picture thank you so much from the bottom of my heart. John Wilkinson

 

Gary Robbins, science writer-editor says:

April 14, 2009 at 7:17 am

Yesterday’s pretty colors in the sky were caused by iridescence. However, it is not impossible for a real rainbow to touch the ground. We published images of a rainbow touching the ground in north Orange County earlier this year.

 

Francis says:

April 14, 2009 at 8:09 am

Uh, no. The “rainbow” isn’t touching anything unless you’re saying that light is “touching” the ground. As has been said, the visual phenomenon is simply the light being reflected back into your eye as a prism.

 

ohn says:

April 14, 2009 at 11:23 am

Are you saying that you, a nobody complaining about a photo of a rainbow on the Internet, is smarter than an actual science person who knows something about science?

I don’t think so.

buzz killer says:

April 14, 2009 at 8:23 am

Rainbows are created when light is reflected off of water at 40 to 42 degrees.

All rainbows are circular. and therefore none actually have an “end”.

Gary Robbins, science writer-editor says:

April 14, 2009 at 8:37 am

Actually, rainbows do have an end. As noted in earlier post, we have photographic proof, and we checked it three ways to Sunday with meteorologists.

come on says:

April 14, 2009 at 11:57 am

science writer-editor? If I drew a cube on a peice of paper, would that be photographic proof that my drawing was three dimensional?? there is no such thing as photographic proof when discussing an Optical Illusion… go back to science class man

Nattie says:

April 14, 2009 at 2:19 pm

“Rainbows are created when light is reflected off of water at 40 to 42 degrees.

All rainbows are circular. and therefore none actually have an “end”.

Exactly.

Can we just establish now that a rainbow is NOT a physical structure?

Thrice blessed says:

April 14, 2009 at 7:17 pm

Three times I have been in the end of a rainbow. In South Carolina, from a street about 3 miles from home, I saw a rainbow and told the kids it looked like the end was in our yard. As we drove home, the perspective changed but the top of each hill seem to still put the rainbow in our home area. As we drove down our street I could see the end of the rainbow in our yard. I raced to park and get the kids out of the van and we danced in the awesome light. The air was sparkling gold and so bright it hurt to keep our eyes open. You could step out of the light, then back in. It was sprinkling Altogether that rainbow probably lasted about 15 minutes. I cannot remember the details of the second encounter, but the third was very early one summer morning at our home in Missouri. Again it was sprinkling. I step outside and was in that unbelievable light. It took a few seconds to place where I had seen this before , but when I realized it had been the rainbows, I looked and found that I was at the bottom of the arc. Sometimes that gold is worth all the golden metal in the world to my memories. No one believes these stories. I guess I was lucky but more than likely many people have been at the end of a rainbow but did not know it because they had not seen it from a distance and approached.

Barry Gibbons, science writer-editor says:

April 14, 2009 at 1:12 pm

All of this is completely true. I once saw this phenomenon myself. Believe it or not, rainbows do touch the ground. I proved this to my colleagues by riding my unicorn directly up to the base of the rainbow then galloping gallantly skyward on top of the beautiful iridescent bridge of happiness. once I reached the other side where the rainbow touched the ground I danced in the beautiful light while skittles rained upon me. The most amazing thing about it all was, when I looked directly into the light of the rainbow, I saw Jesus and Frank Sinatra playing shuffleboard.

Who Watches the Watchmen?

YOU, IF YOU KNOW WHAT’S GOOD FOR YOU!!!

Today marks the 8th day since Watchmen was released. If you know anything about this movie and haven’t seen it yet, I hope you have a good excuse! To put it [very] lightly, you are missing out!

This was one heck of a film. It had everything I thought I could only hope for and more. However, no matter how little you know about the original story and/or movie, it is a virtual certainty that you will go into this movie with certain expectations. So let me make a few things clear.

The first thing you have to understand is that this movie is based on a graphic novel. It’s a comic book, people. If you expect it to be more, you may be disappointed. Alan Moore (the author who incidentally disowned the movie before it was even in production…whole different story) said himself that the characters are such that if they existed in real life, they would seem particularly ridiculous.

BUT, the second thing you have to understand is that the graphic novel was a pioneer. It is not like most comics you may have heard of or read. The movie is no exception. This is not Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, or anything like them. The best thing I can think of to compare it to as far as deviation from the genre is the Crow. It’s dark, gritty, and violent. The characters have dark sides and not all the “good” guys are good guys. You will dislike some of them.

Moore created a depth in these characters that was extremely unique. He took human emotion and put it into costumes and gave them superhuman fighting skills. That is part of what makes this movie so amazing. It’s not a superhero flick. It’s a drama. As a matter of fact, only one single character in this movie actual has significantly superhuman abilities.

Having said all of this, I come to my third and final point. Despite Moore’s lack of involvement, this movie remains remarkably and undisappointingly faithful to the source material. Especially…ESPECIALLY the visuals. To the uneducated, this means you’re in for a visual thrill ride. To the educated, this means that you get to see blue CGI penis. A lot.

If you don’t know what that means, you fit into the uneducated category. But don’t be alarmed. Harness some maturity and enjoy the film. And if you’re like me, delve deep and appreciate all the nuances in the film. Just bring a snack. It’s 2 hours and 42 minutes long.

And one more thing. The ending of the film is slightly different than the ending of the graphic novel. I thought it was tastefully written and directed, and I understand and appreciate the reasons for the change. But leave me your comments and let me know what you thought of the end and/or the movie as a whole.

Left to Right: The Comedian, Nite Owl II, Rorshach, Silk Spectre II, Ozymandias, Dr. Manhattan (back)

What Could Possibly Be So Discouraging That I Decide To Revive My Blog?!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/

Tune in to see me rant about the [few] poor reviews of The Watchmen on Rotten Tomatoes.

Also, if you haven’t seen this movie by the time I decide to post my opinion on it, I will begin to get violent…

If Michael Bay directed Apocalypto…

10,000 B.C. was crap.

Oh, you say you liked it? Have you seen Apocalypto? Did you like that, too? Seriously?

Here’s the only reason you should want to see 10,000 B.C.

Here’s the problem: they’re essentially the same movie. I say “essentially” because I’m not POSITIVE as to how both these movies made it to the big screen without someone raising the same question that I’m about to raise.

Did someone get their hands on an early script for Apocalypto and say, “Hey, we can do this in a different time period and no one will know?” Or did they actually see the film when it came out in 2006 and throw together 10,000 B.C. in two years flat? Seriously, if the special effects budget for this movie wasn’t so large, doing it in under 2 years wouldn’t be that far-fetched.

I know this is all a bunch of heresay, but see both movies in the order they came out and tell me you don’t see it. Let me see if I can break it down without spoilers.

They’re both big budget special effects movies based in the not-too-recent past.

They are both based around a protagonist who has some sort of trial that brings him up from nothing to a highly respected leadership position in his tribe. Guess what this trial involves. Hunting. In both movies.

They both have a storyline centered around this protagonist being separated from his love, resulting in him chasing her for the majority of the film.

They both have the same types of characters. Now any film geek like myself may feel the urge to point out that movies tend to have certain formulas they follow, and that character types commonly follow certain patterns in certain types of movies. To these people, I say this: the same characters died in both movies. That was the dead give away. Shut your face.

Also, the climactic fight scene toward the end of each movie was by far the best part of each film. Very entertaining, until the fight ended, wherein each film returned to crap until the credits rolled. In fact, 10,000 B.C.’s ending was so bad, I almost rewound it because I couldn’t believe my eyes.

Now don’t get me wrong. I did actually enjoy Apocalypto at times. It had it’s moments. Also, I’m sure 10,000 B.C. looked awesome on the big screen (Camilla Belle, yeow!). But after seeing both movies, I can honestly say I was dumbfounded.

If you don’t believe, check out these quotes I found after writing all this by simply googling “Apocalypto and 10,000 BC”:

Boy- did this suck! I guess Roland Emmerich must have really liked APOCALYPTO- because he’s just remade it! Seriously- if you take APOCALYPTO, replace the Myans with cavemen, take out all the violence and make the characters speak English- you’ve got 10,000 B.C.

If Apocalypto was directed by Michael Bay, I think we’d get something like 10,000 B.C.

10,000 B.C. is Apocalypto if it had been made by Uwe Boll.

The last two quotes are my favorite. I don’t often say don’t even waste your time renting a movie, but if you’ve seen Apocalypto, don’t see 10,000 B.C. Your time could be better spent by making me breakfast. Have a good morning.

generic clever blog title

This is a formal (albeit short) apology for neglecting my blog in the recent months.  I have become very busy and worn out, both with work and with life in general.  This isn’t really much of an explanation, though, because I really enjoy writing in my blog, and I find it therapeutic, even if it’s just to dish on movies or videogames.  Still, attaching some sort of explanation, however incomplete, feels like the natural thing to do.

Nonetheless, in the past two weeks, I’ve gotten a handful of inquiries about where my blog went.  This got me kinda excited.  So tonight I guarantee at least one blog.  Hopefully more.  We’ll see.

<3

Could John McClane Beat Up Tyler Durden?

I am a huge fan of the Die Hard franchise.  I suppose this doesn’t say much, considering I’m a contemporary American man who generally enjoys most gratuitous displays of masculinity.  But in a world where men are quickly becoming sissies (or “girly men” as Arnold would put it), I find solace in Bruce Willis.

Thank you Bruce, for all the violence and pain you inflict upon your enemies, whilst simultaneously taunting them in original and colorful ways.

I was reading cracked.com today (aa I so often do), and I happened upon this little nugget of joy.
5 Awesome Movies Ruined By Last-Minute Changes
It was a very good article.  I have seen all 5 movies, but not every possible ending to each.  And still, I agree with almost every point they made, spefically the one about the fourth Die Hard film.

You know what I’m talking about.  The PG-13 rating on this one.  It’s old news, but it still stings me.  Although the special effects, violence, and overall adrenaline in this film are stepped up (I wouldn’t expect anything less from a Die Hard sequel), a true fan of the series sees the obvious flaws.  There are only two major flaws, but they are big enough to throw a tantrum over.

The first is the blood.  They actually digitally removed blood from this film.  This reminds me of Total Recall, where they cut scenes and dulled colors (specifically blood) to get it an R rating.  This is back in 1990 when a PG-13 rating was actually acceptable for kids 13 and older, and didn’t mean you could get away with saying the F word once.  I’m sorry, but I think you’re missing the point of a Die Hard film?  There are three ingredients.  Bruce Willis, punchy one-liners, and as much blood as you can cram into 130 minutes.  Which brings me to my next point.

Punchy one-liners.  Does this movie have them?  Yes.  Most definitely.  But if you’re waiting for McClane’s catch phrase (and if you haven’t heard already), they PG-13′d it up.  And I mean 1990 standards.  No F word.  Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not an advocate for gratuitous cursing.  But it’s just not Die Hard without Willis’ signature line.  They make a solid effort to cover it up, but it’s not enough.

Final conclusion: you’re missing 2 out of 3 ingredients, guys!  But that’s ok!  Live Free or Die Hard is out on DVD now, and guess what.  It’s uncut.  That means (according to cracked.com):

“The unrated DVD release of the film contains numerous scenes that were removed from the theatrical cut. McClane gets to say his favorite phrase, and more graphic and visceral action scenes replaced the embarrassingly neutered material.”

Yippee Ki Yay.

Some other interesting details:

On listverse’s Top 10 Bada** Movie Characters, McClane is listed at number 5.

McClane’s son (who hasn’t appeared in a Die Hard film since the first) was originally going to be in the fourth film, played by Justin Timberlake.  I wonder how that would’ve turned out.

S. Darko: Besmirching Donnie’s Good Name

Some of you have seen Donnie Darko.  Some of you haven’t.  If you were to say that you haven’t, I would have to say, “you are a cinematic idiot and I’d feel sorry for you.” – Jack Black in High Fidelity

Donnie Darko was a masterpiece of indie film before everyone was making them.  If you are an indie film fan, you most likely have seen this movie more than once.  Sadly, if you’re not, you might not even enjoy this film.

Either way, they’re making a sequel to Donnie Darko.  As far as I can tell, the announcement came out some time around May 9 (that’s when all the news articles started popping up).  But one thing is certain…this movie is gonna be a dramatic disappointment.  Following are some details about the film.  You can draw your own conclusions.  And although I highly recommend avoiding this film, Darko fans are sure to see this, despite the laundry list of reasons not to.

The film is title S. Darko.  In case you haven’t seen the original, I suggest renting it (or borrowing it from me) before reading the following spoiler: For those who forgot, Donnie is dead.  The sequel takes place approximately 7 years after the first film and follows Donnie’s youngest sister, Samantha.  The one shining light in this movie is that they actually have Daveigh Chase returning from the first film as Sam.

However, my biggest beef is that the original director Richard Kelly is not even remotely involved in the sequel.  Instead, Chris Fisher is directing.  He states that, “I am a great admirer of Richard Kelly’s film and hope to create a similar world of blurred fantasy and reality.”  Why doesn’t this make me feel any better?  Oh!  Because being a “great admirer” of anybody does not necessarily mean you can produce something of the same capacity.  In fact, you are far more likely to butcher it than produce a worthy sequel.

Probably the most ominous representation of this movie comes from Simon Crowe of the UK sales company Velvet Octopus (the company releasing the flim): “Donnie’s not in [the new film] but there are meteorites and rabbits.”

Wow.

Filming started May 18.

Boondocks Saints 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This from Wikipedia:

“Troy Duffy, posted a video on his YouTube account on March 17th, 2008 (in possible accordance with the holiday St. Patrick’s Day) which detailed that the sequel has been given a green light by Sony and is set to have the entire cast return with the exception of Willem Dafoe. This film will begin shooting summer of 2008 according to Duffy.^[27] The clip was taken down from YouTube shortly after it was uploaded, but remains on other accounts.”

Feel free to Google or YouTube “Boondock Saints 2″ if you’re skeptical.

Bad Ice Cream: Putting Monday in Perspective

Today’s cause of laughing maniacally in the workplace comes from Cracked.com’s The 10 Worst Ice Cream Flavors Ever (An Obituary): Feel free to check the link for the other 8.

7. Wheat

The retarded cousin of green tea ice cream, wheat manages to be even closer to tasting like dirty ice. The hint of grain suspended on a thin bed of s*** will make you wish you weren’t the kind of ignorant tool who buys wheat ice cream.

4. Tomato

“Ketchup” would probably be a better descriptor, once you add in the liquid component. It makes me wonder if anyone’s ever made a whole ice cream burger by putting ketchup ice cream and mustard ice cream onto some beef ice cream between two layers of wheat ice cream. Then I wonder whether a situation could ever arise in which I am expected to eat something like that. Then I wonder if I have enough aspirin in the house to kill myself.

Indy’s Back (And Not Much Worse For Wear)

The next big buzz in this summer’s lineup is the new Indiana Jones film. There seems to be this huge hubbub about it, and understandably so. After all, Raiders of the Lost Ark was one of the best action films of all time, in my (and many others’) opinions. And the other Indy films certainly didn’t disappoint.

As if Harrison Ford’s spectacular role as Han Solo wasn’t enough to forever shape our opinion of him.

Still, I must admit (for the first time), that I haven’t really been all that excited to see this movie. After Iron Man, going to the opening of Indy seems like staying after the headliner to see the opening act (remember, I’m a huge superhero geek). It was so good that I can’t really be excited about another movie for awhile. Other reasons why I was hesitant about this movie:

* George Lucas’ other recent sequels (ahem) failed miserably, albeit not unexpectedly.
* Sean Connery will not be making a return as Indy’s father. Sadly, he is now retired. The world is a much less exciting place.
* There is a rumor going around that Shia LeBouf is going to be the new Indy (Ford is almost 66), which borders on blasphemy. Even if there’s some truth to it, to suggest that Ford will retire as Indy is one of those things you just don’t say, not even in a whisper.

Despite all this, I have recently become excited about this movie. Here are the main reasons why:

* Spielberg is involved. Almost everything this guy touches is gold, especially Indy, which involves a collaboration between Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford. What a team, assuming Lucas doesn’t ruin it with his new ideas, which he almost did in the early stages.
* Karen Allen is back as Marion (Raiders of the Lost Ark), which is just awesome.
* LeBouf, despite what I said earlier, is a great actor. Check out Even Stevens, Holes, I, Robot. Now you might be thinking, “Indy is an action franchise, not a comedy.” Check out Constantine, or more importantly, Transformers. LeBouf has a sort of dry demeanor that seems to supply exactly the right type of humor to make an awesome action movie even more entertaining (so did Downey, Jr. in Iron Man!).

* The stunts. This is the reason to see this movie. Although they’ve kept this film under wraps until it debuts at the Cannes Festival on May 18, some people have seen it.

“It’s the same vibe, the same feel. They didn’t miss a beat,” Flanery (he played young Indy in the show) said of “Crystal Skull.” “People are going to love it. It’s what everybody’s been waiting for.”

“We did it sort of old-school-style,” Ford said. “Certainly, there is a fair amount of CGI that will be used, enhancing a lot of what we did, but generally not in the action area. It will enhance some of the physical sets. In the action area, it was pretty much done for real.”

Did you read that? Ford is closing in on 66 years old (64 when filming) and he’s still doing his own stunts!!!

From Imdb.com:

To reprise his role as the legendary explorer Indiana Jones, the 64-year-old Harrison Ford spent three hours a day at the gym, and subsisted on a high-protein diet of fish and vegetables, thus building his body into a condition where he could perform his own stunts (he always kept himself fit anyway, as he hoped to complete all the five Indiana Jones films that were originally planned in the 1980s). Steven Spielberg later stated he was so impressed with Ford’s form that he could not tell the difference between the shoots for the third and fourth films.

That’s it. I’m all out. I could probably go on, but I got even more excited just typing up this post. And if you aren’t excited by now, there’s no hope for you. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. May 22.

Some cool trivia (no spoilers til at least May 18 )