No News is Not Always Good News
OK, I admit it, I watch The Today Show. I need something on while I prepare to face the day, and it is simply better than the alternatives. Unfortunately, in morning television, being better than the alternatives doesn't preclude you from UTTERLY SUCKING.
And the show has sucked more and more since 2004, otherwise known as "The Year White-Trash Christian Family Values Broke." I mean, it was always insipid, but now it's insipid and pandering. Plus, I guess the show is in a ratings war with Good Morning America, and so it seems like they are trying a little too hard. I can't watch GMA, because I have respect for Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson. While they are slightly less insipid and pandering, they are slightly more awkward in their delivery. As an approval junkie, nothing makes me more uncomfortable than watching another approval junkie who isn't quite cutting it.
Anyway, back to Today. Here are two examples - not the worst offenses, mind you, just two examples that have occurred in the past three days - of what I'm talking about. On Monday, they did a segment about how, despite the terrible reviews, "Dukes of Hazzard" was number one at the box office. This was an actual news piece, and the correspondent kept saying things like, "Viewers seemed to be thumbing their noses at the taste of critics, preferring to just sit back and enjoy the ride..." or some bullshit like that. This is news? Aren't most blockbusters pieces of shit that get bad reviews? Plus, Dukes didn't make all that much - $30 million in its opening weekend for a pretty hyped summer movie that cost $50 million to make is not that great. "Wedding Crashers" made more than that in its first weekend, and it opened at number 2. The true test is this weekend, because I think that the people who were going to see the Dukes have seen it. How wide could the audience for this movie be? But that's not the point. Anything that reeks of RED STATE gets extra special news treatment these days. It's ridiculous.
Worse: Today they had a segment about the controversy surrounding the film version of "The Da Vinci Code". I'm probably the only one who has not read this book, so I don't really know if they are blowing it out of proportion... but according to the report, Hollywood is concerned about angering Christians with the movie because they are such and important part of the audience. Why, just look at "Passion of the Christ"! They filmmakers wouldn't mind picking up a few of those Passion dollars, but then what about the book's 25+ million fan base? No one wants to alienate them either. What to do? They had a taped sound bite with some sort of backwoods southern minister who said, "What the filmmakers need to do is include a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie that says, 'This is only a work of fiction.' That would satisfy me." Excellent idea. Because otherwise we idiots in the audience may panic and start jumping out of windows, just like we did when we heard the War of the Worlds radio broadcast in 1938. (But what to do about those of us who are illiterate or otherwise not paying attention? We may not realize that the expensive Tom Hanks/Ron Howard vehicle we are watching, which apparently spans hundreds of years and involves the Mona Lisa and Templars and Masons and other various underground European sects, is not a documentary or newsreel but a fictional motion picture.)
So they bring on Michael Medved, who is like the Sean Hannity of film critics (his catch phrase is "It's cool to be conservative."), to discuss what the filmmakers should do. (My favorite part was when the host, Lester Holt, suggested that maybe they should create a character, say a priest, who is pro Catholic, just to balance the story - again, I don't know the story but I'm sure this is one of the stupidest suggestions ever conceived on a Today host's hastily scribbled 3 x 5 card.) Holt actually asked the question, "Is Hollywood anti Christian or anti Catholic?" Is there an answer to this question? Can you imagine something more ridiculous? Medved proceeded to list some anti movies of the past few years (And I quote: "'The Order,' which I referred to as 'The Odor'..."; "'Stigmata,' better known as 'Stinkmata'..." The puns were hilarious and profound) and how they have all been bombs. See kids, if Jesus doesn't like your movie he will damn it to the bowels of box office hell. I don't recall hearing of either of these movies, and I know a good bit about movies, so the good Lord must have done quite a number on them. (That or they were small independent films that didn't get good distribution because of concerns about their anti-Xian plots. But why quibble?) I would bring up "The Devil's Rejects," which has grossed $15 million on a budget of $7 (this seems remarkably high because the film looks pretty hard to watch) or "The Exorcist," one of the most popular films of all time (though pro-religion. HG likes to remind me that it was that film that brought on the Born Again phenomenon of the 1970s), but I know that an argument with Jesus is one I am sure to lose.
Still, I do have to point out one thing I couldn't resist discovering, thanks to the help of handy Mr. Internet: "Stigmata" made $18 million its opening weekend (and grossed $50 million total, on a budget of $30 million). Not exactly a bomb. "The Order," however, was a huge flop. I'm sure that, as we speak, theological studies groups all over the country are debating this strange but important discrepancy. (Quien es mas Christian, Senor Ledger o Senora Arguette?)
And the show has sucked more and more since 2004, otherwise known as "The Year White-Trash Christian Family Values Broke." I mean, it was always insipid, but now it's insipid and pandering. Plus, I guess the show is in a ratings war with Good Morning America, and so it seems like they are trying a little too hard. I can't watch GMA, because I have respect for Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson. While they are slightly less insipid and pandering, they are slightly more awkward in their delivery. As an approval junkie, nothing makes me more uncomfortable than watching another approval junkie who isn't quite cutting it.
Anyway, back to Today. Here are two examples - not the worst offenses, mind you, just two examples that have occurred in the past three days - of what I'm talking about. On Monday, they did a segment about how, despite the terrible reviews, "Dukes of Hazzard" was number one at the box office. This was an actual news piece, and the correspondent kept saying things like, "Viewers seemed to be thumbing their noses at the taste of critics, preferring to just sit back and enjoy the ride..." or some bullshit like that. This is news? Aren't most blockbusters pieces of shit that get bad reviews? Plus, Dukes didn't make all that much - $30 million in its opening weekend for a pretty hyped summer movie that cost $50 million to make is not that great. "Wedding Crashers" made more than that in its first weekend, and it opened at number 2. The true test is this weekend, because I think that the people who were going to see the Dukes have seen it. How wide could the audience for this movie be? But that's not the point. Anything that reeks of RED STATE gets extra special news treatment these days. It's ridiculous.
Worse: Today they had a segment about the controversy surrounding the film version of "The Da Vinci Code". I'm probably the only one who has not read this book, so I don't really know if they are blowing it out of proportion... but according to the report, Hollywood is concerned about angering Christians with the movie because they are such and important part of the audience. Why, just look at "Passion of the Christ"! They filmmakers wouldn't mind picking up a few of those Passion dollars, but then what about the book's 25+ million fan base? No one wants to alienate them either. What to do? They had a taped sound bite with some sort of backwoods southern minister who said, "What the filmmakers need to do is include a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie that says, 'This is only a work of fiction.' That would satisfy me." Excellent idea. Because otherwise we idiots in the audience may panic and start jumping out of windows, just like we did when we heard the War of the Worlds radio broadcast in 1938. (But what to do about those of us who are illiterate or otherwise not paying attention? We may not realize that the expensive Tom Hanks/Ron Howard vehicle we are watching, which apparently spans hundreds of years and involves the Mona Lisa and Templars and Masons and other various underground European sects, is not a documentary or newsreel but a fictional motion picture.)
So they bring on Michael Medved, who is like the Sean Hannity of film critics (his catch phrase is "It's cool to be conservative."), to discuss what the filmmakers should do. (My favorite part was when the host, Lester Holt, suggested that maybe they should create a character, say a priest, who is pro Catholic, just to balance the story - again, I don't know the story but I'm sure this is one of the stupidest suggestions ever conceived on a Today host's hastily scribbled 3 x 5 card.) Holt actually asked the question, "Is Hollywood anti Christian or anti Catholic?" Is there an answer to this question? Can you imagine something more ridiculous? Medved proceeded to list some anti movies of the past few years (And I quote: "'The Order,' which I referred to as 'The Odor'..."; "'Stigmata,' better known as 'Stinkmata'..." The puns were hilarious and profound) and how they have all been bombs. See kids, if Jesus doesn't like your movie he will damn it to the bowels of box office hell. I don't recall hearing of either of these movies, and I know a good bit about movies, so the good Lord must have done quite a number on them. (That or they were small independent films that didn't get good distribution because of concerns about their anti-Xian plots. But why quibble?) I would bring up "The Devil's Rejects," which has grossed $15 million on a budget of $7 (this seems remarkably high because the film looks pretty hard to watch) or "The Exorcist," one of the most popular films of all time (though pro-religion. HG likes to remind me that it was that film that brought on the Born Again phenomenon of the 1970s), but I know that an argument with Jesus is one I am sure to lose.
Still, I do have to point out one thing I couldn't resist discovering, thanks to the help of handy Mr. Internet: "Stigmata" made $18 million its opening weekend (and grossed $50 million total, on a budget of $30 million). Not exactly a bomb. "The Order," however, was a huge flop. I'm sure that, as we speak, theological studies groups all over the country are debating this strange but important discrepancy. (Quien es mas Christian, Senor Ledger o Senora Arguette?)
posted by j.m. at 11:57 AM
0 comments
