Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Honest Movie Posters

It's always bugged me the way that movie posters cherry-pick their reviews.

Friday, November 08, 2013

Wilfully deceitful woman gets divorced and sued

Not sure why this 2004 story coming out of China is making the rounds again, but I guess those clicks have to come from somewhere. Thanks to modern reportage being in the metaphorical gutter, it's little surprise that people are now siding with the wife over this. Don't let her dupe you too. Not feeling it was worth mentioning that she'd been to South Korea and spent $100,000 on cosmetic surgery before they met is one thing, but did she really expect anyone to believe that in the entire time they were dating, married, having children, and taking paternity tests it was just coincidence that he never got to see a single picture of her growing up? Beauty is subjective, but there's no evidence that loaded words like "ugly" were ever used by the people involved. Appearance is a central part of who you are, and she went so far out of her way to perpetuate a lie about who she was from the moment she met him that I don't think anybody wouldn't feel betrayed by this.

Friday, August 30, 2013

Another Idiot "Pastafarian" Misses Point of Own Argument

Professional idiot Eddie Castillo, self-professed "Pastafarian" has won the battle to be photographed on his driving license wearing a strainer on his head, quoting religious reasons. Well done there. Now let's take a look at why it's a little too early to be celebrating:

By completely missing the point, you've made the situation you're protesting worse 

Yes, the whole idea of "Pastafarianism" was to satirise and protest the special treatment that certain groups get based on seemingly arbitrary beliefs. Far from highlighting the ludicrousy of this, you've expanded accommodation of such beliefs at a State level, the precise opposite of what you're supposed to be trying to achieve. Was there a special school you went to to become that stupid.  

Prepare to be Pious 

I hope that your friends, neighbours, and work colleagues are still taking you seriously as you wear a strainer on your head all day every day. What? You're not doing that? You mean you lied about your religious beliefs to the DMV? Oh dear, that wasn't clever was it—you've committed a felony and now face up to six months prison time and a maximum $1,000 fine. I hope that promoting religious freedom and making the situation worse was worth it.

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Coal Jumping and Looking Intense

There's at least one from every performance. Could probably start a Tumblr page about this...

Plenty more festivals yet to go!

Monday, July 08, 2013

Primal Fear: The Abridged Script

Here's another abridged script in the style of Rod Hilton.

RICHARD GERE moves to wrap up his summary in the case of the People vs EDWARD NORTON over a brutal murder of an archbishop. ALFRE WOODARD is the presiding judge.

Sorry, who am I again?

I'm sure I've seen you in something. I don't think it's that important though.

That's no help at all. Go ahead then.

And so you see your honor, my client EDWARD NORTON suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, and therefore cannot be guilty of the brutal murder of the archbishop for reasons of insanity. It was a separate personality named Tyler that did it.
LAURA LINNEY stands to offer her rebuttal.

I know that an excruciating amount of screen time has been dedicated to the very unusual nature of our private relationship, which serves no purpose to the plot other than to provide contrived filler, and the audience are probably thinking right now that I will come round to seeing things your way, but I'm calling bullshit on this one. That defense is weak even by YOUR standards.

I… I… I… couldn't hurt a fly ma'am. I'm too… too… timid, and in… in… innocent looking.

You shut your gaping cakehole you whiney little bitch. I'm busy here pretending not to flirt with RICHARD GERE in the context of professional rivalry.

(Not stuttering)
Ah hah! It is I, Tyler, the guilty party in this trial. To prove it, I will now proceed to murder you right here in front of all these people. Because that's what we murderers do. Muhahahahahaaaaaaaa!

My goodness, the stutter has gone and his general demeanor is slightly different. It stands to reason therefore that every aspect of his defence must be factually correct. Your honor, I concur with RICHARD GERE that he must be found not guilty, for reasons of insanity.

This case has proven to be very inconvenient, as my facial expression has consistently attested to throughout the proceedings. I therefore find the defendant not guilty, for reasons of insanity, and that he be taken from this place to a high security medical institute for some very invasive treatment that probably won't be a huge improvement over the prison sentence he narrowly avoided. Get out of my courtroom!

Three cheers for the accused!


Well that sure worked out well for everybody involved.

Ex… ex… except the archbishop I brutally murdered in cold blood. Hahaha!

Yeah, hahaha!
Hold on a second… ?! What did you just say?

Whoops, I guess the game's up. Pity they've already found me not guilty, for reasons of insanity.

So let me get this straight, Tyler is the real you, and farm boy is just a persona you used to trick the judge into getting a lighter sentence?

Yes, a genius plot don't you think, and brilliantly carried out.

But as I made perfectly clear from the outset, I have no morals or professional ethics, and honestly couldn't care less whether you did it or not. In fact it was the assumption that you had actually done it that got me interested in the case in the first place. If you'd told me what was going on, I'm sure we could have milked it better, and probably have gotten you out of that whole mental institution thing.

Hindsight is 20/20.

So out of morbid curiosity, what was your real motivation for the murder of the archbishop?

Well, I just love murdering people so much. Brutally mind. Which is not to say I do it all the time. Actually it was just that one time, and the attempted murder in the courtroom, though I wasn't really going to kill her—I was just going to rough her up a bit, break her neck, squeeze the life out of her worthless carcass and piss on her hair.

But you'd been around the archbishop for so long, why did you choose to kill him at that precise moment in time? And out of further curiosity, was it necessary to keep up the farm boy persona in front of him too? If so, why?

Murdering him brutally just suddenly seemed like it would be a really fun thing to do. Of course, I knew I'd get caught, but luckily, several years in advance I'd put into effect this implausibly complex gambit as a precaution. When I woke up that morning and the thought came to me that killing the archbishop would be a hoot, I knew some hotshot lawyer like yourself would get me off the hook to win some kind of a bet or whatever, so it was a good thing I'd spent years nurturing a shy but likable farm boy persona in addition to a more dominating and murderous sub-personality, so that said lawyer would have more material to flesh out the defense. And now I get to spend time at a mental institution, so it's a win win.

Wouldn't it have been smarter to try not getting caught? You all but gave yourself up, and even the slightest attempt to cover your tracks would have increased your odds of succeeding to 100%.

It seemed like a lot of hassle.

And how about instead of murdering the archbishop, you murder somebody with no connection to you whatsoever? As you said, it wasn't personal, it was simply that you like to murder, in theory at that juncture leastways.

It was the hat. Archbishop hats just piss me off for some reason.

That's the first thing you've said that makes any sense at all.

The audience exit the cinema believing they've seen a clever psychological thriller, because the unnecessary and extensive scenes of RICHARD GERE and LAURA LINNEY flirting dulled the portions of their brains that deal with critical analytical thought processes.

Friday, June 28, 2013

Three problems with the moon landing hoax theory

There are three main problems with the moon landing hoax theory, in order as follows:
  1. It's bollocks.
  2. Its main advocates know this.
  3. They additionally think you're stupid enough to believe any old anti-establishment crap they can squeeze out of their lying faceholes, and get a massive ego boost out of proving how much cleverer they are than you by manipulating your gullibility into making you believe that you are the smartest person in the history of ever.
If you claim to believe the moon landing was all a hoax, you are a fraud or a very gullible idiot.

Friday, June 07, 2013

Yes, we did

The other day, I was startled to discover that there actually really are people out there that believe NASA faked the Apollo missions and the lunar landings.

As with most of the "grander" conspiracy theories, it seems that the theories essentially boil down to the conceit that its proponents are smarter than everybody else in the whole world, despite having no expertise in any of the relevant fields. Ignorance, ego, intellectual laziness and dishonesty, these are the trademarks of a good conspiracy theory.

An easy way to assess the likeliness of a conspiracy theory is to assess your attitude to the unexpected. Upon seeing something that does not meet your exact expectations, do you a) assume that your expectations are incorrect, that you have otherwise misinterpreted what you've seen etc., or are in some other way mistaken in your assumptions, or b) assume that what you're seeing is therefore fake?

If you chose (b), then congratulations, you're an idiot!

Hi Jarrah!

So for the purposes of education, I've compiled simple explanations for some of the more common observations that have apparently convinced some idiots that the moon landing was faked. Are you sitting comfortably?

• There were no stars in the background of the lunar surface photos—shouldn't you be able to see them?

• Are you saying it's technically impossible to take pictures of stars from the moon then? I mean, we can do it from earth...
It is possible, and they did.

• Wires are clearly visible supporting the astronauts to give the zero gravity effect.
They didn't need wires. They were on the moon.

• Why were heavily defined footprints left in supposedly dry dust?
Because they were on the moon.

• Why did the flag flap like there was wind blowing on it?
It didn't. There isn't any wind on the moon.

• How come the foreground changes and the background doesn't in several shots?
The background was quite far away.

• Living things can't pass through the Van Allen Belt and survive.
Yes they can.

• Computers weren't powerful enough in 1969 to navigate to the moon.
Yes they were.

• Why was the TV picture quality from the lunar surface so poor?
It was transmitting from the moon.

• What about that ambassador who gave a gift moon rock to the Dutch, that turned out to be a fake?
What about it?

• NASA threatened everybody working on the project into silence, and disasters like the Challenger were intentionally staged to stop potential whistleblowers from talking.
You still appear to be talking. You might want to see to that.

For more detailed explanations, I would recommend doing even the slightest bit of research.

Now please understand, I'm not just casually calling anybody that believes it was a hoax based on the holes they've been shown by fraudsters in the evidence idiots, I'm doing it entirely deliberately, because believing in the hoax is by far the most intellectually lazy and least rewarding approach to understanding one of mankind's greatest achievements that one could possible take. When a piece of evidence does not meet your expectations, it's an opportunity to educate yourself that hoaxers and conspiracy theorists constantly flout, choosing ignorance over enlightenment.

So pop quiz time. There are three immediately obvious problems with the following evidence against the moon landing. Any of the three would be enough to dismiss it. All three together completely undermine the credibility of any hoaxer who puts this forwards as evidence. Name one of them without looking it up. If you can't do this, then you clearly do not have the faintest clue what you're talking about, and I'm therefore not interested in anything else you have to say on the matter.

• The temperature on the moon is 250° during the lunar daytime and -250° during the night. If you stick camera film in an oven at 250° it melts, so there's no way it would have survived in the moon's environment.