Why?

Welcome back the 'First Family of Fright'

America's first family of horror is back! According to announcements made by NBC execs and Deadline Hollywood, The Munsters are coming back to primetime TV.

Dear God, why?

Who wants to see this? Who has been clamoring for a re-make of the Munsters? You know the original series only lasted TWO YEARS!
And the only remotely enjoyable facet of the show died in 2006.

 

Probably still the best part of the new version

45-years later, NBC and writer Bryan Fuller are ready to overhaul the characters and concept by envisioning the half-hour, black and white sitcom as an hour-long drama 

An hour-long drama? An hour-long Drama? if anyone is at all interested in seeing a re-make of the Munsters, wouldn't be because they enjoyed the original half-hour sitcom?

 

If only this had been darker and edgier!

As is the trend, Fuller’s version is said to be a darker, edgier take on more lighthearted nature of the original series. This new vision for The Munsters will work within the confines of the same premise, despite an apparent shift in tone and with some tweaks to the characters and their origins.

Hey, great idea! Or you could just, I don't know, come up with an original idea? Seeing as how you're in  a business that's supposed to be "creative"?

Is there anything left to be re-made?

Woody Woodpecker Movie in Development at Universal, Illumination

Oh, come on!

Illumination Entertainment, the Universal-based animation house behind Despicable Me and next year’s Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax, is working on a feature project centering on the crimson-coifed cartoon character. John Altschuler and Dave Krinsky, who co-wrote the Will Ferrell comedy Blades of Glory, are in talks to develop a story.

So you couldn't make a movie with Will Ferrell, Will Arnett, Amy Poehler and Craig T. Nelson funny, and you're going to do the new Woody Woodpecker? Good luck with that!

Illumination and the writers will seek to create a story that modernizes the character, hopefully launching a franchise in the process.

Modernizing the character? What does that mean exactly? Because I have a sneaking suspicion that it's going to look something like this:

 

Really?

(via the Daily What)



You really think you can capitalize on this?
I don't know whether to feel disgust or pity.

Bad Ads -- Capital One

The first problem with this ad is that it features Jimmy Fallon.




Pop quiz - when was the last time Jimmy Fallon was funny?

Trick question, he was never funny.

Seriously, is there any celebrity more annoying than Jimmy Fallon? How is this the guy you want representing your product? What, was Snookie unavailable? Jack Black have a prior commitment?  Jimmy Fallon? Ugh!

Then, there's a joke. It's not what you would call a "funny" joke, necessarily, but by credit card commercial standards, it's not terrible. "If you don't want the extra money, send it to me." Okay, that's not going to win any prizes, but it's fine. If you just leave it there. But no. No, Fallon has to beat it into the ground. And then, he has this kinda racist sounding line "I'll make it rain up in hyah!"
Seriously, listen to the ad and tell me it doesn't make you uncomfortable.



It's one thing to say "make it rain." It's an expression that began with the hip-hop set, but it's not like white people don't use the phrase too. That's fine, but "up in here?" That's starting to sound a little sketchy, and pronouncing the word "here" as "hyah" or "hyar" or whatever, that's straying into Amos & Andy territory.

Why would you have him say that? Even if you had no racist intentions, how do you not hear that and say "Hey, Jimmy, just say 'I'll make it rain.' Don't try to sound like Def Comedy Jam.."

Am I wrong?

Even if I am totally off-base on the racial thing, there's still no excuse for subjecting us to Jimmy Fallon.

There is a right way and a wrong way to pet the bunny.

This is the wrong way.

Schlafly's Eagle Forum disgustingly sticks up for Penn State child-rapist

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Mandated reporting of suspicion

 The sex abuse scandal at Penn State University, which this month led to the firing of storied football coach Joe Paterno and other prominent university officials who did not report the alleged crimes to law enforcement, raises fresh questions about the legal and moral responsibilities of K-12 personnel who are more likely to be in a position to detect physical or sexual abuse of a child.

 

No. No it doesn't. There are no new questions. If you detect abuse of a child, you either call the police, or kick the shit out of the abuser and then call the police. What new questions could this case possibly raise?

Experts say most states have clear laws requiring K-12 teachers and other school employees to swiftly and directly report suspicions of abuse to police or child-protection authorities, but there are complex reasons why these so-called “mandatory reporters” may fail to take action.
“I think one of the major impediments to people reporting their suspicions is that they think they have to have more evidence that abuse is occurring,”

Um, in the Penn State case, the guy walked in on a man raping a little boy. Do you really think that he failed to report the rape because he wasn't sure he had enough evidence?

Traditional British and American law does not require citizens to report crimes that they witness. We are not a nation of snitches. If your neighbor is illegally smoking dope, you do not have to say a word.

Totally the same thing. Smoking pot, raping children, neither one is really anyone elses's business.

Penn State officials have been charged with a crime for not reporting a similar allegation against Sandusky in 2002. The entire case hinges on the memory and credibility of McQueary, but now he has changed his story and says that he reported it to the police. There is no physical or other hard evidence of abuse. According to Sandusky, the child involved will testify that McQueary is lying about what he claimed to have seen.

And if you can't believe Sandusky, who can you believe? I mean, seriously, who knows more about Sandusky's child-raping than Sandusky?

The mandatory reporting law is a direct attack on the autonomy of the American family. 

Holy Gawd! How, I mean why,  I mean what the fuck? How is this an attack on the family? Other than the fact that pretty much everything is an attack on the family in your world.

The mandatory reporting law is a direct attack on the autonomy of the American family. Many parents have practices that provoke the disapproval of others. All it takes is one anonymous call to CPS, and a govt social worker will knock on the door and threaten to put the kids in foster care. There is no due process. The upshot is that know-nothing social workers are redefining how American children are to be reared, and this is a change for the worse.

So the mandatory reporting law is an attack on  parents' right to abuse  their children? This is your family values?
And by the way, CPS doesn't just grab up children willy-nilly and toss them into foster care. Have you ever seen Judge Judy? Every other case is someone suing because the other person called CPS and filed fake complaints, and none of those false complaints ever lead to the children being taken away.

I would not be surprised if this Penn State witch-hunt concludes by the state paying millions of dollars in bogus lawsuits, and no one found guilty of anything. Plus a horrible new anti-family law. 

Wow! So what I'm getting here is that in the eyes of the Eagle Forum, it's better that child-rape go unreported than parent lose their child-beating rights.
Disgusting!