An Oscar Addendum for Abby...

Here's a complete list of winners, as well as my picks, per Abby's request. This may get ugly...

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS:
Will Win: "Spider-Man 2"
Should Win: "Spider-Man 2"
Did Win: "Spider-Man 2" (1 for 1)

(I suggest you stop reading now, with me batting a perfect 1.000. It gets ugly after here.)

BEST SOUND EDITING:
Will Win: "Spider-Man 2"
Should Win: "The Polar Express"
Did Win: "The Incredibles" (1 for 2)

BEST SOUND MIXING:
Will Win: "Spider-Man 2"
Should Win: "The Polar Express"
Did Win: "Ray" (1 for 3)

BEST ORIGINAL SONG:
Will Win: "Learn to be Lonely" from "Phantom of the Opera"
Should Win: "Believe" from "The Polar Express"
Did Win: "Al Otro Lado del Rio" from "The Motorcycle Diaries" (1 for 4)

BEST SCORE:
Will Win: "Finding Neverland"
Should Win: "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban"
Did Win: "Finding Neverland" (2 for 5)

BEST MAKEUP:
Will Win: "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events"
Should Win: "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events"
Did Win: "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events" (3 for 6)

BEST EDITING:
Will Win: "The Aviator"
Should Win: "The Aviator"
Did Win: "The Aviator" (4 for 7)

BEST COSTUME DESIGN:
Will Win: "Troy"
Should Win: "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events"
Did Win: "The Aviator" (4 for 8)

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY:
Will Win: "The Aviator"
Should Win: "House of Flying Daggers"
Did Win: "The Aviator" (5 for 9)

BEST ART DIRECTION:
Will Win: "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events"
Should Win: "Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera"
Did Win: "The Aviator" (5 for 10)

BEST ANIMATED FILM:
Will Win: "The Incredibles"
Should Win: "The Incredibles"
Did Win: "The Incredibles" (6 for 11)

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:
Will Win: "Sideways"
Should Win: "Before Sunset"
Did Win: "Sideways" (7 for 12)

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:
Will Win: "The Aviator"
Should Win: "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"
Did Win: "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" (7 for 13)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
Will Win: Cate Blanchett
Should Win: Cate Blanchett
Did Win: Cate Blanchett (8 for 14)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:
Will Win: Thomas Haden Church
Should Win: Morgan Freeman
Did Win: Morgan Freeman (8 for 15)

BEST ACTRESS:
Will Win: Hilary Swank
Should Win: Hilary Swank
Did Win: Hilary Swank (9 for 16)

BEST ACTOR:
Will Win: Jamie Foxx
Should Win: Jamie Foxx
Did Win: Jamie Foxx (10 for 17)

BEST DIRECTOR:
Will Win: Martin Scorcese
Should Win: Martin Scorcese
Did Win: Clint Eastwood (arrgh) (10 for 18)

BEST PICTURE:
Will Win: "The Aviator"
Should Win: "Million Dollar Baby"
Did Win: "Million Dollar Baby" (10 for 19)

Brief Oscar Thoughts...

Don't have much time this afternoon, but here are a few quick reactions to the Oscars...

-Marty snubbed again, arrgh, but at least he lost to a worthy contender. But how long must our greatest living filmmaker go without a statue? Heck, even if "Aviator" had won Best Picture, he wouldn't have gotten one, as he wasn't a producer on the film...

-Rock was funny, quick-witted, and looked right at home. I'm not sure he'll be back, as many of the Hollywood-type apparently don't have a sense of humor (nothing but love for Sean Penn, but there was no need to defend Jude Law from Rock's comments. It was a JOKE).

-Much quicker ceremony than in past years, probably because of a streamlined presentation that included having some awards presented OFF OF THE STAGE while they set up a production number or something. Poor production designers have to accept their Oscar in the audience? Reminds me of Letterman's classic line from his Oscarcast, introducing the Scientific and Technical Award ceremony clips: "Nominees were treated to a choice of roast beef or snapper. Also live music and a cash bar. All this was the Academy's way of saying, 'You people are too dull to be on the real show!'"

-No complaints with any of the four acting winners - my "should win" won in every major category save Director (arrgh). Big ups to Jamie Foxx for giving one of the most emotional and memorable acceptance speeches in a long time.

-Not so good at my picks this year - batted .500, if that. But hey, in most cases, I was happy to be wrong.

-Personal favorite winner: Charlie Kaufman FINALLY taking one home for "Eternal Sunshine." I've never been happier for a writing winner in my life (save for maybe Tarantino for "Pulp Fiction"), and his acceptance speech was everything you would expect of a Charlie Kaufman acceptance speech - after his initial thanks, he simply started counting down the number of second he had left on the prompter. Classic.

-The Johnny tribute was very nice, but why was Whoopi the only person we heard from? I'm sure there were a ton of other hosts who could have contributed their thoughts...

-And the memorial to lost moviemakers was, as always, very touching, and the roar from the audience for some of the people mentioned (Brando in particular) couldn't help but get ya, as it always does. One of my all-time favorite Oscar moments was just after Raul Julia's tragic passing, and when his picture came up at the end of the tribute, one of the loudest ovations I've ever heard at the Oscars followed, and continued through the end of the video and through to the commercial break.

-And "Million Dollar Baby" rightly claims its place as Best Picture, controversy from all sides of the political aisle be damned. Bravo to the Academy. I can't help but wonder how many of the people who are taking such a righteous stand against this movie have not even bothered to see it, to understand its whole story and the characters involved, to experience the whole of the enterprise before condemning it? Again, I say, no matter what you've heard from ANY source, see the movie and judge for yourself before you jump on any political bandwagon regarding it. (And a note to Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Medved - if you're so convinced that the movie's "message" is hidden covertly in order to subvert the moral stance of your right-slanted audience, you are holding your audience in really low esteem, in my opinion. Imagine - you honestly feel that your listeners/viewers have such a tenuous grip on their values that the last 15-20 minutes of a movie could make them change their minds? Doesn't speak very highly of your opinion of their intelligence and/or moral conviction, does it? Morons.)

Oscar Picks and Preferences

Okay, we're two days out, time for final Oscar predictions and preferences. Let's jump in with both feet and see where the little gold guy will go...start at the bottom of the list and work our way up...skipping the shorts, best Foreign Film and best doc, as no one's seen any of 'em...

Best Visual Effects:

Spidey was an outside contender for Best Picture, but ended up not getting many nominations. This means it'll probably take all the awards it can get, especially for its awesome visual effects. And of these three films, it's clearly the best movie, and made the best use of its visuals to tell a great story.

Will Win: "Spider-Man 2"
Should Win: "Spider-Man 2"

Best Sound Editing:

I always go with the loudest and most complicated film in this category - that's Spidey again. "Incredibles" has a shot, but I'm betting the techie awards skew towards arachnids this year. In this one, though, the remarkably well-done effects of "Polar Express" really captured the fantastic environments of the story, so that's where my vote would go.

Will Win: "Spider-Man 2"
Should Win: "The Polar Express"

Best Sound Mixing:

No one knows the difference between these two categories, I admit. Barring an "Aviator" sweep, I'm thinking Spidey has this one, too. Still would lean toward the Express on my ballot, though.

Will Win: "Spider-Man 2"
Should Win: "The Polar Express"

Best Original Song:

My fear is that the Academy will cave in and give Webber an Oscar for writing his superfluous number for "Phantom," written specifically BECAUSE he wanted to win an Oscar. I'll go with that as my pick, but I still dig "Believe" from "Polar Express" - it's a corny song, but it serves its movie best of these nominees, I'd say.

Will Win: "Learn to be Lonely" from "Phantom of the Opera"
Should Win: "Believe" from "The Polar Express"

Best Original Score:

I can't say any of these stuck in my memory, really, but the haunting work of John Williams has helped give the Harry Potter movies their identity, so that's where I'd lean on should. As far as will win, sheer guess.

Will Win: "Finding Neverland"
Should Win: "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban"

Best Makeup:

Rule one: always vote for the one which used the most latex. Rule two: always vote for the one with the biggest star. Both make "Lemony" your favorite, and of these three, probably the best choice, anyway.

Will Win: "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events"
Should Win: "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events"

Best Editing:

We'll get our first taste of which way Oscar is leaning here. If "Million" wins, we may get a sweep that way. If it's "Aviator," then it goes the other. I'll say "Aviator," and given the film's great dramatic use of its cuts, I'll say it deserves it, too.

Will Win: "The Aviator"
Should Win: "The Aviator"

Best Costume Design:

Period pieces always win here, but which period - the late 19th century ("Finding Neverland"), the early 20th century ("Aviator") or the mid 20th century ("Ray")? I'll say none-of-the-above and guess that "Troy" gets this one (becoming one of the weaker Oscar-winning films ever), but I much preferred the imaginative designs of "Lemony."

Will Win: "Troy"
Should Win: "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events"

Best Cinematography:

If Oscar really wanted to be daring, it'd go to the gorgeous "House of Flying Daggers," but I'd guess that about 10% of the Academy has seen it. Keeping with the "Aviator" sweep theory, go with that one here.

Will Win: "The Aviator"
Should Win: "House of Flying Daggers"

Best Art Direction:

Always go for the most lavish sets in this one, a corollary to the "most latex" rule. I think "Lemony" has this one, but watch out for the "Aviator" to play spoiler again. To be frank, as "Phantom"'s amazing production values were the main reason to see the movie, that's where I'd lean.

Will Win: "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events"
Should Win: "Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera"

Best Animated Film:

No brainer. "The Incredibles" is in a completely different league than the other two nominees, and with "The Polar Express" being bizarrely passed over, it's a lock. And it deserves to be.

Will Win: "The Incredibles"
Should Win: "The Incredibles"

Best Adapted Screenplay:

People love "Sideways" (and rightly so), and this will be its award - like all "really good movie that we want to honor but aren't quite gonna give the big prize" things. Personally, though, even though I love "Million Dollar Baby," nothing would do my heart gladder than to see the wonderful "Before Sunset" recognized.

Will Win: "Sideways"
Should Win: "Before Sunset"

Best Original Screenplay:

"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is one of the most original screenplays ever written, by Hollywood's greatest writer, Charlie Kaufman, and he's never won an Oscar, despite giving us "Being John Malkovich" and "Adaptation" previously. But this ain't his year either, sadly - "Aviator" will get it, as part of its sweep.

Will Win: "The Aviator"
Should Win: "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"

Best Supporting Actress:

I'm torn on this one for my should. Both Madsen and Blanchett were great in very different roles in very different films. Go with Blanchett for doing an amazing job and not making her Katharine Hepburn a caricature. As far as who will...Blanchett. It's one of those star-turn things, I think.

Will Win: Cate Blanchett
Should Win: Cate Blanchett

Best Supporting Actor:

Morgan Freeman has been too good for too long and hasn't gotten a statue, and his role was awesome as "Million Dollar Baby"'s conscience. But I'm thinking that Thomas Haden Church, who a.) had a breakout role in "Sideways," and b.) makes for a better story in the minds of voters, might take this one, as one of the film's "runner-up" prizes. Oscar typically goes to either veteran actors as a reward for a body of work, or newer performers as encouragement. It could conceiveably go either way, but...

Will Win: Thomas Haden Church
Should Win: Morgan Freeman

Best Actress:

This'll be "Million Dollar Baby"'s runner-up prize, giving it to Swank here in recognition of her amazing performance (which indeed deserves to win). If there's a spoiler, it'll be Imelda Staunton for the much-respected "Vera Drake," but have enough people seen it, really? Show of hands?

Will Win: Hilary Swank
Should Win: Hilary Swank

Best Actor:

Solid, solid group for this one. As far as should...now, I really loved DiCaprio's work in "Aviator," making Howard Hughes's descent into madness palatable and sympathetic without going over the top...but Jamie Foxx took on one of the most challenging roles an actor could ever face, a living (at the time) legend and a national treasure, and not only did him justice, but triumphed. He'll win, and he deserves to.

Will Win: Jamie Foxx
Should Win: Jamie Foxx

Best Director:

Let's get one thing straight: I think that "The Aviator" is NOT the best of the five films nominated for Best Picture. That said, this award should go to Martin Scorsese. Oscar is never about who really did the best work in a year, they're as political an animal as any award out there. And here's Scorsese, who a.) is our greatest living director, b.) has never won an Oscar, EVER, c.) made a remarkable epic about a legendary American life, and d.) whose primary competition is Clint Eastwood, who already has an Oscar for Director on his mantle. The only thing which makes me unsure here is that the Director's Guild gave it to Eastwood, and usually that's an accurate indicator, but my gut still tells me this is Marty's year - and it's about damn time.

Will Win: Martin Scorsese
Should Win: Martin Scorsese

Best Picture:

No film this year had the raw, emotional impact of "Million Dollar Baby." The controversy surrounding its events - however undeserved that controversy is, in my opinion - only underlines how powerful and effective this film is, and the debates it has inspired only dilutes the impact that it has simply as a story. Just a remarkable achievement. But it won't win Best Picture. Oscar has never been big on supporting controversial work, at least not in the big categories. We might throw a smaller Oscar or two at a quality flick that comes with a scandal attached to it, but not the grand prize. It would please me greatly to be wrong, but "The Aviator" is also a wonderful movie, is an epic, was made by a great filmmaker, has a more uplifting message than "Million," and most importantly, there's no risk in giving it the award. All this tells me...

Will Win: "The Aviator"
Should Win: "Million Dollar Baby"

Enjoy Oscar night, folks...and please, post your picks either on your blog or in my comment section! I challenge you to challenge my choices! Ha ha!

Leave the Children Behind

If you didn't see it, Bill Maher's latest "New Rules" commentary from his HBO show featured an unspeakably brilliant closing monologue on a recent survey of high schoolers. Just click right 'chere, and it starts when the words in the title of this entry appear. Sadly, reading them REALLY doesn't do this one justice.

"President Bush once asked, 'Is our children learning?'...No, they isn't."

Classic.

The Best Hamburger EVER...

I just had the single best burger I've ever tasted in my life...and the kicker is, I made it myself. As someone who has relied on restaurant burgers for the entirety of his existance, this is a big deal.

See, there's this episode of Good Eats where Alton talks about "man foods," and...well, here, here's a transcript.

The recipe for the burgers comes about two-thirds of the way down, and it is well worth the (minimal) effort to make 'em. Just delicious. And hey, if you've never seen Good Eats...well, you should, darn it!

Raise your voice, and your day-glo yellow hands...

So we get the word at work tonight that a group of teenagers has written a letter to the home office of our theatre that they're planning to come in to either our place or Levis-Commons. This group is made up of anti-smoking protestors, and they have made it known that their purpose is to protest the movie "Constantine," because its lead character smokes. Their plan is to buy a block of tickets for the movie and sit in there, and whenever the character lights up, they will hold up their hands, on which will be glow-in-the-dark gloves, thus expressing their displeasure at this apparent romanticism of the habit, understanding that they will be ejected for disrupting the show, but making that sacrifice to have their voice heard.

Now, I hate smoking. I think it's an awful habit, and I really wish that those in my life who I care about that smoke (long glance in the direction of Sylvania, Ohio) would change their mind, for the sake of their own health. I'm not radical enough to demand that smoking be banned in public places (the evidence for the arguments against second hand smoke is not convincing enough for me to get THAT paranoid), but I have never smoked, and I never will. So, in theory, I can sympathize with the aims of this group.

In execution, however, I can't help but notice MANY flaws which lead me to believe that this wasn't very thoroughly thought out.

#1.) This is a group of teenagers planning to protest "Constantine." Teenagers. "Constantine" is rated R. This means that unless someone in the group is out of high school (or over 18), they probably couldn't even buy tickets for the whole of the group, because you can only buy for yourself if you're 17, and not at all if you're under. So, they're speaking out in protest of a movie that they legally could probably not even see.

#2.) Anyone who has seen the flick or read the comics knows this one: the character of Constantine is dying. It's kind of a central point that he's living on borrowed time. And WHY is he dying, boys and girls? That's right - because he smokes! Heck, the movie even has the arch-angel Gabriel explain to him that he's gonna die young because he's smoked since he was 13. So there you have it, a movie in which a character has lung cancer because he's a compulsive smoker. And they're PROTESTING this? They think it ROMANTICIZES the habit? Methinks we didn't read the reviews too carefully.

#3.) The protest was being done tonight - i.e., Tuesday. If you didn't know, Tuesday is not exactly the busiest night of the week for movies. Point of fact, if we get 10 people for a show on Tuesday, it's a big house. And THIS is the night that they decide to do this protest. They're gonna show up and raise their hands and speak out to the literally 8 or 10 people to whom their protest will be heard. The old adage about the tree falling in the woods comes to mind.

But in the long run, none of these thoughts mattered. Turns out the protestors didn't show up at Maumee, but over at Levis-Commons. And they did indeed raise their hands, and they were indeed ushered out.

Not out of "Constantine," though. They were ushered out of "The Wedding Date."

The mind reels. I've turned this event over and over in my mind several times, and I canna make sense of it, Captain. Did they try in vain to buy tickets to "Constantine," only to find out that #1 was indeed true, and decided that one way or another, by god, their gloves would be seen? Perhaps they thought that the older women seeing "The Wedding Date" (believe me, that's who's seeing it, mostly) would be more sympathetic to their plight than the 20-something demographic drawn to "Constantine?" Or maybe, just maybe...GASP!...there's smoking in "The Wedding Date," TOO? It's an epidemic! Hollywood has gone nicotine nuts! We need to protest EVERY film that has a character that smokes! No matter what, a cigarette must never be immortalized on celluloid again!

I dunno. Has anyone seen "Wedding Date," and can help me out here? Does that film glorify those devil's sticks, or was this just a horribly misfired protest from every angle?

Rest in Peace...

Dear Dr. Thompson,

I know not your reasons for deciding to depart from our company.

I will only say that I wish you had reconsidered.

For in these trying times, your voice would have continued to serve as an island of whacked-out sanity in an ocean of uncertainty and deception.

And in this day and age, we need all the help we can get.

You forever changed the face of journalism, and in many ways, society itself.

And we promise we'll do our best to keep the spirit of your work alive.

Salut.

New Survey Thing

As with the previous survey thing I posted, I got this from Lia, who in turn got it from her friend zOmb1. I feel like I'm cheating because I didn't fill it out on Lia's page, but then I figure I don't know her well enough yet to answer some of these. But hey, you guys know me better than I know me, probably, so...

I ____ Jeff.
Jeff is ____.
If I were alone in a room with Jeff, I would _______.
I think Jeff should _____.
Jeff needs ______.
I want to ____________ Jeff.
If I used one word to describe Jeff, it'd be ______.
I know that Jeff likes ______.
When I think of Jeff, I think of _______.
Someday, I think Jeff will ________.
My favorite memory of Jeff is _________.
Jeff's best quality is________.
Jeff's worst quality is_______.

Fill this out and post it in my journal. Then paste it in your own.

A Valentine's Confession

Valentine's Day may be a construction, but the feelings it represents are real.

For the past five years, maybe more, I have put on a pretty elaborate show for my friends, specifically my female ones, on or around Valentine's Day. I dress up nice, I (occasionally) slick back my hair, and I hand out roses and Hershey's Kisses, acting all the while like a French lover (which over the years I've named "Geoff"), going as far over the top as I can. The effect is usually twofold, I have observed - laughter, because the act is funny, accompanied by genuine delight and, in many cases, being touched by the gesture. I have been told by several of the recipients that they have held onto their roses for years (I give out fake ones, which I prefer to real precisely because they last). I have also seen women literally turn to their boyfriend after my schtick, and jokingly chastise them for never doing anything that romantic for them.

My reasons for doing this, I think, are also twofold. First and foremost, it has become kind of a defense mechanism. I know many friends who get very depressed on Valentine's Day, because it underlines their lack of success in the game of love, or that they are currently without a significant other. Personally, I've had too much depression to stomach any more of it. Ergo, I turn the day into a game, something I can look forward to - planning the schtick, buying the flowers, deciding the wardrobe - rather than dread.

Secondly, I view it as a release, a chance to be someone who I desperately wish I could be, but believe I never could. Like it or not (and when it hurts I hate it), I am a hopeless romantic, in an era where the hopeless romantic is going completely out of style. My attitude and viewpoint on love is now becoming solidly passe, and expressing it seems to become less and less of an option for me as time goes by.

I am now 27 years old, and I have never been in a serious relationship (or even a short-lived one), at least partially because I haven't participated much in the casual dating ritual of my generation. I keep holding out for the one, true love, I think, no matter how much I tell myself that it's a pipe dream. There's an old joke about a guy who prays every day to win the lottery and after years of praying, asks God why he hasn't won. God responds, "Hey, meet me halfway and buy a ticket!" That's me. This has nothing to do with my size, and everything to do with my confidence and attitude.

My default assumption in my relationship with pretty much every woman I know is, they won't be interested, so why bother asking? I am also very empathetic toward those female friends who have told me, on many occasions, that guys seem to relate to them ONLY as a sexual object, and that most male friendships they have made seem to come with only one goal in mind on the guy's part. So, my stance is to be very plain and clear toward those who my interests are simply friendship, and let them know bluntly that no ulterior motives exist. I don't think these attitudes on my part are a bad thing, by any means - they're part of what makes me proud to be who I am - but they are so firmly engrained in my being that when a woman comes into my life that I WOULD be interested in, my attitude is still that of "protect the friendship" rather than anything else. I never state to them outright that I wouldn't be interested (I NEVER lie about such things), but I never say I would, either. End result, nothing changes.

So Valentine's Day becomes kind of a cathartic experience for me. To my female friends who are simply my friends, I give them a rose and make them smile with a silly act. To those who I wish had a chance to be something more, it allows me to be the complete, gushing romantic I am inside, and say some of the things I never let myself say.

This year, I'd kind of backed myself into a corner with my act. Last October, for Sweetest Day, I went ahead and bought everyone a bunch of fake roses and left them anonymously, telling myself that I could get away with it if no one knew who did it. Well, Jess called me, like, 10 minutes after I left them at the Bowl, so that idea got chucked out the window. So, what could I do that could top everything else? I'm a big believer in escalating effort in traditions, a bigger and better event than before, in determining success. So, this year, I decided the only way to really top everything was to make the bit completely individual for everyone who I did it to...so, I wrote everyone a poem. It was slow going, as I've never really tried it before (songwriting, sure, but parodies and funny stuff), and the end result wasn't Shakespeare or anything, but overall, nice little things. All of them were designed to be read in person to the individuals whenever possible, but in the end, only Caitlin got the full bit, as everyone else was out when I stopped by on Sunday...which I do regret.

Thing of it is, and the thing I never told anyone was...that was it. This year was my last year doing the Valentine's schtick, at least for the forseeable future. Because it occurred to me that, if I really want to change things, if I really want to make strides to make my life better, I have to stop giving myself those kinds of "outs." Sure, one day a year, I let myself be a huge softy and indulge in the romantic within me. But that means I feel safe bottling him up for the other 364. No longer. This is not to say that things done in the spirit of those gestures will not continue - the romantic side of me will remain as long as I live, I think - but rather that they will come more frequently, and directed more specifically. Because I'm tired of being a one-note individual. I want to take those chances. I want to be so in love it hurts, and do things for that woman so incredibly silly and romantic on a regular basis that...well, I would feel like I feel on Valentine's Day all year 'round. Because it's a great feeling. I miss it. Time to stop limiting myself.

So, to all my friends - thank you for indulging me for the past five years, and I hope you've enjoyed the tradition while it lasted. If I brought you a smile or made you blush, I accomplished my goal, and it makes me very happy. To everyone who got a poem this year, I meant every word I said, and I hope they were enjoyed in the spirit they were written - as both a loving tribute to those who mean so much to me, as well as a grand goodbye to a time of my life.

But now, time to move on. And working hard to make Jeff just a little closer to Geoff.

Yes, I'd like to buy a few lottery tickets, please.

My Life in Song...

Figured you guys would enjoy this...

Describe yourself using one band and song titles from that band
Created by naw5689 and taken 17440 times on bzoink!
Choose a band/artist and answer only in song TITLES by that band:	"Weird Al" Yankovic
Are you male or female:	Such A Groovy Guy
Describe yourself:	Young, Dumb & Ugly
How do some people feel about you:	Good Enough For Now
How do you feel about yourself:	Livin' In The Fridge
Describe your ex girlfriend/boyfriend:	My Baby's In Love with Eddie Vedder
Describe your current girlfriend/boyfriend:	You Don't Love Me Anymore
Describe where you want to be:	Stuck In A Closet With Vanna White
Describe what you want to be:	I'll Be Mellow When I'm Dead
Describe how you live:	Christmas At Ground Zero
Describe how you love:	Attack Of The Radioactive Hamsters From A Planet Near Mars
Share a few words of wisdom	Everything You Know Is Wrong
Create a Survey Search Surveys Go to bzoink!

A request...

To Mr. Jim Emerson, editor of RogerEbert.com;

As funny as this may sound, I go to RogerEbert.com to read reviews, articles, essays and the like written by, well, Roger Ebert.

This is not to say that your articles are uninteresting (which they are) or that I usually dissagree with your views (which I do), for your opinions are as worthy of publication as anyone is on this great, big Internet.

But please stop publishing your articles on the website's main page, listed right along side Roger's pieces, without any attribution, appearing to the layperson browsing the page to, indeed, be Roger's work, until one actually clicks on the link, and finds that it is an essay by you.

Please, move your pieces to another section of the site, or at the VERY least, do what you were doing for a while last year - list your name in the title, so that we know before we click that it is your work, and those of us uninterested in you (i.e., me) may skip over your writing. The very fact that your works are not attributed as such anymore indicates to me one of two possibilities: one, you've gotten lazy, or two: being the website's editor, you found that no one was reading your work on its own merits, so you started publishing again without attribution, in the hopes that the general Ebert-loving public would be fooled into clicking.

Please, sir, either way, stop.

-Jeff McGinnis

P.S. - By the way, the site has not improved since you took over as editor. It's much harder to navigate, the addition of "reader star ratings" is an absolute joke, and while I appreciate a more thorough catalogue of Roger's reviews than we had before, the newly redesigned and utterly baffling search engine renders their presence virtually useless. But hey, we get pretty pictures now, all right.

Corn: A Space Odyssey

The story you are about to read is true. The names have been omitted to protect the innocent.

So, I'm on AIM with one of my dearest, dearest friends, who I think the world of and would do anything for. She's one of the world's coolest peeps. But on this night, she asks me perhaps the single weirdest question I have ever (and when I say ever, I mean ever) been asked. Think of any weird question you can. Anything. There are no boundaries on this. You can think of ANYTHING you want. Got one? No, BZZT, sorry. No matter what you thought of, it CAN'T be any weirder than the question she asked me.

"Can you tell me any memories you have of corn?"

Stop a second and think about what you just saw. Re-read it, if you have to.

Yes, that was ACTUALLY the question she asked. And we aren't even talking about the band or anything. She meant the vegetable. She actually wanted written memories of the food.

Now, she had actual reasons. She is apparently in an agricultural studies course and had to write a paper reviewing a cookbook and something else about the history of corn. And I guess she needed some background and/or anecdotes of the veggie for the essay. All this is a practical and understandable reason for asking such a question.

This still, however, does not detract from the fact that she was asking me to write out my memories of CORN.

So, being the loyal friend that I am, I did the best I could. I wrote of how my mom grew corn in her garden and I could remember helping schuck it as a child. I wrote about how our family always ate boiled corn, right on the cob. I wrote of how some of my friends have introduced me to grilled corn, grilling it with the husk still on. I wrote of how I grew up on a farm surrounded by cornfields, and played in them all the time as a kid. And when I'm done, she is indeed very thankful for contributing my valuable corn nostalgia to the project.

Now, all this, I did, and though it was indeed truly bizarre, it wouldn't have warranted posting this story to the blog. Especially not after I spent the better part of an hour baring my soul in my previous post. (See below.)

But then, about an hour later, I get another message from her. Apparently, she accidentally X-ed out the AIM window my corn anecdotes were in. And then she asked if I could please RE-SEND THEM.

So, not only was I asked the single most bizarre question I can remember, and not only did I write a paragraph or so of memories about corn...but I did so TWICE.

The perfect punchline to a truly odd day.

Life vs. Cards

I have decided that I play the game of my life as I play poker - which, on the whole, is not a good thing.

Poker, for me, is a very deliberate, structured, disciplined game. My strategy is very similar to that of the tortoise in the old fable - slow and steady wins the race. If you've ever played with me, you probably notice that I don't bluff all that much. I'm not aggressive. I don't usually put a good sized bet on the table unless I have something god in my hand - something worth backing up. I don't take chances while at the table, for fear of losing what I have. My theory is if I hold on long enough, to enough chips, eventually the big prize will come to me. All I have to do is stick to my strategy, and not be reckless, and eventually, the big pot will come my way.

This is all a fairly sound theory on how to play the game, I think. But it's relatively incompatible with a life plan, if one expects to be happy in the long run. As of right now, I have decided that my life has been a series of non-risks.

Professionally, I'm at a stalemate. I'm at the same job I was at nearly four years ago - the job that I told myself was just a way to earn some cash before grad school. But I'm still here, wearing the same name tag, at the same place, trying to hold on to what I have. Granted, the hours have improved significantly and my pay rate has, as well, as well as my level of respect thanks to my new position, but that only distracts from the fact that I'm a 27-year-old man who's still basically a clerk at a movie theatre. This should - must - change.

Personally, I'm still living with my grandmother, trying to help her and so forth, but she really doesn't need my help. She's a fiercely independent woman, who can take care of herself, thank you, and really the only reason I'm living there is for my mom's sake - she worries, a lot, and needs to know that Grandma's okay. Well, she is, and has said that she'd be more than okay if I moved on to my own place. But I'm still there. I need to live on my own. But I'm not. Why?

Socially, I'm still single. This is the part of my life where my failure hurts me the most. Despite the draining events of the past few years, I am still, at heart, a hopeless romantic. All I have ever really wanted - before success, independence, anything - has simply been to be loved. Period. But I have nothing to show for it. For all my qualities, such as they are, when presented with any kind of romantic interest, I become an incompetent boob who cannot for the life of him take a chance and say something. My instinct is always to be the best person I can be - be a good friend first. Don't sacrifice a quality friendship for a pipe dream. I tell myself that no woman would ever want to be with me. That no matter how good a person I am or how much I try to be there for them, they will never see me as anything but a friend, nothing more. I disqualify myself from the race before the gun even goes off.

And in the few instances where I have done something - anything - to express my interest, I get, "oh, you're too good a friend," or "you're just too nice a guy" or "but I love you in another way." All of which act as both genuine compliments and genuine attempts to let me back down to earth in as gentle a way as possible. I am still friends with every woman who has ever told me any of these things. I do value my friendships so very much. It's just when I hear women I know talk about how there seem to be no guys out there who treat them with respect or who don't act like @$$holes or who don't see them as sexual objects first, and on, and on, and on...I just wanna shout, there's ME! I've tailored my whole life to being the most kind, sensitive, caring person I could be, and I know in my soul I would love loyally and completely. But I'm not on the list, and for most of them, never will be. Why?

Because. Because of me. Because I won't put in the serious, hard effort it takes to change all that. I'm not attractive, that I know. But that could change. I just have to start working on it, seriously, deliberately, dedicated. I'm not confident. But THAT could change. I just have to start trying more, being myself more, being myself more often. Confidence comes with practice and time, too. I may lose more than I'll win, but only the luckiest of us come out winners all the time. With all things, success comes only through a studied combination of patience, dedication...and risk.

One of these, I have. The other two, I lack. And it's eating me up inside. It's only through a continued focus on strengthening those facets that I can ever hope to achieve what I want, hope and need to achieve. I need to start playing some hands. Because this pot ain't gonna last forever.

Cool stuff, cooler stuff, coolerer stuff, coolest stuff

A few things to regale you all with on this fine Saturday evening...

-The BGSU Rumble went off without a hitch last night, and as always was very fun. Congratulations to Laura Butera, whose creation Michael Jackson won the whole she-bang, earning her both the coveted Royal Rumble trophy and a copy of "Napoleon Dynamite" on DVD (at her request, natch). Thanks to everyone who attended once again, and as always making the Rumble a very fun time for all.

-And in addition to all that, Rumble attendees were the first to learn about...the revival of the Midnight Readings. Our series of dramatic readings was very well received by all who participated, and I've been asked to start them up again pretty much ever since we stopped doing them. Well, here we go again...the tentative date is March 18th, and we've already selected our first piece - the DC graphic novel "Kingdom Come." It's a marvelous piece, and will make for an excellent reading. We already had many of the parts called last night (the priviledge of Rumble attendance, ya see...you should have come after all! :) ), but there's plenty open, so if you're interested in participating, or even just attending (these things are always a blast), just gimme a shout and let me know.

-With spare cash I picked up the Rob Van Dam DVD set that the WWE just recently released (double disc, 16 matches, wicked cool) and the complete second season of Taxi, which, if you didn't know, was when Reverend Jim became a regular ("What does a yellow light mean?" "Slow down." "Okay. What...does...a...yellow...light...mean?").

-But by far the best thing which has happened in the past few days has been having the chance to get to know someone very cool through Friendster. I won't blab her name all over the place yet (not until I get permission to do so, anyway), but she's a tremendous person who I am honored and thrilled to have gotten the chance to chat with, and hope for many more chats in the days to come. Thank you very much, miss, and to paraphrase Casablanca, I hope this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

"How old am I?"

Heather is gonna kill me for telling this to you all, but I can't resist.

So, for the Rumble, I've been compiling statistics on all our entrants, including number, where they're from, and so forth. Just for fun, and to regale the room with many amusing bon mots about the eclectic group we've got playing in this year's event. It occurs to me that Heather's mother is probably the oldest creator that we've got in the Rumble, but I don't have the slightest idea how old she actually is.

So, I go to my primary source of all Shannon Info, and call Heather. I ask how old Diane is. She pauses for a long second, then asks, "How old am I?"

It takes me a second to digest this question. I wasn't sure if she was asking rhetorically, or if she was...well...really asking. So, I tell her. (This age, I knew - she's my best friend, after all - and no, I won't go blabbing Heather's age all over the net. I'll be in deep enough $#!+ for telling you guys the rest of this story as it is.)

"Well, just take my age and add 20 years. That's how old Mom is." Okey-doke. But, um...I was still wondering. Did Heather really have to ask me her own age?

The next sentence answered that question quite directly. "Honey, when you've lied about your age as much as I have, even you lose track after a while."

And that, ladies and gentlemen, in an anecdotal, slice-of-life fashion, should tell you quite a bit about Heather Shannon. Wonderful friend. Amazing person. Age fibber. :)

(If you don't hear from me for a few days, this time it won't be because I'm slacking off. It will be because I'm in the hospital.)