Tonight, Clemson won their conference championship game, and they poured orange Gatorade on their coach (Clemson wears orange). So that reminded me of watching Alabama win some championship where they poured cherry Gatorade on their coach. And so they always like to pour Gatorade that matches the school colors, right? But what if black is your school color? Can they get licorice Gatorade to pour on their coach? Or how about just some hot molasses? (Hey, on a cold day, maybe it would be a nice change from icy Gatorade? But then again, maybe the losing team could throw chicken feathers on him, and make it look like he’s been tarred and feathered! But that might even increase the drama of the game, and make it an even better rivalry for the next year!)
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Negative Product Placement
I was flipping through the TV guide channel tonight, and I saw that someone was showing that movie Fear Dot Com, which deals with like a haunted website or whatever. And that reminded me of those “haunted cell-phone” movies, like One Missed Call, and that Korean movie Phone, and then that reminded me of the fact that people used to write about that movie Phone’s phone: “That phone is so ugly, no wonder everyone is scared of it!” And then that got me thinking about whether that was a regular Korean cell-phone, or whether it was a prop they had to use because it would be negative publicity for a regular brand cell-phone to be seen to be haunting and killing people. And then it struck me: can you do negative product placement in movies?
We all know product placement: it’s where companies pay to have people in movies and TV shows use their products. But they’re usually a positive representation: like, for example, they usually don’t show someone choking to death on a Big Mac, or losing control of an Infiniti car and dying in a crash. But could a competitor do that? I mean, could a competitor pay to show their competition harming people? They do it in their ads all the time! So why not in movies?
So let’s take this “haunted cell-phone” idea and run with it. Could Microsoft, with all their stockpiles of cash, make a movie about a haunted iPhone that killed everyone who used it? And then, maybe it could infect all the iPhones out there (an idea that would be more believable with a Microsoft product, but whatever: nobody ever made money by advertising the truth!), and then everyone who used an iPhone would die a horrible death! Might that scare people away from using iPhones? (If that monthly bill won’t scare people away, then nothing will! {“I know it kills everyone, but it's so fashionable, and it has all these great apps!”}) And then, Apple could make a TV movie for their Apple TV that showed a cell-phone with the Andriod system becoming self-aware, and murdering everyone who used Android-powered phones by exploding their cell-phone batteries onto them, shocking them to death, directing them into oncoming traffic, etc. And they could keep making more and more horrific movies that would show what would happen if you used the competition’s cell-phone service! And then everyone would get a Jitterbug phone! (Until that movie: “I’ve fallen and I can’t get up, because my Jitterbug phone pinned me to the floor! Help! It's trying to kill me!!!”)
Then, once the precedent had been established, Burger King could show people eating McDonald’s fries and getting obese immediately upon ingesting them, like a fat version of The Incredible Hulk; and McDonald’s could show people holding a flame-broiled Whopper, which instantly catches them on fire, and they burn to death in agony, etc. It would be great! Hey, negative political ads work, so why not negative product placement? Then they could have The Texas Chain Saw Massacre be committed by a specific brand of chain saw, and sponsored by its competitor! (<“Our chain saws would never do something like the horrific crimes perpetrated by our competition!”)
Oh, it would be great! Maybe that can be a sideline for “Ad Hominem: The Political Ad Agency”!
Friday, December 2, 2011
The “War on Christmas”: A New Tactic
Hey, we all know schools hate Christmas and Santa Claus, right? And they keep trying to punish anyone who likes Christmas, but it never seem to work, except to get them bashed on Fox News. But I think I have an idea that will scare kids away from Christmas for years to come, and make it so they won’t mind when Santa and Christmas trees, etc., are banned from school! And this is what progressives must try to win the “War on Christmas”.
It’s pretty simple, really. School kids see movies in class for educational purposes all the time, right? So all they have to do is show them the horror movies Christmas Evil and Silent Night, Deadly Night when they’re in kindergarten and first grade: these two movies are gory slasher films where the killers wear Santa suits while they murder everyone. Once the kids see this stuff, they’ll be traumatized by Santa Claus, and they’ll want to avoid Christmas at all costs!
So look, schools, when you want to ban Christmas, you’ve got to make the kids support you on it! And there’s no better way to propagandize your anti-Christmas message than to show Santa Claus brutally killing people! It’s the right thing to do, to protect children from the horrible trauma of Christmastime. And to heap the benefits one on top of the other, teachers can then say to the kids: “You better watch out, you better not cry, you better not pout, I’m telling you why: Santa Claus is coming to town!!!” (Horror movie music stab, please!) And then they could pull a big knife and a Santa hat out of their desk, and scare the kids silly! (And they can then use that song as a threat anytime any kid is naughty from then on!)
And this tactic may win the “War on Christmas” for the left! (And then they could bring back the Santa sleigh to sign the new treaty in, just to rub it in!)
Elmo’s Song: A Case of Copyright Entrapment?
I was a musician and songwriter for a number of years, so I know quite a bit about the process for publishing songs and registering songs for copyright. I’ve even had some odd experiences with having material pilfered, a song licensed, etc., so I learned some real world lessons as well. And so when I see “Elmo’s Song”, this makes me think of all of this morass of copyright and attribution stuff, and then it starts to look like entrapment to me!
When you write a song, you register it with a publisher, and then you register it with the US Copyright Office. (If you don’t, you’ll be sorry…!) And so then, when someone else rips it off, you can show that it’s yours. And here’s where things get fun: if you can trick someone into claiming to have written your song, you can sue them for copyright infringement! And this is exactly what Elmo does to his “friends” on Sesame Street with “Elmo’s Song”! (Except he’s probably waiting to sue them later, when he’s down & out!) Don’t believe me? Check it out:
Okay, look, here are the lyrics to “Elmo’s Song” (reprinted under the “fair use” thingy):
This is the song,
La la la la,
Elmo’s song,
La la la la,
La la la la,
Elmo’s song,
(etc.)
He wrote the music,
He wrote the words,
That’s Elmo’s song!
Okay, so he sings this part, and then he peer-pressures other characters on Sesame Street to sing this song, but substituting their names for his, so it looks like they’re claiming to have written it themselves! For example:
This is the song,
La la la la,
Big Bird’s song,
La la la la,
La la la la,
Big Bird’s song,
(etc.)
He wrote the music,
He wrote the words,
That’s Big Bird’s song!
So there he’s got them framed! He’s got them on video and audio actually claiming to have written his song! That’s all he needs to sue them for stealing his work! Then he can extort them for thousands of dollars! And in writing a song like this, and then encouraging others to sing it, with words claiming it’s their song, he is entrapping them for copyright infringement!
Shame on you, Elmo! I thought they were your friends! How could you set them up like this?
Here’s “Elmo’s Song”, so you can all clearly see how dastardly his plot is:
And here is a webpage with the lyrics, including the entrapment part on more than one character:
(This is a joke, but it is a good example of a teachable moment in copyright law! Maybe Sesame Street ought to use this song for such a purpose.)
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Anderson Cooper and Druggie Toddlers
Tonight, Anderson Cooper had a story about foster children, and how some of them as young as 1-year-old were on as many as five psychotropic prescription drugs. And then he said this was irresponsible, or whatever, and talked to some neurosurgeon about it. But look, what does a neurosurgeon know about psychiatry? He just lobotomizes everyone! So naturally he’s mad that pharmaceuticals are replacing all of his brain surgery work in toddler lobotomies. That’s where he makes all his money! (Maybe that’s why he’s on TV now: all his work dried up because of this responsible drug treatment!)
Look, TV reporters and competing-treatment-oriented doctors don’t have a right to throw stones, here! They ask why little kids would need psychotropic and anti-psychotic and anti-depressant medications, as well as pharmaceutical speed for ADD and stuff? Isn’t it obvious? Just look at any young kid: they talk to their dolls and stuffed animals like they’re living people! They act like all this stuff is happening around them when it’s not! (Like tea parties and such.) They’re crazy! (Like a bear could speak English even if it wasn’t stuffed: yeah right! Someone’s watched too many episodes of Sesame Street!) How do we know they’re not going to be instructed to murder us all in our beds by their toys? I’m telling you: all our lives are at risk until we can stop these dangerous childish delusions in these kids!
So to protect us all, they give them anti-psychotic stuff. And then, that makes them a bit sluggish and somber, so we give them some anti-depressants to cheer up, and wake them up a bit. And then they might get a bit too bouncing-off-the-walls-y, so we give them some speed to take the edge off (it has the reverse effect on kids for some reason: We found this out when our kids got in our meth and they, um, I mean…*). And then, finally, they leave us alone, so we can get some peace and quiet! Um, I mean, that after such qualified treatment, we can finally stabilize these troubled tykes.
And you people want to criticize this? Try living with a few kids who are always asking for stuff: like food, or to play, or to get stuff read to them, or whatever: then you’ll understand that it’s all for the best! Just feed ‘em some pills, and then you can go back to watching the game! It’s the American way!
(BTW: This is just a joke, and that neurosurgeon is a good man! He hardly lobotomizes anyone anymore: I think I’ll probably be his last lobotomy, if he ever reads this!)
If you want to see more on this story, go to:
And there you can see a picture of Anderson Cooper making that annoying fake empathy face he always makes on the news during tragic stories to shame the viewer. I have always been super annoyed about this, but I wasn’t going to say anything until I saw this expression as the background picture of his blog (!). Look, Anderson: I know you’re sad about whatever, but I didn’t do it, so stop it with the “How dare you: It’s your fault!” face! I didn’t do it, and even if I did, I deny it anyway! Where’s my lawyer?
* (This, by the way, is a joke as well. But I always wondered how they found out that speed has the opposite effect on kids. Hmmm… Do you suppose they just gave it to a bunch of kids to see what would happen?)
Holiday Muzak & The “War on Christmas”
You know, I always used to wonder why the ACLU continually tried to sue everyone for manger scenes, saying “Christmas”, etc., and now I finally think I have figured it out! They think that if they can eradicate Christmas, they won’t have to listen to all this repetitive, maddening Christmas song Muzak all November and December in every store, mall, supermarket, etc., imaginable! But the joke’s on them, for Christmas Muzak is an unavoidable assault upon our sanity no matter what! And since they’ve removed the words, you can’t even accuse them of promoting Christmas anymore: it’s just a vague, minimalist instrumental suggestion of old Yuletide songs we kind of sort of remember from old holiday movies and such, I guess. (“Doobie doobie doobie doobie doo doo!” to the tune of “Walking in a Winter Wonderland”: I hear it everywhere I go! {Aaaaaa! Make it stop!!!})
And then it hit me: This is how towns and churches and schools ought to fight back against the “War on Christmas”! All they have to do is have a manger scene without a baby Jesus! Everyone will remember what it’s supposed to represent, and so they’ll get their message out, but they can’t be directly accused of religious partisanship, because there’s no deity in it. After all, it’s just a few people sitting around in a manger: they must be animal-rights advocates! (What, do you hate animals or something?) And since there’s no direct religious reference, it’s merely a suggestion; and as such, it ought to be defensible as art. And then they could maybe have Santa’s reindeer, so long as they had a guy with a rifle so it looked like a hunting scene. Just make it close enough to be suggestive, but not specific enough to be actionable! That would finally bring an armistice to the “War on Christmas”, I’ll bet. (But probably not an end!)
But hey, maybe they could make the ACLU sign the armistice in Santa’s sleigh, just to rub it in! (They could say: “What? It’s just a winter sleigh! What’s wrong? It is winter, right?”)
What’s in a Name?
I was reminded today about P. G. Wodehouse, the creator of the Jeeves character. When I was a kid in school, we were always assigned to read these intolerably boring novels, like Moby Dick, and Heart of Darkness, etc. I always thought I hated reading, because this is the only crap I was ever given to read, until I happened upon a bit of playful prose by P. G. Wodehouse at someone’s summer house.
This guy’s writing style was so light and bouncy, it didn’t even seem like literature. It seemed more like a fanciful jaunt down silliness lane, and I loved it! That’s why they never recommend his books in school: kids might enjoy reading then, and we can’t allow that! Then, nobody would get to complain about the school system, etc. (Remember, solving problems is bad for politicians, as they can’t point fingers as much!) Actually, I think the truth is even worse than that: most adults think that when kids have fun, it’s bad; and so they make sure they never get to enjoy learning, because it makes it seem like a vice. (I think we have religion to thank for this, mainly. And I’m not anti-religion, either. But you must admit that fun = guilt = evil, in most religions, and I think this is counter-productive.) Also, adult tastes are very different from kid tastes: that’s why adults don’t drink from juice boxes, and kids don’t watch Masterpiece Theater: and if they don’t even want to watch it, why would they want to read it?
But one of things about P. G. Wodehouse I’ll never forget is something you won’t find on his Wikipedia page (surprisingly!). It has to do with his name as credited on his books: when I was a fan of the Jeeves & Wooster programs on PBS in the 90s, they had a little spot about him, and they talked about how he got signed up with a publisher. Well, apparently, he submitted his work as his regular name, and everybody rejected it. Then, someone at a publisher said something about how everybody who was hot had two initials, and so he resubmitted his work as “P. G. Wodehouse”, whereupon it was instantly snatched up as the best thing since sliced bread. (Actually, did they even have sliced bread in 1916? Oh, never mind…)
But this issue has come up again and again. Apparently, Blue Oyster Cult submitted a recording to record companies as some other name, and they were told it was unmarketable, so they changed their name to “Blue Oyster Cult”, resubmitted the same recording, whereupon they were told it was great, and they got signed up! So basically, it comes down to branding, and fashion. You have to attract people to care before they will even give you a chance.
Think of it like fashionable clothes at any given era. Say you went to try to get hired as a hot actress now somewhere, but you wore high-waisted jeans from the 1980s. Nobody would even give you the time of day, I’ll bet. It’s not even about you yet: you simply have to fit in first, and then you can stand out afterwards. But you can’t even be considered until you strike their fancy, and most of that comes down to branding and style.
And there’s this: any writer who has been rejected by everyone must consider this before they give up and say their stuff won’t work: practically every big thing was rejected by everyone before it broke big. Just look at Harry Potter: everyone rejected that first. And how about the movie A Nightmare on Elm Street: everyone rejected that one, too. It’s like everyone is locked in mentally by whatever is popular at any given moment, and they can’t see beyond the current fad. After all, everyone was surprised when the Guitar Hero/Rock Band video game fad ended, and it left tons of games collecting dust on the shelves. And what replaced it as the next big thing? Angry Birds. So you just never know what’s coming next. That’s why publishers, agents, etc., ought to look for quality, rather than clones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)