The American Public Disappoints Again

So Transformers 2 was the number one movie in America last weekend--not only that, it broke some sort of box office record in the process. Of course, the fact that this happened is not exactly shocking, but that doesn't mean it can't bring a tear to the Indian's eye.


Look people. I understand the general sentiment to want to see something like Transformers. I mean, the toys were kickass, and who can argue with robots beating the ever-living fuck out of each other? That's just good clean ol' American fun, the kind that me and my grand-pappy would engage in down in Kentucky. Shiiiyit, I remember going to the Louisville 'BotFight every Arbor Day. It's pretty much a goddamn tradition.

But just because in theory Transformers 2 would seem like a good use of 151 minutes of your time (seriously, it is that long), that doesn't mean that you should go ahead and pencil in an appointment. If you need reasons, I believe I should point you to Exhibit A: the first movie. Despite Zhuang's early review to the contrary, I would like to point out that the first movie was so bad that I refuse this day to watch it a second time, even if it included what would sure to be a hilarious Rifftrax (from Mike Hodgson, of MST3K fame). I've seen plenty of bad movies multiple times, but it is extremely rare for me to not revisit a movie to revel in its crapulence.


I mean, how can one fuck up a movie about robots pounding the crap out of each other? I mean, look, we weren't expecting much in terms of a coherent plot or story, and God knows we weren't expecting great performances from Shia The Beef or Megan Dead-Eyed Fox. But when the action is so incomprehensible that YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT GODDAMN ROBOT-BLOB IS DOING TO THE OTHER, then you don't have a goddamn robots-fighting movie. So if we're going to do this all over again, plus include some jive-talking robots that would make Jar Jar Binks blush, then you should stay the fuck away.

Again, I'm not totally anti-robot fight. Hell, I just watched the latest Terminator movie last week. America, why couldn't you have watched that instead? You would have gotten your fill of explosions and metal carnage without having to condone a cinematic abortion. Or even watch The Hangover again. Just don't fucking give any more money for Transformers fucking 2.

A Slightly Educated View of Important Stuff: Blogs v. Newspapers

Occasionally WDR finds some subject of importance to chat about that, well, we might actually know a thing or two about. Usually it's Nic who puts these together, but this time Mr. Zhuang is going to contribute.


There's been a lot of talk about the legitimacy of blog news sites versus traditional newspapers. Much of this talk is coming from newspapers which are, if you haven't noticed, drowning like rats on a sinking ship.

First I should say that I am a professionally trained journalist who likes to read information off of a printed page. I'm not exactly sure why I prefer this method and I know that I'm part of a dying breed. But there it is. I prefer print. I'm sad to see newspapers go under, but what hurts me more is the desperate way they're leaving us.

Newspapers have been our primary source of news since the founding of this country. In fact, newspapers (and other print media) are the only businesses specifically protected under the constitution. They have been important to the development of our country. The spread of basic literacy throughout the country can be attributed largely to newspaper production. Several of the Founding Fathers owned and operated newspapers. But now, with the competition from television, internet and blogs, newspapers are dying out. And of all of these competitors, blogs are being targeted most by newspapers. Blogs are singled out for not being professional and lacking the ability to properly serve as news sources.

Now let's think about this for a moment. If we looked back at the newspapers of this country early in their history, we would find something far less professional than even THIS blog. We would see newspapers with minimal stories with a blank back page for people to write in their own stories or comments. Sound familiar? Except that these comments and stories BECAME news! None of these things were cited! Most of them weren't even coherent! There were no fact checkers. The only people who would point out the problems of the paper were rival newspapers who had problems of their own.

Gradually, the press evolved to become more timely and accurate. Rules of grammar were enforced. Facts were checked. Codes of ethics were written and generally followed. It took time for newspapers to become legitimate in the eyes of the public. Even now some people won't trust newspapers. Trust is hard won and easily lost.

So now the newspapers are attacking the blogs for a lack of professionalism. To an extent it's true: Many news blogs pull stories from other sources (i.e. newspapers) but this hardly describes all of them. In all fairness, any semi-educated monkey can track down sources and make phone calls. Local news is easy enough to cover without getting out of the office if you have contacts. If you've got a contact list of trustworthy sources, a computer, a phone and the ability to write something that is reasonably coherent, you've got a local newspaper without a press.

Newspapers have one big advantage in coverage, though: National and International. If you're writing a blog in California (and not getting paid for it) you probably can't afford to go (or send someone else) to Iran and cover what's happening. Newspapers and television can afford to do this. Does this mean that they're more qualified to cover this news? No. It just means that they have enough money to send people they find competent to cover what's happening.

But what newspapers fail to notice (and perhaps it's intentional) is that blogs have the ability to become legitimate news sources if they have reader support and funding. Really, blogs are just another medium for news. They can have editors, fact checkers, foreign correspondents, etc. If blogs can figure out how to make money and hire people, they can essentially become the new-newspaper. Sure, it isn't there now, but it can be there at some point and do it a hell of a lot faster than newspapers did.

Hump Day Helper -- The Most Depressing Time Of The Year

Because it's Wednesday, and we all need a pick-me-up to make it through the rest of the week in our respective hells, WDR is providing some fun.

It's the Holidays, and often this is the time of year where we're searching for the gardenhose and connecting it to our respective tailpipes. Most people find themselves dealing with obnoxious relatives, annoying-to-the-nth-degree Christmas carols, and the hell that is shopping. And let's face it, most of the time, Christmas itself was a disappointment--you never got that awesome Transformer robot that you wanted, or that sick new Mortal Kombat. No, you were stuck with some goofy Hot Wheel and freaking Mario's Time Machine.

And even if your Christmas was great, you still have to deal with the fact that the next day, it's all over. No more good times. So no matter how you cut it, you're in for a down time this holiday season. Which seems as good a time as any to include the most somber of all the "Best of 2007" selections, in which the Editors tell us that the saddest thing that I've ever seen was indeed "Smokers Outside The Hospital Doors". And yes, we do realize they sound like a way-British version of Interpol. Shut it, because it's still good.

So the hell with lifting up your spirits on this Hump Day; for once we will allow you to wallow in the misery.

Someone turn me around
Can I start this again?...

Robert Goulet Will See You In Heaven, You Crazy Cat

We here at WDR are a big fans of the old style, as we often reminisce about our times growing up in the 50's, when times were good--no gays, no blacks, and no Jews, and that's how we liked it. Actually, that's a completely false statement, in every sense. But we are big fans of guys who can croon, and few could belt it out like the great Robert Goulet. Sadly, The Goulet died yesterday while awaiting a lung transplant, but at least he was in good spirits to the very end, as was his style. Goulet was not the kind of guy that would let disease get his bad self down.

We'll remember him for his smooth voice, his brilliant turn as the villain in Naked Gun 2 1/2, as Bart Simpson's showcase guest in his clubhouse, and his great basketball commercials (and possibly for being a spokesman for Emerald Nuts, though that's yet to be determined). Hell, The Goulets were the name of my fantasy teams for years. We'll remember you, kid.



Enjoy all the Cherry Pop-Tarts backstage as you want now, Goulet.

Damn: Spiderman 3 could have been a lot cooler and made a lot more sense

Yesterday I saw the big summer movie Spiderman 3. At this point many of you are thinking, "But Mr. Zhuang, that movie came out months ago and isn't even in theater anymore." Well you're wrong, fucko. You see, because I am very cheap, I wait to see many films until they are in what are commonly referred to as "the cheap seats." I paid one American dollar to see this film, and let me say I'm glad that it was only a dollar.

It should be known that Spiderman is my favorite comic book character (tied with Batman, of course), and to see a poorly made Spiderman movie makes me a very sad panda. I thought the first two films were good (though they made the movie mistake of killing off the villains at the end), but Spiderman 3 just didn't do it for me and here's why:

(Note: Spoilers and comic book nerdery follow)

The Venom Factor: OK, this thing was totally fucked up. First, they cast Topher Grace as Eddie Brock. I have no problem with his acting (He was great in Traffic), but he is not built for that role. He will never look like a linebacker, and that's exactly what Eddie Brock looks like. Second, Venom is never referred to by this name in the whole movie (though he's only Venom for the last 20 minutes or so). Third, they fucking KILL him at the end! Are you kidding me? Venom is a great villain, and without him going to prison, there could never be (another great villain) Carnage. Last, there simply wasn't enough of him in the movie.

The Black Alien Suit: They didn't get the story on this right despite the fact that they set it up in Spiderman 2 (with the astronaut). Also, the suit didn't look very cool. The one in the comic (smooth black with a white spider in the middle) was really cool. The one in the movie was just a black version of the old Spiderman suit. Lame. Also, it wasn't something that Peter Parker could put on and take off at will - it became a PART of him, and he could will it to show itself or not.

Sandman: I don't have a problem with the character of Sandman, but rather the way he was in this movie. His character did NOT kill Peter's uncle. He was just a crook that happened to gain some superpowers. It should also be added that Thomas Haden Church would have been a much better Venom in regard to physical size than Topher Grace.



The Story: This thing was muddled with too much other crap that didn't even need to be there (like the whole Mary Jane on Broadway story). Also, I don't recall Spiderman EVER getting the key to the city. Whatever.

Death of Green Goblin: This scene just needed to be re-shot. When people in the theater are laughing, you know you have a problem. Fix it.

Did this movie really need 3 villains?: No, it didn't.

Is this post over?: Yes, it is.