UH

I am just fucking astonished that I am in the minority here.  Every time someone tries to eat my popcorn they just grab as much as they can as though the popcorn is going to be gone in 2 seconds.  Im sure the instinct comes from some previous experiences where you had to grab the popcorn before it was gone, but im so tired of everyone just making bombs go off in my bowlw of popcorn because they cant just eat food.

Every time I eat popcorn I just grab what I want to put in my mouth.  How is that fucing unusual?  Everyone else just spills popcorn all over the floor trying to shove the ridiculous amount of popcorn into their mouths.  Instead of spilling popcorn all over the fucking floor you could just grab the amount that will go in your fucking mouth you fuckinng gaggot

Imagine how many lives wowuld have been made easier if you didnt grab too much popcorn, if you didnt spill crumbs all over the floor, if you didnt keep everyone from getting their fair share with your neanderthal attack at food.  How the fuck am I supposed to eat normally whwen you are just raping the bowl?  You dont eat other food this way; why do you have to just dive head first into a bowl of impatience every time popcorn i s around?

The thing is that if you actually just ate at a normal pace you would have a mroe enjoyable popcorn experience.  When you arent focused on getting as much popcorn per second in your mouth (pps) you can realize why you are actually eating.  It’s not like your body needs food, popcorn is all eating experience and no hunger satisfaction, so by bypassing the enjoyment you are fighting everything popcorn stands for

Oh my god this is so bad and incoherent which is exactly why I have to post it now

To begin with, I dont give two rat’s asses about the NBA.  I dont really like basketball as a sport and even the part of me that does would much rather watch college basketball.  For this reason, when I hear about the NBA being fucking stupid I dont write blog posts about it, I ignore it and assume that I am not well informed about the situation.  That was the case with the Chris Paul trade until tonight.

I had been hearing a lot of shit on the radio and from my friends about how fucking terribly the NBA was handling this trade, but until tonight I assumed I must be missing a piece of the puzzle.  When I got home, sportscenter was showing an interview with NBA commissioner david stern and I thought that I might finally hear the other side of the story.  To my disbelief, David Stern’s interview only pushed me further away and I could not believe that this moron was actually the commissioner.  I could have made the league look better with zero preparation and Stern was probably preparing for that interview for a week.  When I saw it, I immediately wanted to write about it and I ran for pen and paper because I knew my drunk ass wasnt going to remember everything.  For this reason, you can rest assured that I am not editorializing Stern’s stupidity because I actually wrote that shit down (thank you dvr).

Before I launch into the interview, I think I should back up for a minute because my readers may be even less familiar with the situation than myself.  Apparently last year (or some time in the past) the New Orleans Hornets went bankrupt and instead of being purchased by a new owner, they were taken over by the NBA.  Essentially this means that the other 31(? I dont know how many fucking teams are in the NBA) teams own the Hornets.  Does this sound like a conflict of interest to you?  So, this year the hornets’ star player was in the last year of his contract.  They knew there way no way they would resign him, and its not like they will be contending for a championship this year (they suck) so the best thing for their franchise is to trade him.  A trade was agreed upon that sent Paul to the lakers and a ton of players to the hornets.  I think the hornets got Odom, some young players, and some draft picks, but what matters is that the Hornets got a ton of shit for a player who they were going to lose in a year anyway.  All the people who know more about the NBA than me unanimously agreed that this was a great trade for the Hornets.  

The problem was: the other owners didnt like the trade because it made other teams better.  Specifically it made the lakers better.  The NBA was already a fucking joke in that going into this season there are really only 4-6 teams that have any chance of winning the [blanking on the name of the trophy im going to make something up] dangus.  I mean the NBA is even significantly worse than the MLB in that respect.  I’d be willing to bet that five or fewer teams have won the dangus in the last 10 years.  So basically the 27 other teams are pissed off about this and dont want the lakers to get any better.  So, when the hornets try to make a trade that will send a star player to the lakers, the rest of the NBA says no.  The hornets now have an “owner” who benefits from the hornets’ (and lakers’) failure.  I cant believe everyone just took it in stride that the NBA took over the team and waited until this happened to raise the issue.  Perhaps they thought the NBA wouldnt dare interfere with the hornets’ GM and other staff, which I might even have believed until this happened.  The NBA vetoed the trade in the final hour and this is the reasoning given by David Stern:

The following is my transcript of the interview, only some parts are direct quotes because I didnt want to write down everything.  RN is the interviewer and DS is David Stern.

RN: Why was the trade not acceptable?

Actually I think I am going to add a third participant to the interview, RE is acting on behalf of david stern and giving the answers that anyone with half a brain would give.

RE:  The trade was not in the best interest of the Hornets’ franchise.  We are now working with the Hornet’s GM, etc to find a solution which is more beneficial to the future of the franchise.

DS:  The NBA owns the Hornets, so I make the final decisions.  I decided that the trade wwas not going to be made.

Seriously david stern?  I mean my answer was intentionally vague, I didnt even go into details about why the trade was not good for the Hornets, but you couldnt even be bothered to say that?  Your ego is so big that you thought “I’m in charge, I do what I want” is an appropriate answer?  Let’s continue.

RN:  How do you resolve the conflict of interest?

DS:  I dont understand what the conflict is.

RN:  Really?

Thank you rachael for saying what we were all thinking.

DS:  My job is to make the best deal for the hornets.

Oh, why didnt you say that immediately.  I mean he honestly doesnt look that bad if he says he is trying his best to separate himself from the league and make a decision in the best interest of the hornets, but why the fuck did he try to deny that there is a conflict of interest?  Does he just think that we are all just fucking idiots and rachael nichols isnt even going to try to give a decent interview?  I think its hilarious that “really?” is all it took for stern to be like “oh, ok, I guess I’m not going to get away with that.”  

RN:  In light of the backlash, in the future would you consider appointing an independent “owner” for the team

RE:  Although I feel that I have acted in the best interest of the hornets, removing myself from the situation in the future could eliminate any illusion of a conflict of interest

DS:  The backlash was ill-informed (I’m pretty sure I wrote this down correctly)

Ignoring the fact that this sentence doesnt make sense and moving forward to what he meant, it seems that Stern thinks anyone who doesnt like what he does is just wrong and he shouldnt have to answer to them because they are stupid.  What the fuck?  Even if you actually think this why would you say it in an interview on national tv.  Once again, I’m sure he prepared a lot for this interview and came out with his well prepared answer of fuck anyone who doesnt like me.  How the fuck is this moron the commissioner?

RN:  Anything you would have done differently?

DS: No [and then something like I might have been more forthcoming about this]

but it is far more telling that the first word out of his mouth was “no.”  Stern is so fucking arrogant that his ego prevents him from giving the diplomatic answers that any sane person could shit out.

RN:  [Some question about the influence other owners had on the decision]

RE:  Several owners contacted my office, but I had to make the decision that was in the best interest of the hornets

DS:  Only 2 owners communicated with me and that was after the decision had been made.

You seriously expect us to believe that?  I’m sure almost all the owners had something to say about this trade, but you try to convince us that they didnt care rather than that your responsibility was to ignore them?  How fucking stupid do you think we are?

David Stern is a fucking idiot and he makes the NBA look so fucking bad.  I think the NBA is already a mess to begin with, but rejecting this trade only makes it look so much worse.  Yes, the regular season and first half of the playoffs are a complete waste of time.  We all know which teams will be around at the end and yes that is a huge problem for the league.  However, the way to deal with that is by changing salary caps and the way the league works (maybe something you should have considered in the labor negotiations instead of just what % of the money we get).  Rejecting this trade only makes the league look like more of a fucking joke.  I honestly hope everyone just loses interest in the NBA and the whole fucking league goes bankrupt.  Bring back that sport where they play basketball on trampolines instead

why in gods name is columbus day a fucking federal holiday?  I can name baseball players more deserving of a federal holiday, fuck columbus

Reference humor is really not humor at all, we have just been tricked/conditioned into laughing at it.  I guess to say I hate “reference humor” is misleading because I dont hate actual jokes just because they include a reference, but rather I hate when references are passed off as a joke in and of themselves.  You see this shit all the time from terrible shows like family guy, but unfortunately we also see it a lot from other humor outlets that dont suck dinosaur dick.  The reason they do it is simply that it almost always works, in that even if the “joke” isnt funny it will make us laugh and then we will think we enjoyed it because we laughed.  

I think the only reason that you people (changing pronouns because I dont do this shit) laugh at reference bullshit is to let other people know that you got the reference.  When you see a reference that might go over the heads of the people you are with, you laugh instinctively to let them know that either you got the joke too, or that you got it and they didnt and therefore you are superior.  For some reason people see understanding these shitty references as a source of pride and feel a need to let everybody know that they got it and sit up in their smug little tower of understanding.  To some extent we should be proud of amassing knowledge, but usually these jokes are some stupid pop culture bullshit you have no reason to be proud of knowing, and even when it is something intellectual you are still being an asshole by laughing just to brag to your friends that you got it.  I’m willing to bet that people are so used to doing this shit that many people laugh at references even when nobody is around because they’ve been conditioned to do so.

Since I dont often spy on people watching tv by themselves I cant actually prove this theory, but one example thats close comes from when I went to see the pooh movie this summer.  This is also an example of a movie that was funny and cute and didnt suck balls, but used one shitty reference joke that didnt work at all.

There is a scene where they are trying to set a trap for this mysterious creature and there are lots of short, few-second scenes of the characters setting up the trap.  In one of these scenes piglett nervously and carefully replaces an item like indiana jones.  There is no context and no joke, we just see piglett replicating a scene from raiders of the lost ark and all the adults in the theater laugh.  Were they laughing to rub their children’s noses in the fact that they didnt get the joke?  Were they laughing to let everyone in the theater know they were proud to have seen a movie that 95% of people in their generation have seen?  Probably not, they were probably just laughing because they have conditioned themselves to laugh at references, but they probably walked out of the theater thinking they enjoyed the movie more because of it.

The annoying thing about reference non-humor is that its just incredibly fucking lazy because its so easy to just make some small joke out of the reference instead.  For example, suppose in the pooh movie we had pooh tell piglett to be careful with that honey pot and then piglett does the indiana jones thing.  It would be funny because we know pooh meant to be careful because the pot was fragile, but piglett misinterpreted pooh’s warning and thought there might be some indiana jones type danger.  You can argue that joke isnt funny (in which case fuck you that shit came of the top of my fucking head yall (lololol its a reference)) but at least its an actual joke that requires knowledge of raiders of the lost ark and not just a reference to raiders of the lost ark.  

So my message to all you dickholes is to stop letting yourself become conditioned to laugh.  Laugh at things that are funny and dont laugh at things that arent.  Every time you laugh at a non-joke reference I want to punch you in the face.

It seems like every time I become mildly interested in a new tv show they start throwing in stupid fucking bullshit to make me hate the show.  It’s like networks cant be content with a show that has any kind of focus and just force them to shoehorn in a bunch of different shit to appeal to more demographics.  The worst and most obvious offenses are when a show has to shove in some sexual shit that has no business being in the show.  We have to watch some stupid fucking scene that has absolutely no impact on the story and even in the case of comedies often lacks even a joke.  I guess I’ve heard before that sex sells but I really dont understand why.  I think sex is attention grabbing and can understand putting something sexy in your commercial because people will remember it, but why make your show shitty by shoving it into every episode?  Here are a few reasons that sex does not sell:  

1.  If people are looking for porn, they will go look for porn.  There is so much porn and it is so easy to find that its hard to imagine anyone looking to tv for sexual arousal these days, even teenage boys.  

2.  Sexual content makes me embarrassed to watch your show.  There are very few situations in which a group of people watching tv will all feel comfortable with sexual content on the tv.  Personally if I’m the one holding the remote in a group of people and the people on tv start having sex, im changing the fucking channel.  

3.  I dont want to be sexually aroused.  Men do not think about sex all the time and do not want to be thinking about sex all the time.  When I turn on the tv I want to watch a fucking tv show and I dont want to be thinking about sex.  If I wanted to watch porn I’d go fucking watch porn and not your tv show.

4.  Stupid unnecessary sex scenes detract from the tone/theme/plot/characters/etc.  It seems to me that most of the time these scenes are thrown in when the writers/directors clearly dont want them there, undercutting their ability to develop a good show.  One stupid scene can unravel all of the work that has been done over the course of an episode.

Obviously there must be some group of people that arent me who want to watch this shit or they wouldnt do it, so I guess every show needs to try to rope in this group of retards.

I think the sex shit is just one example though of a larger trends where networks try to make every show appeal to demographics they have no business trying to appeal to.  If I decide to watch some new show about some elite military sniper, then I want to watch him/her fucking going on dangerous missions and sniping people.  What I dont want is some retarded fucking subplot about the relationship with the sniper’s girlfriend that takes up a third of the show (this is a made up example so I hope it doesnt resemble a real show).  Why cant we just have a goddamn show about a goddamn sniper and not try to give homosexuals a reason to watch it.

This is also really common with comedies that stop really trying to be comedies, a trend which may have started with the success of the office.  The office began as a comedy with a specific style to it, but then they realized enough people were hooked and they could just make it about the relationship between jim and pam and keep more of those people coming back.  I stopped watching the show but from what I saw they just went on with more shit about the characters’ personal lives and the whole workplace comedy aspect went to the back burner.  The problem was that the show became more successful than ever because the show lacked focus.  Any big group of 10 people would be fine with watching the office (even me) because there is some stuff in there to appeal to everyone.  Its no wonder you just watch like 3 episodes of the office every time you fly on a fucking airplane.

The thing is that when shows are done well they can appeal to tons of people without specifically trying to hook their demographic.  I bet there were a bunch of faggots that wanted Jerry Seinfeld to settle down and probably a bunch who wanted he and elaine to get married, but the show didnt do that because it would have sucked dick.  The show had a clear simple vision and the people working on it understood its strengths, which is why it was one of the most successful shows of all time.

Today it seems like far too many shows on the major networks are following the office’s model for success and not seinfeld’s.  Throw in a bunch of shit to appeal to everyone and most of the time you are going to get an unfocused mess that appeals to no one.  There are still a lot of great shows out there, but too many potentially great ones are ruined by this mentality.  I dont think that all shows are declining in quality or some stupid shit like that, it just angers me when I see new shows that have potential or shows that I once liked being ruined by shoving in stupid shit that doesnt belong.

As the NFL lockout draws to a close (or so I’ve heard) I think its time for me to weigh in on the matter.  Pretty much everyone I’ve talked to about it views the owners as a bunch of big selfish fat cats for “locking out” the players, but I am going to have to completely disagree.  Although I havent followed the lockout closely and havent done any research for this post, I’m going to have to assume that the reason I disagree with everyone is that they are all just misinformed, stupid, or communists.

Although its emotionally easier to side with players who are trying to support their families than owners who are trying to buy a new private jet, this isnt actually a reason for me to take sides on a serious business issue and I’m not going to bother arguing with the communist faggots who would.  I do think a lot of people view the issue as the mean owners “locking out” the players who just want to play football, and while this is technically true it doesnt nearly tell the whole story.  In fact I think the NFLPA ran some stupid fucking commercial a little while ago to get people on their side with players saying “just let us play” or some stupid shit like that.

In reality the NFL is a business and that business should be allowed to offer players however much money they want, but the problem is that the players have formed a union and are demanding a certain amount of money from the owners.  Now I’m sure the owners have had an offer on the table for the players all along, but the players union refuses to take it and so we have this stalemate that is for some reason being spun as a “lockout.”  It’s as though you applied for a job, the company made you an offer and you declined it demanding more money and then you bitched when the company locked you out of their expensive facilities.  What a bunch of dicks, right?

In my mind when a company makes me an offer and I dont like it I look for another company and they look for other workers, and I dont see how this should be different in the NFL.  A long time ago unskilled workers needed to form unions to prevent exploitation, but I hardly think that players in the nfl are in danger of this kind of exploitation.  Really they are just trying to squeeze every penny they can out of the owners by threatening to strike.  Does this sound like extortion to you?  In any normal industry the company could just hire other workers, and really if the nfl players didnt reach an agreement then the owners can do this, they just really really dont want to do that and the players are trying to cash in on that fact.  I just dont see how the fuck the owners come off looking greedy by not giving in to the NFLPA’s demands.

In my mind the NFLPA is just another business trying to make as much money as possible and I dont see why the fuck some people view them as a bunch of saints looking out for the little guy.  In reality if there was a strike the little guy would get fucked over by the very organization that swore to represent him and his career might be ruined because some assholes in the union wanted to hold out for more money.

I really dont even see why anyone wants to be in the players union and if I were a player I certainly wouldnt.  Sure, the NFL might offer me a shitty salary but if they continued to do this then they would start to lose all the best players to another league.  As a skilled football player I would be a valuable commodity that the NFL would be willing to pay good money for.  In the short run they could cash in on their reputation, but they wouldnt do this because they would get fucked in the long run.  Since I would probably have an agent anyway, I dont know why I would also be paying some big business to extort the NFL on my behalf.  It almost seems immoral to me because I believe in capitalism and that the free market allows me to earn a fair wage for the services I offer.  

Even if the union didnt exist and salaries were a lot lower, I wouldnt feel one bit of sympathy for the players because they are being paid fairly for the free market value of their skills.  Anyone who can manage to make a living playing a fucking game is not being exploited.  If tomorrow the orioles offered me a contract for $20,000 a year and my boss offered me $200k to stay at my current job, you can bet I’d take the former, and that is a factor which ought to make salaries lower.

I dont feel badly for the players because the deal they will end up getting out of this will be more than fair and if you disagree then maybe you should buy a boat and sail to cuba you fucking communist.

I thought this fucking sandwich had died.  I thought it was a retarded gimmick that everyone at burger king instantly realized was fucking stupid.  Apparently I was wrong because ~6 months later I am still seeing those fucking idiotic commercials.   If youve enjoyed my incoherent drunk rants in the past then get ready friends because I’m probably more drunk than when I wrote the 4loko post.

First of all the bk stacker is a sandwich that hardly anyone would find appealing.  The reason that hamburgers maintain a very similar ratio of ingredients is that it tastes really fucking good and when you fuck with it almost everyone is going to like it less.  This isnt even close to the biggest problem with the bk stacker though, so I should move on before I get too angry about a minor point.

The most fucking infuriating part is the fucking commercials that pitch it as a painstakingly researched and intelligently crafted pricing plan to offer customers the maximum value.  I’m not exaggerating this at all because the commercials literally have these fucking “meat mathematicians” searching for the optimum value with a lot of bullshit fake math on the screen.  Obviously its slightly facetious but still the main pitching point is that its actually a good value which is so fucking stupid.  Its so fucking bad that im struggling to actually type sentences instead of smashing my face against the keyboard.  Perhaps before I get angrier I should actually explain what it is for those who havent seen.

Burger king assures us that we have 3 excellently priced options and that we should just trust burger king and buy them, after all we arent as smart as the meat mathematicians.  We can get a single “stack” for $1, a double stack for $2, and a triple stack for $3, its so simple and so smart right?….wait….what the fuck?  Lets break this down.  The single double triple thing seems to refer to how many patties and slices of cheese, but all the other ingredients (including bacon it seems) are not compounded when you buy the bigger sandwich yet the price completely doubles and triples.  Usually fast food restaurants make money by making it cheaper to buy the bigger size, not more expensive what the fuck?  I could buy 3 single stacks and get 3x patties 3x buns 3x cheese 3x bacon 3x lettuce 3x tomatoes 3x etc.  Or…I could buy the triple stack and get 1x buns 3x patties 3x cheese 1x lettuce 1x etc for the same price.  Why the fuck would anyone do that?  If you actually wanted a triple stack (which I already said nobody does) why the fuck wouldnt you just buy 3 single stacks and have a bunch of shit left over?  You could take it home and use it for other sandwiches, you could throw it at people, you could shove it up your ass, … the possibilities are endless.  And the other fucking thing is that the single stack isnt even a good deal.  I mean I’m pretty sure it has bacon, but the buck double has 2 patties and is essentially a double stack without the bacon for $1 instead of $2.  In fact I bet burger king has a bacon cheeseburger for like $1.49 which would make buying any kind of stack fucking retarded.  

I mean I realize that they want a really simple pricing scheme so people (who arent jewish) will just shut off their brain and buy things, but the whole idea of pitching it as a great value is so fucking insulting to people like me.  There are a million other ways they could have pitched the sandwich and not drawn attention to the fact that it was a retarded scam but instead burger king thinks we are so stupid that they can throw this irrational pricing scheme in our faces and spin it as a good thing.  I mean shit if they just didnt mention the prices even I would just assume that the bigger sandwich was a better value and buy it if not for the fact that its a terrible sandwich that wouldnt even taste good.  What the meat mathematicians were really calculating was how much money they could save by selling stupid people less food for more money.  In that sense the commercial might even be based in reality and someone at burger king got this huge “fuck you” through as an actual commercial.  Fuck you burger king, your customers come to you because they are cheap and poor, not because they are stupid.  Stop insulting my intelligence by advertising objectively terrible options as a great value.

Speed limits attempt to address an important job of government: keeping people safe.  The problem is that they fucking suck at it.  I really want our lawmakers and law enforcement to keep me safe from assholes driving 100mph on residential roads, but the way that they do it is fucking terrible.

Lets imagine we want to stop people from driving too fast.  One option would be to give most of the control to lawmakers and almost none to police officers.  We could set higher speed limits and require police to pull over anyone who exceeds the limit by even 1mph.  The benefit would be that both drivers and police officers would know exactly what to do to keep people safe.

Another option would be to give most of the control to law enforcement officers.  They could use their own judgement to assess unsafe speeds, much as I imagine they do with reckless driving.  The benefit here is that police officers’ judgement will be better than a hard limit at keeping people safe.  For example, an officer can pull someone over for going 40 in the snow, but not have to pull them over for going 50 in perfect weather.

Instead we have this retarded grey area where lawmakers cant really make the law, law enforcers cant really enforce safety, and the driver doesnt know what the fuck they are supposed to do.  No cop is going pull someone over for going 1 over the speed limit, and I’m sure they dont have any set guidelines such as “only pull someone over if they exceed the limit by 10mph.”  So really the cops dont know what they are supposed to do, the drivers dont know how they are supposed to drive, and we dont even get the safety benefits of law enforcement discretion.  A cop still cant pull someone over for speeding going 49 in a 50 in a foot of snow even though its a million times more dangerous than going 55 in good conditions.  

Today’s speed limits are fucking terrible because they are unfair to drivers, unfair to cops, and they suck at promoting safety.

Its hard for me to believe that so many people like the Bourne movies because they are actually fucking terrible.  I’d been planning to write this since an argument I had a few days ago, so when I saw the bourne supremacy was on TV today I figured I should watch it to update myself.  About 5 minutes in I realized what a fucking chore it was going to be to watch that shitty movie so I turned if off and decided to write off memory.

The biggest problem, which I just alluded to, is that the Bourne movies are so fucking boring.  Other bad movies would have been fun to watch and laugh at or criticize, but boring movies are just…boring.  It’s kind of surprising to have that reaction to an action movie which tries so hard to be constantly suspenseful, so through this review I hope to figure out why that is.

The most obvious reason is that Jason Bourne is a fucking awful protagonist and I dont care what happens to him.  Damon basically acts like a robot and rarely shows emotions, though we cant blame him because he was almost certainly forced to play the character in this way.  I would imagine that any serious actor would want to … well … act, so it was probably annoying for Damon to have to stay within this stupid persona.  Now I realize that his lack of emotion and humanity is very well explained in the films, but this doesnt excuse the fact that it makes the movie shitty.  If you want to make a movie where the protagonist is a violent rapist, I’m not going to root for him just because you explained the psychological trauma that led him to become a rapist.  Bore-ne (ok there was no good way to write that but it my head it was a really clever pun) Bourne is just a boring robot who never makes any attempt to connect with the audience.  It’s like if they had made arnold the protagonist in the terminator and we were supposed to care that humans were trying to destroy him.

Its kind of ridiculous that we would fail to connect with the hero in an action movie because its something thats usually so easy to do.  They were probably going for something deeper than your basic action hero with Bourne, but they failed and his lack of emotion is only part of the reason.

Another reason Bourne sucks as a protagonist is that he embodies one of my least favorite action movie cliches.  The cliche is you have some hero whos been framed or wrongfully accused or somehow unfairly persecuted by the powers at be.  The reason I fucking hate these kind of movies is that the “hero” usually ends up causing horrible destruction and often injuring and killing plenty of innocent people, but we are supposed to just ignore this and keep rooting for them.  It’s as though all these innocent cops deserve to die for chasing after a man who is wrongfully accused.  Even all the little things like where the hero decides to destroy someones car or whatever as a diversion start to piss me off.  Bourne is a pretty perfect example of this, and I even think the plot of the second movie was him being framed for something.  If he’d just turned himself in to the CIA like they are always asking him to do, he probably would have had a good shot at clearing his name.  Of course Jason Bourne is a badass who doesnt trust the system, so he cant do this, which brings me to my next point.

Bourne tries so hard to be cool and perfect that even if he wasnt a boring unrelatable unethical robot I still wouldnt be worried about him.  There is no suspense in the movie when the hero is so cool and perfect that I never believe for a second that he might fail.  Bourne is always in control of the situation and never hesitates or wonders what his next move should be, so I just feel like I’m watching a boring instructional video on how to be a badass.  It just feels sterile and I never feel like the dangers are real.  It is obvious that the movie is trying to be suspenseful, and I love suspense, but the bourne movies fail harder at suspense than probably any other movies ive seen.  In the 5 minutes of the bourne supremacy I watched today, one thing that stood out was how hard they were trying to keep you on the edge of your seat with the camera and editing.  The camera was always bouncing around and there was a cut like every fucking second.  I tried to make a game of counting how long we could go without a cut during one of the chase scenes and never got to 3sec.  This is not how you keep people on the edge of their seat, I found it fucking annoying but even those who didnt have to agree that this is not how you manufacture suspense.  Suspense is built up and suspense relies on my emotional involvement in the movie.  When I watched the hurt locker I was on the edge of my seat for pretty much the entire movie, not because the movie was fast paced, but because the movie built tension and I actually cared what was happening to the characters.

In addition to lacking a good protagonist, the movies also lack good villains because its always about some stupid cia conspiracy shit and even if they try to make a villain out of the cia director or something I still feel bad for all the other cia agents.  Making the “enemy” be some big conspiracy is another terrible movie cliche that always fails to engage me.  Its an action movie, why cant we just have the villain be some bad guy bent on world domination with an island full of evil henchmen.  I guess I didnt make it through the review without a james bond comparison so ill add that these movies are nothing like the james bond movies.  You could try to pin some of these same criticisms on bond but they dont stick because the classic bond movies knew exactly what they were going for and did it.  By contrast, the bourne movies take themselves really seriously and, as laughable as it sounds, I think they were trying to be realistic.  

I guess what makes the Bourne movies so boring is that for a variety of reasons I’m not interested in finding out what happens next.  The plot is pretty much the same contrived shit we’ve seen many times before and all those flashy action scenes do almost nothing for me when I dont care about the hero.  I just start rooting for the innocent bystanders not to get hurt because they are more relatable than bourne.  Pretty much the only positive adjective I can give these movies is “cool” and if you think the movies are good just because bourne is a cool badass then you are probably one of the same faggots who thought Tyler Durden was a good protagonist in fight club.

Tumblr’s spell check fucking blows, among the words with squiggly red underlines are:  relatable, cliche, badass, faggots, tumblr

I’m really tired of people saying stupid shit to me like “did you see what happened to lindsay lohan?  Its so stupid that stuff like that is on the news, honestly who really cares”  While I obviously agree with this sentiment most of the time the person saying this actually watched/read a news story on lindsay lohan (timely stuff I know) and more importantly I certainly dont want to have a discussion with you about it.  I know you want us to just suck each others dicks and talk about how superior we are to the rest of society, but thats bullshit especially seeing as you probably actually read the fucking article.  It used to be that people followed that shit to feel “wow im so much better than that celebrity” but now I honestly think there are more hypocritical faggots reading thinking “wow im so much better than people who care about celebrities.”

This doesnt just apply to entertainment news, pretty much everyone wants to think that they only care about hard news and they are so superior to the rest of society because of it.  You may even actually care, but the fact is your actions dont show it.  Theres a million things on tv and the internet and its the stupid shit that catches your attention.  And im certainly not putting myself above this either, while I manage to ignore the bullshit I rarely keep up with the serious news either because its usually really fucking boring.  

There are some people, like my dad, who are actually more intrigued by “See what the canadian prime minister said to the UN, tonight at 10” than “tonight at 10, a study shows this household chemical may give you herpes” but the fact is most of the people who complain about soft news actually watch more of it.  My dad has a right to bitch about the quality of news programs, I dont and you dont.  It’s basic human psychology to be more interested by stupid shit and I dont put down anyone who is, I just cant stand the fucking hypocrites who convince themselves they are above it all.  Stop adjusting your interests to feel superior to everyone else and come to fucking terms with who you are and what you like.