Hey Guys,

I’m posting yet again over at Bookish Us.  This one’s about the most important debate topic of our generation: is the book always better than the movie?  Check it out.  Thanks.

-The Wordy Ninja.

ninjafam

[Pic via AwkwardFamilyPhotos.com…but it should be renamed to AwesomeFamilyPhotos.com]

John Stamos

True Story: I was hanging out with Kate last week.  We were just lounging in her living room.  She was aimless surfing the internet on my laptop while I was flipping through a magazine.  It was one of those evenings when all you can muster to do is nothing, because the work day has just burned away every ounce of energy. When, suddenly, the silence of exhausted boredom was broken.

“Oh, did you hear that thing about John Stamos?” Kate asked, nonchalantly.
“No,” I said, not even bothering looking up.  My general contempt for John Phillip Stamos knows no bounds (He knows what he did!).
“Well, apparently he’s making a ‘Full House’ movie,” said Kate.
“Oh dear God, like a reunion special? You have to be kidding me.”
“No, it’s um,” she said trying to gather the interest needed to continue the conversation, “….like…a prequel. That’s going to be all them starting like just after the Mom dies.”
“What?”
“Yeah and he’s going to get James Franco to play a young Jesse, Steve Carell in the Bob Saget part, and Tracy Morgan as Joey.”
“As Joey?! Really?”
“Yeah.”
“That sounds…actually pretty awesome.”
“I know right,” she said, adding: “Maybe you can finally forgive him for his crime against you and end your feud.”
“Maybe,” I said.

What’s so striking isn’t the concept of Stamos’ “Full House Movie” (in fact, it seems kind of dull), but rather the casting.  It’s so packed with great comic actors (Yeah, James Franco is comic actor, didn’t you see Pineapple Express?) that if handled it right, it could be an avant-garde comedy masterpiece.  Can you just imagine Steve Carell and Tracey Morgan improving off of one another, as “Full House” characters?  That would be awesome.

The next day, I did a little research online and found a bunch of articles about the movie and blogs about how great it was going to be.  And then I found this source article.  There’s no movie, it’s just Stamos talking out of his ass on the red carpet—a “dream project,” if you will.  Anyone can come up with awesome movie ideas based on classic TV shows. Look, here are three I just made up:

  • A MacGyver movie, staring an aged Richard Dean Anderson, in which MacGyver is an old man and uses his bag of tricks to escape from an assisted living facility, but is frightened by modern technology which he can’t understand or work.
  • A Smurfs live action movie in which we find out that the Smurfs are just Gargamel’s hallucinations and don’t really exist.
  • A Doogie Howser prequel where he’s working his way through Med School and beginning puberty at the same time.

See John, it’s not that hard.  Oh, and the feud is still on!!

It’s been said that the best part of going to the movies is seeing the previews for upcoming releases.  As a movie buff, I tend to agree with the sentiment; mainly because nine out of ten times the trailer is better than the movie.  It shows you all the good parts in a thrilling pace (even a trailer for a  Jane Austen movie is intense) and so your mind imagines that the rest of the 98 minutes will be just like that–it’s usually not. So when you’re trying to decide whether or not to see a movie based on the trailer, you’re really wonder if the they (the director/writer/producer/or actors) can pull off bringing that quality all the way through.  I’ve come to the belief that good filmmakers simply make really long movie trailers.

Now, there is an exception to the movie trailer paradigm.  A trailer can make you not want to see a movie, it can make you swear a blood oath against doing so, and still be great.  If a movie is so horrible and so cheesy that even the “best scenes” used in the trailer are just as bad, it crosses from the crap side of the quality spectrum to the utterly sublime. Think of it this way: we all love movies that are so horribly bad they’re funny, but can’t stand spending either the money or the time to see them. The trailer allows you to enjoy such sub-par fare without wasting the $12 or two hours of your life. They essentially become their own short films to be evaluated on their own elements.   Keeping that in mind, you realize the true direction Nicholas Cage has been taking his career over the past few years

Being a connoisseur of such cultural artifacts, I’ve noticed several rules to making the best awesomely bad movie trailer. The first and most important rule is to have a voice over narration of the trailer.  It’s a cliché, but that’s what makes it necessary (it also provides the much need exposition without the time).  The second most obvious is wooden acting, you want the actors to not only be stiff and unbelievable, but the expressions on their faces showing they know it.  Third, actors with some reputation or fame must be involved; otherwise you’re just watching a shitty homemade movie. And finally, there should be some element of science fiction involved—this will create the setup for under budget special effects as well utterly ridiculous scenarios.

Below are three great examples:

Frankenhood

Not bad.  As we can see all the rules were met, including notable actors-Charlie Murphy (Eddie’s brother and breakout star of the Chappelle show) as well as Hassan Johnson (Wee-Bey from The Wire).  But one or two of the jokes were actually kind of funny and I almost laughed, which should happen for such a movie trailer (at least not intentionally).

Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus

YES! We see what happens when all the rules are met and it is a fantastic result. We also discover what Debbie Gisbon and Lorenzo Lamas are now up to.

Tiptoes

This one ignores the last rule and really comes through on the third (Oh, Gary Oldman!).  There is only one word to describe this awesomely bad trailer: genius.