Worth every penny.

Poochinski was a failed NBC pilot from 1990 starring Peter Boyle as a talking bulldog. But not just any talking bulldog:

The talking bulldog at a policeman’s feet turns out to be his late partner.

This is what is known in the business as a SURE THING. This is definitely going in the top of my hey-look-I-just-found-an-actual-working-time-machine to-do list. I want to be in the room where a group of successful, mature, businessmen/adults, (citation needed) take one look at this idea and say, “Fuck it. Let’s make Poochinski.” I can’t believe this actually happened without one or more of the following things present:

A: a sandbox full of cocaine
B: a talking dog that turns out to be recently deceased TV writer
C: the ghost of Peter Boyle’s integrity.

Yes, this is a photo of Michael Cera eating pizza next to Jersey Shore’s JWoWW.

My Reaction

So apparently MTV has decided not to air the already heavily promoted clip of Snooki from their new hit series Jersey Shore being hit in the face by some gym teacher from Queens.

According to network execs, this decision was made after a video clip of the incident went viral online. Here is their written statement:

“What happened to Snooki was a crime and obviously extremely disturbing. After hearing from our viewers, further consulting with experts on the issue of violence, and seeing how the video footage has been taken out of context not to show the severity of this act or resulting consequences, MTV has decided not to air Snooki being physically punched in the face.”

All I can say is, THANK YOU MTV! It’s nice to know that you’re still concerned about video footage being taken out of context.  How dare the internets try to distribute this piece of Viacom licensed property disturbing footage with no thought to the severity of the act or the resulting consequences. It’s almost like they’re only using these violent, sensationalist clips to increase their ratings site traffic. Thank god for these network execs, these voices of reason. Because if I have to see poor, innocent Snooki being physically punched in the face one more time–outside of promotional clips, trailers, teasers, This-Season-On’s, and anywhere but MTV’s own website–I’m going to hit someone in the face. And probably someone with a female’s face.

I think there’s a bigger underlying issue that needs to be addressed here. It’s common knowledge that MTV has absolutely no problem showing men getting hit in the face. In fact, the statistics show–and the scientific community agrees–that on any given MTV program, a man gets hit in the face every 3.249 minutes. Care to guess how often a woman gets hit in the face? Every 15.397 minutes.  A woman is almost 5 times less likely to get hit in the face than a man for doing the exact same amount of work (at being horrible human beings). ***AND, if you take out female-on-female violence that number plummets to an astoundingly low ratio of one male-on-female punch in every .000029 minutes of network programming. This is a travesty. And these network execs (read: men) are trying to tell us that Snooki can’t have her god-given equal right to see herself being physically hit in the face the same way MTV DJ Pauly D, or The Situation are able to enjoy? — Just because they feel it’s “disturbing” and “a crime”? I’ll tell you a real crime. The real crime is knowing that somewhere there’s little girl sitting at home watching MTV and thinking to herself, “Someday, I could be that girl on TV getting hit in the face.” Do we really want say to that little girl “No you can’t. Because you don’t understand the resulting consequences.”?

Understand this: women will never truly be equal to men as long as we allow this blatant discrimination to continue unchallenged. This is one glass ceiling that needs to be shattered.

Preferably with a fist.

More specifically, patrons of some of our most under-appreciated and arguably talented photographers working today. Without these valuable artisans, the gears of our advertising, website design, and multimedia production industries would grind to a horrible, horrendous halt. These skilled craftsmen, toiling for meager pay and even less recognition, have labored in the shadows for far too long.

Which is why we are proud to showcase the work of some our generation’s next great photographic geniuses: The Stock Photographers. Don’t be fooled by their humble name, there is nothing generic about these master lensmen. Like their NASCAR brethren, these everyman virtuosos are able to take that which is “stock”, ordinary, routine, and transform it into something extraordinary. And, in this case, something extraordinarily awkward. This is:

Awkward Stock Photography.

The first series in our revolving exhibit is titled “Old Woman Goes to the Park”. It tells the simple, universal story of an aging woman trying to reconnect to her distant, fading youth while visiting the park with her grandson. It’s a moving portrait of love, loss, and coming to terms with the cruel, finite nature of our own existence.

Now let’s check in with Tyson.

But in their haste to secure Grandma’s sock drawer cash roll, Liddy and his gold baron bosses have overlooked a potentially huge market. A market that places a higher value on gold than almost any other commodity.

Not to worry, though. We got this. RAP SONG!

Tell ‘em, G. Liddy:

But before that, this was actually a script. These words were physically placed onto a piece of paper and handed to a lot of people who looked at them and thought, “this sounds like a fantastic way to spend a million dollars”. For this, we can only be grateful.

If you’re not familiar with Asylum Pictures, the illustrious makers of this film, they’re an outfit that specializes in ripping off well-known, usually summer-blockbuster-type films, and producing quick, low-budget derivatives that they then place on your local video store’s shelves right around the time that said summer blockbuster is about to be released. Their hope being that your culturally delinquent mother, who has had to listen to you jabbering non-stop about the upcoming Transformers movie for the past three months (you’re thirteen), just happens to stumble upon their clumsily designed replica just sitting there and–WHOOPS–your mom just bought you Transmorphers. (Which, in this particular case, you can actually thank her for later.)

Some of The Asylum’s other releases include:

The Da Vinci Treasure
Sunday School Musical
The Day The Earth Stopped
Snakes on a Train
…and my personal favorite

However, their most anticipated release of 2009 was undoubtedly Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus–one of their first films to stand out as something other than a blatant attempt to trick your stupid mother. (Sorry, your mother. But it’s true.)  With this film, it would appear that they’ve actually attempted an original (I obviously use that term loosely) albeit ridiculous concept. Yeah, I suppose you could argue that this is just an indirect ripoff of Alien vs. Predator–but you’d be wrong.

All due condescension aside, this movie was actually fairly enjoyable. That is, if you consider megasharks attacking planes mid-air, some of the worst romantic chemistry in movie history, and Lorenzo Lamas doing what he regards as his legal occupation, to be enjoyable. (Which is like 97% of all people who have previously experienced joy, according to the most recent survey I just took.) The film also stars former teen pop star Debbie Gibson, proving that she is, indeed, clairvoyant.

If you haven’t seen this film, I highly recommend it. But since you’re lazy and forgetful (you get it from your mom) and will probably never get around to seeing it, we’ve done you a mega favor and cut the film down to our essential, 5-minute Cinematic Gold©®™ Edition. (sit on it, Criteron)

Obviously–

SPOILER ALERT! NEVER BEFORE SEEN TWIST ENDING ALERT!

See what I did there?

I am not, in fact, a psychologist, nor am I particularly interested in boning up on all my favorite peer reviewed psych journals in one convenient webspace. (I don’t even have a favorite peer reviewed psych journal.)

I was using a form of humor called sarcasm, which, according to the “scientific” studies cited in this article, apparently is misunderstood by the majority of people.

the majority of people — 55 percent — who responded to this survey thought they were giving an example of a sarcastic remark they made, when in fact what they gave was a non-sarcastic remark!

Oh snap! Scientific discovery!

Yeah, yeah, I know what you’re thinking: Big surprise. It’s not exactly a secret that a lot of people out there have no idea what certain rhetorical devices actually mean, much less how to use them properly. It’s not like you can expect everyone to be a certified sarcasm operator:

But still. In this day and age, especially given the pervasiveness of sarcasm in film and on television, not to mention everywhere on the internet, you’d think at least a simple majority of people would know which lever they were pulling on the LOL machine. It’s not that complicated! I suppose it just comes down to the fact that A LOT of people just don’t have a sense of humor unless it involves someone getting violent injured, this, or this. (or is it this?)

But still.

Just check out some of these responses.

Someone wrote this down as an example of a time they used sarcasm.

You really need to stop letting things blow your head up because you’re not that cute!

First of all, this doesn’t even make sense. Second of all, you know what, I AM THAT CUTE. Just because I broke up with you doesn’t give you the right to send your “sarcastic” text messages to the sarcasm scientists as a [incorrect] example of a time you used sarcasm to insult your ex-boyfriend. [incorrectly] I hope one day you’re humiliated in front of a bunch of psychologists on PsychCentral.com–oh wait, that already happened. I hate you.

Anyway, the point is, people don’t know what the hell they’re doing when it comes to sarcasm. Or, as the author of the study puts it in his [amazing] conclusion:

Sarcasm represents a difficult verbal behavior, and many speakers who attempt to use it, fail to accomplish their task.

Ouch. BURNT! I’m pretty sure Professor Sarcasm et al. just submited that shit to FAILblog.

Look, here’s the BOTTOM LINE: clearly we U.S. Americans need to review the definition of sarcasm. So here it is, provided by said Professor of Sarcasm Studies at Irony University.

Sarcasm is simply saying something intended in a mean-spirited, derogatory or unpleasant manner while meaning the exact opposite.

See? Not that difficult. It’s simply saying something in a mean-spirited, derogatory, or unpleasant manner while meaning the exact opposite. Like saying you read online Psychology journals when you really don’t. Notice how mean-spirited and derogatory I was when I said that?

Wait a minute.

I wasn’t being particularly mean-spirited at all. No, I was simply saying one thing while meaning the opposite. So wait, was that irony or sarcasm?  Wait, what the hell is irony again?

…

Oh no.

…

No!

…

NO!!!!

WINNER: ME

(CLEARLY)

10 Reasons why I know Steven Seagal is, and will continue to be, an excellent cop:

1. He doesn’t tolerate political corruption.
2. He’s versatile.
3. He’s god.
4. He tells cool stories.
5. His meanmug.

6. He talks like he’s from the streetz.
7. He’s not going to tase you. Calm down.
8. He’ll take one for the team.
9. “His handshake is his bond”.
10. He reportedly demanded $200,000 per episode to star in this totally real “reality” show where everything is real.

This is not a joke.

WINNER: SEAGAL

Always Seagal.