180 Foot Homer Invents a New Sport

The folks behind the marketing of the upcoming The Simpsons Movie have angered pagans worldwide by creating a 180-foot tall image of an underwear-clad Homer Simpson on the same hill as the famous Cerne Abbas Giant in Dorset, England. The image of Homer is made of biodegradable paint which will eventually dissolve and wash away.

The image of Homer holding a donut aloft is already iconic of the movie’s publicity, but this image puts a new spin on it. Not only is Homer clad only in his underwear (in contrast to the giant’s brazen and aroused nakedness), but I can’t help but think of the donut as a sporting instrument instead of a fattening snack.

donut toss

Go, Homer, Go!

he scores!

Woo hoo! Homer gets a ringer in the Erotic Donut Toss.

As for the pagans, they are understandably upset over this apparent desecration of a sacred place. After all, the giant is a revered icon that has aided the fertility of countless Lord of the Rings fans. We should all be upset over this brash and profane display of commercial publicity.

On the other hand . . .

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

I rrrrolled up the rrrrim…

…and winned! But all I won was a stupid cup of coffee.

free coffeeSo now I’m sitting here with this empty cup that’s worth a full cup. But that means I have to walk through the mall with it, through the Metro station, down to the other mall, and over to the Tim Horton’s kiosk. Then I have look like a total loser by waiting in line while holding the empty cup, and when my turn comes, I have to loudly announce that I am here to get my free cup of coffee.

Implicitly I’d be saying that I will sell my dignity for a buck and a half’s worth of Joe, that I’m a coupon clipper, that I’m a sucker for loyalty marketing tricks. That I’m like Oliver Twist begging for more soup.

On the other hand, at least I wouldn’t be as bad as Mike Holmes, who shills instant coffee every morning on television. Talk about selling your dignity. Come on, Mike. Make it right. Make it with a French press!

Love means . . .

About a million years ago (OK, 1970), a movie came out starring Ryan O’Neal and Ali MacGraw called “Love Story.” It was based on a novel of the same name by Erich Segal, who also penned the screenplay. The movie was hugely successful, and has since been given the “number nine” position on the American Film Institute’s list of the 100 greatest love stories of all time. (Number one is “Casablanca.”)

I’ve never seen the movie. First of all, I wasn’t even born when it came out (OK, I was 10, but the first 30 years of my life don’t count – long story.) Secondly, as a kid I was against anything that was popular. The more popular, the more I hated it (to this day I’ve never seen an episode of “Starsky & Hutch” and I would have to leave the house when my Dad insisted on watching “The Dukes of Hazard” on our old two-channel Zenith television).

More importantly, my refusal to see the movie has been a protest against its ridiculous tagline; “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.”

What the heck does that mean? I’ve spend the last thirty seven years trying to figure that out and I still haven’t the faintest idea. I was quite happy to discover recently that Martine feels the same way (although in her case it didn’t keep her from seeing the movie). It’s not just me! It confuses other people too!

That expression makes no sense at all. I love Martine very much, but I’m apologizing to her all the time (“sorry for overcooking the broccoli again,” “sorry for snoring in your ear half the night,” “sorry about that thing with the goat,” etc.) Does my endless stream of little apologies mean that we’re not in love?

Perhaps I’m missing something. Maybe the answer is obvious but I’m too thick to get it. Therefore I’m recruiting you, the readers of the blork blog, to weigh in with your opinions. Please participate in this exclusive blork blog survey between now and Thursday, March 8, and register your opinion. (It’s quick – just three multiple choice questions and you don’t even have to tell me who you are.) I’ll report results on Friday.

Come on, you know you want to . . .  Go to blork’s “WTF does ‘Love means never having to say you’re sorry’ mean?” survey.

Friday Rant Club

Yet another compendium of lesser rants to send you off into a merry weekend…

Katie’s Got a Job

So Katie Couric is moving from NBC to CBS. Why does anyone care? It’s just a talking head job. Big deal! Anyone with a bit of charm and an overly clean set of choppers could do the job just as well. Sure, she’s making “television history” by being the first woman to hold that job, but are we still living in a time when every little milestone of equality needs to be touted like it’s a revolution?

to hell with the poorAnd what’s that pay rate? She’s reportedly making $65 million in a five-year contract. That’s $13 million dollars a year just to read a daily mash of infotainment that some people still think is “the news.”

Katie, surely you could live on something reasonable like maybe $2 million. If you were really committed to the news you would give back that other $11 million a year and insist they use it to hire a bunch of actual journalists and send them out into the world. You’d also insist they use some of that money to hire good editors, and producers who have a sense of news as information, not entertainment. Or maybe working for a reasonable salary would lessen the network’s reliance on advertising and product placement, allowing you and your team to actually bring us the news. But that assumption, of course, is based on the incorrect notion that the advertising is there to support the news, when in fact the news is simply a device for delivering advertising.

[Update: I should be clear; I would be just as annoyed over Couric’s salary if she were a man. Gender has nothing to do with this, as far as I’m concerned. That’s not to say that all equality milestones shouldn’t be noted. For example, someday there will be a female President of the U.S., and that will be worth noting — because that is an important job. But what is so important about being the anchor of a network news show? It’s important to the network’s shareholders, but it’s not important to you or to me. What really bugs me is the way that positions such as this are elevated into the realm of importance when really they aren’t. Or if they are, they shouldn’t be. What kind of society do we have if we are profoundly influenced by a newsreader? Network news anchors are only important because the networks tell us they are, and we beleive it. If you ask me (and I know you’re asking me) the journalist out in the field risking his or her ass in a war zone or a riot, or the producers who make good decisions, are far more important than the toothy-grinned face who just reads the news and attracts eyeballs for the advertisers.]

We Need an Apocalypse For Stupid People

After all, it would get rid of the some of the insanely stupid people we read about every day, such as these guys. That’s a link to a story about a taxi driver who alerted the police because a guy he had dropped off at the Durham Tees Valley Airport had been playing songs by The Clash and Led Zepplin during his ride to the airport. Apparently the songs contained lyrics that might, if you smoke enough dope, sound like calls for terrorism. The best (worst) part of the story is that the police deemed this significant enough to pull the guy off the plane.

Oh, by the way, in case you’re wondering where the Durham Tees Valley Airport is, you won’t find out by reading the article. Nor will you find out by going to the Durham Tees Valley Airport Web site. Even their “Location” and “Contact Us” pages doesn’t actually tell you their location other than that it’s probably in the U.K. somewhere. Fortunately, Wikipedia comes to the rescue again.

Enough With the Legs

Sharon Stone is apparently annoyed that Basic Instinct 2 isn’t doing so well at the box office. I count myself among the apparent many who have no desire to see the movie. While I don’t like to judge a book by its cover — or in this case a movie by its advertising — I find it highly annoying that the publicity for Basic Instinct 2 focuses so much on Sharon Stone’s crossed legs; presumably on the assumption that it will remind us of her famous uncrossed legs, as seen in the original Basic Instinct.

A few years ago, Stone was complaining about how she felt exploited because of that famous leg-uncrossing scene. Now she seems to embrace it, riding the wave of the promise of more crotch shots. In fact, she wants to direct the third installation.

how original

But what really bugs me is the lack of imagination shown by putting so much focus on the obvious. Just about every publicity still is centered on the legs in a manner that draws attention to the anticipation of more views up the skirt. How boring. Maybe if I were 15 years old, but hey, this is 2006. What 15-year old is going to pay $13 to get a half-second glimpse up the skirt of a woman old enough to be his mother? What adult, in this age of ubiquitous free Internet and television booty, is tantalized by overplayed, ham-fisted teasers that promise to deliver only the quickest glimpse, and then only maybe.

No. Tantalize us with the promise of a good story, or of strong and daring characters. Then show us the crotch and we’ll all be really impressed. But don’t just wave the legs in our faces and expect us to lap it up like gullible kittens.

So there. Have a nice weekend!