Posts Tagged ‘marriage’

6 items.

AT WHAT COST, HISTORY?

by Tom on May 26th, 2009
28 votes, average: 8.21 out of 10
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars6 Stars7 Stars8 Stars9 Stars10 Stars
AT WHAT COST, HISTORY?
Vote for Theater Hopper at Top Web Comics

You think that girl crying was just a sniffle before it was over with. Oh, no. She's just getting started! Vote for Theater Hopper at Top Web Comics to see the water works in full effect!

Sorry for the delay on Monday's comic. I know I promised it to you late yesterday, but the Memorial Day holiday kind of got in the way. I thought I was going to have an opportunity to draw and ink the strip while Henry was napping, but it didn't work out that way. Then, despiteGordon's upset stomach, Joe and I decided to go through with recording last night's The Triple Feature podcast and that pushed my time line back further. When it was all said and done, I said to myself, "This is going to have to be a Tuesday comic instead."

Incidentally, regarding last night's The Triple Feature, I strongly suggest you check it out. I think Joe and I had a really good show. We were really clicking. We talked about Angels & Demons and Terminator Salvation and I spent a little time discussing Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian.

Regarding the latter, I saw strong>Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian and liked it. The movie is certainly better than the first because it's smart enough to put the "divorced Dad just trying to do right by his kid" angle into the background and focuses on what people really came to the theater for - classical sculpture preening like a Brooklyn pigeon for statues of antiquity.

"BOOM! BOOM! FIAHPOWAH!"

Amy Adams plays Ben Stiller's love interest in the film as aviation pioneer Amelia Earhart. I found Adams winning in the role, even if she was using some kind of clipped 1920's vocal affectation not entirely dissimilar from Katherine Hepburn (I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe everyone from the 20s and 30s talked with that way).

I do have to admit that the question of Earhart's sexual orientation crept into my head while watching the movie. Later, when I was discussing today's comic, Cami did have to correct me as to her marital status, which I was totally oblivious to.

Doing research for the comic, rumors of Earhart's sexuality were never confirmed. Truthfully, it wouldn't surprise me if it was an ugly rumor created to discredit her as being "butch" or some such nonsense for entering into the field of aviation - an arena many men of the period did not feel women belonged.

Ultimately, it doesn't mater. It matters even less within the context of the movie. It's Earhart's Spirit of Adventure that Stiller's character is meant to fall in love with. It's his wake up call to leave the corporate world he went on to establish himself in and reconnect with his true passion - being a night guard at a magical museum.

Aside from Adams, Hank Azaria is effective as the slapstick villain Kahmunrah. Again, putting on an usual accent, I found his Karloff-esque lisp funny the first few scenes he was in, but distracting later on.

Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan and Robin Williams show up and get a few good lines. Coogan as the Roman General Octavius probably gets the funniest bit in the movie as he charges toward the White House in an attempt to notify the President of the situation at the Smithsonian. Bill Hader also gets in a few funny moments early on as the vain and self-important General Custer. His hair care regimen alone will leave you ROFLing in your popcorn.

There are a ton of cameos in the movie too many to mention. Truthfully, I wouldn't want to tell you. I think you'd be better off surprised. But nearly every up-and-coming comedic performer of the last 5 years shows up in this thing and it's fun to go "Hey, I know that person!"

At least it was fun for me. I'm simple like that.

Between all this comedic talent, you can tell there was room left in the script for improvisation. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Some bits go on a little too long - as if the performers are purposefully trying to push an idea from funny to unfunny an back to "funny" again. They don't always salvage the effort. But the exchanges are refreshing in the sense that the characters just and spewing boilerplate "Now I will do THIS!" / "No, you can't!" dialogue at each other.

The last little gripe I'll make about the movie is that despite the fact it's promoting history, it's historically inaccurate. There is a chase sequence inside the Air & Space Museum where Stiller and Adams' characters dislodge the Wright Brothers plane from it's ceiling mount and fly it out of the building. Not only do they fly it out of the building, they fly around inside the building for a while. Not only do the fly around inside the building for a while, they make a series of impossible maneuvers, dipping and diving around the other aircraft on displace before launching into the skies over Washington D.C. for a languid, romantic moment.

I'm sorry - but wasn't this the plane that was only able to maintain flight for about 12 seconds?

I don't mean to be a milksop. I recognize that the movie is fantasy and has to bend the rules a little bit to be entertaining. After all, if I'm going to nit-pick the aerobatic prowess of the world's first airplane, there's probably something I should say about a magical Egyptian tablet that brings wax sculptures to life, right?

But intentionally or not, a movie like this will generate an interest in history. It's basically on big commercial for the Smithsonian. Shouldn't the producers be a little bit more responsible with what they are portraying on screen?

Or, considering the audience the movie is targeted toward - young kids - is it acceptable to tell a small lie to foster interest in the larger truth? Personally, I'm not a fan of the idea that kids deserve dumbed down entertainment. Kids are capable of understanding much more than we give them credit for. But I suppose if it get's them away from video games, I'm okay with the idea that the Wright's plane can perform loops...

I feel like there is more I can be blogging about. I also caught Terminator Salvation this weekend and have some opinions on that. But I think I'll wrap things up for now.

Did anyone here catch Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian this weekend? What did you think? Did you find it better than the original? Are you able to look over some of the more fantastic elements if it serves the entertainment value of the movie?

Leave your thoughts below!

8 Comments

MARRIED PEOPLE ARE JERKS

by Tom on January 28th, 2005
8 votes, average: 8.63 out of 10
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars6 Stars7 Stars8 Stars9 Stars10 Stars
MARRIED PEOPLE ARE JERKS

I think if I just... try... a little HARDER! - I could have gotten more panels and more text in today's comic.

I don't know where this recent influx of married humor is coming from. It's kinda developing organically. I say roll with it!

You guys should really check out our latest sponsor - The Asylumantics. It's a wonderfully illustrated comic about a bunch of mental patients and they recently updated their schedule to an aggressive (but satisfying!) 5 times a week!

By the by, why not vote for Theater Hopper at buzzComix too? It's good for the soul.

Since there really aren't any interesting movies coming out this weekend that I can talk about, I'm going to shift focus for a minute.

Way back in September when I embarked on the aforementioned large story arc about Jimmy losing his job, my good friend Joe Dunn - illustrator at Digital Pimp Online sent me this awesome artwork:

I clutched it to my chest and held it close for the longest time because I thought that I would use the artwork in book collecting the Jimmy arc that I would later sell on the site.

As I get further and further away from that period in the strip, the collected book feels less likely. So to make amends for my selfish sins, I wanted to share this artwork with the world. Frankly, it's too good NOT to share.

Of course, the fact that Joe recently sent me another piece of fan art to commemorate Charlie's introduction certainly pushed my hand to a degree:

What can I say about Joe's talent that isn't blatantly obvious? All I can say is that he draws my characters better than I could ever hope to. The real turn of the screw is that Joe's versions are how I envision them in my head. I just can't get my brain and my right hand to agree in that regard.

So many thanks to Joe Dunn for all his hard work and support. I appreciate it. Everyone needs to check out Digital Pimp Online right this very minute and soak up as much of Joe's work as possible. You won't regret it!

  Comment

WHEN RELATIONSHIP TRAINING BACKFIRES

by Tom on January 26th, 2005
4 votes, average: 9.00 out of 10
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars6 Stars7 Stars8 Stars9 Stars10 Stars
WHEN RELATIONSHIP TRAINING BACKFIRES

I'll preface today's comic by saying "No, Cami doesn't really have me 'trained'". Truthfully, she would probably resent the categorization if Theater Hopper were a work of non-fiction. But as it turns out, this little detail is for entertainment purposes only.

The point of this week in the story arc is to fill in any loopholes that might provide Cami and Charlie and easy escape from the women's restroom. The cell phone doesn't work and Tom is inept, so what's left? Could Jimmy possibly be coming to save the day? Well, don't count on it. You'll see what I mean Friday.

I'm learning that one of the drawbacks to telling a larger story with a more dramatic bend is that people start to treat it like it's really happening. As such, they start asking questions like "Why would the women's bathroom go unchecked for two years? We thought Jimmy was so professional?" So now I find myself in the position of having to answer these questions before getting into the chewy center of the story. Y'know, the one where Charlie finally tells her secret for being back home.

The experience is teaching me a lot, but I can't help but feel like this gauntlet I'm running is kind of like that episode of The Simpsons where all the nerds are grilling Xena: Warrior Princess star Lucy Lawless about the inconsistencies in her show.

"Um... Whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it!"

"Uh, yes but..."

"WIZARD!"

The Academy Award nominations were announced yesterday and looking over the field of candidates, I can't help but reflect that 2004 was not a particularly good year for movies. Frankly, I was surprised that The Aviator walked away with 11 nominations. But I suppose through the Academy's filter of "ONLY EPICS SHALL WIN BIG AWARDS!!!" it's not so surprising.

Sure, smaller films like Sideways and Vera Drake are up for Best Picture, but that feels like lip service to me. It's just a way for the Academy to show that they're not out of touch with smaller productions on independent cinema. A token gesture to prove they're not completely out of touch. You know - kind of like the guy who's been a hard core Def Leppard fan all his life, but buys then buys a White Stripes record in a feeble attempt to look cool. He doesn't get it. He doesn't understand it. But dammit, it's in his record collection, so he must be onto something!

When it comes to the nominations, I usually pay less attention to who receives the accolade than who ∗didn't∗. People really seemed to notice that neither Fahrenheit 9/11 nor The Passion of The Christ received major category nominations. They were probably two of the most successful and controversial films of the year. But I think it's that controversy that kept them out of Oscar contention. The Academy isn't the type of organization with the conviction to endorse anything controversial. They just want to huddle their membership into the Kodak Theater, pat themselves on the back for 4 hours and then drink 'til sunup.

Really, it's probably moot - at least in F9/11's case. I think Michael Moore ran himself out of contention by refusing to submit the film for Best Documentary or perhaps broadcasting it on television before December 31 (which neuters his eligibility in the Academy's eyes) or some such nonsense.

When it comes to snubs, what I can't understand is why Paul Giamatti wasn't nominated for Best Actor, while his movie Sideways gets a Best Picture, Director and Writing nominations. It even racked up two Best Supporting Actor nods for Thomas Haden Church and Virginia Madsen.

Man, THAT'S a twist of the knife. The guy who played a half-retarded airplane mechanic in a lousy sitcom and the woman who starred not only in Candyman, but Highlander II: The Quickening are being recognized ahead of the man who has been recognized as one of the best character actors of the last 10 years. Then again, he DOES have Big Fat Liar on his resume...

Another snub I thought was noteworthy was the exclusion of The Polar Express from the Best Animated Feature Film category. Don't get me wrong. I think the film looked horrible, saccharine and soulless. But despite its failings, the film WAS a technical achievement. Especially in regard to the motion capture technology director Robert Zemeckis probably advanced by five years with his work.

But to be bested by Shark Tale? Ouch! Don't try to tell me that box office didn't influence the Academy's decision in that regard.

Any another thing, I've always harbored a little grudge against the Shrek franchise for stealing the very first Best Animated Film Oscar away from Monsters, Inc. in 2002. If Shrek 2 wins out over the VASTLY superior The Incredibles in 2005, then there is no justice in the world.

Some odds and ends...

What's up with Alan Alda being nominated for Best Supporting Actor in The Aviator. Honestly, I saw nothing outstanding from the performance. Really nothing more noteworthy than what Alec Baldwin did with the same amount of screen time in the same movie.

I was pleased to see Natalie Portman and Clive Owen getting Best Supporting recognition for their work in Closer. I thought it was one of the best movies of the year. It was probably too mean-spirited or too much like a play for the Academy's taste, but it's nice to see actors who shined in their supporting roles be recognized over their lead actor contemporaries.

Very surprised to see Kate Winslet be nominated for Best Actress in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. She won't win because the movie came out almost a year ago and most voters probably won't remember it. But it's a nice tip of the hat to another wondrous film from '04.

Beyond that, I don't know what more to say. I guess I need to study the nominations a little closer. I'm just pointing out the things that really set off alarms in my head.

What are your thoughts about the Academy Award nominations? Y'know, we're talking about it in the THorum...

  Comment

REMEMBER YOUR TRAINING!

by Tom on June 11th, 2004
12 votes, average: 8.00 out of 10
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars6 Stars7 Stars8 Stars9 Stars10 Stars
REMEMBER YOUR TRAINING!

Having some fun with The Stepford Wives today, but what if the shoe was on the other foot? Vote for Theater Hopper at buzzComix to uncover our more recent incentive sketch - The Stepford HUSBANDS!

So, as you know, Frank Oz's (ne: Missy Piggy's) remake of The Stepford Wives hits theaters today. There's a lot of bad buzz surrounding this picture. Reports of on-set ego flare ups from Nicole Kidman, Better Midler and even Oz himself! Poor audience testing and late-in-the-game reshoots all spell trouble.

Kind of a shame considering the first rate cast they've assembled for this pic. Glenn Close and Christopher Walken in the same movie? That's impressive.

I think Matthew Broderick is miscast, however. Every time I see him in the advertisements, he just looks like he shouldn't be there. He's too sweet-natured to play the sinister husband who replaces his wife with a robot.

The original choice was John Cusack, who would have been much better. He pulls off conflicted like no one in the business. And he has a dark streak in him, so I could see that working. Cusack and his sister Joan Cusack (originally cast in the Bette Midler role) had to abandon production to tend to their dying father.

This version of the film is supposed to be dark comedy, which I guess explains why Jon Lovitz is in it as well? Making The Stepford Wives a comedy is a mistake. To me, it will always be a horror piece and a damning piece of social commentary about women's liberation. I suppose that wasn't "timely" enough for the producers this go around.

Morbid curiosity might draw me to the theater for this one, but I have a sinking suspicion I would be better off watching my copy of the 1975 version.

No matter. Super-Size Me, the anti-McDonald's documentary is coming to town today. I think Cami and I are going to catch that after work. A little brain food, as it were!

One bit of site info I wanted to share: We recently did some reorganization in the THorum, so now topics should be easier to find in the categories. It was overdue. Things have been growing in there at such a rate, in needed to be done. Check it out!

  Comment

MORE ANNIVERSARIES!

by Tom on March 18th, 2004
Posted In: Blog
Be the first to rank this comic!
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars6 Stars7 Stars8 Stars9 Stars10 Stars

While I was mentioning anniversaries in Wednesday's blog, someone pointed out to me one that I missed. Taking the Bi-Pass recently celebrated it's 100th strip, and I feel like a jerk for leaving them out because Dave is a friend of the site. He's done guest strips for us and is an all-around rockin' Canadian. Wish him well on his accomplishment!

And while we're still on the subject of anniversaries, I thought I would mention that today is the 4 year anniversary of my marriage with Cami. I can't believe it's been 4 years. It certainly hasn't felt that long.

We're keeping our celebrations simple for tonight. A quiet dinner for two, staring into each other's eyes and whatnot. The real celebration comes 3 weeks from now when we go to Las Vegas - our anniversary gift to each other.

I love you, Cami!

  Comment

TOM, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU’D LIKE TO SHARE?

by Cami on April 7th, 2003
Posted In: Blog
Be the first to rank this comic!
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars6 Stars7 Stars8 Stars9 Stars10 Stars

Hey--maybe it's just me, but do Tom and Jared look a little TOO happy in that sketch above? I mean, I've known both of them for 11 years, but I've never quite seem them so... umm... into each other. For the record, both Tom and Jared are married -- HAPPILY MARRIED.

  Comment