So, here are my casting ideas for the two lead roles.
As the renegade cop/fighter pilot/vampire slayer who heads the U.S. resistance to the vampire invasion: Will Smith, of course.
As the king of the Vampire Nation: Hrithik Roshan.
The film will be like Dhoom 2 in that Hrithik will nominally be the bad guy but will really be totally awesome. (And he'll make an infinitely better-looking vampire than that other dude in that one film). Then in the end it'll turn to all have been a big misunderstanding between the United States and the Vampire Nation, and he and Will Smith will ride off on a motorcycle singing "Yeh Dosti" together.
Yep, this movie will be fabulous.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
a funny link, and thoughts that follow
This webpage makes me laugh.
I think part of why it's so funny to me is that I sometimes have a similar experience reading pro se briefs. I'm not saying that cavemen appear in the office or anything like that, but the combination of bad handwriting, interesting spelling, and creative grammar can make pro se briefing very funny at first glance. I'll read a sentence to myself based on what I see, and then if it doesn't make sense I have to figure out if I misread some of the letters or if the guy might have meant a different word than the one he apparently wrote. "Surely he didn't say the policeman found out he had thrown a baby," I'll think to myself. "Even this guy isn't that crazy. Oh, I get it -- he said the policeman found out 'through a lady.' That makes much more sense." But my initial reading sometimes makes me laugh.
Speaking of crazy pro se parties, many people are familiar with the famous case of United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and his Staff, but I recently came across another case with an equally provocative name: United States v. Vampire Nation. Doesn't that sound like a great B-movie horror flick title?
This is why I get so easily distracted during lectures or talks -- it's a short jump for me from comments about poorly written internet remarks to a mental image of a colony of bats descending on New York City and turning into vampires on the ground, while Will Smith looks on disbelievingly and says, "Aw, hell no!"
Of course, thinking of Will Smith makes me think about that time he sang "Aati Kya Khandala" on Indian Idol, so then I start thinking about what the Bollywood version of United States v. Vampire Nation would be like. And that makes me laugh as much as that original webpage did.
I think part of why it's so funny to me is that I sometimes have a similar experience reading pro se briefs. I'm not saying that cavemen appear in the office or anything like that, but the combination of bad handwriting, interesting spelling, and creative grammar can make pro se briefing very funny at first glance. I'll read a sentence to myself based on what I see, and then if it doesn't make sense I have to figure out if I misread some of the letters or if the guy might have meant a different word than the one he apparently wrote. "Surely he didn't say the policeman found out he had thrown a baby," I'll think to myself. "Even this guy isn't that crazy. Oh, I get it -- he said the policeman found out 'through a lady.' That makes much more sense." But my initial reading sometimes makes me laugh.
Speaking of crazy pro se parties, many people are familiar with the famous case of United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and his Staff, but I recently came across another case with an equally provocative name: United States v. Vampire Nation. Doesn't that sound like a great B-movie horror flick title?
This is why I get so easily distracted during lectures or talks -- it's a short jump for me from comments about poorly written internet remarks to a mental image of a colony of bats descending on New York City and turning into vampires on the ground, while Will Smith looks on disbelievingly and says, "Aw, hell no!"
Of course, thinking of Will Smith makes me think about that time he sang "Aati Kya Khandala" on Indian Idol, so then I start thinking about what the Bollywood version of United States v. Vampire Nation would be like. And that makes me laugh as much as that original webpage did.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
if you give a Cindy a bar of chocolate
Last night while watching a movie I decided to eat a piece of chocolate. Hours later, as I pondered how I was going to get out from behind the dryer, I wondered once again how some people seem to manage to do things like eat chocolate without ending up in sitcom-like situations.
For starters, I guess they probably don't drop some of their chocolate onto the collar of their shirt. If they do, they probably notice this before the movie's over and not after they've gotten melted chocolate all over their clothes and pillowcase. And when they do notice that they've gotten chocolate all over everywhere, maybe they decide not to bother trying to get the stains out.
If they do decide to get the stains out, they probably are able to hunt for stain remover without knocking a bottle of Static Guard behind the dryer. And if they do knock the Static Guard down and decide they need to retrieve it, they probably use something more effective than a hanger. If they do use a hanger, they probably accomplish something other than dropping the hanger back there too. Maybe they go straight to the smarter option of removing one of the French doors from the laundry area so that they can pull the dryer further away from the wall. And when they do pull the dryer out far enough that they can climb over the washing machine and get behind the dryer, they're probably not laughing so hard that they're unable to pull themselves out after retrieving the bottle.
Other than that, though, I can't see what I'm doing wrong.
For starters, I guess they probably don't drop some of their chocolate onto the collar of their shirt. If they do, they probably notice this before the movie's over and not after they've gotten melted chocolate all over their clothes and pillowcase. And when they do notice that they've gotten chocolate all over everywhere, maybe they decide not to bother trying to get the stains out.
If they do decide to get the stains out, they probably are able to hunt for stain remover without knocking a bottle of Static Guard behind the dryer. And if they do knock the Static Guard down and decide they need to retrieve it, they probably use something more effective than a hanger. If they do use a hanger, they probably accomplish something other than dropping the hanger back there too. Maybe they go straight to the smarter option of removing one of the French doors from the laundry area so that they can pull the dryer further away from the wall. And when they do pull the dryer out far enough that they can climb over the washing machine and get behind the dryer, they're probably not laughing so hard that they're unable to pull themselves out after retrieving the bottle.
Other than that, though, I can't see what I'm doing wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)