March 30, 2007

Navajos on comic-book movies

Success is a balance of creative vision, exploding innards"Spiderman" (Marvel)

JMP: "Spiderman" helped solidify the notion that comic books can become terrific live-action movies. I just wish Kirsten Dunst didn't play the dreamy, clueless Mary Jane. In her hands, the character was stupid, nothing compared to the comic version of Mary Jane.

"Catwoman" (DC)

JB: Remember that time when Halle Berry made history as the first black woman to win the best-actress Oscar and she gave her speech and cried and it was a bit melodramatic, but touching nonetheless? Well, apparently, as we all found out a year later, those weren't tears of joy.

In fact, Halle was thinking about going to work the next day, and the floods of excrement and bile she'd be wading through on the set of "Catwoman," quite possibly the worst movie to come out this decade.

"Judge Dredd" (IPC)

JB: Wait. Was this a comic? Was it good? Because the movie sure wasn't.


Rob said...

It's an example of Native America meeting pop culture, and thus fodder for this blog.

Rob said...

"Cannon fodder" implies I fired a cannon at the fodder--i.e., criticized the piece--which I didn't.

Rob said...

I know the meaning and derivation of "cannon fodder." Do you? Here it is:

Cannon fodder is an informal term for military personnel who are regarded or treated as expendable in the face of enemy fire. The term is generally used in situations where soldiers are forced to fight against hopeless odds, such as occurred during trench warfare in World War I. The term may also be used to differentiate infantry from other forces (such as artillery, air force or the navy), who generally have a much better survival rate.

The term derives from fodder--food for livestock--but in this case soldiers are the metaphorical food sent against cannons. The term may have been introduced during the U.S. Civil War as a result of massed infantry charges against fortified enemy positions.

Rob said...

In other words, you implied I was shooting at an insignificant opponent--i.e., criticizing the piece. No, I wasn't, since I posted the article without comment. Learn to use English better, because "cannon fodder" doesn't apply in this situation.

Rob said...

Commenting on an item is relevant to whether it's fodder or "cannon fodder." I already said the item was fodder for this blog, but it isn't cannon fodder.

Yes, posting an item is a comment of sorts--but only that the item is worth posting. It doesn't tell you anything else about what I think of the item.

In particular, it doesn't tell you whether I think the item deserves to be shot down, as from a cannon. Hence my noting your misuse of the phrase "cannon fodder."