Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Review: Zoolander

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the hilarious-assault-on-pop-culture dept.

Zoolander is just the ticket for people who want or need to move on with their lives and get back to the movies. I really love this movie. Ben Stiller has directed a hilarious rip on the American fashion industry, the manipulative nature of pop culture, social trendiness and narcissism. This movie is just what the doctor ordered this week, though the computer-altered New York City skyline (the Twin Towers are gone -- replaced by odd-looking new skyscrapers in several shots looking South) is a bit chilling. We all love pop culture, Stiller seems to be suggesting, but is it also turning us into vapid children?

In the theater where I saw this movie, the audience was laughing throughout. It's not entirely clear how much of this was the quality of the movie, how much that people obviously needed to laugh.

The premise is great. An evil band of international fashion designers want to kill the prime minister of Malaysia after he announces he's raising the minimum wage of sweatshop workers who make designer clothes for Americans. Apparel prices will skyrocket. They threaten top designer Mugatu (Will Ferrell) with destruction if he doesn't find some vapid, gullible male model to do the deed at the annual fashion show, which the prime minister plans to attend.

"Fabio?" suggests one of the villains? "Too smart," is the decision. The obvious choice for Mugatu is famous, shallow, supermodel Derek Zoolander (Ben Stiller), the four-time Male Model of the Year winner, soon to be embittered and unseated by arch-rival Hansel, played brilliantly by Owen Wilson. Female supermodels have long been the target of satirists, but this is the most head-on assault yet on the men.

Zoolander is likeable, stupid, self-absorbed, and manipulable. He gets absolutely nothing about the world beyond the fact that he is "wonderfully, incredibly good-looking." He has his verbal mannerisms. He's about to get an education in how the world really works. He and Hansel vie for top male model spot, including a hilarious "walk-off" on a basement runway to decide who's on top. Neither has ever turned on a computer.

Zoolander comes from a character Stiller helped create for a sketch he did on the l996 VH1/Vogue Fashion Awards. If any event or industry is ripe for vicious parody, it's this one. Stiller is merciless. There's a terrific scene up front involving Stiller's gorgeous but bubble-headed roommates playing at a gas station in the style of stupid TV ads. They get their just desserts here, though the movie is as good-natured as it is biting.

Derek's agent, Maury Ballstein, is played by Jerry Stiller, Ben's dad, who is great as the crude, pompadoured head of the world's biggest modeling agency.

There are targets, spoofs and cultural references galore in Zoolander, including a play on The Manchurian Candidate spot-on blasts at the way the media worships the glam/celebrity culture, and the way in which pop culture can sometimes patronize the people who worship it. David Duchovny does an uncredited walk-on as a conspiratorial ex-model whose face is never shown, but whose hand -- used in cosmetic ads -- is instantly recognizable to Zoolander from catalogs.

American culture, one of the most powerful forces on the planet, is the big target here, especially its consuming valuelessness. Stiller grasps the cultural irony for many of us. As much as we love pop culture, we also recognize that it is becoming sillier, greedier and less honest and creative by the day. It diminishes us, he suggests, as well as the people who create it. Stiller sees popular culture as corrupt and infanticizing, celebrating trendiness above all. In worshipping the empty and the vapid, he seems to be saying, we can't help but become more empty and vapid ourselves. He's got a point.

This movie is wonderfully weird and funny. Ferrell's over-the-top Mogatu is great, as are the Finnish dwarfs and freakazoid orgy. The movie has a score of cameo appearances from fashion world muck-a-mucks, models and celebrities, but the modeling culture is only a stand-in for the celebrity machine that has engulfed publishing, music, TV, film and the arts.

This is a scathingly wonderful movie, as amusing as it is on target.

60 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. doing the same to other movies? by nilstar · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder if many other movies will be digitally removing (or in the case of current films be adding) the WTC buildings in the NYC skyline? Anyone know of such movies?

    --
    ===> An eye for an eye makes everyone blind - MG
    1. Re:doing the same to other movies? by andy@petdance.com · · Score: 2
      I wonder if many other movies will be digitally removing (or in the case of current films be adding) the WTC buildings in the NYC skyline?

      "Don't Say A Word" has a shot of the skyline that includes the WTC towers on the far left. They're not prominent, though.

      The funny thing is that it's explicitly supposed to take place on Thanksgiving, 2001.

    2. Re:doing the same to other movies? by dsanfte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What I'd like to know is, why are they editing the WTC towers out in the first place? Are they now going to go through geography or tourism books and retroactively edit out the towers from them, too?

      Where does it end? It's editorial abuse. I find it a perversion of the 9/11 incident, and the people who died there, that someone thinks that all photographic memory in pop media should be wiped of any trace of its former existence. And what excuse do they offer up for doing it?

      "It might hurt someone's feelings."

      What a cop-out.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    3. Re:doing the same to other movies? by Ramshackle · · Score: 3, Informative

      They've already done it for the Spider-Man trailer.

      --
      www.Jackassery.com
    4. Re:doing the same to other movies? by Johnny5000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're editing out the WTC I assume so we wont be reminded of the disaster? As if we're going to forget anyway.

      If they leave the towers in, people will be reminded of the attacks. If they edit the towers out, people will say "look, they edited the towers out!: .... and then be reminded of the attacks.

      I say leave them in. That's what it looked like when it was being filmed.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    5. Re:doing the same to other movies? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Super Mario Brothers has the towers, and shows them derezing into another dimension. (It was on TV last night.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    6. Re:doing the same to other movies? by Lizard_King · · Score: 2

      this is not funny - it's true. there was a scene in the Spiderman movie where Spidey generates a web netting between the WTC and catches a villain helicopter. I know that there was a bit of story line rework to be done, considering the semi-large role the WTC played

      --
      "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson
    7. Re:doing the same to other movies? by Forkenhoppen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean any pictures of the WTC where they aren't blowing up or already blown up, right? Because right now, you can flip to pretty much any news channel, and see what the WTC looks like destroyed. And if you wait long enough, they'll replay the planes crashing, for dramatic effect or whatever..

      Personally, I think it's all propoganda. The media feel that it's their responsibilty to make sure that when the public thinks of the WTC, they only think of it as being blown up. There seems to be a need in today's media to reinforce fact in everybody's mind. (Maybe they think we're all stupid and we'll forget..?) They want us so we won't forget, and so that they'll be in full support of whatever the president decides.

      Now I'm not saying this is a gov't conspiracy. Far from it; I think the media honestly believes that this is their responsibility. They feel that they should be doing everything in their power to make sure that their viewers feel the devestation just as strongly as their reporters did. Which I don't think is a bad thing, if you're only giving a special report. But whenever you have continuing coverage for more than.. oh.. say.. two weeks? That's when you get into brainwashing territory.

      I noticed something equally disturbing in the first few days, however, and that was how the media was already taking it upon itself to question the usefulness of the country's intelligence bureaus. This is not the job of the media--especially in a time of crisis. The job of the media is to report the news, not make suppositions about it. It should be a watchdog group who's doing that kind of report, and presenting it to the media for reporting to the public. Having the media making such observations and suggestions on their own is completely unprofessional.

      The problem is that it's not the gov't that runs the country in cases like this; it's national opinion. The gov't doesn't actually make decisions on foreign policy; they follow the lead of the american populace. And when they want to find out the national opinion, who do they turn to? CNN.

      So allow me to put this into perspective for you; when the gov't wants our opinion, they watch CNN. Whenever we want to find out what our leaders are doing, we turn to CNN, fox, etc. So who's really running the country?

      And people wonder about buildings being removed from movies.. here's a question for you; who owns CNN? AOL Time Warner. And what do they own? Warner Bros., New Line Cinema..

      Wait, sorry, that is a conspiracy theory.. oh, never mind...

    8. Re:doing the same to other movies? by AgentRavyn · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Why is this flamebait? This is a valid point.

      I feel sickened that people are trying to avoid the "hurt feelings." Pictures of the WTC shoudl be reminders of what happened, and while it may hurt some peoples' feelings, it may help others remember the event a little more clearly -- which is what we need to do.

      Can't allow ourselves to forget that it happened.

      ~ravyn

      --
      ___
      I'm an exhibit on the mounted animal nature trail.
    9. Re:doing the same to other movies? by dachshund · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In their defense, I would like to think that Hollywood is doing it to new movies simply to keep them from seeming dated upon release.

      If they start doing it to older movies, I'll be somewhat angry. That's a little bit too 1984 for me.

    10. Re:doing the same to other movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I do not agree with editing out the towers. I think each individual american should have the choice to close his eyes during a scene where the towers are in view. Perhaps a few seconds before a scene where the towers are in view a voice could tell you that the next scene contains WTC towers and all viewers who are sensitive to such images should now avert their eyes.

    11. Re:doing the same to other movies? by Adam+Jenkins · · Score: 2

      Not just movies; I think there's a couple of computer games they're changing too. Red Alert(?) and the latest Microsoft Flight Simulator maps.

  2. I really wish by cetan · · Score: 3, Redundant
    I really wish I had known this from Katz last night:

    I really love this movie

    Because then I would have known to not go. As it stands, I went and suffered.

    --
    In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    1. Re:I really wish by dsanfte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I really wish I had known you'd post a reply to this article.

      Because then I would have known not to read the comments. As it stands, I read and suffered yet another Katz bashing.

      Is that cool to do these days? Do you get a cheque in the mail every time you rag on Katz for posting to Slashdot, with no other reason than because he's Jon Katz?

      Please stop, because it's really getting tiresome.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    2. Re:I really wish by cetan · · Score: 2

      23 years and my first typo. I guess it happens to the best of us.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    3. Re:I really wish by cetan · · Score: 2

      You made no such point because you have no point to make. You're trolling and you continue to propagate this thread with your crap.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    4. Re:I really wish by cetan · · Score: 2

      You're the moron for not understanding the difference between a good film and a never-ending scene of product placements and re-heated jokes.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    5. Re:I really wish by cetan · · Score: 2

      hehe it looks like the /. kabal is busy today. I'm glad I was able to waste some of their mod points.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    6. Re:I really wish by Adam+Jenkins · · Score: 2

      Didn't you realise it had Ben Stiller in it?
      If women find him sexy, I think it speaks very badly of them. I thought it was only us guys who were stupid enough to go for women who act lobotomized and are dishonest in every role they're ever cast in because they are trying so hard to be "nice".

    7. Re:I really wish by cetan · · Score: 2

      redundant? hahaha. Now there's some moronic moderating going on. How funny.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. Twin Towers by dbolger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...the computer-altered New York City skyline (the Twin Towers are gone -- replaced by odd-looking new skyscrapers in several shots looking South...

    Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong? I mean, obviously the sight of the WTC in these movies may be upsetting to some people, but in my opinion, wiping them out of movies and tv shows like they never even existed is extremely disrespectful to the memories of those who lost their lives in the disaster.

    1. Re:Twin Towers by isomeme · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong? I mean, obviously the sight of the WTC in these movies may be upsetting to some people, but in my opinion, wiping them out of movies and tv shows like they never even existed is extremely disrespectful to the memories of those who lost their lives in the disaster.

      I definitely agree. It sometimes reminds me of the Orwellian vision of continuously altered history, in which all records were updated to reflect the current version of truth, making it look as if there had never been a different one. I understand that the surface purpose of this editing is to avoid pangs of unpleasant emotion, but I'm not sure if avoidance is the healthiest course.


      I'm reminded of Jessica Mitford's analysis of the funeral industry, which has so sanitized and commercialized death that families have no practical connection to the corpses of their loved ones, and thus often have difficulty dealing with the reality of the event. Sometimes exposure rather than avoidance is the fastest path to acceptance of a tragedy.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    2. Re:Twin Towers by cybermage · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong?

      While I agree with you that this sort of thing is wrong, I think Katz may be wrong. While a building was definitely added, as part of the plot, I saw no evidence that the Twin Towers had been removed. There are many, many shots of the skyline in the movie, but I don't recall a single one that looked at that part of Manhattan, and I was looking for it.

      At one point, the camera was panning south through the skyline, but cut to the next scene before it was south enough to reach the WTC. Was this edited? If so, good, 'cause I was tired of all the skyline fller.

      --
      Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
    3. Re:Twin Towers by Shelled · · Score: 2, Funny

      Welcome to the politically correct new world order. Soon for the sake of moral sensitivities, we'll be erasing all references to the WTC from literature as well. It's starting to feel like an Orwell book.

    4. Re:Twin Towers by csbruce · · Score: 2

      The right thing to do seems fairly obvious. Films whose time frames are before 2001-09-11 should include the WTC towers; ones set a year or two after that date should not include the two towers, and onces set more than a couple of years later might speculate on replacement buildings.

      My guess for replacements would be a few 60-story towers of a similar design. These would be less tempting targets while replacing the lost office space. There would, of course, be a memorial, but it wouldn't be visible in the skyline.

      "He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past."

    5. Re:Twin Towers by raju1kabir · · Score: 3, Funny
      Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong? I mean, obviously the sight of the WTC in these movies may be upsetting to some people, but in my opinion, wiping them out of movies and tv shows like they never even existed is extremely disrespectful to the memories of those who lost their lives in the disaster.

      I agree completely.

      The other day I saw a movie that took place in California in 1998, and they showed it without any glaciers, and there were no dinosaurs walking around either! How disrespectful to the memories of all the primitive hominid people who were killed by glaciers, and all the dinosaurs who perished in natural cataclysm, that we should just pretend they never existed.

      Um, if a movie is set after the towers were destroyed, it doesn't make much sense to show them standing.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    6. Re:Twin Towers by BinBoy · · Score: 2, Funny

      They should replace the towers with two gigantic swirly lollipops. If they're going to be stupid, do it right.

    7. Re:Twin Towers by unitron · · Score: 2
      I made a similar observation about a week or more ago in a post to another story. To me it would be like Lincoln making his speech at Gettysburg about how the deaths there consecrated the ground far beyond the abilities of the living and then saying, "Coming soon to this very spot, Gettysburg Mall, with a 24 screen theater and 3,count 'em, 3 food courts, and a Gap and a Starbucks, and ..."

      Of course, not being a New Yorker I might not be able to fully understand how they see it.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  5. some people laugh by donglekey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Because something is funny, not because they are wanting to escape social trends. You would love to believe that everyone is laughing for the same reason but that's just not how it is, sorry. People don't all think exactly alike just because you can catagorize them or sterotype them.

    --

    This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
  6. Erasing history? by christurkel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I find that digitalling removing WTC images from movies (past and present) disturbing. It is like we are trying to erase the fact they ever existed, which is wrong. I know seeing the WTC towers will be disturbing but for 30 years they were a distinct part of Americana. What are we going to do, cut pictures of them out of magazines and text books? Pull the remake of King Kong from the shelves?

    --

    CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
    1. Re:Erasing history? by aonifer · · Score: 2

      Pull the remake of King Kong from the shelves?

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

  7. Musketeer Review :( by garcia · · Score: 2

    yeah well I knew that one would be bad so instead I went to see The Musketeer and suffered more horribly than those stabbed in the movie.

    The premise of the movie was fine (young man, wants to revenge father's death) yet the rest sucked. The acting was pretty bad and the dialogue was worse.

    There were two saving graces. Humor -- I don't know if it was intended in all the places it came up (the exhausted horse that he said he would come back for like he was leaving his love) and Heather Grahmn PG-13 nude in the bath-tub ;)

    I suggest finding another movie to see this weekend or waiting for Johnny Depp in From Hell :)

  8. Shameless Plug - Moderate if you wish by Malic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My brother Rob Schrab (creator of SCUD: The Disposable Assassin and co-writer of Heat Vision & Jack) did some second unit direction in Zoolander and had some creative/artwork input into the brainwashing sequence.

    There's also this other little thing he is working on called Robot Bastard that you may wish to check out...

    (Heaven help the server now!)

    --
    I swear by MacOS X. Although I use to swear *at* MacOS 9...
    1. Re:Shameless Plug - Moderate if you wish by zhensel · · Score: 2

      Hehe, that movie could be the catalyst to bring back the drive-in movie theater. I just think it would be funny to see the MPAA honcho's reactions when they had to rate that preview.

  9. Not funny to everyone by LeninZhiv · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I for one have decided to steer clear of this film after reading the rather sobering reflections Roger Ebert had on its message in his review.

    A lot of us need some escapism these days, but I don't think that the best place to be finding it is in a movie that pokes fun at muslims and considers their one of their contries (Malaysia) inconsequential.

    Ebert's point that I liked the best was that, "If the Malaysians made a comedy about the assassination of the president of the United States because of his opposition to slavery, it would seem approximately as funny to us as "Zoolander" would seem to them."

    Comedies like this add to the dislike of America that was exploited by a few crazy lunatics to lead to the Sep. 11 tragedy; how sad is it to see that the first big comedy to come out of the States after those events just pours salt on the wounds of the have-not countries of the world; especially since Malaysia has tried very hard to improve its possition in the world (witness the Petronas towers and the F1 grand prix).

    In light of these concerns I think that those who are sensitive to the pain that certain American attitudes can cause to the people of other nations would do well to avoid this film.

    1. Re:Not funny to everyone by alienmole · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I haven't seen the movie, but apparently you haven't either. Is it possible Ebert is being oversensitive and missing the point? (Answer: yes!) After all, the movie is apparently making fun of the fashion industry, and the assassination plot idea is somewhat amusing - and certainly not intended to be serious - despite Ebert's heavy-handed attempt to turn it around. Ebert hasn't actually asked any Malaysians what they think.

      Please, feel free to boycott this movie because you don't like dumb American comedies (defined as almost anything involving an ex-cast member of SNL), but don't boycott it because it's politically insensitive. Don't confuse Ebert's inappropriate hand-wringing with political sensitivity.

    2. Re:Not funny to everyone by zhensel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ebert has been known to be overly PC and severely miss the point of movies. See his review of Fight Club. Now, I'm not nearly the fan of Fight Club that some people are, but I at least realize that there are three distinct levels of meaning to that and not simply the base "fighting is cool" message that Ebert focuses on. I imagine Ebert must've gotten a few slick beatings in his day to carry such a grudge. I do see his point on this issue, but really, he even admits that beyond this glaring error (in his eyes), the movie does score some points. His rating is seemingly solely based on the un-PC-ness of the flick and not its value otherwise. Making movies about fake assasination plots are great fun I think - perhaps picking Malaysia was a mistake, but to censor something created before the September 11th events because of the September 11th events is a huge mistake. Censorship is a greater crime against humanity than anything that happened September 11th. That might sound insensitive, but I mean it.

    3. Re:Not funny to everyone by gleam · · Score: 2

      It's well known that roger ebert is a studio shill, and has been since Siskel died.. perhaps before.

      The movies he likes are movies the studios pay him to like. The movies he dislikes are ones where he wasn't bribed enough.

      My personal favorite movie reviewer is Elvis Mitchell of the new york times. If you want a really good source, though, check out www.rottentomatoes.com, which gives you a lovely sampling of all the reviews for a particular movie.

      -gleam

      -gleam

      --
      this .sig is not a .sig.
  10. Zoolander is not a social statement! by gad_zuki! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hate to break this to you, but the last thing this movie was was a commentary on fashion or pop culture. Its such a funny yet completely ridiculous take on the fashion industry that if you saw some kind of message in there then you've got bigger things to worry about. There's no jabs at real designers or at people who buy from them just surreal characters and situations designed to deliver three gags per minute.

    Saying this movie has social value is like saying dumb and dumber put the rich elite in their place. Its typical Stiller and Wil Ferrel comedy turned up to 11. Some of the gags don't work, but this kept me laughing quite a bit.

    Not to mention its got Milla Jovovich playing a very sexy fashion henchwoman. Natalie Portman makes a cameo too, in fact every celebrity in the known universe makes a cameo.

    1. Re:Zoolander is not a social statement! by partingshot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I couldn't keep reading after this line:

      "It's not entirely clear how much of this was the
      quality of the movie, how much that people
      obviously needed to laugh"

      Katz is a little too anxious to find deeper
      meanings. Sometimes a duck really is just
      a duck.

      --
      Anonymous posts are filtered.
  11. Re:Are you okay Jon? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are you okay?

    Where are the deep messages against pop culture in this funny yet completely brainless movie? Complain about the industry all you want, but if you bothered to see this you'll see Jon is seeing what he wants to see and he's got you hook, line, and sinker.

    Of all the comedy actors out there I'd rather give my 5 bucks up to Ben. If you ever saw his old TV show or his role in Heavyweights you'll know exactly why.

  12. Re:Catches criminals just like flies,,, by nebular · · Score: 5, Funny

    We are at war with Eastasia, we are friends with Eurasia. Whe have always been at war with Eastasia, we have always been friends with Eurasia

  13. WTC Removal by daitengu · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So the WTC Towers have been removed from this movie, and will probably be removed from a few more movies that show the NY skyline. Why?


    Because it's disturbing to some people?
    Some people have mentioned before that it dishonors the memory of the building, and the fine people that were in it, and i totally agree.


    So some people will be offended, what happens if those people watch older movies on video that prominently show the WTC Towers? is Hollywood going to grab all the films off the shelf, and edit them out of there?


    Personally I'm offended by the fact that they were edited out. It's a great piece of our modern history, and Hollywood is afraid of having anything to do with it.

    1. Re:WTC Removal by CeruleanSilver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Hollywood is afraid of having anything to do with it

      Wouldn't you if you wanted to produce something that was supposed to make people laugh? Zoolander is a ditzy, no-brains comedy that doesn't need to depress its audience with reminders of the terrorism that just happened. This movie isn't some sort of historical documentary, so either way, removed or not, the towers' appearance doesn't really matter.

      If this had something besides just another silly comedy, you might be able to talk about dishonoring memories (and others about Orwelian nightmares), but as it is it didn't matter one way or the other whether the towers were in this movie or not.

  14. I would go to this movie... by NonSequor · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...if they digitally removed Will Ferrell. I hate him.

    --
    My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
  15. Re:Old School Skylines by phillymjs · · Score: 2

    No?! Dammit, that was one of the funniest Simpsons episodes ever! They can't pull it!!

    From what I've heard, FOX took it out of syndication immediately after the 11th.

    The only remaining question is, will it be missing from the eventually-forthcoming "The Complete nth Season" DVD that will cover the season in which it premiered? If so, I suggest the buyers of that DVD initiate a class-action lawsuit for false advertising-- because without "The City of New York versus Homer Simpson," it's not the complete season.

    Oh, and I saw Zoolander last night. It was incredibly stupid, but I thought it was quite funny. And I was howling at the '2001' reference.

    ~Philly

  16. Re:Why do we keep seeing these? by dead_penguin · · Score: 2

    Sigh... If you don't want to see Jon Katz stories, don't! It's very easy. Click here, scroll down to where you can exclude authors from the homepage, check the third box down, hit save at the bottom, and you'll never have to see one of his stories again.

    Of course, that makes posting trolls in response to his stories all that much harder...

    --

    It's only software!
  17. Removing the Twin Towers seems wrong by dstone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We don't erase images of our fallen war heros. We don't erase images of our assassinated presidents. Why change history now? When they filmed the movie, they were standing. Now they're not. So what? I'll tell you a litle story... My favorite pizza joint is Nat's New York Pizzeria (I'm not in New York, but these guys claim to do an authentic NY style pizza). So I'm sitting there a few days ago, chowing down on a couple of thin slabs of za. And I turn to my left and nearly choke in awe to see a huuuge photo of the Twin Towers framed on the wall. It's about 6 feet by 4 feet and includes the Brooklyn Bridge in the forground for added context. Anyways, beautiful picture and it's been there forever (I asked). I guess I never noticed it. But I'm glad I did now and I'm glad they didn't erase their history. (I'm also glad to see that they're not playing it up at all to take advantage of it.)

  18. Rember when you were asking me what irony ment? by Drath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I find it interesting that they would remove images of the WTC from movies yet they show the planes exploding inside the tower and guys falling 100 stories on TV in an endless loop.

  19. Are we now Soviets? by Glasswire · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please, please Hollywood, don't remove the World Trade Center from any movies that are supposed to occur before Sept 11 2001.
    This is altering history in the same manner that the Soviet Union was infamous for. Officals in the USSR who had fallen from favor would be airbrushed-out of archival photos and histories - re-written with the goal of making the "un-person" not only cease to exist, but to cease to have EVER existed. (See Orwell's 1984 for the mechanics of this)
    This is wrong in a free society that (I hope) values truth over pleasing fiction. We have to get over the idea that we can wish troubling facts and events away.
    For better or worse, our children and future generations seeing old movies should see towers where there were towers in the first half of 2001. If that leads kids or others to uncomfortable questions about what happened to those tall buildings, maybe a history lesson would not be such a bad thing...

  20. It's very reasonable. by Negadecimal · · Score: 2

    If Hollywood producers were going back through archives and removing the WTC from reruns and old movies, I would be very disturbed. But they're not doing that.

    Zoolander is intended to be a satirical comedy. The writers and producers want their audiences laughing...something that's not going to happen if you show them pictures of the WTC ten days after they collapsed. We don't see Jay Leno poking fun at the people who died in those buildings, so I'm not sure why we're up in arms about a comedy that doesn't show the twin towers.

    Nobody's forgetting or supressing what happened (just turn on any television station for evidence). An incredible amount of footage has emerged from this disaster, and I imagine that the WTC will be better known and recognized by our children than what our generation associates with Pearl Harbor (which has hardly been forgotten).

    I fully expect to see the "City of New York vs. Homer Simpson" (one of my favorite episodes) on my TV screen again -- but not anytime soon, and I'm not chastising FOX for that, either.

  21. RIOT by Stoutlimb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I went to see The Musketeer, not only did it suck, but the projector broke twice. Whe had angry drunk guys storming up and down the aisles screaming at the projectionist. By the end of the show, everyone booed. Upon leaving the theatre, there were employees standing around frantically handing out free tickets to everyone they could see, in order to prevent a riot. If it weren't for them, I'm sure someone would have gotten hurt.

    The moral: Don't go see the Musketeer.

  22. Get a clue Jon! It was about female models. by John+Harrison · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Female supermodels have long been the target of satirists, but this is the most head-on assault yet on the men.

    Jon, this film WAS a send-up of female models. It is simply more politically correct to use male models. Otherwise the movie would have seemed vicious rather than funny. You can get away with much more by being indirect.

    I took the movie as being set in an alternate universe in which male models are popular in that same way that female models are in ours.

    As long as I'm posting, let me say that the trailers contained every funny moment from the film with the exception of the gas station scene. In fact some scenes were funnier in the trailer. The David Duchovny scene was hilarious in the trailers, but fell flat in the movie itself due to less frantic timing.

    If you want to go to a funny movie, go see Rat Race. It really exceeded my expectations. Zoolander had a great concept (you're right on that point Jon, congrats) but the execution wasn't there.

    --
    Lasers Controlled Games!
  23. uh, this is a comedy... by Preposterous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ...not a historical documentary. I mean, they also alter the skyline to show the fictional Mugato headquarters, and the waterfront to put Zoolander's "School for Kids Who Don't Read Good and Who Don't Do Other Stuff Good" next to the UN complex.

    I agree there's a time for historical accuracy, but this movie really isn't it if you ask me.

    --

    "Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
  24. Re:Transcript of E! by unitron · · Score: 2
    "...and then trimmed it down 2000 words or less."

    Katz, make something shorter?

    Nah.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  25. Re:Pop Culture by unitron · · Score: 2
    You left out the biggest reason why they hate us.

    Baywatch.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  26. 4-time? by nlh · · Score: 3, Informative

    Derek Zoolander (Ben Stiller), the four-time Male Model of the Year winner

    *ahem* -- he was the three-time winner. Rememeber when they showed the banner with the 4 crossed out?

    --
    Ferrari and other exotic car rentals in New York
  27. Re:I don't care at all by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 2

    I'm absolutely amazed at how people don't mind the fact that EVERYONE is selling out these days. Of course who do I see endorsing a beer company that will remain nameless? Ben Stiller... In fact, the same unnamed beer company as Michael Myers. And who's music do we hear in commercials, and as the themes for hit shows? Enya, Aerosmith, etc.

    This is not "selling out." Aerosmith, etc., have already "sold out," in that they're businessesd designed to make money. They have professional management, they get tour sponsors, they have contractual obligations, if they decided to push an album back six months they'd have to explain to record company middle management why they decided to do so.

    Many young Slashdotters have selective vision when it comes to corporations. They pretend not so see that the popular geek TV show Enterprise is corporate to the bone, but then if the storylines go off in a direction they disagree with they will blame the actors and writers as having gone corporate or selling out. People hate Microsoft and Intel because they are big corporations, but they don't mind Coke or cable TV networks. And many dearly believe that The Simpsons is an underground inside joke of a show made for a handful of geeks, and not the corporate franchise that it actually is.

  28. Two thumbs down by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

    Ebert and Roeper: two thumbs down

    'nuff said

    (sorry Ben)

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?