My Latest Blog Entry Is Both Beneficial And Entertaining

Oh hello there. Once again, you’ve caught me mid-blog; isn’t it funny how that keeps happening? Well, frankly, no: it isn’t funny at all. In fact, it’s actually quite harrowing. Had you come along a little bit later, you see, I might have had a finished product for you. It might have been about something really interesting or amusing. It might have been, as the good Chaucer says, of best sentence and moost solaas. It might have been, as More wrote, both salutaris and festivus. But, I’m quite afraid to say, it isn’t. You just got here way too early.

So, you know, thanks a bunch for disturbing me and messing everything up. No really, thanks a lot. Like Coleridge’s man from Porlock, you’ve just ruined what could have been the greatest literary work this side of whatever is the opposite of Harry Potter. In short, you’ve totally ruined this post. And I had some great things in mind, too.

For example, I had a story about this one time where I did something really droll, witty and funny, but which was also instructional and of high moral value. My goodness, it was good. Sententious, but hysterical. How uproariously you would have laughed while simultaneously being morally edified. How you would have chortled alongside a most religious chant. You can’t imagine it, I know, because it seems impossible. Well, you should have just been here five minutes later, because trust me, it would have been great. But, you know, you weren’t here five minutes later, were you?

So, really, I think you should just go away and let me finish.

Notes: Hey, wouldn’t it have been funny if Harry in When Harry Met Sally had been Harry Potter? No, it wouldn’t have been funny at all, in almost exactly the same ways that Billy Crystal wasn’t funny as Harry in When Harry Met Sally. This is precisely my point, of course: imagine practically anybody or anything as Harry in When Harry Met Sally and you have yourself a better film. Kermit the Frog opposite Meg Ryan? Funny. The concept of free enterprise opposite Meg Ryan? Funny. But Harry Potter opposite Meg Ryan does nothing for me at all. That’s how bad the Harry Potter franchise is – exactly as bad as Billy Crystal. And just so we’re clear, that’s pretty bad.

But Does News Groper Have A Will Smith 'Easy On The Swears' Policy?

Sorry, but I don’t believe it does.

Yes, News Groper is very funny. Yes, it features ironic blog content. Yes, that means this blog and a million others are completely redundant. Hell, I may as well just pack this in now, and maybe not even finish this sentence. But I did finish that sentence. And that one. And, at the risk of aforementioned redundancy, that one too. Because I believe that I have something that Mr Funnysite News Groper does not, and that is a Will Smith-inspired 'easy on the swears' policy. This blog is a socially responsible blog. This blog will never use potty language. It may occasionally reference bestiality, Jamie Lynn Spears, or various other perversions in the name of a cheap gag, but it will never swear while doing so. It is, as much as anything can be these days, child-friendly – in precisely the way that Michael Jackson’s keening ghost isn’t.

But this is not all. I have decided to take even more aggressive action in my defence against the dark arts of News Groper. In fact, I’m going to beat those News Groper guys at their own game. I’m going to be so cleverly funny, that in fact I will not be funny. Deliberately. I’m going to be so cleverly ironic, that I won’t be ironic any more. I will sail past the point of no-return, the irony event horizon, and come smiling (but with what intent?) out the other side. It will be like Disney’s The Black Hole – and by that I refer to their late seventies space 'epic' featuring Robert Forster and Anthony Perkins, and not the amount of money they poured into Michael Eisner’s private pockets. Yeah, I know what you’re thinking about that Eisner joke. 1995 called, it wants its social-political commentary back. Well, go screw yourselves.

The Black Hole was a great film, by the way. And I’ve realised that, in a way, it has actually passed its own event horizon, to emerge meaningfully out the other side. See, in 1979, when it was released, it was a terrible, terrible movie. Just awful. Those floating tin-can robots with the big stuck-on eyes? Ugh. Having Roddy McDowall provide the voice of said robot also did not help matters, except, perhaps, to make the robot itself seem uncannily realistic and compelling by comparison. But now, watch it directly after ANY Pixar movie, and enjoy how impressively ironic this film is, some twenty years before the content it so clearly ironizes. Let’s see how this works. For those of you unfamiliar with any Pixar film, let me relate to you the plot of any Pixar film. So there’s a couple of mismatched buddies who don’t quite get along. One of them is a bit more serious than the other one, who’s a bit more funny. There’s a quest that this unlikely couple need to achieve, and guess what? They’re going to have to work together to do it! Somewhere along the line there will be some mild jeopardy or peril, and one of the characters will think that they’ve lost the other character. Then, both of the characters will learn a lesson. And then they’ll come together to win the show. End credits. Oh, and they’ll be an implausible score from Randy Newman. I remember the days when Randy Newman was good. Do you remember Faust? That was a great piece. What happened, Randy? What happened in the dark recesses of your soul?

So anyway, The Black Hole did all that a long old time ago, and it had a hovering robot called Maximilion. So, you know, Pixar sucks.

Notes: I just googled The Black Hole and discovered they're doing a remake. That's not good, for almost exactly the same reasons that the Tron remake will be the most amazing film ever. Yeah, I like Tron. Don't act like you're surprised.