And I should say, the owner himself got into it with the trainer, albeit politely.
I really dislike that strain of liberal reaction that wants to make taking a knee a protest of Donald Trump. Yeah, I know he has a way of making everything be about him all the time but it's a protest of police brutality and the systemic racism that erases black lives.
I really dislike that strain of liberal reaction that wants to make taking a knee a protest of Donald Trump. Yeah, I know he has a way of making everything be about him all the time but it's a protest of police brutality and the systemic racism that erases black lives.
Donald Trump is less popular than police brutality. Why not try for a win?
It was Trump who brought up the topic and prompted the latest round of this, so while it's a bigger issue than him personally he's certainly involved.
I wonder if Trump isn't still irked enough about the whole USFL thing to be deliberately trying to destroy the NFL.
I don't get the narrated cartoon. I should think a self-respecting liberal wanker would be fine with someone stomping over the Confederate flag.
Or is it that they suddenly pivot to saying the Confederate flag is an insult to the US one?
The crossfit fuckwit (pseud, anyone?) is saying that stomping on a US flag and flying a confederate one are both expressive acts, so why the difference in response?
Answer's easy, of course: you have the legal right to do both, and other people have the legal right to disagree with the point of view expressed and, if they want, to disagree to the extent of saying that you're a bad person for choosing to exercise that right and that you shouldn't have exercised it. There's nothing inconsistent or illiberal about disagreeing with the one act of expression and not the other.
And you can even, as a consistent liberal, disagree with some expression (e.g. extreme racism) to the extent of urging other people (e.g. employers, customers, polite society) to refuse to associate themselves with it. What is inconsistent (as even some people in the media are pointing out) is to go on and on about how only left-wingers are censorious like that, and then go and try to get someone fired.
(It's reasonable for the liberal wanker to bring up the First Amendment in relation to the US flag case and not the other, because only in the first case has anyone ever proposed laws against the expressive act.)
8 to 7
(Not meaning to imply that flying a confederate flag isn't extreme racism, btw)
The crossfit fuckwit (pseud, anyone?)
The crossfuck fitwit?
So, it looks like NASCAR might handle things differently than the NFL. Which is probably what would happen if the NFL didn't need black players or fans to make millions of dollars.
Also, Trump is really working to support my thesis that Trump is trying to start a race war.
Also, to support everybody else's thesis about Trump not being very good at what he tries to do. But still.
He's come closer to starting one than either Charlie Mason or Timothy McVeigh.
Race war in the streets, nuclear war 'cos he won't read his briefing sheets.
This is one of times I feel like a foreigner that needs to have a native explain things to me. How can people possibly be so upset about getting on one knee during the national anthem? It seems to me just about l the most respectful possible way to protest
16: Also need a native to help you with your English.
fucking xfit
I'm really losing track of all these new subgenres.
Reminding a certain type of white people that others have had a different experience in life makes those people sad. If they get sad, they vote for Trump. They have no control over this.
For the price of a cup of coffee every day, you can reassure a sheltered white person.
16
Because a lot of Americans fundamentally see black people as inferior to them. Any sign of insubordination, no matter how tiny or even respectful, is a black person assuming they are on some level equal to white Americans. Freedom is for white people, black people are tolerated only insofar as they serve whites with a happy, positive attitude. Football players exist to give themselves brain damage for the entertainment of white people. White people don't want to think of them as actual humans.
The slightly more sophisticated white person version is what Moby wrote. Those are white people who think racism is ended and love to talk about how great Ben Carson and Clarence Thomas are, and why can't more black people be like them?
I'm known for my careful characterizations of slightly sophisticated white peoples.
Should I be forced into engagement on this subject with the likes of the crossfuck fitwit, I would go with something like:
- This isn't remotely about the flag anyway, this is about *kneeling* -- which is a non-standard but not disrespectful gesture (one kneels to pray, after all) -- during the national anthem;
- It's not a protest against flag or anthem, but rather against police brutality, which takes advantage of the players' being put on display during this bit of patriotic theatre;
- Obligatory displays of patriotism at public events are creepy as fuck, why not just make everyone pray to white Jesus while you're at it;
- Football players weren't trotted out for the anthem until the US Military started paying the NFL to do this anyway, so they started it, nyah, nyah, nyah;
- I thought Tim Tebow was a huge wanker for writing all that Jesus stuff on his face but I didn't get all butthurt about it;
- So maybe if you're super mad about this you should reconsider all that moaning you do about political correctness, and finally,
- Shut up, dotard.
why not just make everyone pray to white Jesus while you're at it
Kansas agrees with you on that.
My actual response was much, much shorter than 18, because he was already knee-deep in an unproductive argument. All I said was, "Jesus christ, [fuckwit], this cartoon is super fucking offensive."
One of the shitheads who I never would have had to hear about if Trump hadn't won criticized Stevie Wonder for not being grateful. Who is he supposed to be thanking? God? The implication is usually, "Be grateful our white-majority society is letting you be so rich because we know that's not the normal way it is for black people." You never hear anyone telling the gang of rich (white) assholes in Trump's cabinet that they need to be grateful for being so rich.
John Legend stands up for the kneelers. I'm sure that will resolve the controversy.
Seriously, it's pretty good, but I wonder if the response from Trumpkins is that they hate all those other protests he mentions too.
The symbolism here has gotten very confusing. I mean, 21 is what's really going on - Black people doing anything other than what is currently being demanded is treated as insubordination and reacted to with outrage - but the combination of the anthem, the flag, standing, kneeling, linking hands, etc. has all gotten very muddy.
I am tempted to go stage a nice flag-burning just so my position is clear.
I have confirmed with a sports fan friend that the kneeling is intended as a feature of nonparticipation - as in "take a knee", time-out - rather than submission/obeisance.
Also, Kaepernick started it out just sitting on the bench, not kneeling, I believe.
And a vet friend suggested kneeling as that would be more respctful.
And a vet friend suggested kneeling as that would be more respctful.
Kneeling isn't something USians traditionally do for flag or anthem though.
(Have enough people watched the new Star Trek for it to merit a thread? Would love to chatter thereon...)
Oh God, not yet. Nobody can talk about it until I watch it! I have a gub.
I wonder if Trump expected the outcome he got? It seemed pretty obvious it would be the outcome. (Players tend to support each other, and NFL owners and the league are very unlikely to fire, suspend or otherwise be mean to their players when the result would be losing tons of money. Brief suspension for one player? Sure. Suspending or firing lots of actual stars? Not so much.)
So Trump is either stupider than I imagined or he's back to playing 8-dimensional chess. Maybe he's just trying to heighten the contradictions? He's pretty good at that. Somebody suggested this buries the concussion thing (especially the Aaron Hernandez news) for a while, which helps the league. Trump's hardcore supporters will continue to support him, of course.
In that case, I will just note that although CBS are using it to draw people into their shitty streaming service, they offer a 7-day free trial and the first 2 episodes (really one big pilot ep) are up now; and end threadjack.
There's another Star Trek tv series? Oy!
40: I really don't think Trump thinks that far ahead. He knew that the audience would go crazy for it.
To boldly keep going where no one has gone before, borne forward ceaselessly into the future.
40: I don't think he gives a damn. He successfully stirred up another shitstorm, everybody's talking about him, he's got another ego boost and as a bonus reminded his core followers why they voted for him; by comparison what's happening on the ground (either in the stadiums or in Puerto Rico) barely registers AFAICS.
I have been impressed with how Trump really is unifying people. It's not surprising that black radicals aren't happy with the president, but the nfl, the boy scouts, and the ceo of wal-mart all agree with them.
I'm going to try to thread the needle - support the players protest, and oppose both Trump and the NFL. This activism involves 1) retweeting and 2)continuing to not watch football.
Do I get virtue points for already not being watching football or tweeting?
The NFL really is in a bad spot. I don't see that there's a position they can take that doesn't make at least a big chunk of their audience extremely angry.
Given that it's a terrible sport that causes brain damage, I don't care, but they're really stuck.
The first time they played the national anthem during a big game. (1918, Chicago, boosting flagged attendance.)
It's not a protest against flag or anthem, but rather against police brutality, which takes advantage of the players' being put on display during this bit of patriotic theatre;
I think it's more than this. It's saying (for Kaepernick and those of a more radical bent) that police brutality is an outgrowth of the basic structure of race relations the US. For those of a less radical bent, it's saying that police brutality is "America falling short of its ideals". By kneeling silently, the players are refraining from participating in a ritual affirmation of pride in being a USian and putting a focus on the victims of police brutality. They're withholding their patriotic pride (or expressing pride as dissent). It's natural for people for whom being a proud USian is central to their self-conception to be offended by that. But the offense to the basis of that self-conception is part of the point.
Right -- it's Langston Hughes saying "(America never was America to me.)"
50: I think that's what's so interesting about this. Because I don't think the average Trump-voting football fan has any idea that the NFL depends on people who aren't like him. The commercials during games are for cheap beer, pick-ups, and low-grade meat products. Trump is assuring him that Trump won the popular vote and that Ben Carson speaks for some significant proportion of black people. That the NFL won't fire players over taking a knee is probably going to be seen as some kind of insult from the NFL to people like him instead of the NFL running the numbers and figuring out that it can't make money if the black people boycott.
You said it in 19: Reminding a certain type of white people that others have had a different experience in life makes those people sad.
It doesn't just make them sad, they seem to have a hard time believing it's true at all.
Do I repeat myself? I contain multitudes. Very tedious multitudes.
Anyway, my theory doesn't assume very high levels of self-awareness on my part or theirs.
Other than the news networks, Entertainment Inc. in the U.S. has continually bet against Trump's bigotry.
Until this whole thing blew up, I'd had no idea that Trump was a key player in the USFL debacle back in the 80s. I guess there's been bad blood between Trump and the NFL for a long time.
I really don't think Trump thinks that far ahead. He knew that the audience would go crazy for it.
Among my friends and colleagues, I have been shopping around the Natural Selection Theory of Trump. (I have probably posted it here, too.)
It goes like this: Trump is in no sense shrewd, not even in the sense of playing to his base. He is his base, and says things that he himself finds amusing or interesting or wise.
The social and political environment -- and especially the media environment -- created Trump in the same sense that natural selection created, say, an elephant's trunk. The elephant itself is not a meaningful player in this process -- just something that natural selection acted upon.
You can see this with Sarah Palin. The environment of this country really wanted her to be something big, and if she possessed the minimal functionality that Trump has -- plus the Y chromosome that Trump has -- we might now be talking about President Palin.
The media -- with a boost from the Electoral College and other factors -- created Trump by killing off everything that was not-Trump. There was no clever design behind Trump denigrating John McCain's service to his country or Trump bragging about grabbing pussy or Trump calling Jeb Bush "low energy" or whatever. He's just an ignorant asshole, and there are powerful tendencies in this country (again, the media really is at the center of this) that work against things that are insufficiently ignorant and assholish.
60.1: It's usually just girl scout cookies here.
61: That can be a nuisance, but I'm still the winner for annoying in-office pitches.
"We're all sold of Tagalongs."
"Then why are you here bothering me. Take your green sash and go strangle somebody with the good shit."
I agree with 60 generally. I'd add that millions of people agree with the stupid racist shit the guy says, and millions more like the frisson, or the annoyance of their betters, that comes with him saying it.
60 I think you've articulated that here before, at least in parts. I'll buy it.
That is, I blame the media, but much of the media is just selling soap.
UOJim linked this on twitter it's pretty good. https://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/platform/amp/2016/9/2/12726546/buffalo
Looks like the Cowboys had a game tonight rather than yesterday, and their owner took a knee with the rest of the team (as well as the Cardinals and their own owner opposite on the same field).
Is this going to be the new tradition?
Monday Night Football has been a tradition for years.
The esteemed Mr. G/l/m/n astutely notes this is how cack-handed Trump is, that even these owners now feel obliged to take part in these protests for business reasons.
||
I don't know what thread this belongs in, but, man, watching Graham and Cassidy debate Bernie and the Michigan Senator is sickening. Graham is so gross. Klobuchar is not articulate, and I have no idea what she supports or why I'm supposed to agree with her
|>
and their owner took a knee with the rest of the team
And then they all stood up for the anthem, because the fucking Cowboys.
68 I'm up there several times a year. The wife got a pretty good bear picture at the Bison Range last week. The author was a little confused, though: these ain't buffalo skulls.
(Speaking of which, I just put the pic in the pool.)
My five year old nephew informs me that those are antlers, not horns. Antlers are shed; horns aren't.
He has a list, but it's not laminated yet.
Where you put your antlers is your business.
73: Yeah, I missed that. Otoh, some fans somewhere apparently booed kneeling even when it wasn't during the anthem, so even though they're rapidly anodynizing it, a message is still coming across.
OT: Do actual humans use "OOO" for "Out of the office" or am I working with a robot?
The Outlook robots I've met give you a little popup message when you enter the malingerer in the "to" field.
That's what I get for typing each letter instead of using auto-complete.
OT: Do actual humans use "OOO" for "Out of the office" or am I working with a robot?
Maybe a MOBA player? "OOM" is pretty common for "out of mana".
They aren't stuck in the desert. Why not just go to the store and buy regular bread?
I do see people use OOTO for out of the office, but not often because in America vacation time is limited.
The person I got the message from was a European.
About to see Metropolis with live accompaniment from the Arrakis Philharmonic Orchestra. I splurged on a balcony seat this time because the last time for The Cabinet of Dr Caligari I chose my usual cinephile front and center seat and all I could see was the conductor's ass.
Metropolis sucks. Revolutionary effects in the service of idiocy. The 2001 of its day. I'd rather watch a conductor's ass than see it again.
Ooh, nice. I did the live accompaniment thing for Nosferatu.
Do actual humans use "OOOOOOOOOOeeeeeeeeOOOOOOOOOOeeeeeeeeeOOOOOOO" for "Out of the office" or am I working with a robot banshee?
OOO is pretty standard at this workplace, either in calendar entries (so nobody tries to schedule meetings while you're not there) or in email to your team or something reporting that you won't be in for whatever reason. "OOO Tue 9/26 EOM" for the full effect.
Good god Barry. Explain to me why either of those movies doesn't suck.
Watching computers kill white people is always fun.
Both among the greatest films ever made. Though Barry Lyndon is my favorite Kubrick and M my favorite Lang.
Dr. Strangelove is superior. The question is, what is the worst Kubrick that doesn't have Tom Cruise in it?
You're not explaining. To clarify, I'm not accepting historical significance as constituting a "good" film.
100: A Clockwork Orange, without a doubt.
If only he'd made it in 1989 rather than 1969, he could have had Tom Cruise in it. There's an interesting thought.
Dammit, now I have the trailer for Top Gun as directed by Werner Herzog playing in my head.
104: Ajay's head? A few people have met him and can probably confirm. Lack of a head seems like the kind of thing that would show up in liveblogging.
Apropos Metropolis I've been looking at old Galaxy mags on archive.org and found a small-ad from 1953. Their columnist Willy Ley is looking to sell a full run of Weird Tales, Planet Stories, Authentic and other mags. Property of Fritz Lang who's returning to Germany. (Doesn't say whether West or East)
A picture surfaced on social media showing Boston Celtics legend and Basketball Hall of Famer Bill Russell kneeling ...
Around Russell's neck is the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award presented in the United States. Russell received the award in 2011.
That was great, Mossy notwithstanding.
as is 107.
I refuse to explain why 2001 and Metropolis are great until Mossy watches every Tarkovsky film.
Not sure what Mossy has against Metropolis but there is so much to love about it. Those incredible Art Deco/Expressionist sets, the robot Maria, her erotic dance, the leering lecherous men, her evil wink, Rotwang the original mad scientist with the hair and the cyborg hand and all the gestures and everything. What's not to love?
OT: With 79 votes counted, Luther Strange is ahead in Alabama's race for the bottom.
It's now 292 to 174, advantage Strange. Maybe I should find a site that counts quicker or doesn't put up the count until they get more.
351 to 233 now. I'm starting to think various stereotypes of mental speed might be true.
Moore is catching up. 931 to 897 now.
The percentage of precincts reporting no longer rounds to zero.
It doesn't look so good for Strange now that the number of precincts reporting is into triple digits.
According to the Washington Post, this is a battle for the soul of the GOP. Before tomorrow, we'll know if it's "Hey, you got your kleptocracy in my theocracy" or the reverse.
According to the NYT Moore is the winner.
It's a good thing nobody listened to my projection based on 79 votes counted.
From a technical standpoint, I think M is my favorite Lang film. But I think Fury is the most powerful and captures some of what still drives some of the worst of the US.
112: What's not to love? The fucking idiocy. Every character is an idiot. Maria gathering the children about her to drown on the statue when there's a stairwell five metres behind her. And the idiot hero emerges from that exact stairwell, in the same fucking shot, to show her the stairwell, in the place where she lives and he doesn't. The cack-handed morality tale. If you can show it's actually a brilliant parody of cack-handed morality tales, then I could buy it. The original mad scientist, yes, the original everything. Like I said, revolutionary effects (which hold up a lot better than 2001's, btw), but none of that makes it actually good. Fury is brilliant, yes, except where the newsreel footage shows multiple camera angles when we know there was only the one crew.
To be clear, I'm sincere Fury is brilliant. The newsreel thing is kind of meta nitpicking, but the inclusion of the newsreel in the first place is totally fucking meta, so Lang can hardly complain about the nitpicking.
"cack-handed" is a term I'm going to resolve to use more often. I'm not going to see Metropolis both because 123 makes a convincing argument and because I already saw a Whit Stillman movie with almost exactly the same name.
I'll agree about the morality tale, but only that. It's fucking wonderful to look at. And that kind of continuity ranks fairly low for what I desire from film unless it's completely jarring and I find those continuity issues with Metropolis to be niggling at best, I'm just far too absorbed in the film.
Fury is brilliant.
Also Moore, fucking hell.
And the effects in 2001 are fucking brilliant and still hold up. You want dated? Try CGI from 10 years ago. I much prefer models and practical effects. Douglas Trumbull is a genius, I suppose you hate on Silent Running too?
Haven't seen Silent Running. 2001 effects were brilliant for their time but have dated badly. Wholly agreed on the CGI. 2001 is painful to watch. Massive extended shots of nothing but dated effects and music. Time pitilessly reveals the original to be nothing but a showpiece for the FX industry of the day. The only good thing in 2001 is the HAL storyline, which has nothing whatever to do with the rest of the film. Extract that as a shor film and you have something very good, maybe great. As is, you have a shambolic nonsensical anthology.
Some of the crap from the Matrix sequels looked like shit when they first came out.
Mostly the fight scenes with 600 Agent Smiths. (Agents Smith?)
129 is just so wrong. The long extended shots give one a sense of expansiveness in timw and space. I'm a big fan of "slow cinema" in general and giving one a sense of time dilation is one of the things that cinema does best. How do you feel about Tarkovsky?
I can't say I liked Metropolis when I watched it years ago, but I think it's been restored again since then so I should probably give it another try. I didn't hate it, though.
I often need to build up a lot of patience and then cut out distractions to watch silent films. But some of them I like quite a lot. If I specialized in obsessively watching a particular period of film it would probably be early sound, though.
I've just started watching 2010 and the opening conversation has I think more words than in all of 2001. This is not necessarily a good thing. I've seen 2001 enough times now that I enjoy it as visual background.
Most of what I know about 2001 comes from parodies of it. I've never seen more than snippets of it.
I don't know if I could ever bring myself to watch Solaris again. I really like The Mirror, but in a similar way to how I now like 2001, except I have to pay more attention if I want to read the subtitles.
Seeing it projected on 70mm was a cinema-going highlight for me.
On the one hand, I'm am not at all fond of slow, ponderous films. On the other hand, after three Batmans, two Spidermans, and an Ironman, several years ago I decided that comic book-based movies were to be avoided as a class. If I see eventually see Wonder Woman, it's only for prurient reasons.
140: That's a pretty small screen. I think the screens here are at least 5 meters.
FA, I saw the restored Metropolis and you aren't missing anything. Moby has had the best possible 2001 experience. The FX shots aren't expansive, they're just models and Strauss. And it goes on for 10 minutes. Then some product placement. Then more models and Strauss. Kubrick, I want those 2 hours back.
Haven't seen Tarkovsky. Saw the running time on Stalker, ha ha fuck you. I've been burned by Tolstoy already, not getting conned by another Russian. Slow cinema: don't know what you mean exactly, but I'm not opposed in principle. I love Soderbergh's Solaris, frex. Superficially very similar to 2001, but it actually has characters and plot and reasons to care. Likewise Duncan-Jones's Moon.
The whole outside the ship to shutdown of HAL sequence is really fantastic. I don't know if it's "slow" cinema like some of the rest but it's very patient and restrained, without the kind of extra signaling you get in lots of movies from music or dialogue that might as well be replaced by all caps messages superimposed on the screen saying "THIS IS TENSE WE ARE AT A DRAMATIC MOMENT PAY ATTENTION". That's just about the only part of 2001
FA was overcome by Kubrick boredom and fell asleep mid-comment. I rest my case.
I liked the man-apes. The way the snarl at each other while their huddling in a cave at night. Man, that's us.
I suspect you'd like Ivan's Childhood, Mossy. I think that's the only other one I've seen aside from what I've mentioned above. Wait, I've also seen Tarkovsky's adaptation of Hemingway's "The Killers" and maybe I've seen The Steamroller and the Violin.
Mosfilm has put a ton of movies up on Youtube, many with closed captioning in English.
Missing bracket ate the end of 147, which should have ended with:
where I'll stop and really watch.
Almost as damning as falling asleep.
Stalker is the best. I can't believe I had the opportunity to see it on the big screen in Arrakis just a few days ago (that makes 3 Tarkovsky films I've seen here on the big screen including The Mirror and Solaris).
Soderbergh's Solaris was decidedly meh.
I'll try Ivan's Childhood, unless fa is trolling me like Barry did with War of the Worlds.
I should add to what I said above that the reason it would be difficult for me to watch [Tarkovsky's] Solaris again isn't because I didn't like it but because I thought it was so emotionally draining.
What? Did I recommend War of the Worlds? Spielberg?
155: I could be wrong, but I'm not trolling.
You trolled me. I was liveblogging it, said it sucked, you were like, "It gets better!", I livewatched the whole thing. Fucking terrible.
I think I was mostly encouraging you to stay tuned for when the annoying teenage son gets killed which was at least somewhat satisfying. I didn't say it was good.
I saw a take that said it was one of the best 9/11 movies.
Weasel words, troll.
United 93 is the best 9/11 movie. WOTW is so far below that standard it isn't even in the same sport much less the same league.
I'm not a Spielberg fan so I can't see recommending it but I did find that scene satisfying because he was such an annoying little shit.
It was satisfying! But the little shit turns up alive anyway.
Did he? Oh fuck now I'll probably have to watch it again.
Mossy, what do you think of Koyaanisqatsi?
Here.
http://www.unfogged.com/archives/comments_15677.html
465 et seq.
166: I think I'm not going to watch it.
169 I was right, that was totally in response to your question in 465.
And see my 521 and 526 in that thread.
Yes. I see I imputed to you trollery aforethought that in fact was absent.
I still want to re-watch Duel if someone would put it in front of my face for free.
Isn't Ivan's Childhood just a WW2 propaganda movie? My impression after watching it is that it would have been completely forgotten if it didn't have the Tarkovsky name on it.
175 Quite the opposite of being a propaganda film. It also one the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival and was recognized at the time by a lot of leading filmmakers and critics. It's a genuinely great film.
A movie can be great and a WW2 propaganda film. Well, Casablanca managed it, at least.
I Googled it, and I was surprised that Tarkovsky intended it as an anti-war film -- I guess Truffaut's dictim strikes again. The Germans are cartoon villains. Ivan is an action-movie superhero. Sure, war is bad, and children having to become soldiers is bad, but it's all the Germans' fault.
What I want to know about movies is why, in a world of 7 billion people, nobody can make decent parody movies anymore? Where is the Airplane! for our children?
The world quietly ended in 2004, and we're in an afterlife where we get only An American Carol and Scary Movie spinoffs. Hell is the absence of God.
OT: It turns out that being raised in an environment of anti-government hatred, false heroism, and toxic masculinity has a hidden downside.
Also, that poor guy in Utah died. The one the nurse was dragged away from by officer There Will Be Blood.
129. I now understand Mossy's dislike of 2001: it is possibly due to not actually having any idea what the overarching plot is.* Yes, it's slow (you should have seen it before Kubrick was forced to shorten it and add titles and stuff -- it was about 15-20 minutes longer), but it does actually have a plot. The "HAL sequence" is key to it, of course, in addition to being the most conventionally tense and action-filled part.
* It helps a lot to have read Clarke's novelization.
I read the novelization of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Before Amazon, life was really horrible for people in small towns who liked to read.
183 plot is one of the things I care the least about in cinema.
OT: The only defense against a bad man with a gun is a very clumsy man with a gun.
Re: parodies:
Black Dynamite was superior to two of three Naked Guns, and that was 2009.
I will try to see that then. Two of the three Naked Guns were passable.