Rex Manning Day
Recents Comments from Rex Manning Day
The bass player looks like Cro-Magnon Neil Patrick Harris.
on Grizzly Bear Do "Cheerleader" For Fallon at June 29, 2009 11:18 AMScore = 7
LINDSAY ROBERTSON FOR INDIE ROCK CRUSH 2K9
On an unrelated note, where's David After Dentist? This awards show is already a sham.
on It is Time To Vote In The 2009 Gummy Awards! at November 19, 2009 5:34 PMScore = 18
Again, just because they're poor people from a poor country doesn't mean you can give them any amount of money and have it be fair. It doesn't matter that this movie "almost" wasn't successful, the fact is, it WAS successful. Hundreds of millions of dollars were made, but the children who starred in it are only marginally less poor than they were before it was made.
You know, someone could build a shoe factory in a poor country and pay the locals pennies a day to fill it. Since they're already so poor, they're surely better off with that income than none at all! Reductio ad absurdem: accomplished.
Thus ends the rantings of Professor Rex Manning Day.
In reply to Godsauce's comment on Danny Boyle Moving Forward With Slummountain Onearmenaire at November 5, 2009 2:22 PMScore = 1
The fact that the children received some compensation does not mean they received fair compensation. Considering how much money the money made, and how poor the children continue to be, it seems reasonable to believe that their compensation was not fair. Of course, the children had no money whatsoever before the movie, so the fact that they maybe have some money now is necessarily "better" than they would be otherwise.
But giving a poor person $20 for work when they deserve $100 is exploiting them. Sure, they needed the $20, but they should have more. The fact that they're poor and will take whatever you give them doesn't mean you shouldn't pay them their fair share.
Maybe the producers did absolutely everything they could to ensure that the kids got fairly compensated, and this is the best possible outcome. Maybe it's just impossible to pay poor children for acting without having their money taken by family members or taxes or something else. But if that's the case, then it's impossible to make movies using poor children as actors without exploiting them. And exploiting poor children is bad. So maybe directors shouldn't use poor children in their movies.
Raising awareness is great. Making a for-profit movie, the stars of which remain poor no matter how much money said movie makes, is not great, no matter how much awareness it raises. Next time use real actors instead of poor children who you know can never be realistically, fairly compensated for their work.
In reply to Clambone's comment on Danny Boyle Moving Forward With Slummountain Onearmenaire at November 5, 2009 11:37 AMScore = 7
I just couldn't get past how much I hate the entire concept of The League. Haha, these grown men are childish and hate the confinement forced upon them by their families and their wives who don't, nay can't, understand their whimsical and brotherly need to enjoy themselves via a sports-related manly group activity. Except for the one wife who actually understands this sport better than her husband, which of course humiliates and emasculates him while nominally contradicting the women-don't-get-sports stereotype. Haha!
That said, Nick Kroll and (especially) Paul Scheer are awesome, and I will probably continue to watch to see them.
on Thursday Night TV Open Thread at October 30, 2009 12:02 PMScore = 4
It's not about my paternalistic guilt, it's just gross. This movie made almost $400 million, and the stars still live in poverty after being paid less than £2,000 for their performances. That's gross, whether it's the parents fault or the producers' fault. The fact that I now get to read about poverty on Videogum doesn't make it less gross.
In reply to Godsauce's comment on Does Anyone Care About The Slumdog Millionaire Kids Anymore? at October 29, 2009 5:59 PMScore = 4
And yet, they still live in poverty. I don't pretend to be an expert in paying poor children for being in movies for Americans, but there must be a better solution than "go to school or we won't give you this $120 per month". The kids live in slums. So yeah, make sure their parents don't exploit them, but also make sure they're not living in a shanty that's literally falling apart around them.
In reply to Godsauce's comment on Does Anyone Care About The Slumdog Millionaire Kids Anymore? at October 29, 2009 4:38 PMScore = -2
Because the white, obscenely wealthy benefactor of these families truly knows what is best for them, and has the right to demand that they meet certain requirements before being given the money they earned.
The kids live in fucking slums. I get that showering the destitute with money will probably not result in wise monetary choices, but its their money. Danny Boyle doesn't get to play parent and demand good behavior before giving these kids their allowance. For chrissakes, but them each a house or something. There has to be a middle ground between Corey Feldman-esque wastes of money and siphoning off stipends which barely nudge a family out of abject poverty.
In reply to Godsauce's comment on Does Anyone Care About The Slumdog Millionaire Kids Anymore? at October 29, 2009 4:03 PMScore = 4
You know, there's a Levi's ad out right now that uses a recording of Walt Whitman reciting a poem. And Walt Whitman is DEAD. And tons of ads have used Louis Armstrong's "What A Wonderful World." Louis Armstrong is DEAD. And hey, the aliens in Aliens were made by Stan Winston. Stan Winston is DEAD. He died last year! The memory of his death is still fresh!
/sigh. Can't we all mock David Spade for something worthwhile, like that ridiculous facial hair, instead of getting upset when yet another dead person's work is used in a commercial? It happens ALL THE TIME. I think using an already commercialized, mainstream slapstick comedy to sell things is hardly the most offensive example of it. That facial hair, however, is definitely the most offensive example of facial hair.
on David Spade Is Sorry That People Don't Realize How Cool The Dead Chris Farley Ad Is at October 29, 2009 10:24 AMScore = 24
This has nothing to do with empathy. He's been dead for years. Clearly his family and friends, who were actually hurt by his death, have moved on and are not hurt by this ad. One would imagine, therefore, that his fans, who I have no doubt were shocked 12 years ago at his death, have probably moved on as well and are not unduly hurt by this ad either. So "empathy" isn't really relevant. Nobody was harmed. Everybody is fine. Except arguably Farley's legacy, but like I said, I don't really think an unfunny ad reflects all that poorly on his career.
In reply to BRAAAAAAAINSSss's comment on David Spade's Publicist Makes No Apologies For Disgraceful Farley Ad at October 27, 2009 2:40 PMScore = -1
I don't really care if he was a sweetheart, nor do I care about his drug use. I didn't know the guy. I'm sure his friends cared about him very much, but who cares? Everybody's friends care about him.
The rest of us only know him through his "comedy", and his comedy was awful. He was painfully unfunny, but he was on SNL when everybody here was in high school and he died early, so now he's held up as some comedy legend whose aesthetic we need to Respect and Honor. But we don't. This commercial is an unfunny money-grab, yes, but so was almost all of Farley's career. Time to move on.
In reply to DS3M's comment on David Spade's Publicist Makes No Apologies For Disgraceful Farley Ad at October 27, 2009 11:10 AMScore = -7
I'm pretty sure that isn't what I said. What I will say is that you cannot expect filmmakers to completely ignore the prevailing market costs and just throw their investors' money around to alleviate some sort of social guilt. I'll also say that your proposed solution of refusing to hire local actors is completely self-defeating.
Permalink for Godsauce's comment on Danny Boyle Moving Forward With Slummountain Onearmenaire at November 5, 2009 4:11 PMOnce the film became a hit, the producers acted to ensure that the children received some benefit from that. Of course, you already know that.
Score = 5