After writing my guts out all day and most of the evening, the last thing I want to do is watch something that taxes my brain -- or my heart, for that matter.
I mean, I'm already aware of the evil people are capable of inflicting on each other. The non-fictional media do a great job of demonstrating that every day. Why would I choose to wallow in man's inhumanity to man in the world of make believe, as well?
Thanks anyway, but no.
On the rare occasions I sit down to watch something on TV or DVD, I prefer it to be as escapist as it gets. Which is why Rob and I tend to watch so many kids' movies.
I try telling myself I watch them in the name of "research," since I'm still toiling away on the never-ending story. But who am I kidding? I watch them because I LIKE THEM.
(There. I said it.)
So when Rob said we'd just received the movie "Barnyard" in the mail, I shrugged and agreed to watch it -- even though I vaguely remembered it receiving awful reviews.
"Ehhh, it's done by the same studio that did Jimmy Neutron," I thought. "How bad can it be?"
Very bad, as it turned out. Worse than bad.
It wasn't the cardboard characters or lame, predictable plot that got me (though it was painfully obvious poor ol' Daddy Cow was going to bite it Lion King-style within the first two minutes of the movie).
Truth is, I barely paid attention to those glaring flaws.
No. What had me choking with horror from almost the very first scene was the fact that the main character of the movie is a he-cow.
A HE-COW, people.
Not a bull. A cow. With udders. That just happened to be male.
Like so:
There's absolutely no logical reason for this creature to have udders. None of the other upright-walking animals had anything resembling sexual organs on their body. I'm mystified as to why the movie's decision-makers felt obligated to make the poor he-cow the exception.
Were they worried the audience wouldn't be able to identify the character as bovine without the telltale udders hanging out? Or is there a subversive pro-tranny message hidden in there somewhere?
Or is Hollywood REALLY that far removed from reality?
My money's on the latter.
No. What had me choking with horror from almost the very first scene was the fact that the main character of the movie is a he-cow.
A HE-COW, people.
Not a bull. A cow. With udders. That just happened to be male.
Like so:
There's absolutely no logical reason for this creature to have udders. None of the other upright-walking animals had anything resembling sexual organs on their body. I'm mystified as to why the movie's decision-makers felt obligated to make the poor he-cow the exception.Were they worried the audience wouldn't be able to identify the character as bovine without the telltale udders hanging out? Or is there a subversive pro-tranny message hidden in there somewhere?
Or is Hollywood REALLY that far removed from reality?
My money's on the latter.
1 comment:
I still can't figure out why they did that. I think there may have been one joke that needed the udders, but it was bad, forgettable, and probably age-inappropriate.
Maybe that's it... all the udder-sucking jokes got taken out by the execs after the film was done.
Post a Comment