Lol33t

If you've enjoyed any film with Adam Sandler in, then frankly, you should be taken to a public square so we can watch your limbs get quartered by horses. What's left should be chopped up, with the chunks kicked around and mocked by decent, righteous civilians.

And we're not the only people who have noticed how unswervingly dismal Sandler is.

Impressively, Sandler has got himself a record number of nominations at the Razzies – an awards show that is there to single out the worst films of the year – with an whopping ELEVEN nods.

So, what has Sandler been nominated for? Well, we wish all the noms were for the same film, but alas, this is not the case. That said, it's pretty admirable that he's been recognised for his thoroughly and consistently awful work.

Sandler received his 11 nominations for the Razzies as star, producer, or writer on three 2011 movies – Jack and Jill, Just Go With It and Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star.

This record number of nods more than doubles the previous record held by Eddie Murphy for 2007's Norbit.

And Murphy and Sandler share something which should be a lesson to all comedic actors – don't play more than one character in the same film. Murphy, of course, is as guilty as anyone in his attempts to appear as the entire cast in his films and Sandler recently took a stab at it in the gruesome Jack and Jill where he played himself AND HIS OWN TWIN SISTER HAHAHAHAHAHAOHGODKILLUSALLNOW!

As such, Sandler's nominations include worst actor for both Jack and Jill and Just Go With It as well as worst actress for Jack and Jill.

Sandler also had two nominations as worst screen couple opposite Jennifer Aniston or Brooklyn Decker in Just Go With It and opposite Katie Holmes, Al Pacino, or himself in Jack and Jill.

As a producer, Sandler was credited with worst picture and worst prequel, remake, rip-off, or sequel nominations for both Bucky Larson and Jack and Jill. He also shared in worst-screenplay nominations as a writer on both movies, and a worst-ensemble nomination for Jack and Jill.

Razzie founder, John Wilson, says:

"It's almost karmic for someone to have made that much razz-able stuff in one year. He has angered someone really powerful, I would say."

Next stop – public execution to stop these awful, awful films.

Michael Fassbender Still Fancied By Hipsters Because He Got His Wang Out

Thanks to being a bit ugly and getting his chap out in Shame, Michael Fassbender is definitely the latest hipster flame, leaving twitter frigging itself red raw over the very mention of his name. Move over James Franco – there's a new alt. pin-up in town.

Fassbender not only has a funny surname, but he almost saw his hipster credentials rocket last night as he won a grand total of zero Oscars, leaving the actor delighted that his newly found cool status remains untouched.

Much like the gussets of his many adoring ladyfans.

Of course, Fassbender says he is determined to enjoy every second of his success and has described his rise to fame as "crazy."

He won't be enjoying it too much though, for fear of upsetting his fans. He must maintain a veneer of chilly cool.

Naturally, people will say they fancy the German/Irish actor because he's talented and brave. Don't be fooled though – these people like his six pack and dangling wang that he's got out in a couple of films. Shame is also the perfect vehicle for those who pretend they're into kink. It's about a sex-addict. The viewer can daydream about having a sex-addict Michael Fassbender at their beck-and-call.

Fassbender says:

"I don't want to spend too much time thinking about the things I've done, or linger in the past. I can find that depressing. The main thing is thinking about what I can do next and making sure I do a good job."

"This whole experience is crazy. When I decided this was what I wanted to do, this was the situation I dreamed about being in. It's nuts."

Then, to tick the boxes for those who want a sensitive pin-up, Fassbender knocks it out of the park with some thesp chat. Talking of Shame:

"The idea of sexual addiction is a grey area. All of us were probably introduced to it through celebrity stories, so there's a certain public perception that it's a self-indulgence within that world."

"What I got from the film was this great humanity. It's tough to be human. We're all fragile in our own way and each of the characters needs somebody to help them. I thought that was quite moving."

Signing off with a flourish to really dampen the seats of the hipsters, Fassbender delivers a bomb. Talking of sex and nudity:

"I don't feel comfortable parading around naked in what is essentially, at the beginning, a room full of strangers, but it had to be done. It was an essential part of getting inside the psyche. Besides, my imagination was much more devious than what was in the script"

So, there you have it. Fassbender – the wet-dream of the lonely social networking onanist. And god, doesn't he know it? Also – you fancy Bobby Sands. Shame, because there's a man who would really make you feel fat.

It’s not easy choosing a book title

My book will be aimed at those who are dreaming of starting their own design business, or who have already started and are looking for some help to take them to the next level. It'll be the title I wish I'd read a few years ago (although I know I'm going to learn a lot writing it).

The title was going to be The Business of Design, but it's already published. Then Nikki suggested Business Designed to tie-in with Identity Designed. Great idea, but someone's sitting on the domain and my purchase request led to nowt.

Then Bernadette pitched in with these two ideas:

Working in Design
The Design Startup

—

Update: 10 February 2011
The chat in the comment thread has ruled out The Design Startup, and there's now a third option in the mix: Work for Money — Design for Love.

—

I've registered both .coms, so it's down to one of those, along with the likely subtitle of, "Answers to the Most Frequently Asked Questions About Starting and Running a Successful Design Business."

I ran both names past Blair, who suggested that Working in Design may lead to confusion about the target market. It could imply design employment, as opposed to self-employment. Fair point. Nikki liked both, but thought The Design Startup could imply I had some unique product or service to sell, which wouldn't be ideal. Another fair point. She said Peachpit's salespeople would love Working in Design.

Which do you prefer?

Keep in mind they'll appear alongside the provisional subtitle.

1/ Working in Design: Answers to the Most Frequently Asked Questions About Starting and Running a Successful Design Business

2/ The Design Startup: Answers to the Most Frequently Asked Questions About Starting and Running a Successful Design Business

—

Update:
So it's down to number 1/ or number 3/ Work for Money — Design for Love.

—

Bernadette kindly pitched an alternative subtitle, too, with optional word in brackets: "Everything You Want to Know About Starting and Running a (Successful) Design Business."

Subscribe to new posts via RSS or email. Follow on Twitter.

Anonymous and Wikileaks: friend or foe of liberty and property?

A vast amount of data at US-based intelligence and research organisation, Stratfor, has been stolen by the group styling itself "Anonymous". As reported today, WikiLeaks has, or is in the process of, publishing millions of emails written by persons at that organisation over a 7-year period.

And Stratfor's CEO, George Friedman, has resigned. Er, no he hasn't - it was a fake story, apparently. Curiouser and curiouser.

"I like hearing when companies pay the price for lax security, but in the case of Stratfor, proving that someone's security is weak by spilling everyone's details is like peeing your pants to prove your parents aren't supervising you. It might feel good and warm at first, but you ultimately end up being the loser."

So writes a person called Michael Lee. His article focuses on Anonymous' actions. He continues:

"Stratfor is one of the latest companies allegedly targeted by Anonymous. The breach, which began to make headlines on Christmas day in the US, resulted in the loss of 200GB worth of data and ultimately the publication of its customers' emails, credit card numbers, and corresponding verification numbers and addresses."

And this:

"The hackers wanted to release the credit card details because they belonged to "rich and powerful oppressors". But even the author behind the release stated that of the 860,000, just 50,000 email accounts were from military or government domains. How many of those 50,000 were even responsible for oppressing anyone? And even if all 50,000 were, was it really worth ruining the privacy of 810,000 other likely innocent bystanders?"

Publishing the details of housands of credit card details, addresses and other important information has nothing to do with holding the rich and powerful to account. And in any event, being rich is not, in and of itself, a legitimate reason for a bunch of hackers to claim that wholesale theft of data is somehow in the "public interest".

Now WikiLeaks, run by Julian Assange, is involved. As some regulars might know, unlike some other Samizdata contributors, I consider WikiLeaks, and those who aid and abet its publication of such private data, to be near-criminal in its recklessness. It has put journalists' sources in jeopardy, or it least is careless about them in some cases, which is hardly grounds for celebration by anyone who takes freedom of expression seriously. This story from Africa is particularly troubling.

This item by the BBC shows how WikiLeaks does not give a damn about the damage it does so long as it can claim to be striking a blow against organisations it dislikes:

"Here we have a private intelligence firm, relying on informants from the US government, foreign intelligence agencies with questionable reputations and journalists," Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told Reuters news agency. "What is of grave concern is that the targets of this scrutiny are, among others, activist organisations fighting for a just cause."

Well it may be that the final sentence has some basis in truth, but as Assange surely knows, a lot of journalists get sources inside large organisations for their stories, be they government civil servants or company types. An investigative journalist looking into corporate or government activities could not operate without such contacts, even in a world where Freedom of Information legislation operates. And there is a real risk that serious sources will be blown and their careers ruined by indiscriminate publication of such vast amounts of information. The key word here is "indiscriminate" - there is no sign of any attempt to filter, let alone consider how some of this data could fall into the wrong hands and cause harm to innocents.

In case anyone brings up the matter, the leak of such a vast number of emails, and hacking of data about hundreds of thousands of credit card details, is hardly the same as say, the discovery of emails at the University of East Anglia that confirmed suspicions that AGW alarmists were playing fast and loose with the evidence. In that case, a Freedom of Information Act request was used to find out about the emails. In other words, a proper process was insisted upon. And I am not aware that global warming skeptics have tried to hack Al Gore's bank account details.

And now it appears, in an update, that some pranksters are trying to claim that a person has resigned from his job when he hasn't. This is all getting very juvenile.

Dancing On Ice Review: ITV Gets Confused Again (We Want Blood)

ITV's got a long, long history of completely misunderstanding the concept of "rock". There's something about distortion pedals that just smushes their collective brains and leaves everyone in the audience a little bit baffled. And this week on Dancing on Ice, they did it again.

In fairness to the ice-dwelling imbeciles though, it wasn't quite the same level of misunderstanding that Tulisa demonstrated on last year's X Factor. They may have all been weirdly subdued and kind of odd, but at least most of them managed to pick an actual rock song to skate to.

Most. But not all.

Alas, everyone's favourite crazy-eyed skier was determined to keep the "Not Rock" tradition alive, and so Chemmy found herself skating to Kelly Clarkson's 'Stronger', because it "really speaks to her". Presumably because she's broken everything in her body at least six times and yet still has enough life left in her to make a total tit of herself on national TV each Sunday.

Jennifer Ellison, meanwhile, had gone for the power ballad end of rock, and decided to skate to Bonnie Tyler, a song which causes hecklerspray intense emotional pain. For a while it looked like causing Jennifer intense physical pain, especially after coach Karen put her in a helmet and made her go very, very fast. Stupid Jennifer decided to let us all down by staying upright though, thus beginning the parade of subdued disappointment and unfulfilled promise that characterised the rest of the show.

Andy was out to get his scores up into the 20s, and so was given a "serious, reflective" routine. To Oasis. Presumably because he wanted to show us some more of his non-existent skills. Unfortunately for Andy though, his way of emoting and skating was to just touch his head a lot, which the judges found a bit boring. So they gave him rubbish scores and he was a bit sad and nobody really cared. No-one cares about Andy. Not even his mum.

Everyone cares about Matthew though, because he's apparently great. Super-amazing, top of the leader board, 9.5 out of 10 great. And since they all care about him so much, they decided to give him a practically impossible routine which caused him to look deeply confused and totally psyche himself out. He set us all up for a complete disaster of a performance, and then did something that was not quite as good as last week, but still quite good.

We told you it was disappointing.

Unless your name is Sam. Or maybe Mark. But we think it was Sam. Whoever he was, he was quite happy with his routine last week, even though attempting the frog lift had nearly ruined his knee. So to celebrate, Torville and Dean gave him the frog lift again, presumably because they didn't like him much. Sam managed to perform said lift without it ending in serious injury, so he was happy. We still weren't.

That was okay though, because Jorgie and her Blades of Death were there to cheer us up. Little Jorgie wasn't top of the leaderboard last week, so this week she decided to get herself all the attention by mauling her partner. In the face. THE ACTUAL FACE. She claims she was trying to wrap her skates around his neck, but we know the truth. She just wanted to kick him in the face.

Still, it was all fine in the end, because Jorgie decided to attack in the dress rehearsal, leaving her partner Matt with enough time to go and get stitched up by a tip-top surgeon. Which makes Jennifer Ellison's head-skate interface from a few weeks back look pretty lame, really. She was glued back together in the studio. And she hadn't kicked her actual face. What an amateur.

Chico's not an amateur, though. Definitely not. He's Top Tier, apparently. He didn't seem to be having much trouble with his routine at all, which presented a bit of a problem for the producers. They had to find some drama somewhere, so they pretended a knee slide was a difficult move. Even though it's just sliding on your knees. Apparently Chico was in danger of COMPLETELY LOSING CONTROL and SLIDING TOO FAR. Really puts that skate-to-the-face moment into perspective.

Except that it didn't at all, and so Chico found himself in the skate-off with the distinctly lower-tier Sam, who was promptly booted off the show. Still, we can only hope that Chico and his appalling blonde wig have learnt their lesson; don't try and pretend to be a daredevil when the person you're following has just be gouged in the face.

To win, shed blood.

martes, 28 de febrero de 2012

Latest stories

Latest stories

Related posts on David Airey dot com