Reginald Speaks Up

A fake reader, Reginald, commented:

What do you mean, "movies are fake"???!?! I've seen some movies WITH MY OWN EYES and THEY WERE REAL!!! Get a grip, noob. [And I really, really love your blog btw!]

love,
Reginald

LOL! As if "Reginald" were a real name! And by the way, my name is not "noob," it is "moviesarefake" as you can plainly see from the blog title! Here's a suggestion - why don't you e-mail me the titles of some of the movies you claim to be real - then I will evaluate them and tell you that you are wrong. What do you say to that?

Still, thank you Reginald for your post. It is good to hear that you saw movies with your own eyes. This is similar to how most of us see the movies we have seen. Although, sometimes, I have viewed some movies with Jennifer Garner's eyes. What a trip! You'll never believe this, but her eyes switch the colors around - she sees blue as red and vice versa! Amazing.

Tad Asks About Chick Flicks

Tad, that loyal, albeit somewhat odd, reader of mine, writes:

Dear moviesarefake:

Are all chick flicks fake?

Sincerely,
Tad
(via the Internet)

Yes.

A New Fan!

Dan writes:

Dear moviesarefake:
I'm starting to get pretty dang [concerned and worried about you] because the quantity of your posts seems to have dropped off since last month [and I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of other fans worldwide who share similar concerns and feelings. Plus, our lives have started to lose meaning since you haven't been] blogging as much anymore.
[If it isn't too much to ask, please find the time to deliver more posts. I really really like your website, it is amazing.]

Sincerely,

Dan Pippington
Cross Shepherd, East West Virginia

Dan,

Thank you for your kind, kind letter. Believe me, I do realize how much my blog posts mean to all of my loyal fans. All I have to say for myself is, Don't you realize the Olympics have been going on recently? What exactly is your problem? I don't owe you ANYTHING! Why don't you just shut the crap up and I'll post whenever I please.

Thank you again. Have a nice day.

"Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" is Fake

"Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" is a love story about a very humanistic cyborg named "Tee Ecks" (played by Kristanna Loken) who travels back in time in pursuit of the man of her dreams, John Connor (played by Nick Stahl), willing to, uh, terminate anyone or anything that gets in the way of a relationship with her one true love.

Much of this movie is based in reality. For example, SkyNet, cyborgs, and time travel all have Wikipedia entries and are therefore real. There are people in my neighborhood who are definitely cyborgs from the future. I mean, I don't know that for a fact, but you really only have to look at them and you can tell. Also real: the fact that someone like John Connor would be interested in Tee. Without going into detail, let me just say Kristanna Loken + machine + vampire and we know we're really getting somewhere wild.

What is fake about this movie then? That other Terminator dude. He shows up, thinking that no, there's no way he's gonna let John and Tee get together. Instead he locks him in the back of a truck with Claire Daines, hoping maybe they will hook up (yeah, right!) and instead secretly hopes that maybe Tee will want him instead. Let's get real here. What would she ever see in someone like the Terminator? He's not her type at all! FAKE.

Two Letters In One Day!!!

Two loyal readers wrote to me today. First I got another follow-up e-mail from Tiny Tim:

Dear moviesarefake:
What do you mean, does Roosevelt have the whole Internet? Do you even know how the Internet works? [Because I don't, and I would love it if you would teach me. And I really love your movie reviews, a lot.]

[Warmest regards,]
[Tiny] Tim Timson

Little Bill also wrote:

Dear moviesarefake:
I don't even have a big brother. And I'm not little - I'm like 6'4" and 225. And I don't even watch Pokemon. [I watch Little Einsteins. Ooh, I think that June is a hottie!]

[Loyally yours,]
[Little] Bill Kindling

I figured I would just answer both of you at the same time. I do not have the time to teach you how cartoons work. June is definitely hot, but not nearly so much as July and August. What does that have to do with the Internet? But thank you for your loyal patronage!

"How The Grinch Stole Christmas" is Fake

"How The Grinch Stole Christmas" is a tale of woe and lost love, where Christine Baranski plays Martha May Whovier, a woman who let her long for acceptance and popularity get the best of her and lost her chance at a happy life with The Grinch, a man that could also double as a pet.

Note: This review is about the Ron Howard movie, not the Chuck Jones cartoon version with the same title, which might be real.

Anyway, this movie took some thinking. I was watching it, noticing that something about it just didn't feel right. "This movie seems fake," I thought to myself, "but I just can't put my finger on it.

I had to resort to math, and this is how I proved this movie is fake. Here's the proof:

Let Martha May Whovier = MMW
Let The Grinch = G
Let The Grinch's Dog = D
Let Cindy Lou Who = CLW
Let Mayor Augustus Maywho = MAM
Let Lou Lou Who = LLW
Let Betty Lou Who = BLW
Let cute = C
Let furry = F
Let pet = P
Let man = M


Now then.

MMW != C
CLW == C
therefore CLW != MMW.
G == F
D == F
therefore G == D.
MAM == M
LLM == M
therefore MAM == LLM.
CLW.isPlatonicallyInterestedIn(G) == TRUE.
MMW.isRomanticallyInterestedIn(G) == TRUE.
MAM.isRomanticallyInterestedIn(MMW) == TRUE.
LLW.isRomanticallyInterestedIn(BLW) == TRUE.
BLW.isRomanticallyInterestedIn(LLW) == TRUE.
MAM.isPlatonicallyInterestedIn(CLW) == FALSE.
MAM.loathesEntirely(G) == TRUE.
G.loathesEntirely(MAM) == TRUE.
MMW.couldn'tCareLessFor(MAM) == TRUE.
CLW.isChildOf(BLW) == TRUE.


Ok, so what we have here is, MAM loathesEntirely at G and vice versa, but since G is also D, that means MAM loathesEntirely at D and vice versa, but a dog is a man's best friend, and MAM == man. Also, MAM isRomanticallyInterestedIn MMW and LLW isRomanticallyInterestedIn BLW. Also, CLW isChildOf BLW, and since BLW isRomanticallyInterestedIn LLW, that means CLW isChildOf LLW is also TRUE. But MAM == LLW, which should mean that BLW isRomanticallyInterestedIn MAM, which would also mean that MMW isRomanticallyInterestedIn MAM, but MMW couldn'tCareLessFor MAM, and besides, that would also mean that CLW isChildOf MMW, but CLW == C and MMW != C so probably CLW isChildOf MMW is false. Furthermore, since CLW isPlatonicallyInterestedIn G that also means CLW isPlatonicallyInterestedIn D, which isBestFriendTo MAM, which equals LLW, thus LLW isBestFriendTo G, which equals furry, therefore CLW isPlatonicallyInterestedIn FriendsOf(F) where FriendsOf(F) equals the set of those interested in furry folk, which includes MMW, who is not the mother of CLW. Ergo, FAKE.

Tad Asks About Remakes

Tad, famous for his flawed "Sequels of Fake Movies Should Be Fake" hypothesis, asked:

Dear moviesarefake:

Are remakes of fake movies still fake? What if the remake addresses the thing that made the original fake - would that make the remake non-fake? [I really want to know, because I'm concerned that perhaps you might claim that a Star Trek movie is not real after all, and then the very foundation of my life would be shaken, but then perhaps I could remake the movie, and then my life would have meaning again. And, your website is totally teh bomb.]

-Tad

Thank you Tad, I assume you mean that last line as a compliment, although you misspelled the word teh. And your observation is very astute. Like I said before, every movie has to be evaluated on its own merit, independently of all others.

To give you an example, suppose a person was fake. Then suppose that person is reincarnated. The reincarnated version could be real. Then the reincarnated version could go back in time, and replace the fake version. I bet that has already happened.

However, in your particular example, if you remade any Star Trek movies they would probably also be fake, because you could not do it. Don't set yourself up for failure, dreaming impossible dreams.