Showing posts with label Workaholics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Workaholics. Show all posts

08 July 2016

Mike and Dave Need Wedding Pets

Another Friday is upon us, ladies and gentlemen, so it's time once again to discuss the merits of the next theatrical masterpiece to hit the cinematron this day. It almost feels like a light week with only two films to discuss and as an even more stunning fact, neither are sequels, adaptations, or franchise installments! What a time to be alive!

Needless to say, the slots for the next few summers are set in stone, and if Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017), Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017), and World War Z II (2017) do well, that may change things (holy hell, not bloody likely), but as it sits now, we might see more weeks like this. Audiences have grotesquely expressed their lack of interest in sequels, or to be more specific, a lack of interest in seeing the same crap they just saw. Captain America: Civil War (2016) was a different spin with heavy emotional investment. Finding Dory (2016) was more of a spin-off than a direct sequel that brought the audience into new places with new characters while expanding a character that seemed un-expandable. X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) offered the same old shit. How many of you are really that excited about the awkwardly titled World War Z II? Holy shit, how does this stuff get greenlit? Well, international markets, that's why.

But on to the task at hand. Today we see the arrival of Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates (2016) and The Secret Life of Pets (2016). I'm very excited for one of these and I also think that that will do very well, while the other crashes and burns like The Angry Birds Movie (2016). Try to guess which one will do which! Maybe Angry Birds wasn't an unequivocal disaster, but it certainly feels like it landed with a thud rather than exaltation. So let's just start with that one.
Jeez I hope my dog doesn't do this at home. I use that beater!

The Secret Life of Pets looks awful, and has been getting some rough reviews. This latest animated assault on the box office comes from Illumination Entertainment, which delivered the surprisingly good (but sort of awkwardly named) Despicable Me (2010), followed that up with the lesser, but financially astounding Despicable Me 2 (2013), and most recently, Minions (2015), which was just egregiously awful. They've really stuck in their Gru/Minions world setting, and although the Minions are one of the best iconic branded characters to come out of any film series in recent memory, the studio's commitment to kid and only kid-friendly material is detrimental to anyone else's enjoyment of their films.

I say this having just watched Minions like two days ago, and even though I was excited to see a slapstick comedy rendition that was essentially a silent film (without the principal characters speaking English), I instead got an awkwardly voiced and animated barrage of lame jokes and set-ups. I continually sat there wishing what I was watching was clever. Old Looney Tunes used to craft a delicate set-up then subvert expectations with a huge pay-off. Minions crafted these set-ups and then executed them exactly as you'd expect.

The Secret Life of Pets appears to be more of the same. Everything in the marketing material seems to be very obvious, surface-level stuff without anything really interesting going on. There's also absolutely no indication of the story being told or even who the main protagonists are (they're apparently voiced by Louis C.K. and Eric Stonestreet. These guys. Have you seen any commercial starring these two?). It's never a great sign when the studio isn't confident enough to broadcast the story being told and is instead relying on the slight zaniness of the premise.

And that premise, by the way, is apparently exactly the same as Toy Story (1995). Like, straight up. These kind of things are red flags to me. Lack of a coherent story structure, memorable characters, or inventive gags are all things that really lead me to believe that this shit id dead in the water. We've already had a very animation-heavy summer, and to be more specific, a very heavy talking-animal animation heavy year. This could obviously go either way. On the one hand, this is clearly what people want right now. On the other hand, Zootopia (2016) and Finding Dory (2016) have done this schtick better, the former of which just dropped on DVD, the latter is still the reigning box office champ. Six months from now we're not going to be discussing The Secret Life of Pets.

So we move on next to the latest comedy of the summer, Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates. In my earlier predicitions, I thought this could be an epic year for Comedy, possibly the best ever. Between Neighbors 2 (2016), The Nice Guys (2016), and Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping (2016), the line-up was spectacular. While all of these films reviewed well, none broke out to become that epic, ever-memorable Summer 2016 event like Knocked Up (2007) or The Hangover (2009) or hell, even The Campaign (2012) in years past. We're still looking for our Trainwreck (2015) or our 22 Jump Street (2014) to blast us into the stratosphere. I think Mike and Dave have an outside shot.

First of all, I love the "based on a true story" rub. I first saw this in some late marketing and I thought it was a great riff on "true story" pictures that are typically more serious. Then I found out it really was based on a ridiculous true story! That's incredible! I love movies based on Internet ads. Call this the Tusk (2014) effect.

But this flick ought to be a goldmine. No comedy outside of Deadpool (2016) has really caught on this year, and the cast is totally likable and primed for superstardom. Anna Kendrick, Aubrey Plaza, Adam DeVine, and Zac Efron are all mid-level stars who have incredibly funny resumes. It's A, A, A, and Z! The premise is easy to understand, a solid gold opportunity for goofiness, and the turn with these bros biting off more than they can chew is both pleasing to the gender wars and a magnificent rug pull for these character tropes and stereotypes. I'm on board 100%.
Alright, now I just want that suit.

Now, I said the exact same thing about Popstar but whatevs. It can't fail THAT bad right? Right? I think this comes at the right time. We're in a relative dead zone (Finding Dory somehow won three weeks in a row and no other film is dominant right now), and we're starved for straightforward comedies. A drawback could come from its R-rating that could prevent a lot of people from seeing it or being interested in it, but fuck, every movie I cited above was R, so that argument is horrible. R for Retarded, if you will. Hey, this just became an R-rated paragraph, what do you want from me.

Commercially I think it's on solid footing. It's had some fairly good reviews. Around here of course, we're most interested in its cultural foothold. Can it rise to become the Funniest Film of 2016? That's really where it needs to be, and the path is set for it to take the Crown. Efron is suddenly starting to make a name for himself in these raunchy bro-spoofing comedies and I'm curious if he distinguishes himself enough from his Teddy character from Neighbors 2, which came out really recently. Anna Kendrick and Aubrey Plaza have been in slews of films, most notably together in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010), and while Kendrick has never really been the center of funny in a film (Pitch Perfect [2012] probably comes closest, but she wasn't really the source of laughs. Just a source of AWESOME), Plaza did have the underrated The To-Do List (2013), which really didn't make much of a dent three summers ago. It's interesting that her character here seems wildly out of her typical April Ludgate disinterested teen schtick. Maybe that's because she's 32 now.

This is really the test of Adam DeVine, though, who's never headlined a major movie before. He's bounced around for sure (another Pitch Perfect alum), including random stints in The Final Girls (2015), and The Intern (2015), mostly riffing on his Workaholics faux-bro persona. There's actually also a weird Robert DeNiro connection there through The Intern and Zac Efron in Dirty Grandpa (2016). And Aubrey Plaza was in Dirty Grandpa! This is getting weird. I'd also almost guarantee some kind of cameo from his other Workaholics suite-mates, although they've all become decently busy now. Still, he's built up enough of a personal brand from Adam DeVine's House Party to Allstate ads. He's ripe for a break-out hit and I think this can be it.

So what do you think? Are you watching the cuddly but moronic animated animal movie or what could be the break-out comedy of the summer? Or just Finding Dory again? Leave one below!

07 January 2016

2015 Media Consumption: What Have We Learned?

For the first time, in the vein of Steven Soderbergh, I kept track of every single movie and TV show I watched for the entire year, 2015. This is obviously an insane task if I actually wrote down every single clip on TV I saw (or YouTube, for that matter), so to count I included any film I saw at least 51% of in some form either online, on television, or in the theater.

You may find this monstrous list of 198 films (close to an average of a movie every other day) and 96 distinct television shows here. Let's dig into the data:

There were seven movies that I saw twice. These are the following:

Fast Five (2011)
Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle (2004)
The Avengers (2012)
How High (2001)
Be Kind Rewind (2008)
The Campaign (2012)
Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015).

The Force Awakens was the only film I saw both times in theaters. The rest were on TV with the exception of Fast Five, which I watched on Blu Ray before Furious 7 (2015) and Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, which I watched on a charter bus during a 24-hour ride to Florida.

This gives me a grand total of 189 distinct films

Breakdown by Viewing Medium:

Disc:
DVD: 12
BluRay: 2
Local DVD Rental: 1

Streaming:
Netflix: 71*
YouTube: 5
Download: 4
HBOGO: 3
Crackle: 1
DailyMotion: 1

Theater: 10

On TV: 86

*I lumped both Netflix streaming and Netflix DVD Rentals in the same category, which I'll probably break-up next year. Still, the vast majority of my movie watching comes from Television, which has all sorts of interesting implications on how that shapes culture.

Breakdown by Month:

January: 16
February: 14
March: 16
April: 25
May: 13
June: 8
July: 18
August: 25
September: 13
October: 10
November: 10
December: 28

December clearly wins as I had a strong push to see a lot of great films before the year ended to make some sweet best of lists. You can tell that I lost my TV in May, gained it back in July, then started a new job in September.

Breakdown by Year:

Current Year: I watched 27 movies that came out in 2015, or 14%.
Current Decade: 97 movies from 2010 - 2015 (49%)
2000s: 38 (19%)
1990s: 23 (12%)
1980s: 22 (11%)
1970s: 9 (5%)

The oldest movie I watched was actually surprising, the 1971 Bruce Lee film The Big Boss. I assuredly need to up my classics viewing for 2016. I'm actually decently surprised that the 90s and 80s are so similar. The most repeated year is 2015 with 27, 2014 takes second with 21, and 2012 is third with 20.

Most repeated pre-2010 year: 2008 (9)

Be Kind Rewind 
Bronson 
Cloverfield 
Pineapple Express 
The Good, The Bad, The Weird 
The Happening 
Tropic Thunder 
You Don't Mess With the Zohan 
Zack and Miri Make a Porno 

Most repeated pre-2000 year: Tie between 1997 and 1987 with the most random assortment ever:

1997:
Con Air 
Face/Off 
Jackie Brown 
Romy & Michele's High School Reunion 
The Fifth Element 

1987:
Dragnet 
Planes, Trains, & Automobiles 
Predator 
The Monster Squad 
The Running Man 

Years without a film watched: 1991, 1980, 1976, 1974, 1973

Most Watched Television Shows:

I didn't keep track of what show I watched every day, just for the month, which is a trend I think I'll continue. Here were the shows I watched the most:

The Simpsons: A direct result of me losing FXX caused me to miss an episode in July (11 months)
Seinfeld: Only in February and March did I fail to watch at least one episode (10 months)
Archer: Missed in September and December (10 months)
South Park: Missed in January, May, and June (9 months)
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia: Missed in April, May, and November (9 months)

Other Shows I watched at least one episode of for six months or more:

Adventuretime
Bob's Burgers
Brooklyn Nine-Nine
Futurama
Last Week Tonight
New Girl
Rick and Morty
Saturday Night Live
The Flash
Workaholics

This should clearly indicate where my tastes are.

TV Shows Watched Not Currently on the Air

Most shows I watched live but there were plenty of things I caught up on from either long or recently cancelled programs, such as:

30 Rock
Angry Beavers
Chappelle Show
Don't Trust the B---- in Apt. 23
Home Improvement
Korgoth of Barbaria
Raising Hope
The Amazing Screw-On Head
The Mary Tyler Moore Show
Tiny Toon Adventures
Weird Loners
WKRP in Cincinnati

Dramas I Actually Watched:

I know what you're thinking, I am so damn Drama-adverse. Everything is a sitcom or cartoon. True story. But I did actually watch some compelling TV this year, including:

American Horror Story: Hotel
Ballers
Better Call Saul
Fargo
Gotham
Sense8
Sleepy Hollow
True Detective

Ok, fine, those are all genre shows.

What does your 2015 List look like? I've already started 2016 list, which you can follow all year long right here!

06 March 2013

The Linguistics of Workaholics: The Eternal Search for Catchphrase-worthy Colloquialisms in Modern Television

The throes of late night comedy cable viewing is pretty rough. I've posted a lot about the kinds of perverse shows networks like Comedy Central air past the 10:00 pm hour, from Chappelle Show to Secret Girlfriend, mostly because I do follow many of those kinds of programs pretty loyally. I am smack dab in the middle of the demographic of these kinds of stupid shows and it's always interesting to see what the network thinks I want. They get it wrong all the time.

This hasn't happened, mostly, with Workaholics, now in its third season (cable seasons are so wacky, this season technically started last May, and will go until this March, spanning twenty episodes).The show centers around three slackers from Rancho Cucamonga as they work their braindead telemarketing job as well as get into all sorts of silly hijinks. One thing that separates the show from most though, is its progressively increasing desire for brand sponsorship as well as what is starting to become an insane attempt to jump-start catchphrases.

There are many products featured in Workaholics, as well as an insane attempt to put these guys in tons of promos and other related commercials. The largest plug this season was for Dr. Pepper 10, which in its own way is this weird blatant sexist-and-proud-of-it-sort of drink that exists for no reason at all. It makes sense for the characters in the show to be drinking this stuff, they're exactly the kind of rubes who would connect their own feelings of masculinity to the marketing efforts of a soft drink. That's what I took from its repeated use in "A TelAmerican Horror Story" (S3;E12) where it eventually saves one of the possessed Workaholics from a fictional demon ghost (and by fictional, I mean, also within the show he doesn't actually exist). While the show's writers have confirmed this (sort of, they may genuinely be the sort of rubes I was talking about earlier), others disagree, and with just cause - these people are the Peyton Mannings of live action late night night scripted programming. They'll hock anything.

This goes from member Blake Anderson apparently making his own Doritos commercial, to an entire web series promoting Klondike's Choco Tacos. From the looks of it, I can believe that not all of this is really funded by the big corporations, rather it seems that the show's creators willingly just love a few products and want to show them off to the world. Has consumerism hit our culture that deep - where our productions center around characters eating Doritos and name dropping cars like Anders Holm's Honda Civic. It's bizarre, but I suppose that's where we are.

This brings me to the source of this article. All this name dropping seemed to once go hand in hand with this strangely well developed Workaholics lexicon. Truly, it almost rivals Jersey Shore in its use and complexity. However, after binging on a few episodes, and especially when watching live, I noticed something strange. Sticking with the Jersey Shore example, we were all introduced to "GTL", "Grenades", and "Smoosh" all at once as part of their insular culture, and this kind of vocabulary was repeated throughout the show.

In Workaholics, however, concepts such as "Tight Butthole" and "shib" in place of "shit" were all staples of Season 1 and they were naturally popular in their own right. As we've moved on, though, each episode attempts to use a hashtag to boil down a concept, or even just a joke into a single word or phrase. Hashtags will often appear on screen just after a funny joke or scene and right before commercial, obviously prompting viewers to go online, tweet, and drum up interest in real time.

It's a fairly brilliant idea from a marketing and digital integration standpoint, but it detracts from both the once carefully constructed and original lexicon as well as the ability of the show to generate organic catchphrases. Everything is now desperately leaping up and down for attention but less is really sticking. This entire season has been fueled by #getweird, but others include #freekarl, #crankzone, and #lording. As they openly admit, these phrases turned into hashtags are mostly thought of by network and marketing folk.

It's really all part of the new digital age. Viral is seen as an immensely powerful tool and everyone is trying to harness it. This basic line of thinking is retarded. No one could predict that this random ass video would lead to the worldwide Harlem Shake phenomenon, and listen, you ain't doing shit with the Harlem Shake, anyway (because everybody loves the Miami Heat...). It is a fallacy to try to actively jump start Internet trends like this. While digital engagement may increase during viewings of Workaholics, is there any real substantial lasting impact? Who knows, but the only hashtag I could remember off the top of my head was #lording, and that's because that was the moment I noticed something weird was going on with these catch phrases that were oft-repeated for a single episode, hashtagged, and then dropped from the lexicon.

Let's take an example from yesteryear to illustrate how these current attempts at instilling a colloquialism into the common language is more ephemeral when faked in the age of digital technology. If I mentioned the phrases "yada yada", "shrinkage", and "master of your domain" I am sure that you'd know exactly what I'm talking about. For those of you still in High School, google all three.

Seinfeld did what Workaholics is trying to do in an age without computers. It's true that part of the heavy investment in the show came from integrating very simple yet unique linguistic concepts into the contemporary lexicon. Seinfeld's colloquialisms, however, have persisted to this day. Now, there are several extremely large differences to consider:

1) Workaholics is not as large as Seinfeld. Nothing is. No other show still gets prime access syndication a decade and a half after its cancellation (or has an as engaged a social media presence, including a regularly updated Facebook and innovative Twitter handle for that matter).

2) Seinfeld dominated its broadcast network ratings, which could still be counted on to be higher than cable. This caused a heavy cultural divot and is impossible to repeat today with fragmented viewership (due to the cable television, carnivals, water parks...) and a growing multitude of screens upon which to view content.

So what are we left with here? How does Workaholics' heavy reliance on brand hocking as well as its desperate integration of digital trends impact the actual following, enjoyment, and longevity of the show? Who knows. It's certainly popular, although it has become more hollow and less credible with its advanced acceptance of commercialization.

Very loose butthole indeed.
Related Posts with Thumbnails