Title Sequences: The Shorter the Better

   I just watched the intro to a new series on HBO. At the end of the credits, I had to rewind to be sure of what I had just seen. They list a co-producer, then another, then “produced by” some other asshole, then a consulting producer, then a co-executive producer, then three executive producers were listed together, and finally seven other executive producers each had their own screen for their personal glory. That’s 15 of these jerk-offs if you’re counting. My question is this: why do I as a viewer give a shit who the producers are? Answer: I don’t. So why would any sane person want to watch the intro to a series? At least with Gilligan’s Island they gave you a catchy tune.

   In Spanish there is a lovely expression for when someone toots their own horn. They say that the person “no tiene abuela,” he doesn’t have a grandmother, because grannies are supposed to toot your horn for you. Obviously, Hollywood producers don’t have grandmothers.

   I wish a series could just run all of this info at the end so you could just turn it off, but the producers, all twenty of them, want us to know how essential they are for the content. Nope, can’t do a damn thing without these twenty suits who probably couldn’t write a three-sentence email that makes sense, but the show can’t go on without them.

   Note to producers: just cash your huge paychecks and STFU. If you want to be famous, become an actor.

   The new series I’m watching, Murderbot, has a 1 minute 18 seconds sequence, way too long, especially considering the runtime for an episode is only 22m.

  Twin Peaks – ~2 minutes 36 seconds has the longest I could find. Glad I never watched a single episode of that turd.

 Game of Thrones goes for 1 minute 45 seconds. I hated the show but got roped into it because someone I like liked it. The music in the intro was moronic, to say the least.

 The Sopranos had that awful song. I fast-forwarded it through it, but still heard bits of it which probably damaged my brain.

 Breaking Bad – ~18 seconds. Another thing I loved about the series.

The Oscar Winner in the Category of “No One Gives a Shit” Goes to…

 

Do we really need to always be talking about race and gender? Is there nothing else? This is from the NYT article I linked:

 The nominations were a mix of welcome surprises and perplexing snubs, as our awards expert Kyle Buchanan noted: “Everything Everywhere All at Once” led the tally with actors of Asian descent making a particularly good showing. Yet Viola Davis and other Black stars of well-known films were completely shut out of the running for best actress, and Andrea Riseborough unexpectedly succeeded with an out-of-the-box campaign for her little-seen “To Leslie.” (How little seen? As of this writing its box office take stands at $27,322.)

Our co-chief critic Manohla Dargis is more optimistic about Hollywood*, specifically about the status of women in the industry. Citing a raft of female-driven movies in the last year, she writes, “Despite continuing biases and barriers, women are now directing movies with a variety of budgets, topics and casts. It’s made my job as a critic more exciting.”

Do they hand out race and ethnic scorecards so these writers can keep track? It's not like these awards were ever based on merit (judging art like horse races if just too stupid to ponder in the first place). Why don't we just give everyone an award like we do for children's sporting activities these days?

Rich fuckers giving themselves prizes for being rich and famous. That should set the world right. If the Academy Awards are so racist and sexist, then let’s do away with them altogether. I’m OK with that because I don’t care about prizes for rich creeps, not even a little

*This is what Manhole writes:

“I find it an agony to compile a Top 10 list. There are just too many good and great films, too many titles that I want to celebrate.”

Wow! Really? Great films? I thought that almost everything was pure crap, including most of those being celebrated by the Academy.