The 14th McFAT really blindsided me. Some of these questions left me scratching my head for days... but I finally have answers. Sort of.

1) Friends and family often offer advice or share experiences with the best of intentions, sometimes with the opposite of the desired effect. What are some of your more memorable “you're not helping...” moments?

Well, three things come to mind:

One, about ten years ago I tried and tried to talk my mother out of buying a brand new Toyota Camry. I couldn't stand to watch her take that kind of depreciation, and I was sure that the dealership wasn't giving her the best possible price. She was bound and determined to buy that car, though. And, she did. I realized later that she was getting what she wanted, she already knew all the things I was telling her, and that I was just wasting my time and getting on her nerves.

The second thing that comes to mind is that I've noticed that the world's best experts on child rearing are people who don't have any kids. Once you have kids, all kinds of childless child-rearing experts will offer you all kinds of advice. Lucky you.

The third example is the most important of the three. About three years ago or so I went to an uncle of mine for advice. It was very important advice regarding very serious, private problems. His advice to me was that I wouldn't really have any problems if I'd just "give my life to Jesus." I think that was the first time I ever really distanced myself from my family, looked at them objectively and looked at the religion they'd taught me objectively, and asked myself what all of it really meant to me. The rest is history.

2) You enjoy this actor's work, but many people just don't get it. Who is it?

The first two actors who came to mind were Philip Seymour Hoffman and Gary Oldman. There was a time when I really could have said that I was a huge fan of each of these guys and that neither of them were getting the props they deserved. Nowadays, however, both of them have huge, vocal fanbases… so I won't site either of them as my example.


Instead, I'll go with M. Emmet Walsh, one of the best and most overlooked character actors in American cinema. Chances are, just looking at his picture to the right there was enough to prompt you to remember any number of his memorable performances. However, if that isn't the case, then I can suggest a number of wonderful films that you need to see. The first and best of Walsh's performances is probably Visser, the corrupt private investigator in Blood Simple, the first film by the Coens. If you haven't seen it, turn off your PC and go rent or buy it right now. Walsh's outstanding performance in that film is just one of it's many qualities. M. Emmet Walsh is also outstanding in Clean and Sober, which is another underseen outstanding film. Clean and Sober features what I think was Michael Keaton's first dramatic roll as an addict trying to fake his way through a rehab program. Walsh plays his sponsor, a man who's been around enough to know a BS artist when he sees one. The chemistry between Keaton and Walsh during their scenes together makes for some intense and honest screen time. Walsh's work ranges from complex roles in films like the two mentioned above to short but memorable comic performances in movies like The Jerk and Raising Arizona. He's an outstanding "character actor," with a face you've seen a thousand times. Next time you see him in a film, take the time to appreciate his acting ability.

3) In general, when it comes to movies, are originals better than remakes, or vice versa? Feel free to cite examples that support either or both positions.

Oh, man. A thousand things come to mind.

It seems like every movie that comes out these days is either an honest remake or a dishonest remake. A dishonest remake is a blatant rip-off. And many of the blatant rip-offs that come out are blatant rip-offs of movies thare are bad in the first place.

First of all, remakes generally fail. Originals are almost always better. Having said that, every instance of a remake deserves consideration on it's own merits. The first things that spring to mind include:

Planet of the Apes: The original is the one to see. The remake sucks.

The original Psycho is OK, but overrated. The remake is crap… and pointless crap at that.

James Cameron's Titanic isn't really a remake of the 1953 film of the same name, although they're both about the doomed ship. Both movies are middling affairs, both have their merits and both have their weaknesses.

King Kong is an interesting three-movie study. Peter Jackson's remake is outstanding… at least when compared to the awful 1976 version, which was a pale attempt to recreate the original.

A ton of horror movies have been remade lately. If you want to see a version of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the only one worth your time is the original. If you're interested in The Haunting then watch the original, which is not without merit. The 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead isn't bad, but the original remains the one to see.

With other horror movies, it's simply garbage in, garbage out. I'm not going to bother looking up and including links to either the original versions or the remakes of movies that aren't worth your time in either version… movies like The Hills Have Eyes, The Amityville Horror, House On Haunted Hill, 13 Ghosts, etc. I admit, sometimes I've seen only one version or the other of these films, but I feel safe in suggesting that you not waste your time on either version.

A number of Asian horror films have been remade recently, as well. The Ring, a horrible movie, is a remake of Ringu, which I haven't seen. I've heard that The Grudge is a piece of junk, but I saw the original, Ju On, and enjoyed it. Pulse will be released this month, and I'm sure that it will be a terrible remake of it's source material, Kairo, which was a movie that I really liked.

A few exceptions to the rule do come to mind. Remakes that improve on the originals would include Red Dragon (2002), a much better film than Manhunter (1986), both of which are based on the Thomas Harris novel Red Dragon. Other remakes that excel include Scarface, Cape Fear, and The Fly.

Then there are other movies which are just crying out to be remade. Spawn was a terrible disappointment, and I'd love to see McFarlane authorize a ground-up remake. Kurt Vonnegut's novel Breakfast of Champions is an odd book, a work of fiction in which the author inserts himself as a primary character capable of controlling the story. The first attempt to make a film of it was a dismal failure. However, ever since Spike Jonze made Adaptation, another work about a writer who inserts himself into his story, I've thought that I'd like to see a version of Breakfast of Champions helmed by Spike Jonze.

You just had to get me started on this topic, didn't you? ;) I'll force myself to shut up now.

4) If it were scientifically possible to live on any other planet in our solar system, through the development of faster-than-light travel and genetic enhancements or protective suits, which planet would you choose to live on?

To be honest, this question never crossed my mind… so I took liberties with the question and decided to pick Malacondra as my preferred planet.

5) Who would win in a war: Hobbits or Smurfs?

I thought about it and thought about it and thought about it and thought about it and couldn't come up with an answer to this. I know I'd be rooting for the Hobbits. Smurfs are just creepy. They're too uniform, and they're blue. No living thing I know of turns blue until it's dead. So their blueness and their uniformity makes them seem like zombies. Smurfs are extremely weird little zombies, and I wish the Hobbits the best at fending them off.

Is this war wizard-related? I know the Hobbits have friendly relationships with wizards… whereas the Smurfs have never been able to get along with Gargamel. Have they attacked the Hobbits simply as a vicarious strike against all wizards and their allies?

This whole situation makes me uncomfortable. It has too many parallels to what's going on in the Middle East right now.

Besides, these kinds of hypothetical match-ups always lead to bad movies. It seems like an obvious idea for a competition, but it never works as a film. When you take two obvious foes and put them together, you end up with bad movies. Movies like Freddy Vs. Jason. Movies like Aliens Vs. Predator. Movies like Billy The Kid Vs. Dracula.

Nonetheless, the question makes me wonder about some other obvious match-ups.

I gotta give it to the spider. First of all, Jiminy always struck me as kind of a fop. I don't see him really even fighting back. Charlotte could be pretty creative when she had to, and I always had the sense that she could be downright vicious if she had to. Like, had Wilbur ticked her off, she's have weaved the word "Bacon" into that web. I never really trusted that spider, I wouldn't have turned my back on her, and I bet she could kick serious cricket butt.

The Morlocks. No question. The Morlocks were outright savage. The Sleestacks never really did much more than walk around really slowly and breathe in a creepy way. I have a cousin who walks around slowly and breathes in a creepy way, and the average Morlock could beat him down without even really trying.

This one is a toss up. I guess I'd have to give it to the creepy one. You know, the one who used to be on TV all the time, getting rich on other people's problems and insecurities. Oh, come on, you know which one I mean. Do I have to spell it out? I'm talking about the androgynous one. The really strange one.

Babe's got this one. Babe could outfight Gordy, no question... but he wouldn't even have to. He could outthink Gordy. Gordy sucks.

I'm inclined to think that the King would kick Ronald's tail. Neither of them really seems like a natural born fighter, but if it came right down to it and they had to duke it out for your burger bucks, I think the King would mop up the place with that stupid clown. If nothing else, the King could just headbutt him with that massive head of his and have it over quickly.

Bishop's got this one. It isn't even close. Bishop was smarter, faster, and had better instincts. Now, granted, both androids had a tendency to come apart and spray white artificial oil everywhere when the chips were down… but Bishop crawled all the way through that tube thing and fixed that beacon thing, and then rescued Ripley and remained in the fight without his legs. Ash, on the other hand, spilled his guts (literally and figuratively) as soon as he'd had his head ripped off. Ash was ultimately a pushover. Bishop had synthetic nerves of synthetic steel.

I think the Rice Boys have this one. For one thing, they're a team. They've worked together for years and they know each others strengths, abilities and tendencies. I bet they can take the subtlest cues and tip-offs from each other. Now the other team has it's abilities, I admit. The Cap'n has military experience and is an obvious leader, but a leader is only as good as his team. And the Cap'n doesn't have much of a team here. He's saddled with a spastic rabbit and a wuss leprechaun. Granted, a leprechaun does have magic powers, but this guy doesn't strike me as a team player. Lucky would just run off and hide from the Rice Boys the same way he does from every kid in every commercial. So the Cap'n would be stuck with that nutcase rabbit as the only thing at his command, and by the time he had a plan formulated, Snap, Crackle and Pop would get all Matrix on his ass. It would be over swiftly, at least. I'm sure of that. Snap, Crackle and Pop are cereal killers.

SPECIAL BONUS QUESTION: The year is 1985; who is Flora?

Everyone who isn't fauna.