Mailbagsukidoji:
The Steady Leak
may not be so steady these days, but your letters have been, so I must
share them and answer them so that the wheels keep turning on this
crazy little bitch. Feel free to ask whatever about whomever or
whatever, and I’ll do my best to answer it. Letters in here might be
positive, negative, or indifferent and I’ll try to maintain a balance.
Please keep sending them in (SEND A LETTER), as it’s you who fuels this column. With that said, here we go….
Alien Critique.
David writes:
before they start invading our planet. These tripod aliens have been planning
this invasion for a few years now, and they haven’t bothered to check out the
living conditions? I don’t assume to be smarter than an advanced species, but
I’ve been known to bring a water purifier when venturing into the wilderness.
Stupid aliens! That ending didn’t ruin the movie for me at all, but it would
have been a bit more interesting if they went a different route. Perhaps, since
the Tripods were using our bodies as fuel, some of our illnesses infected it
(HIV + Tripod = Insta-death). It’s the same in a way, but this is a little
easier to understand why the aliens didn’t see it coming. This would also
bring the actual aliens out of their fortresses to face a pissed-off crowd of
earthlings since the aliens wouldn’t have neccessarily been infected. Anyway,
that’s my edit.
Nick’s Reply: I don’t know. Maybe when they left their shit here there was a vastly different collection of amoebas and bacteria floating around. Heck, I know some folks who are dumb as a handful of tit but still able to navigate large vessels.
Spielberg.
Sean writes:
I saw War of the
Worlds on Friday and was thoroughly disappointed. I had to look up your guy’s
review to see if you agreed, which I was sure you would. When I saw that Devin
reviewed it, I expected an evisceration of epic proportions. I was shocked to
see Devin’s glowing review of the movie.
with this movie. It was unoriginal, derivative, and completely unfulfilling in
every way. of course the biggest issue I had is Spielberg making a Big Budget
movie about an alien invasion, and then focusing the entire film about a man and
his family and how they are dealing with the unknown. Which is fine, but in all
honesty, that movie has already been made and made much better in Signs. I never
felt the claustrophobia, the danger, the tension that Devin talked about. That’s
not to say that there weren’t things that I thought were cool. I thought that
the people getting turned to dust was cool, but after ten minutes of every
person getting picked off around Cruise, while he made "all the right moves"
(couldn’t resist), I knew I was in for more Independence Day than Aliens. And
while Devin felt that not showing the jets and Apaches attacking the tripods was
a daring artistic move, I felt it was a copout and left me cursing Spielberg for
coming so close and failing to deliver. I agree that there are 2 Spielberg’s. I
will follow the Spielberg of The Color Purple and Always to the bitter end, but
the Spielberg of AI, Minority Report, and War of the Worlds is no longer a
filmmaker that deserves my First Day money and time.
Nick’s Reply: I disagree. Spielberg is and always will be worth my best summer dollars. That said, I’m more loyal to the Jacksons, Mann’s, and Camerons of the world these days. Cameron who, you ask?
Overturned Ships.
Guy writes:
there’s a behind-the-sceens story on the Poseidon Adventure remake and it looks
pretty damn spectacular. The clip shows Wolfgang Peterson behind the camera and
a cruise ship ballroom set so big that couple of aircraff carriers would fit
snuggly inside. They were filming the New Year’s party sceen and the camera
angle was so wide it looked like Times Square.(maybe just my imagination)
Nick’s Reply: I simply cannot find a fibre of my being that can be excited about any sort of Poseidon adventure. Now if it were about the guy Poseidon, maybe. You know, he is hanging out in his undersea kingdom and he wants a malt. Next thing you know, the ancient salt is experiencing hi-jinks. Otherwise, that thing can go make piss.
Overnight.
Ryan writes:
Just wanted to say thanks for covering "Overnight" in your DVD Rack section…
I’m a bit biased because I am related to the director and a producer, but it
really deserves all the press and any meager success it gets. Thanks for
shedding a bit of light on a cool indie.
Nick’s Reply: My pleasure. It’s a good flick, though I do think it comes from the perspective of scorned friends and could be a bit tainted by it. Then again, the guy seemed like he deserved it.
FF.
Mike writes:
keep up the good work,
Nick’s Reply: I didn’t hate the film but I think it’s a lot closer to Elektra and Daredevil than Spider-Man or the X-Men.
Bat-Villains.
Mark writes:Batman film. While I think Joker is probably Batmans best and most closest foe(
and in many ways more like Batman than Robin is) I think putting him in another
movie is retreading old ground. For if there was really a need to put Joker in a
new film they should have put him in Begins, now putting him in a film just
seems cheap. I think the villain for the second film should be Black Mask. A
cosmetic aire who had a black mask singed to his skin. I think it would make for
a great villain that is a great foil to Batman’s own personal demons. I think
that people who have been rumored to play The Joker such as Tim Roth and Sean
Penn would be much better playing this character than the Joker. He has never
been used either so he would seem fresh as well. Also a aspect of his character
could be his exposure to the fear toxin in the first one. These are just my
suggestions but I think this would be a good real world villain instead of the
comic book character aspects of The Joker. Hell you could even fit in apart of
the story of him taking over Falcone’s Mafia to explain how he has a gang. Than
at the begining of the third film he can splash acid on Harvey Dent’s
face(hopefully played by either Liev Schriber or Edward Norton) and scar him. I
think he would be a great and memorable villain if done right. What do you
think?
Nick’s Reply: Look, I grew up a Marvel apologist. I never liked most DC villains and I think that the heroes are great but the villains for the most part are lame. Aside from Granny Goodness of course. The strength is the heroes, so I could care less what villain they use. A DC film isn’t always just as good as its villain. Sometimes a Marvel film is. Thankfully, the Spider-Man flicks have had shaded and well realized villains. Elektra had ass Jasons. I think Warner Bros. knows how limited the knowledge of the casual moviegoer is so they’re playing the expected card.
It Ads Up.
Ben writes:
This is not a bitch session letter but a
suggestion.
I always read posts on the boards from people
complaining about the ads on CHUD. I fully understand the fact that they are
what pay for this site and that they are needed. I also get your point when you
reply to those posters with a “shut up and take it” attitude. I read a
particular post from you in a thread where people were discussing pop up
blockers and such where you flat out said that you would prefer people with
blockers to remove CHUD from their bookmarks.
Like I said, I get it. Unlike most idiots I understand
the basics of commerce and the fact that you have to pay for things you use.
Since we’re not paying for this site we should deal with it. That’s fair, but
what about an alternative?
CHUD Premium.
I visit your site almost daily during the week and read
2 or 3 articles each day. How much do you make from me a year in ad revenue? I’d
be surprised if it was 10 bucks total. So what if I pay you the 10 bucks, plus
the cut for whatever pay pal or such takes from the transaction, plus the cost
of a new site template design that has no ads; and then round the whole thing up
for good measure to something like $20 per year.
That is comparable to a magazine subscription and I
would easily shell out that for this site. If only 1000 people are premium
members, you would take in 20,000 per year. I’d also bet that 1000 is a very low
estimate.
Now when people bitch about the ads, you can give them
an actual alternative. You could offer perks for premium members like a better
chance for getting tickets to screenings, or a weekly email with all of this
weeks articles (CHUD CHUNKS?)
I’ll be visiting CHUD no matter what you choose to do
and will take my ads like a man. I just wanted to run this by you and see if it
sticks.
Nick’s Reply: I have no Earthly idea how to execute such a request. The goal is to not create a new workload on my already feeble shoulders. If someone came to us with a biz plan for how to make the site bigger and better and more robust or whatever, I’d be all ears. I just don’t have the brain pan to handle it. I do like your idea, though. But at the same time, I do stand by my bitchy comment. I would rather people seek another site for their movie fun than to block our ads and create annoying threads complaining about it. Small price to pay. A really small price.
Leakage.
Craig writes:
A co-worker of mine used to copy and paste them into an email for me every week, and I have to say that your brand of humour and satire is what made me the fan of chud.com that I am today!
Keep up the good work.
Nick’s Reply: I’m working on a new Leak now. All I ask is that people keep sending letters and doing the other little things to keep this thing fun.
Weekends.
Jerry writes:
is greatly appreciated that you update on the weekends and always enjoy the CHUD
office round up on Sundays.
Nick’s Reply: We’ve been sort of slack on the weekends for a while now, but we still hit you up for 5 or 6 things between Friday even and Sunday eve. One of the things we’ll address when I overhaul the site in the next few months is MORE CONTENT! Thanks for noticing!
Niceness.
Mary-Patricia writes:
I will stop being complacent. I love the steady leak
and would hate to see it go.
I was going to give you some comments on Batman
Begins, but then realised (sorry I have a British spell-check – it doesn’t like
"z") that it would just be a semi-orgastic (or if you prefer semi-orgasmic)
tirade about Christian Bale being hot and Liam Neeson being evil (and hot).
Perhaps it takes a girl to appreciate those aspects of the film (besides all the
good acting, Chicago looking as wonderful as ever, blah, blah).
Anyway, I’m sure I speak for many people (the silent
majority? – to use a Dick Nixon phrase) who don’t use the forums or do much
e-mailing in saying that the world would be a little more depressing without a
little piss and vinegar from Mr. Nunziata.
Nick’s Reply: I am to serve!
SPAM OF THE DAY!
Rokky writes:
My boyfriend began having problems with erections (he’s older) and I suggested he look into VlAGRRA Softtabs.
Boy, am I glad he did!
The first time he tried it, one 50 mg piIl did nothing so he took another and that was a mistake. Three hours later he was still rock hard and had come multiple times (so had I)!! Since then a single 50 mg dose does iThe first of these was that he should have been brought to trial att very well–he’s now good for almost 2 hours of good hard sex that leaves both of us worn out.
– Bobbie, 21 female USA
Try it with PharmacyByMail Shop.
Mr. Grunt and Point’s Reply: Why do you have to date older men, Bobbie? Also, why do you have to be named Bobbie? It’s 2005, not 1976. No one goes by Bobbie anymore. Not chicks. Roberta is more sophisticated and I’d bet you can convince your man to allow for a goddamn hyphen too. Either way, I don’t know if two hours of hard sex is really worth sending emails about.