?

Log in

Well, that didn't last long.....

Yeah, that whole movie blog thing?
Totally didn't work.
Turns out I got a job and a real life and couldn't blog as much.
I have seen plenty of good movies lately - which I will talk about in detail as I am being laid off at the end of the month and will have tons of free time again.

I guess I'm here to talk about The Good Guys - the new tv show with Colin Hanks and Bradley Whitford.
Why do I need to talk about it?
Because it is so fucking good. I basically came on to lj today to see if there was a community yet. But I couldn't find one :(
I beg of you, somebody, hear my fucking plea and start a good guys community.
I would, but I clearly can't even run my own blog.
Best. Show. Ever.

Dan is hot.

Now You're On The Trolley!

The other day I was thinking about updating another blog of mine - theintrepidpie.blogspot.com (a travel-oriented blog) when I thought "Hey, I watch a lot of movies and feel I have nothing to write about for my livejournal account - why don't I post about the movies I watch? All my posts have been about movies anyway." Brilliant! Now I'll have something creative to do when the boys don't call!
On that note, I must now announce a perpetual SPOILER ALERT!!!!!
Shall we begin?
I think so....


Daybreakers (2010) - Ethan Hawke, Sam Neill, Willem Dafoe 
Saw this in theatres on Friday. Interesting movie - I really liked the concept. I mean, what if the tween girls to whom Twilight is a masturbatory aid (LOL when I typed this originally, it said "Masturbatory Air" - which I can only assume is some kind of sexy oxygen) actually got their wish and vampires popped into existence? In the film, set 10 years in the future, vampires now outnumber humans by the boatload (and fedoras have made a surprising fashion comeback.) Human blood is now being 'farmed' and supplies are quickly running out. Vampire-Scientist (vampientist?) what's-his-name played by Ethan Hawke is attempting to find a "substitute for human blood" so the vampires can stop relying on actual humans. However, after a series of events, he winds up discovering a cure for vampirism itself. Oh Joy! Sam Neill plays the big bad boss in this movie (and winds up being the highlight of this whole affair). After a few more twists and turns, our Vampientist finds himself in front of Mr. Neill, announcing that he has found a cure. However, in the style of ALL MAJOR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES TO DATE, Mr. Neill (or whatever his character's name is) announces that they don't want a cure - they just want "repeat business" - which will come in the form of the new blood substitute that has just been invented. Obviously, some ass-kicking follows and I believe the film has a happy ending. I really don't remember.
Like I said - I really liked the concept. They had invented special "Vampire Technology" (like cars with tinted windows and cameras so you can drive during daylight hours) which I thought was a nice touch. It was also hysterically violent. Lots of blood, guts, and people catching on fire in this film. However, the acting wasn't terribly exciting. The sub plot (anything that I didn't just describe to you) wasn't very memorable. I think that is illustrated by the fact that I can't remember the ending. The whole thing just seemed to be lacking a certain engaging quality that it could have potentially had. This was the first movie I've seen in 2010 - not a terrible start to the year, but not spectacular. Ethan Hawke looks ok. Sam Neill looks like my grandma. In a good way.

The following reviews are of things I've watched on TV....because I'm not paying $13.50 to see a movie ever 3 hours like I do at home.

Harvey (1950) - James Stewart, Josephine Hull
Our friend Jimmy Stewart plays Elwood P. Dowd - a man who is followed around by his companion named Harvey - a six-foot-tall anthropomorphic rabbit. The only problem is Elwood is the only person who can see or hear this....giant rabbit friend thing. The whole world thinks he's crazy, obviously, and his family even tries to have him committed to a sanitarium. Hilarity ensues. I love this movie. It was quite sweet in a way that reminded me a little of Forrest Gump. You see, eventually, Mr. Dowd's family realise that he isn't hurting anyone by "believing" in this Harvey character - it makes him happy and that makes him a nice person. So, they decide to just let him be and Elwood, Harvey and the family live happily ever after. A bittersweet ending. Why bittersweet and not just sweet? Maybe it's because I AM COMPLETELY FUCKING TERRIFIED OF THAT RABBIT!!!!!! Can we get a picture?
There we go. Now, that thing is apparently 6'0" tall (I'm only 5'4" and tall things creep me out. especially tall things that should be small - like sunflowers....and rabbits). Furthermore, it follows him pretty much everywhere. (OK that painting is awesome - when I go crazy I shall hang one above my bed). I have no idea why, but I find that concept absolutley terrifying! Imagine that....thing....just staring at you! You wake up and it's just standing in the corner of your bedroom - staring. You never see "Harvey" apart from this painting. The fact that he is standing over Jimmy Stewart with his arm around him gives me the sense that he is possessive and sees Jimmy as "His." He is staring into the eyes of the viewer with a look of "He's mine, Bitch! Back off!" Creepy, creepy stuff. Maybe I'm reading way too much into this. All I know is that I was fine with this movie untill I saw this picture :( Still a good movie, though. I love Mr. Stewart - he's the portrait of midwestern kindness and class.

Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) - Audrey Hepburn, George Peppard
Ok, I only saw the last 45 minutes of this film. I HATE Audrey Hepburn. Don't ask why. I hate the character of "Holly Golightly" even more. I actually vowed never to watch this film. But I love George Peppard and the song "Moon River" and was waiting for "That Touch of Mink" (see below) to start, so I gave in. The highlight of what I saw was seeing George yell at Audrey in the cab on her way to the airport - when he gets out and leaves. And I quote: "You know what's wrong with you, Miss Whoever-you-are? You're chicken, you've got no guts. You're afraid to stick out your chin and say, "Okay, life's a fact, people do fall in love, people do belong to each other, because that's the only chance anybody's got for real happiness." You call yourself a free spirit, a "wild thing," and you're terrified somebody's gonna stick you in a cage. Well baby, you're already in that cage. You built it yourself. And it's not bounded in the west by Tulip, Texas, or in the east by Somali-land. It's wherever you go. Because no matter where you run, you just end up running into yourself. " *CLAP CLAP CLAP* Right on, Peppard! God, HOW many times have I wanted to scream that at all the hippie drop-outs who claim to flee society not because "it's square, man" but because they're afraid they can't make it? You can't get fired if you don't have a job in the first place!! Also, I wanted to reach in the tv and punch her in the face for throwing out a perfectly good orange cat! Thank God she went back to find it. I think all movies should have cats in them (as long as they're not 6 feet tall). Good cat actor, too - it didn't even flip out even though she put it out in the rain. Plus it got to snuggle George Peppard. Oh, if only I were that cat! I may watch the rest of that film - in time. I hear Buddy Ebson has a cameo....*lustful growl*

That Touch of Mink (1962) - Cary Grant, Doris Day
Cute movie. Rich, suave businessman Phillip Shayne (Cary Grant) accidentally splashes out of work Sandusky sweetheart Cathy Timberlake (Doris Day) in his car on his way to work one day. He seeks her out, apologizes, asks her out on a date - and eventually asks her to go to Bermuda with him. Of course, Cathy thinks he's being too forward and asks to think about it. (Doris Day ALWAYS played prudish girls who dig virginity - the reason she was mentioned in the second verse of "Look at me, I'm Sandra Dee" from the musical Grease). Anyway, she eventually decides to go with him, but freaks out and gets sick once they get to their room and Mr. Shaye starts turnin' up the heat, if you know what I'm sayin', eh? Eh!? Yeah, you know. They go home the next day. She feels bad and flies to Bermuda herself, and invites Mr. Shaye to meet her there. But, before he arrives, she gets drunk and eventually falls off a balcony. No sex that night, either. Of course, Mr. Shaye is tired of her antics and doesn't want to see her again. One crazy plan later, and they're married! Now they're in Bermuda for their honeymoon, and whaddayaknow, Mr. Shaye falls ill and can't have sex :D! Ha! You crazy kids!
I thought this movie was adorable. I mean, I LOVE both Doris and Cary - together they pulled off quite an amusing rom-com. There is only one thing I can't seem to wrap my head around: WHAT GIRL WOULD TURN DOWN SEX WITH CARY GRANT!?!?! Not just regular Cary Grant, but RICH SUAVE BUSINESSMAN WHO IS TOTALLY READY AND WILLING TO PERFORM CARY GRANT!!!! I don't care about your morals - you can make an exception for him. Every once in a while, the voice inside my head (you know, the one that says "Hmm....I should go to the bathroom before the movie starts. And where's my apple?") gets replaced by the voice of Cary Grant. It's still the same mundane thoughts, but they're now conveyed by means of a manly, mid-atlantic accent bent on over-enunciating certain words. Thank you, Mr. Grant...if that is your real name....

The Great Escape (1963) - Steve McQueen, James Garner, Richard Attenborough
A wonderful film that I will not bother to summarize in it's entirety. Let's just say it's about a group of men breaking out of a nazi POW camp. It's a grand film that you truly have to see for yourself. It's quite long - 3 hours (more with commercials, but thanks to TCM and Silver Screen, that's not a problem anymore!) but so worth it. It's absolutely amazing to watch - even more so once you consider that it is based on a true story! The cast is fantastic - all amazing actors (Alliteration Ahoy!) and not a dame in sight. This all-male cast is pretty much the manliest group of men Hollywood had to offer at the time - so manly I didn't even feel right about yelling "Sausage Fest!" repeatedly at the screen. Anyway, my wrists are getting tired - I've been typing for like, two hours - so I'll suffice it to say this movie is brilliant and I urge you to watch it. (That theme music deserves to be stuck in your head, too.) Hey, it'll bring new meaning to that Simpson's episode where Marge joins the theatre group and puts Maggie in that day care centre....you know the one....


My face hurts. Why is it almost six am?

This will never end, will it?

And we're back with more on this now annoying 'best films of 2009' thing.

After seeing Sherlock Holmes for the third time...so far... I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to move it up on my list.

I'll CLEARLY be back with an update.

The Best of 2009, Part II

Hey! It’s me! I’m back!
Why? Because I pretty much screwed up my first list regarding the “best movies of 2009.” I made the grave mistake of a) forgetting a great movie that came out last January and b) assuming that I wouldn’t be blown away by another movie released after I wrote that first list. ARROGANCE, THY NAME IS PIE!!

*Sigh.* so, here we go, back to the top.

Now, don’t worry, folks – my original list still stands. I didn’t mess up that bad. The order remains:

1. Watchmen
2. Star Trek
3. District 9

Hooray! Now it’s backpedaling time!
Remember, in my last post, when I was all like “So there’s my list! No more great movies for this year! Up yours, Avatar and Sherlock Holmes!” Well, I saw them both. And I was wrong. About one of them, anyway. I did not care for Avatar. It was like watching a three hour long, half a billion dollar, 3D version of a sixth grader’s play about recycling. But we’ll talk more about that later.

SHERLOCK HOLMES!! What a ride! (Not physically – I’ve never met the man personally. Plus, you can’t have sex with a fictional character. At least not yet, anyway. But, I digress…) What a ride!!!! I adore Guy Ritchie’s interpretation of everyone’s favourite detective/doctor combo (which kind of bordered on an adorable bromance in this film.) But all soon-to-be-written slash-fiction aside, this film is an exciting, provocative and enthralling adventure that (unlike some movies released this month) keeps you guessing until the very last scene. Even the credits are fun to watch! I have never looked more forward to a sequel. Best of all, I have a feeling that a whole bunch of teenage girls are on their way to Chapters as we speak, fueled by steam-punk style fantasies about the youthful, charismatic and finally attractive-enough-to-be-squee-worthy Mr. Holmes and Doc Watson to pick up the entire works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Just like Watchmen and Star Trek did earlier this year, this new Sherlock Holmes film has rejuvenated a fandom by opening it up to a new generation. Kudos to you, Mr. Ritchie. You’re film gained the number 4 spot on my list of Best Movies of 2009.

Now that’s all well and good, but I COMPLETELY forgot about my “first ‘favourite’ movie of the year” released in North America in January of 2009 – Pierre Morel’s “Taken.”

This fast-paced and to-the-point kick-ass action flick starring Liam Neeson as a CIA operative searching (very effectively, I might add) for his kidnapped daughter was an amazing way to kick off this past year. I am so sick of movies where you have to watch the protagonist get beat up for the first ¾ of the film, only to have him start kicking ass near the very end. I think Liam only gets hit twice during the entire film – it is non-stop action and the good guy does an amazing job of making the evil-doers pay in the most brutal of ways. The plot wasn’t rocket science, but it didn’t have to be; it was lean, effective, exciting, wicked and satisfying storytelling – just what I’m looking for in a good ol’ fashioned revenge thriller. I am absolutely appalled with myself for forgetting this great movie, and I’m adding it to my list in the #5 position.

So, let’s take a look at my now finally completed list:

1. Watchmen – Zach Snyder
2. Star Trek – JJ Abrams
3. District 9 – Neill Blomkamp
4. Sherlock Holmes – Guy Ritchie
5. Taken – Pierre Morel

Great. Job well done. But before I leave, I’d like to throw in an honourable mention: Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds.” (Thank you, Microsoft, I know those two words are spelled incorrectly…) I quite enjoyed this film, but it’s one of those “see this more than once” type movies – which I have not done yet. It’s a lot subtler and “grown up” than the trailers lead me to believe (all Nazi-scalping aside). Very complex – dramatic and satisfying – and I look forward to seeing it again, since it’s now out on DVD.

Well, I guess we’re done here.
For now.
I hear “Up in the Air” is getting amazing reviews.
Sam Elliott is in it <3.
….I may be back.

The Best of 2009

Wow...I haven't posted anything for a really long time.
And lucky for you, this entry won't be a self-indulgent strokefest of social commentary and know-it-all-ism like all my other entries so far.

No, no, this one will be like so many other articles posted in the month of December:
What was the best film of 2009?
I must admit, I didn't see too many movies this year, but I saw my fair share. So let’s get this started.

As you may have noticed by now, I both saw and loved Watchmen (5 times) and Star Trek (8 times). These are definitely my top 2 films of 2009. But which one comes first? I love them both - they honestly made my year. Although I wound up seeing Star Trek a personal record-breaking 8 times in theatres, I think I'm going to have to go with Watchmen for the #1 spot.

Both Star Trek and Watchmen were exciting, well written and directed and perfectly executed. They also both shared the arduous task of re-inventing something that had come before. Both Zack Snyder and JJ Abrams did an amazing job of pleasing the fan boys when it came to making sure the characters in their stories were "fair representations" of the ones in the comic book/original series. Both films also revitalized the fandom the represented: sales of the Watchmen graphic novel and Original Series Star Trek merchandise skyrocketed after the release of these movies. New fans were brought into the fold.

So, if both films were so culturally significant, why do I think Watchmen deserves to be on the top of the list? I have a few reasons. In no particular order....

1. Music - the soundtrack to Watchmen was incredible. They took old songs and, just like the fandom, brought to them a new life. Star Trek only had a score - a good score - but just a score. Watchmen used actual songs - and great ones at that. I always loved Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable," but I never dreamed it could be played during a fight scene. And Leonard Cohen as baby makin' music? No way! But they made it work, and I find that incredibly impressive. The soundtrack is on my ipod.

2. Theme - Star Trek had a great plot, but that plot was not meant to inspire people to think differently. Watchmen was very deep. You walked away with it questioning things: Is Rorschach's black and white definition of morality grounded? Did Ozymandias do the right thing by annihilating NYC? Was The Comedian really incapable of love? And so on.... Star Trek, although well written and exciting, did not provide an opportunity to philosophize and rethink certain issues. In that capacity it was more juvenile - a classic story with a happy ending that did the thinking for you. No one can really be sure if the ending to Watchmen was a "happy" one - it was left up to you to decide. Don't get me wrong - I'm not knocking the classic, simple story. In today's shitty economy, it's nice to have a little escapism. In real life, Kirk wouldn't have made it into Starfleet in the first place because he would have accidentally driven his step dad’s car off the cliff. But, it's not real life, and that's why it was fun. It's fun to see things go well for a change - the guy actually gets the girl, the bad guys actually get what's coming to them, the farm/teen centre doesn't get mowed down, etc. If that's what's important to you, then Watchmen is not the movie for you. Realistic shit happens in it. Good people die. Cities get blown up 35 minutes ago. But, personally, I've always valued a crappy reality over a perfect fantasy. It may be shit, but at least it's real shit. *Insert joke about "Shampoo"*

3. Cinematography - Star Trek had some amazing CGI beauty shots of the Enterprise. When they pull out of warp behind the rings of Saturn - it's breathtaking! But, sorry Mr. Abrams, you used far too many lens flares. I am not a film maker, so if I can tell something was visually overused, it was REALLY overused - to the point of looking cheesy. I can't think of a complaint regarding Watchmen's cinematography, which is why they win in this category as well.

4. *Hangs head in shame* Guhhhh…. – Here’s where I lose all credibility and you stop reading. Honest to God, my 4th reason for Watchmen supremacy is…the cast was super hot. I mean SUPER HOT!!! GROIN-GRABBINGLY GREAT!!! Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian has caused me to ruin more pairs of pants than a toddler with a squirt gun full of mustard. HE LIT A CIGAR WITH A FLAME THROWER PEOPLE!! YOU CAN’T SAY NO TO THAT!! *Panting* I don’t think I’ve ever seen a character more attractive – he is going to look SO good in about 15-20 years. Not only is he super-fine, the film also stars the gorgeous Patrick Wilson as Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl II, adorable Billy Crudup as Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, so-sexy-I-question-my-sexual-orientation Carla Gugino as Sally Jupiter/Silk Spectre I and the very do-able Malin Ackerman as Laurie Jupiter/Silk Spectre II. And that’s just the “main cast”! Even supporting actors Stephen McHattie (Hollis Mason/Night Owl I), Laura Mennell (Janey Slater) and John Shaw (Doug Roth…moustaches are sexy) are irresponsibly attractive. I have never seen this many beautiful people in one place at one time – not even in Los Angeles. Star Trek had some hotties too – Chris Pine brings more to the table than just that “New Kirk Smell.” He’s got a gorgeous mouth, a great attitude and is squee-worthy on so many levels. Bruce Greenwood as Capt. Christopher Pike is also super hot. (I have a nice clip of him saying “punch it” in a loop on my computer…) But, as fine as these two gentlemen are, the cast of Watchmen has Star Trek beat 8:2 hot actor-wise.

*Deep Breath* Ok. If I haven’t thoroughly creeped you out and you’re still reading, I’d like to wrap up this portion by stating once more my top 2 picks for the year 2009:

1. Watchmen – Zach Snyder
2. Star Trek – JJ Abrams

Wonderful. Now, as you might have guessed, I did see more than just those 2 movies this year. So, “what would your number 3 movie be?” I hear you ask. Actually, I didn’t hear that. Don’t get paranoid – I’m not really listening to you. Just like how you’re not really reading this. So, #3 on my list of best movies of 2009:

District 9.
Wonderful film. I could easily say my favourite thing about this movie is the amazing design on the “Prawns”, but it’s the message behind this story that makes me love it so much. It was a realistic view of what could possibly happen if aliens ever arrive on Earth. Why was it realistic? Because that scenario has happened so many times before in humanity’s history. This film provided commentary on racial and religious segregation under the guise of a shoot-em-up sci-fi flick. The bittersweet and open-ended ending felt refreshing and the documentary-style segments woven into the story were very well executed. I love this film and am happy to include it in my “best of 2009” post.

Ok. Final list time:

1. Watchmen – Zach Snyder
2. Star Trek – JJ Abrams
3. District 9 – Neill Blomkamp

Now, I know what you’re saying…not really. You may or may not be saying “how can you make a list of the best movies of 2009 when 2009 isn’t over yet!? What about ‘Avatar’ or ‘Sherlock Holmes’? Those movies look like they’re going to be good!” Yes, they do look good. But I am pretty sure that I will not like either of them any more than the three movies I just mentioned. They set the bar very, very high. The first two – Watchmen especially – are not just my favourite movies for this year, but two of my favourite movies of all time. As much as I may like those upcoming films, I am betting that I will not have to re-write this list after seeing them.

So there you have it.
Only somewhat of a self-indulgent strokefest this time.

Tagiolas:

Which Original Star Trek Character Are You?

You are Doctor McCoy. People rely on you because you are intelligent and skilled. Sometimes you feel a lot of pressure to make others happy and have the occasional emotional meltdown. When you focus on your strengths instead of attempting to please the world you are unstoppable. You have a sly side and have been known to pull a few practical jokes- but it is always for a laugh and not to hurt someone. You have many friends and love your life.

Find Your Character @ BrainFall.com

Voyeur Nation


Hello non-existent reader(s)

Did you ever read Orwell's classic 1984? No? That's fine. I didn't like it.

*Shouting* But Pie, it's a classic! You can't hate a classic!!!

....Wait...did I just yell at myself in the 3rd person? Anyway, I didn't like it because, well, it didn't happen. It's like watching the Jetsons. That show is set somewhere around the year 2000 and I do not own a flying car that can fold into a briefcase. Enough said.

But of course it happened! Big brother is soooo watching us! We are merely pawns in his/its grand game of shitty human chess!

Seriously, I need to stop arguing with myself in italics. No one's buying it. 1984 is not an accurate depiction of the future for one reason. We - the public - got the surveillance technology. Not "Big Brother" or some other faceless "them" in the "Us vs. Them" game we play. They did not wind up with that technology. We did.

If the public currently being watched and surveyed (as many members of the public currently think we are), we're not being watched by the government. We're being watched by each other. Mostly via the internet and mostly because we allow that surveillance to occur.

Orwell was right on one account - in the future, every move we make will most likely be documented somewhere and viewed by other people. What he didn't count on was the fact that we will be the ones doing the documenting. In the "big brother" culture, we are big brother! The president doesn't follow each and every one of us around with a camera, posting pictures and updates of our movements throughout the day on some database. WE do! We WANT to be watched! By our friends and family and strangers alike. 

It's an exhibitionist mindset coupled with a voyeur nation.

We want to see and be seen. The fact that I am posting a journal entry (remember when journals had locks and were private) on the web for all to see is pretty much proof of that fact. I want people to read this. I want to read other people's journals. There are pictures of me on flickr and video on youtube. Go to deviantart and see what I doodle in the margins of my notebook (seriously good art, there, folks) and almost any forum and read what I think on a variety of different topics. If the government had kept the internet for themselves, THEN Orwell's world would have become a reality.

But they didn't. The people won.

Even prior to the internet, John Q. Public had his eye on the neighborhood. I mean, it wasn't some government officials or some high powered dignitaries who brought down Nixon with the Watergate scandal. It was 5 hoodlums involved in a break-in and 2 20-or-30-something investigative reporters. They (and Nixon’s tapes!  - Just think - could your facebook page get you indicted?) brought down the American government.

If anything, nowadays, the public watches the government! The public is so tuned in to everything that happens around them. The technology we were given has a lot to do with it. I just found out that you can get an ap for you iPhone that keeps you up to date on all swine flu outbreaks. Now THAT’S keeping on top of things.

My point is, that via innovations like cell phones, digital cameras and the internet, the public pretty much does a good job of "watching" itself. "Big Brother" exists, just not in the way Orwell expected.



Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
We do. We all do.
....on twitter.


This thing keeps asking me to write something.
There isn't much to write about that I want others to read.
What am I saying -- no one cares what I write here. I can't believe I actually thought someone was going to read it, then form an opinion about it.
There are millions of journals on this site. Why would mine get traffic? It's no different from any others - it has nothing exceptional to offer.


The issue I guess I have is that once something is created, it's out of your control. For example: Once I write something and hit 'publish', what I've written is no longer mine - it's ours. You can copy it. You can change it. You can interpret it. You can write about it.
It is only completely mine when it is in my head and not on paper (or the internet.) Once it goes public it takes on a life of it's own -- evolving and changing like a living breathing thing by means of your input and interpretation.
So why is this an issue? A part of me is afraid of what you will do to what I create. What you will cause it to evolve in to.

That's funny.

I got into an argument with someone at a comic book store about the same thing the other day. I asked if there was any non-literary Watchmen merch. He said the store didn't carry that sort of 'crap' because Alan Moore wouldn't have wanted it to come to this (meaning his concept of 'tacky' merch lining the shelves - it's far more serious than that). I gently explained to him that the concept of 'Watchmen' no longer belongs to Alan Moore alone, but to everyone who has read the book, saw the movie etc. Frankly, it's even bigger than just the book and movie - it belongs to everyone who has ever read a fanfic, drew a characture of a cast member, recaptioned a pic, e-mailed a watchmen viral video to a friend, etc.
The action figures, the costumes, the fanfics, the lunch boxes, the internet presence - If Mr. Moore didn't want people to enjoy his work however they see fit and mould it into something new, something "ours" not "his", he wouldn't have created it in the first place.

That is the risk we take when we create. That people will interpret our creations differently than we do. That our beautiful artistic masterpiece will possibly serve as the butt of some lewd and unsatisfying joke. What we poured our heart into will be mangled and maimed into something we had not expected.

But that is art.
Art does not imitate life -- Art has life.

A true creator (something I see a lot of here on LJ and the internet in general) creates things (memes, fics, music, etc.) so that they may spread and enjoyed and commented upon - - that they may gain a life of their own. Not for their own selfish purposes of strained rigidity. We create 'art' - however you define it - like parents create children. Once a child is born it is expected to eventually make its own decisions, chart it's own course through life and end up somewhere we could not have expected when we first held that vulnerable, crying infant in our arms. 

Would I be upset if I found out that this entry was being circulated around the intertubes, billed as the 'stupidest diatribe ever to make it into cyberspace'? Yeah. A little. But would I try and stop it? No.  That's art. That's creation. I'd simply be happy my work had evolved into at least a joke, as opposed to stagnating here in an unread online journal.

....not that anyone's reading this thing, anyway...