"JOCELYN!!!" - A Tribute To Death Battle's Underappreciated Genius

As Death Battle celebrates its 10 year anniversary and nears its 150 episode milestone, it's been fun times as a hardcore fangirl looking back on the history of the franchise in general. From the first 99 episodes done before the animated segments with Wiz and Boomstick to the DBX host switch-over from Boomstick to the flashy Ringmaster to the introduction of the eternal punching bag DUMMI, I've watched it all. I even remember the short runner The Armory with Boomstick (I seriously hope that one comes back in some capacity).

However, there's another character who's been there for a decent amount of time, moreso than Ringmaster and DUMMI. Unfortunately for her, she's been pretty much shafted out of the limelight by the others for several years until she finally got her own show, and even then things haven't improved for her much. I'm talking about Jocelyn the Intern, the host of spin-off series Desk of Death Battle and possibly the only sane character in Death Battle as a whole.

So for today's post, I will be essentially paying tribute to a Death Battle character who's efforts have gone underappreciated in-universe but is still loved by fans like me in general. This is both an informational piece for newer fans who may not have watched Desk of before and a way for older fans like myself to recap on what we liked about her throughout her time in the franchise. Let's begin. X)

General Character Information

Jocelyn is an intern at Death Battle labs whose responsibility is to carry out the research that Wiz and Boomstick don't. To say that it's a hard job is a pitiful understatement - she gets no recognition or award for it whatsoever from her bosses. Instead, Boomstick squanders all the money she should be receiving on shotgun shells and beer and they constantly lecture her whenever they feel that she's not doing what she's supposed to do (which they feel is often). In fact, the only reason that they even allowed her to host her own show in the first place was so they didn't have to pay her at all. And for all you Death Battle fans out there, let's not forget this memorable bit of dialogue that occurred between Jocelyn and Boomstick one time when she demanded that he got out of her office:

Boomstick: "It's not an office. It's a closet."

Jocelyn: "Yeah, 'cause that's the only space you'll let me have."

Boomstick: *chuckles evilly* "Yeah..."

Whether a broom closet can count as an "office" or not ultimately doesn't matter. He never gives her any privacy at all, often making his presence known with a loud "JOCELYN!!!" as he comes over to lecture her yet again. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who know someone like this at work, though hopefully not in the same way that Jocelyn does.

At least Jocelyn's pretty lucky compared to some of the other interns. They've often been part of messed-up experiments where they've been set on fire, have lost fingers or have even been blown up. One particularly unfortunate intern by the name of Peanut had his brain swapped with that of a dog, with nobody showing concern about his death at all - even Jocelyn was more concerned about the dog than him.

Given the risks and some of the awful things that have occurred to other interns, you'd expect Jocelyn to meekly resign herself to her fate and live in constant fear. But no, that's not the case at all. She's extremely vocal in her opinions and has stood up to Boomstick on quite a few occasions, getting into several memorable (and often humorous) arguments with him. Sure, Boomstick may come out of these arguments as the "winner", but don't expect Jocelyn to give up anytime soon.

This passion and rage often manifests itself into the rants that she gives in Desk of. Whether it's a poorly written work or a confusing moment in a comic franchise or a gross scene in an obscure manga, she has a lot to say on these topics. Often, she will either be baffled by all this nonsense or venting out her annoyances. In a way, it's a miracle that she hasn't completely lost her mind like the other characters have and still manages to be a voice of reason.

When it's not the main topic of the episode that Jocelyn's expressing her views on, it's her internship itself. Most of the time, she simply wants an actual office for once or actual pay. But she has dreamed bigger - mainly in the form of dispatching her no good bosses. In "Adolph's Weird Comic", she fantasised about finding the Holy Grail so that she can boast about it to Wiz and Boomstick, fire them on the spot and take over Death Battle. And in "The INSANE Mishima Family", she planned to continue the Mishima's family tradition herself by throwing Boomstick off a cliff. You can't blame Jocelyn for thinking like that though. Who else hasn't fantasised about getting rid of their no-good boss after working for days in a non-rewarding job?

She's not all rage and bitterness however. When she's not getting fed up with her job, Jocelyn can be quite the dork. She has a love of cake, as "Mario's Derpy Adventure You Never Knew About" made clear and like Boomstick (sorry for the comparison), she does like to sing along to famous theme tunes, whether they be from Batman and Mortal Kombat. She also seems to be pretty unlucky in love, given that she once when on a binge eating spree after one of her boyfriends left her. And then there's her love of Japanese culture, sushi and anime that she brought up one time. Overall, I get the feeling that, if it wasn't for the place she's stuck in now, she'd be pretty easygoing to be around.

Actor Background

Obviously, a good character needs a good actor, and Jocelyn has one in the brilliant Lisa Foiles. Most people may know her from the famous Nickolodeon sketch show All That!, the show that launched the careers of stars such as Amanda Byrnes, Kenan Mitchell and Kel Thompson. Sure, her appearance was in Seasons 7 to 10, widely considered to be inferior to the Golden Age of Seasons 1 to 5, but she was certainly one of the more solid actors of the new batch. She played characters such as the hyperactive talk show host Kaffy, Hermione Granger parody Herhiney, ghost cheerleader Spirit and (my favourite of the bunch) creepy goth girl Claudia. Besides her work on All That, Foiles also played Mallory, the female counterpart of Malcolm in the Malcolm in the Middle episode "If Boys Were Girls".

Comparing Jocelyn to that lot, she feels like the odd one out. Unlike the quirky and over-the-top characters Foiles portrayed during her teens, she's the only character that makes sense in the crazy world of Death Battle. In a cast consisting of an insufferable mad scientist with empathy issues, a gun-toting alcohol redneck who's essentially an oversized kid with a deadly streak, a supposedly suave Ruby Rhod tribute who secretly has a psychotic side a complete lack of empathy towards everything else and an apathetic robot who just wants his pain to end, Jocelyn is simply a hapless intern who just wants to get recognised for her work for once.

Currently, Foiles is very active in the geek community. She had her own gaming website Load Save Point and has written plenty of articles on gaming, with one being a rant about the "fake gamer girl" stigma - both channeling just as much rage as Jocelyn does and actually being around before sexism in the gaming community became more apparent. She's cosplayed as several famous pop culture icons such as Harley Quinn, Lara Croft and Princess Peach, has done videos for The Escapist and has even guest starred on The Angry Joe Show. She's a great singer too - she provided guest vocals on Miracle Of Sound's Tomb Raider tribute "Edge of the World" and starred in the live-action music video that came later on.

Honestly, I feel that Foiles captures Jocelyn's frazzled nature perfectly with her voice work. That was one of the first things I noticed about the character when I first watched the show. And when the show started incorporating live-action, she was able to handle that too. Gotta love it when you get to see a character you like onscreen for the first time. X)

A Quick History Of Jocelyn

The first mention of Desk of Death Battle was in December 2014 when a sneak peak of the first episode was shown. Wiz and Boomstick were annoyed that Jocelyn was "bunking off" work to start her own series, but ultimately decided that this could be a good alternative to actually paying her.

Things weren't much better outside of Death Battle either. The first time Jocelyn was shown onscreen in The Industry, she was represented by a stiff mannequin. Additionally, it wasn't just Wiz and Boomstick who gave her hell. Former ScrewAttack and current GameAttack head Stuttering Craig once blew her up because of her stealing his hat. I know that Jocelyn's working circumstances were hard, but that? That's some serious Kenny McCormick shit going on right there.

As more Desk of videos were made though, Jocelyn's situation started to get better...if only a little bit. She got extra food and one time Boomstick actually looked her in the eye when she was talking to him. He even started to pay her for once - okay, it was in shotgun shells, but it's better than nothing, right? The only thing that didn't seem to change at all was the closet.

From "Superman vs. The KKK" to "Godzilla Got Dunked On By Charles Barkley?!", Jocelyn was for once treated as a real employee by Wiz and Boomstick...because they were so busy picking on the aforementioned Peanut at the time. In fact, Peanut was often used as a form of blackmail for if Jocelyn was unable to get the needed amount of views or likes on her videos - one time her bosses even threatened to make Peanut her new co-host. This would all culminate in the dog-brain swapping incident that Peanut did not survive, and not a single person at Death Battle labs was bothered at all.

It seems that after that, Wiz and Boomstick went back to treating Jocelyn as they had done beforehand. In a particularly cruel twist in "Superman Cremated Himself And Batman?!", it seemed that Jocelyn would finally get the holiday/vacation that she truly deserved after several episodes of Desk of...only for Boomstick to come in and reveal that was not the case and that she still had more episodes to do. This is probably the only time in which Jocelyn really didn't have a way of responding at all, going into a state of confusion and anxiety rather than snapping back as usual.

"The Death of Archie Sonic" from 2018 was the first time that we saw Jocelyn properly on camera (and not as a mannequin). And yes, the closet that she has been assigned to is just as cramped as expected. It's a pretty messy place with all the brooms and mildew and to top it off, Boomstick has graffitied over the walls (again, why doesn't he give her any privacy?).

"Hey, the closet's all I got, okay? At least you can't smell it!"

As a result, we were not only to hear Jocelyn's reactions, but also see them as well - her reaction to the...um, "plumbing snake" incident in the Mario Kodansha comics still comes to mind. It also turns out Jocelyn smuggled some stuff into the closet too, ranging from cameras to even Boomstick's beer (he was NOT happy about that one).

Also, can I just say that I really liked seeing what Jocelyn looked like on camera for real? She's got a very geeky look with the scruffy bun, large glasses and checkered shirts, and yet she still looks very pretty despite it all (without going into the whole "sexualised geek girl" thing that happens in other media). You really get the impression that her internship doesn't really allow her to clean up much and it captures her dorky side perfectly. In fact, I feel like it would actually take away from her if she didn't dress the way she did.

Heck, she even got to wear a cute Santa hat for the Christmas special.

Unfortunately, there were no new episodes of Desk of in 2019. The most we heard from her was in episodes were where Boomstick would call offscreen to her and demand that she carry out a task for him. There were no new episodes in 2020 either. Whether it was because of other commitments the people involved had or for other reasons, I still have no idea.

Either way, despite comments from the Death Battle Cast that implied otherwise, I was genuinely concerned that she wouldn't be popping up again. Until at RTX 2021, when a DBX clip of Ringmaster angsting over not being able to find a good co-host was shown...

"Hey Marsh - uh, Ringmaster?"

Yep, Jocelyn is finally making her return! And I cannot wait to see what happens with her this time, especially since that DBX episode "Goomba vs. Koopa 2" airs tomorrow and her voice actress is also signed on for the upcoming milestone episode of the main series. My main wish is for a possible Desk of revival, though anything else involving her would also be nice.

Will Jocelyn's situation get better? Is she still going to be stuck as Wiz and Boomstick's whipping girl? Either way, it's still pretty clear that she has played her part in the franchise as much as the others have and I'm still rooting for her all the way. ;)

The Top 5 Commercial Failures That Bialystock Should Have Counted On

It's the twentieth anniversary of the musical adaptation of The Producers, one of the greatest stage adaptations of a movie of all time (in fact I consider it to be the best, along with Waitress being a worthy contender) and a record breaker for the most Tonys won by a single musical. Both the musical and the film it's based on still crack me up and there are some classic songs to belt along to - whether it's songs from the original film like "Springtime For Hitler" and "Prisoners Or Love" or songs written for the musical such as "Betrayed" and "'Til Him".

Most people probably know the plot by now, but for those who don't, here's a small recap. Max Bialystock, a once-successful Broadway producer who has fallen on hard times, teams up with the highly anxious accountant Leo Bloom to put on the biggest flop on Broadway history, after hearing that some flops have actually made more money after closing on opening night. They find an atrocious script by a Neo-Nazi and hire a camp director who mainly specialises in light-hearted musicals to work on it, whilst also casting terrible actors in the roles of the Nazis. Alas for them, Springtime For Hitler turns into a surprise hit mistaken for satire and the plan to pull off a major scam falls through.

So by trying to hire the worst of the worst and blending it all together, Bialystock ended up with something that was actually good. But what if he did the opposite? What if the best of the best were hired and instead we ended up with a legitimate commercial bomb in the process? It seems bizarre, but it has happened in real life.

Consequently, today's article, being posted on the day that The Producers snagged all those Tony Awards, will be about the inverse Springtime For Hitlers. The works that tried to aim for success and ended up as colossal failures, all due to what the creators thought were recipes for success. These are the ideas that, had he chosen these instead (despite most of them coming out after the time period that The Producers is set in), would have guaranteed Bialystock the sure-fire flop he was hoping for in the first place. Most of these are movies, and two of them aren't musicals at all (though one of them does skirt the line) but I'm sure that trying to adapt them for stage would have made them even more of a disaster.

And keep in mind that this isn't just a list of failed magnum opuses. This is a list of projects that failed because of the factors that the creators thought would make them successful.

Max Bialystock, watch and learn...

Hopefully he doesn't jump on me and squish me like a bug...

5. Sucker Punch (2011).

Formula: Badass action girls + feminism + cool fight scenes + awesome scenery = confusing mess.

It was supposed to be a feminist's dream come true. A film that criticises perverts for only seeing women as sex objects whilst also depicting them as badass action girls? Awesome! Plus it would have amazing special effects and such awesome delights such as dragons, steampunk and even zombie German soldiers from World War 1. To be extra arty, the "real life" plotline would be set in an asylum, with another plotline being set in the fantasy action world and yet another being set in a seedy brothel in order to really deconstruct the male gaze. Add the fact that director Zack Snyder had worked on the surprisingly good Dawn of the Dead remake and the memetic 300 film adaptation, (sure, Watchmen sucked, but that was just a fluke right?), and it seemed that this would be an instant hit.

Except that in practice, Snyder's dream project did not achieve what it planned to. Trying to get across a message whilst also trying to create a spectacle ultimately caused the opposite of Snyder's intent to occur. The crossover between real life and the imaginary world mainly confused critics rather than wowed them. The special effects, rather than enhance the story, mainly served to distract from it and trick us into thinking that it was a straight-up action flick rather than a deconstruction of the male gaze. Worst of all, the action scenes involving badass girls wearing awesome yet somewhat skimpy outfits made people think that it was essentially sexualised pandering to the audiences rather than the complete opposite.

Overall, the film cost $82,000,000 to make and it grossed $89,792,502 worldwide. Sure, that's more money than the initial budget, but when you factor in promotion and other aspects, that amount was still not enough to save it from becoming a bomb. It may have been a criticism of chauvinism and male fantasies of women, but the feminists themselves saw it as chauvinism anyway. It has a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 22% and a Metacritic rating of 33%, much less than what Watchmen received (at least that has a Fresh rating!). Overall, not something people would bother to see.

This following cartoon is edited for your safety. I'm somewhat fine with naked bodies on this post, but badly-drawn ones are a big no-no.

Of course, quite a bit of it can be blamed on executive meddling, since the director's cut was much better handled and allowed the viewer to get an idea of what the actual message was meant to be - this is ultimately why I put it at the bottom of the list. But the fact is, Snyder's best projects will still be Dawn of the Dead and 300 (sure, the latter has some rather racist attitudes in it, but that can be blamed on the original graphic novel).

4. Doctor Dolittle (1967).

Formula: Well-loved children's book + famous "gentleman" actor + real life animals = heart-attack inducing stress.

Just seven years late for Bialystock to think about this idea. Producer Arthur P. Jacobs and Fox Studios had teamed up for the next "big thing", which was a big-budget musical adaptation of Hugh Lofting's beloved Doctor Dolittle book series. Planning to start a movie franchise, they pulled out all the stops on this one. For the titular character himself, they hired the talented actor Rex Harrison, famous for other gentleman characters such as My Fair Lady's Henry Higgins (his personality in real life however was anything but gentleman-like). Additionally, the use of real life animals would be an outright spectacle. Sounds like it would be a success, right?

Oh how wrong they were. The production was an absolute nightmare, going overbudget and tensions rising high between everyone involved. The animals, due to being real ones, were obviously hard to control - some ducks even nearly drowned on-set for some bizarre reason and had to be rescued. Harrison, as he usually was on-set, was such a tyrannical nightmare that he gained the fitting nickname "T-Rex".

The fact that Jacobs even suffered a heart attack due to the stress of working on the film should be a warning sign where this is going.

When the film came out, critical reviews were average at best and downright scathing at worst. The only reason it was able to get Oscar nominations at all was because of the studio's intense lobbying, yet again reminding me why I never cared about that award show in the first place (at least it didn't win Best Picture). Additionally, the movie only ended up grossing $9 million against a $17 million budget. No sequels for that film after all.

This was only one of three films in the late 60s (the other two being Camelot and Hello, Dolly!) that killed off interest in big-budget blockbuster musical films for quite some time, with the only critically and/or commercially successful movie musicals in the 70s being ones that either went for a more realistic tone such as Fiddler on the Roof and Cabaret or reveled in their campiness like The Rocky Horror Picture Show. It was also the beginning of the end of Harrison's acting career, and his attitude as always did not help to redeem him at all - nowadays his brilliant acting is offset by this nasty little titbit.

But hey, at least Jacobs and Fox redeemed themselves with the successful Planet of the Apes adaptation afterwards, so there was a happy ending to this nightmare. Plus, the "Talk to the Animals" song was an instant Oscar winner, though I personally preferred Dusty Springfield's "The Look of Love" from that godawful Casino Royale film with Woody Allen (saying that sentence sounds rather off). Little wonder than some people have nostalgic memories for it, despite the absolute mess it was otherwise.

3. Heaven's Gate (1980).

Formula: Oscar-winning director + all-star cast + auteur licence = New Hollywood killer.

This is the epitome of what TV Tropes refers to as "magnum opus dissonance". Michael Cimino had achieved success with The Deer Hunter but this was his true dream project. He would have complete control over it without any pesky executive meddling. It would be a sweeping epic based (loosely) on the real life Johnson County War. Plus, there was Kris Kristofferson, one of the biggest country singers at the time, in the lead role. This would be the film that would show New Hollywood at its best.

Here's the main problem. Every single aspect caused the film's budget to get even more bloated overtime. The all-star cast was probably one of the aspects - besides the fact that hiring a major country star requires a lot of money, other actors such as Christopher Walken, Jeff Bridges and John Hurt, despite being superb, probably cost a lot due to their A-list nature. Trying to make the plot more epic also required some rather bizarre historical liberties to be taken, such as European immigrants killing cattle. Speaking of cattle, the use of actual animals (possibly for realism) and special effects led to rather horrifying alleged cases of animal abuse, such as the rumour that a horse had been blown up by dynamite.

The worst aspect though was Cimino's directing style. Being allowed to do whatever he wanted, he was described as way too authoritarian in his vision. He spend more time on the project than others felt necessary and pushed the film to four times its original budget. United Artists considered firing him at least twice, but ultimately chose not to, probably because they'd been the ones to popularise the auteur film in the first place and it would be hypocritical if they tried to have more authority.

The final result was essentially a mediocre film that became one of the biggest box office bombs of all time. Costing $44 million to make, it only managed to gross $3.5 million worldwide. Most critics were unimpressed and it received five Razzie nominations, ultimately winning for Worst Director. Most damningly of all, more people were talking about the terrible box office intakes and Cimino's primadonna nature than the actual plot of the film itself.

The fallout from this film not only put Cimino's directing career on ice (he would proceed to release more duds until retiring in 1996), but pretty much killed off United Artists. Plus, it ended the New Hollywood era of auteur films, leading into a temporary period where the producers had the main control over movies (until the troubled production of Days of Thunder killed that period off). Obviously, the initial box office failure of The Deer Hunter for going overbudget and the mess that was the production of Apocalypse Now, another New Hollywood movie, should have been warning signs that something like this would happen, but at least the latter film made money and both films were critical successes. Let that be a tragic lesson to us all - sometimes the executives do have a point after all, as much as some of us prefer not to believe.

On the bright side though, Heaven's Gate is not a complete trainwreck in quality. Some people actually see the film as a masterpiece nowadays, though it's still unlikely to be seen on a general list of greatest movies of all time (except for the one that the BBC composed that one time). Still doesn't excuse the exploding horses though.

2. Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark (2011).

Formula: Famous comic book character + innovative creator + wire battles + famous rock band = accident-ridden laughing stock.

Now for something that actually matches up with what Bialystock was producing - a stage musical. You'd think that, having been the head of the successful stage adaptation of The Lion King, Julie Taymor could work the same magic with Sam Raimi's money-making Spider-Man movies. You could use plenty of cutting-edge technology for it, particularly if it involved wires to fly around on! Plus, famous rock band U2 were onboard to write the songs for it, and scriptwriter Glen Berger had plenty of experience writing plays and working on family-friendly projects. Surely this would be just as much of a hit as Lion King was?

Except apparently not. First of all, the producer Tony Adams died from a stroke early in production, all during a meeting with U2's The Edge. Then there was the matter than Spider-Man fans were baffled about the fact that their favourite comic book character was being used in a stage musical of all things. Next up and most notably, the normally creative and talented Taymor had so many controversial ideas (such as making the Mary-Sueish Arachne the villain) and was so adamant about keeping them that she got kicked off her own project. Additionally, most of the songs sounded like second-rate versions of better U2 songs (with one of them basically sounding like a "Thertigo" knock-off if not for different lyrics), all because they had no experience with musical theatre and didn't really want that experience.

But the worst part was the special effects. Actors infamously injured themselves due to snapping wires or collapsing scenery, including the Spider-Man actor himself. In one particularly embarrassing moment, the actor was injured when rolling off the prop building he was on (or at least it looked like it, supposedly he was trying to swing off the building to save Mary-Jane). In another case, the actor was not injured, but got stuck on the wire during a curtain call and had to be prodded with a stick by the tech team.

"One of the crew members fetched a stick to prod him with, but that didn’t help. It was like a live Spider-Man piñata." - Actual quote from Glen Berger.

Overall, five cast members received injuries and at least one left the production permanently due to them.

Nowadays, the musical is more famous (well, infamous is the more accurate term) for the whopping amount of previews shows it had, which added up to a whopping 182. As for the final product itself, it finally opened on the 14th June 2011...and then closed in January 2014 with a loss of $60 million. That's right, it was the most expensive Broadway production in history with a budget of $75 million, and it never made that budget back.

That said, the project that everyone received in the end was still considered better than the original vision, especially since the beloved villain Green Goblin was the main antagonist rather than the unwanted and pretentious choice of Arachne. They even managed to clean up their act with the special effects in the end. Besides, it's probably less offensive compared to the work that takes the #1 spot...

1. Cats (2019).

Formula: Oscar-winning director + famous musical + all-star cast + "cutting-edge" technology = ultimate Razzie award winner.

Oh boy, it's this trainwreck again. You thought I'd already talked enough about it on some of my other blog posts, but I've always had a soft spot for tearing this hairball to pieces. Having had moderate success with the Les Mis film adaptation (hey, it made money and got some Oscars), Tom Hooper decided to make another Oscar bait movie musical, this time using the hit megamusical Cats as his source material. He would hire famous celebrities such as James Corden, Taylor Swift and Jennifer Hudson and utilise "cutting-edge" special effects. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, the first mistake in general was just having Tom Hooper on the project. Sure, he directed the critically-adored Oscar winner The King's Speech and had done well with Les Mis and The Danish Girl, but a director specialising in "realistic" Oscar bait was not a good choice to direct a film based on a surreal and fantastical megamusical that relied more on spectacle and commercial success than critical success and a strong plotline in the first place. Additionally, interviews with the special effects team months after the film's release revealed that he was not only unfamiliar with the idea of special effects at all, but also pretty snobbish about the whole thing.

The celebrity cast was the second mistake. As stated by Lindsay Ellis in her video on the subject, this led to songs originally performed by an ensemble turning into solo numbers, just to give the actors more time in the spotlight. Some of these actors were not suited for the roles given to them at all (I mean seriously, Rebel Wilson applying her "crude" stage persona to the motherly Jennyanydots?!) and the singing was not always good. It also screwed over the special effects used for the movie. The celebrities had packed schedules and couldn't shoot their roles everyday.

Oh, and who can forget the CGI as well? They could have had the film animated or had the actors wear realistic outfits, but nooo, it wouldn't be "realistic" enough. If anything, the whole experience is a hell of a lot more surreal due to tiny CGI monstrosities running about everywhere onscreen. They're not cats at all. They're just humans with cat ears and fur.

The result? One of the biggest cinematic catastrophes (no pun intended) in recent history, receiving little money at the box office but plenty of Razzie awards - Worst Picture, Worst Director, Worst Supporting Actor, Worst Supporting Actress and Worst Screenplay. Costing $95,000,000 to make, it only managed to receive $73,835,438 worldwide, and the only reason it probably that much was because some people were probably curious at how bad it truly was. How bad? At best, it's an enjoyable trainwreck. At worst, it's outright offensive.

Why did I put this at #1, despite it being more recent that some of the other disasters listed here? Because it embodies the inverse-Springtime For Hitler aspects perfectly. Rather than a terrible director, terrible actors and a terrible script becoming a critical and commercial success, a Oscar-winning director, "ambitious" special effects and a star-studded cast come together to create one of the biggest critical and commercial turds of all time. Even Heaven's Gate is seen as a classic by some people nowadays and the Spider-Man musical could have easily been worst considering the nightmarish development process. With Cats...there is nothing really to save it. This is the worst that it can get with how it handles the original source material.

I don't have much faith in Hooper recovering from this one - he could potentially release another film that actually does well, but all this film did was expose the flaws with his directing techniques. Add the fact that the special effects team found him downright awful to work with and he's pretty much the laughing stock of cinema fans during this current time.

And there you have it! Five supposed dream projects that became absolute turds due to the factors that would supposedly help them out. Most of them happened later than 1960, meaning that it may have been too late for Bialystock to copy them, but hey, he could have made a Superman musical back in the day, right?

As for The Producers itself, once again I have to state how much I love it, whether it's the original film itself or the stage adaptation celebrating its twentieth anniversary this year. Bialystock is such a larger-than-life character and excellently portrayed, whether it's Zero Mostel in the original film or Nathan Lane in the stage musical (the latter even does a brilliant job in the otherwise not so successful movie remake). Same goes with his co-star Bloom, whether he's portrayed by Gene Wilder in the original movie, Matthew Broderick in the Broadway debut or Lee Evans in the West End debut. The songs are great, the humour on-point and it successfully shows up Hitler and the Nazis as the idiots they truly were.

Anyway, that's all I can say now (though there will be a follow-up to this article at some point). In the words of the last song in the Producers musical, adios, au revoir, wiedersehen, ta-ta-ta, goodbye...get lost...get out!

Reviewing The Golden Raspberry Awards 2021

Razzie time has happened again, and just like last year's Golden Raspberry Awards I had to write a review piece on it. As 2020 was a infamously bad year, it only made sense that the films nominated were even worse than usual. Due to certain callings-out I had to make here, the editing process took longer than it would have done normally.

I'll also note that some of these films had particularly problematic topics that I will be ranting about at various points in this article, something that did not happen with my previous Razzie review. Trigger warnings include sex trafficking and botched portrayals of autism, so if you're the type who gets wound up over stuff like this, I don't blame you at all.

Worst Picture - Absolute Proof.

This is the category that filmmakers really want to stay clear of, as it pretty much serves as a damnation of your film in general. This year's "hopeful" nominees were the utterly tasteless 365 Days, the pro-Trump "documentary" Absolute Proof, Robert Downey Jr.'s mediocre take on the Doctor Dolittle mythos with Dolittle, the "dark and gritty" Fantasy Island reimagining and the cliché-ridden and insensitive "autism musical" Music.

I would have chosen 365 Days to be the "winner" of this category, due to not only its disgusting plot, but the immense amount of backlash surrounding its release on Netflix. The Razzie Committee themselves chose Absolute Proof, which makes it the second ever "documentary" film to win after the laughably bad Hilary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party. It's quite likely that political views held by the Razzies and the recent controversy of the storming of the Capitol may have had an influence on its win over 365 Days, but it's still downright terrible. Like Hilary's America, it pretends to be a documentary but is more like extreme right-wing propaganda that capitalises on absurd conspiracies that likely never happened, such as Chinese cyberterrorists rigging the elections.

Yep, it's laughably bad alright, and the "mastermind" behind it Mike Linnell (best known as the "My Pillow Guy") made an absolute fool out of himself as a result by snagging this "prestigious" award. It's not a film you should watch if you want to watch an actual documentary, but it may be something to consider if you're the type of person who gets a laugh out of mocking bad movies.

Worst Director - Sia for Music.

A bad vision is often the cause of a bad movie and these directors should know. Both 365 Days directors Barbara Białowąs and Tomasz Mandes were nominated, along with Stephen Gaghan for Dolittle, singer Sia for her directorial debut Music and Ron Howard (in a surprise twist, considering that he has normally done much better) for Hillbilly Elegy. A certain Charles Band was also nominated for the three Barbie & Kendra movies (Corona Zombies, Barbie & Kendra Save the Tiger King and Barbie & Kendra Storm Area 51), which somehow managed to get made and released in the same year despite being based on events in the same year. Probably explains the trilogy's bad quality.

In this case, Sia's first film that she directed ultimately netted her her first Razzie. The whole film is yet another case of something trying to be Oscar bait and failing miserably - a recovering drug addict played by someone known for their good looks finds herself having to be the guardian of someone with autism (who is actually played by a neurotypical actor) and is "changed" by the experience. Of course, rather than it gaining Oscars, instead people rightfully tore into it for its stereotypical depiction of autism. I also remember seeing some of the music numbers and they did not really connect with me to say the least.

I'm now going to have to unleash some salt here. I already had issues with the way autism is normally depicted in the media, but I guess my autism diagnosis back in 2017 has made me even more weary of its depiction. Look, if you're going to make a film focusing on autism, do the proper research. Why are you casting your prized neurotypical dancer from your music videos as a legitimately autistic girl? Why are there restrainers being used? WHO DID YOU HIRE TO AID IN THE RESEARCH?! I get the feeling Sia hasn't had any close experience with autistic people herself, otherwise the film would have been slightly more accurate and slightly less offensive.

I'm sure that there are other singers that have gone into a directing career, but Sia was not a successful example, should we say. Maybe she should just stick to directing her normal music videos rather than a feature-length one - at least they mainly feature dancing rather than botched depictions of disabilities.

Worst Lead Actor - Mike "My Pillow Guy" Lindell as himself in Absolute Proof.

There was quite a solid list of terrible actors for this year's category. To my complete lack of surprise, Robert Downey Jr. was nominated for Dolittle in his role of Dr. John Dolittle, in what was basically another case of an American actor pretending to be British and failing big time. Other nominees were Mike Lindell (a.k.a. My Pillow Guy) as himself in Absolute Proof, Michele Morrone as Don Massimo Torricelli in 365 Days and David Spade as Tim Morris in The Wrong Missy. And then of course no Razzie ceremony would be complete without Adam Sandler being nominated, this time for his role as simple manchild (so basically every role he seems to play) Hubie Dubois in Hubie Halloween.

I'm honestly surprised that Lindell didn't get nominated for Worst Director along with the other guy who was helping him (maybe he should have replaced Ron Howard in the nominees list), but he did win this category. I doubt he really saw himself as "acting" in the film though, considering that he intended Absolute Proof to be a documentary. But as mentioned earlier, the whole thing comes across as fake anyway.

I would have probably chosen Michele Morrone, though mainly because of him playing a horrendous role that I cannot sympathise with and trying to defend his role in 365 Days. So in a way, I'm probably just letting my own views influence my choices as well. Either way, both of their roles come across as equally unpleasant. I also suspect that plenty of people were expected Downey Jr. to win due to being so ill-cast for his role, but at least it wasn't as insulting as the other two roles mentioned in this paragraph.

Worst Lead Actress - Kate Hudson as Kazu "Zu" Gamble in Music.

Quite a few leading ladies were on the chopping block this year. Whilst there was sadly no sign of Liu Yifei for her drippy and bland portrayal of the titular Mulan, they did have Anne Hathaway for her role as Elena McMahon in The Last Thing He Wanted and especially her role as the Grand High Witch in the new film adaptation of The Witches. Anjelica Huston she ain't. Katie Holmes was also nominated for two roles as Liza in Brahms: The Boys II and Miranda Wells in The Secret: Dare to Dream, and other unwitting nominees included Kate Hudson as Kazu "Zu" Gamble in Music, Lauren Lapkus as Missy in The Wrong Missy and Anna-Marie Sieklucka as Laura Biel in 365 Days.

It was quite surprising when Hudson ended up being deemed the worst actress of the bunch. After all, plenty of critics seemed to rate her performance and she even got nominated for a Golden Globe for it. Personally, I thought Hathaway was pretty pathetic in the new Witches film myself (there are more problems with that film, but I'll save that for another blog post). Even if she had a hairstyle that matched the book version more closely, rather than the blonde perm she had for some reason in this movie, her performance would still not match up with the spectacular performance Huston gave in the same role in the first film adaptation.

I have a theory why Hudson flopped with the Razzie committee though. Everything about her performance just screams "Oscar bait". She's an actress currently known for pappy "chick flicks" and rom-coms (despite her award-winning debut in Almost Famous) who often plays bubbly blonde women, and now she's been cast as a recovering drug addict whose time spent with an autistic character "changes" her for the better. She's even shaved off her famous gold locks for the role. Essentially, it's what any actress does when they want to be taken "seriously" by the Oscars, and the Razzies saw through it right away.

Considering the inclusion of both Hudson and Hathaway in this year's Razzies and the ultimate outcome, it's safe to say that Hathway probably won the "bride wars" over Hudson in the end. Actually thinking about that, don't watch Bride Wars at all. It's just as atrocious as this movie.

Worst Supporting Actor - Rudy Giuliani as himself in Borat Subsequent Moviefilm.

An interesting category this year. Former New York mayor and current Trump supporter Rudy Giuliani was the main highlight in this category for his embarrassing cameo as him in Borat Subsequent Moviefilm, an otherwise well-received sequel to the original Borat movie. Other nominees include Chevy Chase as Chevy (essentially playing himself) in the bizarre Paul Hogan vehicle The Very Excellent Mr. Dundee, Shia LaBeouf as Creeper in The Tax Collector and Arnold Schwarzeneggar as James Hook in Iron Mask. Furthermore, Bruce Willis was actually nominated for three roles - Clay Young in Breach, Donovan Chalmers in Hard Kill and Frank Clark in Survive the Night.

To possibly nobody's surprise, Giuliani won this one. What makes his role so absurd though is that he didn't even know that he was appearing in the Borat movie! He was told that he was doing an interview for something, only for it to be revealed to be part of a mockumentary. You'd think that he would have known of Borat by now before doing the interview. I'd say that the other nominees were actually acting in their films (albeit terribly) whilst Giuliani was essentially tricked, but let's be real hear, do we even remember the other nominees and their roles?

Worst Supporting Actress - Maddie Ziegler as Music Gamble in Music.

There were three unsurprising nominations in this category this year, and then two genuinely surprising nominations. The two Fantasy Island actresses Lucy Hale (playing Melanie Cole) and Maggie Q (playing Gwen Olsen) were expected and Maggie Ziegler was absolutely dreadful in Music as the titular character. However, Kristen Wiig had received some praise from critics as Barbara Minerva (a.k.a. Cheetah) in Wonder Woman 1984 (maybe it was the makeup job at the end that spoilt it, like with Judi Dench in Cats) and Glenn Close was actually nominated for an Oscar for her role in Hillbilly Elegy as Bonnie "Mamaw" Vance.

Anyway, the last two have nothing to worry about as the "prize" rightfully went to Ziegler in the end. I don't care about the "excuse" Sia made on her Twitter for casting her over an actual autistic actor, it's most likely that she only cast her because of her appearing in her music videos in the past. I am absolutely fed up with movies that provide a stereotypical depiction of autism or exploit the irritating "inspirationally disadvantaged" trope. Heck, I'm just going to come right out and admit that Forrest Gump annoyed the hell out of me with its autism depiction as well, despite that fact that everyone acts like it's one of the greatest films ever and it won a shit-tonne of awards.

Ziegler's role in the film is basically what Kirk Lazarus, funnily enough also portrayed by Robert Downey Jr., from Tropic Thunder (awesome movie) deemed as the wrong way of going about it. It's the female equivalent of Sean Penn's performance in I Am Sam. It's mainly her either pulling absurd facial expressions or appearing as blank as possible - that's not playing an autistic person, that's just insulting them. And we all know what Lazarus also warned us about that sort of thing. You don't win Oscars for going "full-on" when portraying an autistic person  - as Willy Wonka himself one said, you win NOTHING!

Hopefully next time somebody decides to make another film on autism, they hire an actual autistic actor in order to add more diversity and authenticity to the film business. Also to avoid another embarrassing incident like this one again.

Worst Screen Combo - Rudy Giuliani and his pants zipper in Borat Subsequent Moviefilm.

It's the return of the best category of the Razzies. Not only are there the actor combos such as Maria Bakalova and Rudy Giuliani in Borat Subsequent Moviefilm and Lauren Lapkus and David Spade in The Wrong Missy, but there are the voice combos of Robert Downey Jr. and his "utterly unconvincing "Welsh" accent" in Dolittle and Adam Sander and his "grating simpleton voice" in Hubie Halloween, as well as the combo of Harrison Ford and "that totally fake-looking CGI "dog"" in The Call of the Wild.

At the last minute it seems, the "prize" was given to Giuliani and...his pants zipper. No sign of Bakalova at all. It's quite likely because (1) the zipper scene was that infamous and (2) Bakalova was actually really good in the film. Again, whether he can be counted as an "actor" is questionable due to him not realising what he was actually starring in, but...yeah. It doesn't matter which combo involving Giuliani we're talking about here, the scene and interactions were extremely cringeworthy. Besides, a screen combo is about chemistry, which Giuliani certainly lacked, both with woman and zipper.

Worst Screenplay - 365 Days.

The Worst Screenplay list is almost the same as the Worst Picture list, with 365 Days, Dolittle and Fantasy Island returning. However, Absolute Proof and Music are the exceptions - instead, the two nominations for this category in their place are all three of the Barbie & Kendra movies grouped together (again) and Hillbilly Elegy.

Anyway, 365 Days finally gets an "award"! I could not be any more relieved about that, especially since that was the film I mainly wanted to win Worst Picture. Fifty Shades of Grey, which this film is deemed to be the Polish rip-off of, comes across as actually somewhat more tasteful in comparison. Despite it being an awful depiction of bondage and yet another glamorisation of sexual abuse, Anastacia Steele was specifically working as Christian Grey's secretary. With 365 Days however, Torricelli is a sex trafficker and Biel is a woman that he abducted.

Let me just point out that sex trafficking is not an "exciting" way to escape a "boring" and "dreary" life, despite what the film wants you to believe. It is a genuinely nasty experience that can leave victims suffering PTSD and other unpleasant mental health issues. The story of Welsh singer Duffy, who is one of the many people who openly criticised this "cinematic" garbage, is just one of the many examples of the realities of sex trafficking. I'm just as confused as to why Netflix was willing to keep it on its website in the first place considering the themes and the backlash towards them. Some people even cancelled their Netflix subscriptions as a result.

Oh, and for added bad news, the book that this is based on is actually the first in a trilogy. Just like the Fifty Shades trilogy then. Let's hope that there isn't a book told from the sex trafficker's point of view. Or any film adaptations of the sequels, for that matter.

Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-Off Or Sequel - Dolittle.

I honestly think that the Mulan remake should have been on the shortlist. It butchered the original film it was based on, was utterly insensitive to Chinese culture, made Mulan a character with less agency and had a one-dimensional villain. That said, there were some pretty cringeworthy alternatives on the list that make it look tame in comparison - mainly 365 Days (Polish Fifty Shades of Grey), Dolittle (based on the Doctor Dolittle books), Fantasy Island (based on the TV show of the same name) and Hubie Halloween (classified as a rip-off of Ernest Scared Stupid). I was surprised though that Wonder Woman 1984 was on the list too, considering that reception of it was simply mixed rather than negative, and I highly suspect it was because the previous film did so well and its sequel was an extremely disappointing follow-up in comparison. Let's also not forget that dreadful scene at the end that comes across as glorified rape. At least Mulan doesn't have THAT.

Dolittle ultimately won this category. Mediocre in most aspects, and downright ridiculous in others. It's basically meant to be some sort of origin story for our favourite doctor who can talk to animals, only he's really cut up about his wife's death and some generic kid protagonist has to convince him to snap out of his funk in order to save Queen Victoria. Hey, at least the musical flop featuring "Tyrannosaurus" Rex Harrison captured the spirit of the original books decently and had some catchy songs. This one is just yet another one of those more "serious" reimaginings, only this time it cannot make out whether it's truly a drama or a comedy.

The worst part here is that some critics pointed out that there was already an interesting plot occurring between Dolittle and his wife, and then the filmmakers fridged her in order to give him angst and some random kid the chance to "save" him. And let's be honest, the fridging trope has been happening a lot throughout the past few years. Maybe they should have kept the wife alive after all. It would have made a different experience to the one we got in the end.

Special Governors' Award For The Worst Calendar Year EVER! - 2020.

No Razzie Redeemer Awards this year, but a special one was given out to 2020 for being the "worst calendar year EVER". Honestly, deeming it the worst year ever is a bit of a stretch - 2016 was a infamously shitty year with the presidential elections and Brexit being voted for, and let's not forget any year in which the World Wars took place. But yeah, it was a crappy year alright, even if there was some hope at the end of it with this year's presidential elections going well (though the storming of the Capitol this year was a shocking and uncalled-for end to the election period). First there was the threat of World War III, then more Brexit talk, then the arrival of the COVID-19 virus and then the death of George Floyd and other black people at the hands of corrupt police. So whilst it may not necessarily be the worst year of all time, it's definitely one of them.

So that's it for this year's Razzie Awards review. A few of the winners I feel were chosen due to political opinions, but then again, they were certainly asking to be nominated anyway. Besides, Absolute Proof is genuinely bad and blatant lies. And it's not like I can distance myself from political views anyway, since I pretty much support the Razzie Committee's political views as well. This also has some of the most offensive films to have been nominated this year, what with a film that glorifies sex trafficking and a failed Oscar bait musical that portrays autism in the most insensitive light possible. Guess the awfulness of 2020 extended to its films as well.

Overall though, a pretty good year for the Razzies as usual and I certainly got some enjoyment (and time to vent on the more offensive movies) writing this review.

The Top 6 Most Epic Unmaskings In The Masked Singer UK

So Series 2 of The Masked Singer in the UK wrapped up just before Valentine's Day. And it was surely a ride as always. After several days of binge watching both Series 1 and 2 on ITV Hub before their deadline expired and getting some important screenshots, I've decided for the next couple of months or so to do some articles linked with the series as a whole, mainly the UK version.

Besides the amazing performances and surprise covers this show has, we all know what the real highlight is - finding out who is hidden underneath the outrageous disguises in each episode. And in some cases, it's quite the shocker when it's not who we expect.

So for this first Masked Singer article, I'm counting down six of the most surprising reveals - whether it's a surprisingly major singer or someone else. Some of these stars you would not have expected to have appeared on a show like this in the first place.

Word of warning, given the nature of the series, all of these examples are SPOILERS. Unless you have already seen the series or don't mind plot twists being given away to you in advance, it's best to watch all of the performances from all of the contestants before on YouTube and then the reveals themselves before reading this list. Here's a link to the official YouTube channel and its playlists so that you can do that.

Alright, let's get to it! The countdown starts now! :D

6. Jonathan Ross finally scores a point - Series 2, Episode 3.

With the majority of these list entries, nobody correctly guessed who was under the masks until they came off. Swan's unmasking is the only exception, which explains which I did not place it higher. That said, it is important to note the context of why the unmasking is here in the first place.

It's safe to say that most of the time, TV presenter Jonathan Ross is pretty far off with his guesses. For instance, he guessed Edwina Currie for Sausage and Christopher Biggins for Badger. Mostly a case of him joking around, but then there was the incident where he was the only panelist who failed to guess that Mel B was disguised as Seahorse.

So that's three Mel Bs and one Trish Goddard. He still thought it was Trisha even after the reveal for a bit.

But hey, he was more than able to make up for that in the episode that came after. Swan had lost the Sing-Off against Sausage and now had to take off her mask. Most of the panel suspected that she was American and had possibly been in a girl band, with Kimberley Wyatt and Ashley Roberts being two of the guesses.

That was not what Jonathan had in mind though. Sure, he took the girl band thing into account, but he mentioned that some of the clues mentioned prime ministers and presidents, which made him think about Love Actually...

Yep, he guessed the woman who played Hugh Grant's secretary in that movie. The other panelists were taken by surprise with this comment, especially Rita (who went on to guess Idina Menzel), especially since this potential star had not been mentioned on as a likely candidate for Swan beforehand. And sure enough...

That's right, Jonathan was the ONLY panelist to correctly guess the star for once (not counting the time he guessed Jason Manford for Hedgehog just because Rita guessed it was him). As it turns out, the girl band was Milan and the American accent was fake. He was definitely chuffed about that, I'm telling you.

So the moral of the story is this, even a stopped watch is right twice a day. Jonathan may be pretty far off with his guesses most of the time, but when he gets it correct, he gets it correct big time.

5. One reveal I can be smug about - Series 2, Episode 7.

Admittedly there is some bias on my part on why this makes it on here. There are plenty of times when the panelists are unable to guess the correct celebrity under the mask. But being a casual viewer of the show and getting the answer before they do is always a treat.

If there was anything certain about Dragon, it was that it was a comedian. Now we just needed to guess which one. The most likely option was Jennifer Saunders, who had done singing before (most notably in Shrek 2), with other options including Katherine Ryan and Miranda Hart.

One day, I considered the fact that Dragon talked about eating strange foods and remembered some old TV show about historical cuisine, which was the first time I found out about Sue Perkins. I brought up this possibility to my mother, who also watches the show, but she dismissed this as unlikely. After all, since when have we heard her sing before?

Hey, guess what, I was right! And nobody on the panel got it at all! I was extremely proud of myself that night for getting it before they did. As as to why we haven't seen her sing before...she normally gets stage fright when it comes to singing. This was the main way she could make herself feel comfortable. For the panel, it was a massive shock, but for me, it was just my guessing game paying off. ;)

4. Ms. Ora, meet your match! - Series 1, Episode 3.

Chameleon was quite the character for the two episodes that he appeared in. Besides his impressive build underneath his costume, he also appeared to be pretty confident in himself, as well as the type to splash out a lot of cash.

Pay no mind to the bottom right. That's either the panelists thinking about who spent a lot of cash, or Rita discussing her feelings for him.

There were two things that everyone knew. The first was that Rita Ora clearly had a thing for him. In her own words, "I never thought I'd fancy a chameleon".

She even had a rose with her whenever he appeared onstage.

The second was that it was unlikely to be a professional singer. But with such a great build, surely it was a sports star, right? Or perhaps even a buff actor like Idris Elba?

Well, turns out it was a professional singer after all. You know, the lead singer of the band that sung "Christmas Time (Don't Let The Bells End)" and "I Believe In A Thing Called Love"? And he still looked fit even now! Rita in particular was stunned by who her secret masked crush was.

What makes this particularly surprising is that this was the first professional singer to be unmasked on the UK version, as beforehand were soap star Patsy Palmer (disguised as Butterfly) and politician Alan Johnson (disguised as Pharoah). And keep in mind that The Darkness were a major group back in the day.

Oh, and just to clarify, Justin confessed straight afterwards that he was single. So unless the age gap gets in the way, maybe he and Rita could be a cute couple after all? ;)

3. Something the Osbournes didn't catch onto - Series 1, Episode 6.

Duck was one of those contestants who didn't get off to a great start but then gradually started to improve her game. Originally there were assumptions that she was a sports star, but then guesses with professional singers started to come in. She still struggled to avoid the Sing-Off twice, but hey, at least she survived them.

So not only was it a surprise when it turned out that she was a professional singer, but even moreso when it turned out to be one of the more influential female singers of the British rock scene.

This was such a surprise for the panelists that their reaction was used for the episode's thumbnail on the ITV Hub. Sure it was somewhat disappointing that Ken Jeong was unable to witness this epic reveal, but the addition of two of the Osbournes on the panel more than makes up for it.

Kelly Osbourne in particular was stunned that she hadn't got it right, considering that she and Skin knew each other well. Of course, this was a relief for our contestant, considering that she thought that the game was up when the Osbournes arrived, only to be able to misdirect them anyway.

And then there was the shocked reaction of everyone on Twitter who couldn't believe that Skin of all people had sung Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On". Not only that, but she does it pretty well!

2. The clue was in the song - Series 2, Episode 6.

Viking seemed to be one of those contestants you couldn't place a finger on. Was he Bear Grylls, or Ricky Wilson from Kaiser Chiefs, or Jerome Flynn, or even Pat Sharp? Either way, if was hard to decide whether it was a professional singer or someone else - he did pretty well on "Songbird" but was in the Sing-Off after singing "Watermelon Sugar".

After surviving the Sing-Off, he made a comeback with a slow acoustic version of a-ha's "Take On Me", probably one of his best performances in the series by far. I was a little confused as to why it was a slow and melancholy-sounding version, but I still enjoyed it.

Next week, he did "The Scientist" and, despite being eliminated that week, still did a really good job with the high notes.

Wait a second, he wears a Viking outfit (which is supposed to be a clue in of itself), performs "Take On Me" and is good at hitting the high notes. Doesn't that hint at the lead singer from a-ha itself? I mean, they originally came from Norway, right?

No, it can't possibly be him. Why would he be doing this show in the first place?

I was left stunned for the rest of the night after this reveal. Seriously, the original singer of "Take On Me" performs "Take On Me" in the competition and still nobody knew it was him, including myself. As Joel correctly pointed out, this was the first time that a contestant had performed their own song on the show.

It also caused me to look back at his earlier performances in more detail. And upon hearing his "Watermelon Sugar" rendition again, I have to admit that it was actually pretty good after all. Either way, what a surprise.

1. Looks like we're the silly sausages - Series 2, Episode 8.

There was no doubt that Series 2 winner Sausage was one of the greatest singers on the show (runner-up Badger even praised her voice in an interview afterwards), and supposedly there was no doubt about who could potentially be in the disguise. Could it be Sheridan Smith from Legally Blonde? Could it be Stacey Solomon, runner-up on X-Factor and Queen of the Jungle? Maybe it was even Jennifer Hudson or Beverley Knight?

Of course, those questions could not be answered until the very end of the series when she won the grand prize. With all the clues that the panelists were given, surely at least one of them would be able to get it right?

Admittedly there was some anxiety shown before this unmasking. Guest panelist Nicola Roberts (who won Series 1 as Queen Bee) mentioned that she didn't want to make a fool of herself in front of the other panelists, something that did not come to light when she correctly guessed Robin and Badger's identities as Aston Merrygold and Ne-Yo respectively. Additionally, when Nicola guessed that Stacey Solomon was Sausage, Rita decided to go with Leona Lewis but mentioned that she would be upset with herself if it was Stacey.

Except none of that mattered because NOBODY got it right at all.

Everyone on the judging panel was stunned. Even more so than they usually were when surprise reveals occurred.

In fact, Mo Gilligan even had to get out of his seat because he was so flabbergasted. Something that teasers for the finale gleefully exploited.

The best part? Jonathan had guessed Joss Stone...for another contestant entirely. Which means that nobody had even suspected her for the entirety of her run.

It's one thing for a contestant to keep their identity a secret until the big reveal. It's another thing when they're the winner of the series AND a legend in the music scene. Taking that into account as well as the priceless reactions of the judges, this certainly takes the top spot on my list.

So that's it for the list! I'd also like to point out that the other stars that the panelists were unable to guess were Tree (Teddy Sheringham), Alien (Sophie Ellis-Bexter), Grandfather Clock (Glenn Hoddle) and Bush Baby (John Thomson). And just for info's sake, the other ones they correctly guessed were Daisy (Kelis), Unicorn (Jake Shears), Fox (Denise van Outen), Monster (Cee Lo Green), Octopus (Katherine Jenkins), the aforementioned Queen Bee, Blob (Sir Lenny Henry) and Harlequin (Gabrielle).

I will (hopefully!) be posting the next two Masked Singer blog posts throughout the next couple of months or so. One of them I'm already making good process on and the other one requires a lot of thinking behind it. But once I've gotten them sorted out, they're be good to go. ;D

The Grinch vs. The Grinch - Comparing The Two Feature-Length Films

VS. 

So Illumination Entertainment's version of The Grinch was released two years ago. And it was...well, divisive is probably the best way to put it. Looking at the review websites for instance, you'll see that it has 60% from the Rotten Tomatoes critics, 50% from the Rotten Tomatoes audiences, 6.3/10 from iMDb, 51/100 from the Metacritic critics and 6.2/10 from the Metacritic audiences. Google users were noticeably kinder with 87% of them liking it, but that was the lone exception.

Not that different from the live-action film from 2000 with Jim Carrey then. That one has 49% from the Rotten Tomatoes critics, 56% from the Rotten Tomatoes audiences, 6.2/10 from iMDb, 46/100 from the Metacritic critics,  6.5/10 from the Metacritic audiences and 88% from Google users. Oh well, at least it's better than the abomination that was The Cat In The Hat with Mike Myers, even though it's partly the reason why the latter film exists in the first place.

As it's coming up to Christmas and The Grinch has always been a favourite Christmas tale for many people, especially Dr. Seuss fans, I thought it was best if I just re-evaluated these films to see if any of them was clearly superior to the other. I will be comparing them in the following categories: the Grinch himself, the people of Whoville who he initially detests, the aesthetics and tones, the soundtracks and the overall message of the stories.

Keep in mind that this will not count the Chuck Jones animated special from 1966, as that one is obviously the best adaptation already. It has the legendary Boris Karloff (known for his work in horror films) as the Grinch and the narrator, the theme song is superbly sung by Thurl Ravenscroft (most known as Tony the Tiger), the animation is both faithful to the original illustration and somehow ends up looking distinct from it anyway and it is much less heavy-handed about the anti-consumerism message it promotes. Need more proof of its quality? It has 100% from Rotten Tomatoes critics, 98% from Rotten Tomatoes audiences, 8.3/10 from iMDb, and 92% from Google users. Sure, there aren't any Metacritic scores up yet, but for now it doesn't matter. Pretty clear cut victory if you ask me.

The Grinch.

Let's start by analysing the Grinch himself - he is the one mentioned in the title after all. He's that miserable old grump who hates Christmas so much that steals all of the decorations and food from Whoville, only to realise that Christmas is more than just gifts and having a change of heart as a result.

There was never really any big backstory for why the Grinch originally had such a poor sentiment towards Christmas, other than the fact that his heart was "three sizes too small". The same went for the Chuck Jones special. The feature-length films however had to give him a "sympathetic" excuse involving childhood trauma in order to explain the way he is today. Sure, they need to expand for time, but the original incarnation of him was fine. Simply hating Christmas because he sees it as some ridiculously noisy over-the-top thing that only seems to be about gift-giving is a legitimate excuse. If anything, it helps out with the anti-consumerism message even more by painting him as the consumerist in the process.

Anyway, onto the 2000 version. This version of him was horrifically abused by the Whos when he was younger, simply because he looked different compared to them. The whole thing is an allegory for racism, especially once he yells out "IS IT BECAUSE I'M GREEN?!" after they screw him over yet again just before he decides to steal everything. I'm not that fond of the backstory - it villainises everyone else as a result and that's not the point of the original story.

Fortunately, the Grinch is still kind of a jackass in this version. Plus, Jim Carrey was at the peak of his career when he made this movie and did a surprisingly good job in the role. I'm not normally a fan of Jim Carrey's works - for instance, The Mask is kind of overrated when compared to the original gory comic book it was based on and Mr. Popper's Penguins is just a betrayal of the original book. But when Carrey does well, he does well. His hammy nature makes the character pretty enjoyable and his makeup job is convincing, especially once he dons the Santa suit. It's most likely that the film would have been an absolute mess without him onboard, as the live-action version of The Cat In The Hat would further prove.

The 2018 version gives him the backstory of being in an orphanage and having a PTSD-like reaction to Christmas as a result. Not as problematic as the 2000 version in that regard, but still clearly trying to make the audience sympathise with someone who plans to sabotage Christmas. It was interesting how he initially didn't join in with the Christmas festivities after saving the day due to his guilt over what he did.

The main problem is that the Grinch comes across as too "nice". Sure, it was sweet that he didn't bully his dog Max for once, but someone could have him be nice to Max in their own take whilst still having him come across as a proper villain. As someone said on a ProtonJon livestream I watched once, he's not so much evil as much as "annoyed". Which is technically true, as he seems to come across as more of a trickster archetype in this version, who's mainly stealing gifts to teach Whoville that Christmas shouldn't just be about gift-giving. Benedict Cumberbatch does a pretty good job with the voice and portrayal, though it's certainly unlikely to be as memorable as Boris Karloff or Jim Carrey's takes on the character. Overall, he's mainly a grump who still harbours trauma from his past. That is all.

Winner: The 2000 version. He's just so much more memorable and he truly does come off as a "mean one" at times, in contrast with his simply grouchy 2018 counterpart.

The People Of Whoville.

The people in Whoville like Christmas a lot...and that's pretty much the only thing the films have in common with regard to the depiction of the Whos. One is downright offensive whilst the other is more faithful to the original story.

So let's discuss the 2000 version. Jesus Christ what was up with the Whos there?! They have now become a bunch of obnoxious idiots who only care about presents, with Cindy, Martha and Cindy's father being the only exceptions. The WHOLE POINT of the original story was that the Grinch was the consumeristic one who believed that they were just as consumeristic as him. It was all a gross misunderstanding on his part. The Mayor in particular is handled in an appalling manner in this movie. He is the one who was most abusive to the Grinch and then tries to pin the blame on Cindy when the Grinch predictably steals everything after that dreadful "razor" incident. If you are like me and consider the original Whoville to be the same one in the original Horton Hears A Who! story, it completely goes against the Mayor's original characterisation.

The 2018 version is much more faithful in its portrayal of the Whos on the other hand. They still have flaws, but this time it's more because they love to have big celebrations with extravagant decorations and keep on going more over the top with every passing year. Otherwise, they seem pretty accepting of the Grinch even before the climatic moment when he turns good, and they don't seem to notice anything up with him beforehand. Plus, they don't seem to mind what happened with the presents and are a lot more accepting of Cindy as well. Like in the original book, it seems to be more of a misunderstanding on the Grinch's part.

Winner: The 2018 version. This one was a little too obvious. You know what, just pretend the ones from the 2000 version don't exist.

The Aesthetic And Tone.

Besides the fact that one is live-action and the other is animated, the main difference between the films is the tone they have. Essentially, one is downright weird (even by Dr. Seuss standards) and offensive, and the other is "safe" and a little bit bland as a result.

The 2000 version has a darker aesthetic, which is interesting, but it also tries to go for a rather vulgar and surreal tone, which pretty much falls flat. The "termites in his smile" scene makes sense, but the heart attack scene is just ridiculous (even if it does seem like the more realistic reaction to your heart growing three sizes). It's especially odd when you consider that Ron Howard directed the film, and he normally directs films that aren't like this. I guess maybe the studio were forcing him to go with this aesthetic?

Whilst Jim Carrey looks fine as the Grinch (especially once he puts on the Santa outfit) and Cindy looks adorable, most of the Whos look downright hideous. Okay, I guess they were trying to make them look as obnoxious as they acted, but really?! It's essentially like what happened in The Cat In The Hat with the weird Cat suit and those grotesques versions of Thing #1 and Thing #2. Yes, Dr. Seuss stories are normally bizarre themselves, but not in a vulgar way. No wonder we haven't had any more live-action adaptations since then.

The 2018 version goes for brighter colours and looks somewhat more faithful to the original illustrations. Well okay, it still looks like an Illumination Entertainment movie but the characters don't look ridiculous. Plus it relies less on the vulgar humour that the 2000 version did. It's unfortunately nowhere near as wacky as Dr. Seuss stories normally are, but it does have its moments at times.

Winner: The 2018 version. It's pretty much another standard Illumination Entertainment film, but it's still more faithful than vulgar humour and hideous-looking live-action characters. Well, at least as faithful as a relatively tame version can get.

The Soundtrack.

The Chuck Jones special was where we originally heard the classic "You're A Mean One Mr. Grinch". It is just awesome. Thurl Ravenscroft absolutely nails it with his bass and the lyrics do not hold back when describing the "vile" Grinch himself. It's not just the theme song though - the rest of the soundtrack is also pretty good quality, with a sort of old-timey feel to it.

 For some reason, both films decided to "modernise" the soundtrack to make it "relate" more with contemporary audiences. And by that, I mean use "trendy" music that will be extremely out of date a decade later or so - though considering this is 2020, the 2000 version is already out of date. Most notably, both involve rappers. Word of advice - don't do that sort of thing. It just becomes downright cringeworthy and will turn off viewers who aren't into that stuff in the first place.

The 2000 version goes for an fascinating route by having Jim Carrey sing the song in character as the Grinch. So rather than it being one insult after another hurled at him, it becomes more of a song revelling in his villainy. Kind of like what happened with "Macavity" when the Cats musical was adapted for the screen - actually no, on seconds thoughts, forget that even happened. Otherwise, they simply hired "modern" bands such as Smash Mouth and *NSYNC - bands that no doubt were more relevent in the 90s than today. Busta Rhymes also appears for some bizarre reason.

The 2018 version? Sadly, even the theme song is "modernised", which is now performed by the rapper Tyler, The Creator (yes, the comma is part of the name). Using Jackie Wilson's "Deck The Halls" is fine as that is already a timeless Christmas song and the same goes for the other oldies music that gets used (examples include The Supremes and Nat King Cole). Using rap music just because it's "trendy" is not (even if Run DMC is a brilliant band).

Winner: The 2000 version, if only slightly. "Updating" the music is simply a no-no for me in both cases, but at least Jim Carrey does the more interesting theme tune.

The Message.

The moral of the original story is essentially that Christmas isn't about material goods and is more about enjoying the good times with your loved ones. The book presents this message well, as does the TV special. The feature-length movies however try to be too forceful with the message, whilst at the same time completely undermining themselves by essentially being made for money purposes. Well, considering their quality and soundtracks, it seems that money was the main thing in mind.

The way the 2000 version handles the message is more forceful than thrusting an anvil into somebody's face. As I mentioned, the Whos are now consumeristic morons. Cindy is one of the only exceptions. It's only once Cindy's father stands up for his daughter that they realise how awful they have been towards the Grinch. This is especially bewildering when you consider the fact that the movie was mostly made as a cash-grabber and modernised its own soundtrack. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

At first glance, it would seem that the 2018 version fixed that problem by making the Whos nicer characters and the Grinch more of a lonely character with PTSD. Alas, the anti-consumerism message is undermined by the fact that the film does not practice what it preaches itself. Besides trying to modernise the soundtrack like the other movie did, this probably has even more merchandise associated with it than the 2000 version. Oh, and don't forget some of the weird memes it used in its advertising stage. "When guac is extra", anyone?

Winner: It's a tie. If anything, the original book and TV special managed to make the anti-consumerism message more noticeable without being forceful about it.

So after analysing both films in detail on these aspects, I can only conclude that these films don't really surpass each other. Obviously, they have different aspects that either make them better or make them worse. The 2000 version has the better Grinch and soundtrack and is a much more memorable film to top it off, for better and for worse. On the other hand, the 2018 version has more sympathetic characters in general and in a way is more faithful when it comes to tone, aesthetics and (in a sense) the plot. The only thing that can truly be agreed on by most people is that they don't match up with the original book and the Chuck Jones special.

In fact, most of these differences that make one film better than another are pretty subtle, rather than clear cut. And the review ratings show this perfectly. Critics were slightly more in favour of the 2018 version whilst audiences were slightly more in favour of the 2000 version (with iMDb being one of the few exceptions). If anything, it's probably best if we get a general opinion from everybody who watched these films.

I have created a poll in Google Forms here, where people can vote for which feature-length film they preferred, as well as comment on why they preferred it. I'm genuinely interested to see other people's thoughts on these films given how their critical and commercial reception so far appears to be similar. Meanwhile, I'm going to probably be watching the TV special all over again. It's certainly a treat, I can acknowledge that. ;)