There is a slight chance that Rob Zombie might lack artistic integrity
Grotesque filmmaker Rob Zombie and black-hearted Batman-villain impersonator Dick Cheney don’t have much in common. One delights in overseeing acts of cruelty and murder inflicted upon innocents; the other only does that in movies. But they’ve both recently made me chuckle and roll my eyes at them when comments they made years ago resurfaced and contradicted their current practices.
We previously talked about Cheney’s 1994 comments, where he said invading Baghdad during the Gulf War would have resulted in a “quagmire,” and that taking Saddam out of power wasn’t worth risking American soldiers’ lives. Plenty of people agree with that and wish he’d maintained that position, obviously.
And now check out what Rob Zombie — director of the recent hit “Halloween” — had to say in 2002 about the trend of remaking old horror films:
I feel it’s the worst thing any filmmaker can do. I actually got a call from my agent and they asked me if I wanted to be involved with the remake of [The Texas Chainsaw Massacre]. I said no [swear word] way! Those movies are perfect — you’re only going to make yourself look like an [swear word] by remaking them. Go remake something that’s a piece of [swear word] and make it good. Like with my movie ["House of 1000 Corpses"] I have elements of “Chainsaw” in it because I love that movie so much, but I wouldn’t dare want to “remake” it. It’s like a band trying to be another band. You can sound like The Beatles, but you can’t be The Beatles.
[Source; see the original interview here.]
What changed between then and now? Well, either he believes 1978’s “Halloween” was a piece of [swear word] that needed improving (doubtful), or else someone backed a big dump truck full of money up to his house (probable).
All of this got me thinking: Have I ever publicly said something that now, years later, my actions would seem to contradict? And lo and behold, I found this in an old school newspaper article:
I think it would be wrong to mock someone for behaving contrary to what he said years earlier, no matter how much you don’t like that person, or think he’s a bad leader or a bad filmmaker. Can’t a person change his mind? I think we should play fair, and that we should also have respect for vice presidents, regardless of who they are.
Needless to say, I am really, really embarrassed now.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:01 am
Some people will nod their head and think, “Yeah! Cheney loves killing innocent people!” I don’t. Still a funny line, but could have been funnier had you not implied that he liked seeing innocent people killed.
Maybe he does. I honestly don’t know, but neither do you.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:34 am
He does. He told me so. But that was a few years ago, so he may have changed his mind.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:22 am
“Plenty of people agree with that and wish he’d maintained that position, obviously.”
What is your operational definition of “obviously’ and ‘plenty’?
42% of Americans today approve of the initial invasion of Iraq, 51% disapprove. The consensus among many top democrats was that something needs to be done about Iraq before the invasion, yet you aren’t calling them on changing their minds:
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
Your stuff on Zombie is funny. But I guess he was successful enough with the remake that I’ll never see.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:38 am
“Some people will nod their head and think…”
You don’t know that either.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:27 am
I’m certainly no fan of the vice president, but I know he doesn’t like murdering innocent people. I’m pretty sure the only things he enjoys shooting are dangerous and or tasty animals. I assume lawyers fall under the first category.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Um, John Doe, 51% of people disapproving the initial invasion sounds like “plenty” to me. Eric didn’t say ALL, or even a majority of people. Just “plenty”. Which means “not a few”. I think 51% qualifies. And of course its obvious that more than a few people oppose the invasion–have you read the news lately? (That was a rhetorical question, not a challenge)–you sited a poll yourself.
I read the article you linked, and I’m not sure why you even bothered to post it. Those quotes were all about Saddam’s WMDs and how something needs to be done. Not one suggested an invasion. “Something needs to be done about Iraq” to “the invasion was a mistake” does NOT show the same contradiction of thought as “invading Iraq would be a quagmire requiring the sacrifice of too many American lives” to “let’s invade Iraq”. Incidentally, how many of those Democrats were using the Bush administration’s faulty intelligence about the WMDs as the basis for their claims? Eight were said in 2002 or later. If you want to think the war was a good idea, great, good for you. But you cannot honestly say Cheney didn’t do a major flip flop. I’m not saying the Democrats are without blame on the issue, but surely Cheney (and Bush) have the lion’s share. I would guess that is why Eric is calling Cheney on his contradictions.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Or Eric’s just making a contemporary “what’s the difference between a lawyer and a catfish” joke.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Dump truck full of money… classic.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:39 am
That, and there was no conclusion to the previous post about Cheney. Nobody ever acknowledged that things have changed since he made that statement, and it would be silly to think that people can’t change their mind.
I think the fact that a ton of democratic leaders said something had to be done about Iraq (many during the Clinton administration), and they approved the war both count as major changes. But you’re right, the fact that they approved the war in one breath because of WMDs and the danger Hussein poses, and then say they hate the war and never believed there were WMDs is not a contradiction worth noting. Only focus on republicans. Democrats are pure as the wind driven snow and should never be called on their contradictions, especially when there is less than 4 years lapse.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Sometimes people are so anxious to disagree with each other that they forget to do it intelligently.
What Amp said: “I’m not saying the Democrats are without blame on the issue.”
What John Doe interpreted: “Democrats are pure as the wind driven snow and should never be called on their contradictions.”
It is possible for logical, intelligent people to disagree. It is also possible for stupid people to disagree. The only way for the rest of us to know which category you fall into is the way you present your arguments.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Ah! So it was the oil and lack of talent the whole time…
September 18th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Matt is right about what I said. I don’t know if anyone will nod their head in agreement with Eric’s satirical take on Cheney. I should have said that “Some people MAY nod their heads…”
I will be more careful in the future, lest I expose myself as a stupid disagree-er. Is it too late for that?
September 18th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Ooh, intertextuality…
September 18th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Rich people should get paid by the truckload, and all trucks should be driven by lookalikes of the Monopoly Man.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:08 am
Just as this discussion looked like it was about devolve into another recitation of political soundbites on the Iraq war, thejoeinme jumped in with a truly brilliant observation. And I don’t mean that sarcastically.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I’d remake Rob Zombie’s Halloween for a dump truck full of money. But they would have to include the ticket price of the original so I can go see it (on top of the dump truck full of money). After all these years, I still want to do a Neutral Mask version of Titanic. But I would have to see Titanic first. Man, I should see more movies.
Come to think of it, I would do it for the dump truck alone. Dump trucks are cool.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Ah, you mean Rich Uncle Pennybags! I believe he’s now called Mr. Monopoly, which is sad, because his original name is much more fun.