The Sharp Tip of Racial Comedy

In the mid-1800s, American theater introduced a new genre of performances that were saturated in bigoted bad taste. White Americans donned black makeup to portray themselves as African Americans for the purpose of comedic ridicule at the featured minority’s expense. This tradition escalated into the birth of the minstrel shows and to an exclusively white audience that reveled in the mockery of the African American culture during a time when segregation was still commonplace and racist sketches lucrative. Luckily, we have matured as a nation—more or less—and feverishly pave the road of acceptance on the spectrum of all diversity, sometimes even to an overly sensitive fault. As the generations of tomorrow wield the technological sword, the elders have tried so hard to shelter eyes from the grueling past that any sign of cultural treading is immediately disciplined. This can at times seem excessive but given the dreary historical alternative, is arguably a good direction to place mannerisms in perspective until we can learn to be more compliant. With religion, gender, race, nationality, and financial status tightly woven to a nationally taught degree of acceptance, comedy seems to be at a neutral ground. When nobody owns the spotlight for discrimination, then everybody is fair game for the receipt of jokes. In a society that has political correctness itself as a target to rebel against, it makes sense that humor is going to break bounds wherever it can and especially in the areas deemed most at taboo. When specifically pertaining to modern racially themed comedy, it has been marketed as all inclusive, with the majority of American spectators of any race generally having adopted the philosophy of “It’s cool now because everybody can laugh about it together.” To a high degree, this seems reasonably acceptable in my mind. I once heard an African American woman’s interviewed opinion about a racially insensitive skit on The Chappelle Show, where she in summary had said that it shouldn’t be a comedy show’s responsibility to teach cultural acceptance. I agree with her on that. However, that doesn’t necessarily make it right either. There can be funny and there can be morally irresponsible. The question to inspect is to which side of the scale do we tilt more on, is it necessary to toil with the comedic possibilities of racial stereotypes, and more importantly, is it emotionally harmful to?

I am not trying to pick on anybody in particular, but I have one show I want to be the focus of examination. I think Seth MacFarlane is an extremely funny guy. Say what you will about the lack of quality in his story telling, but the guy is a genius at setting up puns. MacFarlane is best known for his syndicated animated show Family Guy that had a troublesome start during its 1998 inception on Fox television and since that time has charmed its way to mega cult status. Not surprisingly, McFarlane has expanded his influence to more hit animated shows. One of which is the self-aware spinoff called The Cleveland Show, based on Family Guy’s token black neighbor named Cleveland Brown. With Cleveland now the focus, he is rearmed with a new family, relocated to his childhood city, and surrounded by a fresh template of humorous situations. Seth’s fingerprint is evident on this show, as like his others, there is a loveable, bumbling idiot of a husband who marks his territory as the head of the household, a son that disappoints his father’s expectations, an attractive wife that endures an abusive amount of stupid antics, a daughter who is (with the exception of Family Guy’s Meg who only gradually becomes extroverted) uncontrollably headstrong, a wise cracking baby (or American Dad’s Roger the alien), and the inclusion of at least one talking animal whose “no questions asked” existence is a page of the ongoing joke in itself.

As The Cleveland Show displays its ensembles of gags and low blows, it also plays strongly on racial stereotypes. With Cleveland and his family being portrayed as African American and the stars of the show, they obviously are the brunt of most of the stereotypically charged humor. Granted, Seth doesn’t discriminate, with Caucasian targeted jokes aplenty (being relevant to mention because Seth MacFarlane is white) in all of his shows (more so in Family Guy and American Dad, as the families themselves are drawn as white), he ensures that everybody gets a slap in the face and white people the most. Forgive the analogy, yet does being wet in a pool grant that person the acceptance to splash water on those standing out of the pool? I guess from a comedy standpoint, the answer is yes, since you decided to stand near the pool (yes, I’m still stuck on this same damn analogy) and knew the risk involved by doing such, whether you choose to stand in it or not. It doesn’t matter if you are different or identical to the host comedian, chances are there is something about you that the comedian can take out of context to make a targeted audience laugh. I think laughter is one of the greatest things, and perhaps personal jokes are acceptable in that older-brother-punching-you-in-the-arm sort of way. As a member of the armed forces, when I am amongst compatriot friends, we respect each other enough to not take offense to anything said because we have already proven that our lives are ready to be given to defend one another. The jokes we say about each other mean nothing more than the giggle or shock factor they were designed to invoke. Nothing personal is taken. For myself, racist or stereotypical jokes, if told sincerely in jest, do not bother me. However, when this sort of behavior emanates from mass produced media, I can’t help but be a bit protective for a fragile and easily influenced young America.

People pass around the derogative inspired term “nigga” while simultaneously debating who, when, and where it can be said. It seems simple enough to me, as you only call good friends who are comfortable with you the titles that the group finds socially acceptable.  Would you greet a stranger or unfamiliar acquaintance by saying, “What’s up fucker?” If you do, then you are socially inept. Not a judgment, just a fact. It helps to understand that exercise before calling someone of Italian descent a “guido” no matter how many times you have heard it uttered uncensored on Jersey Shore. This is a sign of the way that mostly the Gen-Y folks act that has the Gen-X and Baby Boomers scratching their Rogaine lathered noggins. It is embarrassing, but so weren’t they to the generations before them? Now I wonder, do we have a responsibility to the Millenials to be more protective of potentially misunderstood racial humor? When we pass around racial epithets to each other as titles of endearment and publicly broadcast programs like The Cleveland Show, is America proving that it is mature enough to openly make fun of racism or are we just secretly remarketing our racism? I’d like to believe it is the former option. It can be difficult to tell.

As a bonus, I requested assistance from Cinematic Impact founder and extended family member, Travlis Hallingquest, to let me interview him on the topic of this article. I found his insight invaluable as he is an African American man with a beautiful family and is the target (by race, not necessarily by reinforcement of stereotypes) of programs like The Cleveland Show. Furthermore, he is an educated and talented historian of America’s past and cinema as an art form. Here is what Mr Hallingquest had to say...

1) Do you think The Cleveland Show is funny?

There have been a few spin-offs that have been successful. All in the Family featured the Bunkers having next-door neighbors whom were known as The Jeffersons. The Jeffersons lasted for 11 seasons as All In The Family (albeit still a great show) lasted 9 seasons. I am surprised that The Cleveland Show has survived on the airways this long. The show’s antics are predictable because everything is solely based off of the Family Guy formula. Still, I get a few laughs out of The Cleveland Show, mostly from the “Tim the Bear” character. 


2) Do you feel that The Cleveland Show parodies racial stereotypes or reinforces them?

I think that it simultaneously parodies racial stereotypes and reinforces them. I know that this seems like a cop-out answer but it all depends on who is viewing this television show. I appreciate that Seth MacFalane has quality voice actors and some of the characters are quite educated. However some may feel that the main character (Cleveland) is the butt of too many racial jokes. But Seth Macfarlane does something that made 1980s Eddie Murphy and 1990s Chris Rock popular: Macfarlane pokes fun at ALL races and ethnic groups. 


3) Is it inappropriate for white Americans to make comedy shows about dominantly African American families whether live acted or animated and whether wholesome or a parody?

It is not inappropriate for white Americans, or any white nationality for that matter to make show about African American families. Although The Color Purple was not a comedy, Steven Spielberg had the full support of Alice Walker to adapt her beloved novel. Family Matters had occasional white directors and Trading Places and Beverly Hills Cop had white writers and directors. As long as diverse characters, exposition, and dialogue are on screen, then it is totally acceptable. 

4) If a comedian made jokes exclusively about other races without including their own race, do you think this is okay so long as the jokes are not hate oriented?

One night while watching BET Comic view (back in my high school days) I heard a black comedian say the following: “White people, yall change colors too damn much. Your neck is red in the south, you are red when you are mad, blue when you can’t breathe, black, when you have been beaten-up and purple when you die”. The mostly black audience laughed but some of the audience had white friends with them and they had a look of annoyance on their face. I think that the reason many black comedians make these jokes is due to the minstrel shows of the early 1900s and “its pay-back time”. Not in a hostile sense, but now it’s our turn to make fun of your cultural differences. I would have no problem with a white comedian making jokes at my race, if it were tastefully done. Tastefully done is defined as follows: Make fun of all aspects of an ethnic group, show their complexity not supposedly simplicity. Make fun of the same things that you would make fun of your own race, and put a slight spin on it for the other race. A good example is George Carlin, whom was notorious to talk shot more shit about his own race rather than Blacks, Hispanics, or Asians. A safe zone is a black comedian making fun of Lindsay Lohan’s dumbass and a white comedian making fun of Kanye West’s dumbass. That would be acceptable by all standards because race is involved, but only as a back-drop. Anyone of any race can be a drunkard or an idiot whom interrupts someone’s acceptance speech. 


5) Do you think that programs like The Cleveland Show can be misleading or damaging to ignorant people of any race? 

Yes, but that is not entirely the fault of studios and producers. I am writing a graduate paper for The University Of Oklahoma and I am finding out that the reason pigeonhole and stereotypes exist is due to education lapses in the U.S. Ignorance stems from both education problems and environmental problems. I rich white person may think that most black males are unemployed, wore baggy clothes, and would rather rob someone than find a job. A poor white person may believe that poorer black people are using up “their” welfare, or they might be able to relate to that poor black person. What I am getting at is that stereotypes in entertainment can make people laugh, but the question is are they laughing at that situation on screen due to the comedic prowess of the show, or are they also laughing at that situation because that is how they think the real world is. In regards to the Cleveland Show, which is about a middle class family, the characters are so exaggerated that the pranks are not associated with a particular race. 

6) Is there a better way that you feel that racial comedy should be handled? Is it okay for it to become more controversial?

I think that racial comedy is being handled in the best way possible. Think about the days of Richard Pryor when he released a comedy album entitled “The Nigger Is Crazy”. Now even the most audacious comedians are a bit reserved compared to that. I do not think that people should try to make racial comedy more controversial because it simply becomes more offensive. There is no reason to get engaged in a degradation competition. There are cultural differences in this world and its okay (at least in Democratic societies) to poke fun sometimes. But I think that people should focus much more on situational comedy than ethnic. 

7) Why do you think America is so focused on race as opposed to other countries? 

America is more focused on race because our Constitution was flawed from the beginning. No one included non-whites as being “created equal”. If non-whites were initially considered equals, then comedy and drama would have been based off of regional mannerisms and social class. But in America’s defense most European countries are not as diverse, but England has been praised for making sitcoms and movies that features interracial couples. If America makes a movie about an interracial couple, then their race is the plot of the movie. For some imprudent reason studios have to remind “us” that it is supposedly strange for people of two different races to marry in the 21st century. In England or France that couple would most likely be involved in a plot that had nothing to do with their race.

Miramax – How to not fade in the film business

I believe in honesty when it comes to anything whether it is in friendship, love life, family, work or business. And, besides honesty comes how passionate you should be in whatever desired field you want to be involved in your life. If it is lawn mowing you adore doing for the rest of your life then doing it passionately is the way to succeed, and this simple procedure doesn’t change here. In reality when you try to operate a much bigger company the passion or should say that fire in your heart must be more alive and brighter. This brings the spotlight to Miramax and the man behind the company, who is Ron Tutor.

Mr. Tutor is a tycoon. He is the man who owns a $32 million mansion and construction company that brings $3 billion annually into his pocket. Besides just a mansion with rooms that he doesn’t even have to open the doors to, Mr. Tutor owns a marble appointed 737, a 258-foot yacht. But, this way of life isn’t enough. Like they say, the more you got the more you desire.  And there is nothing wrong with wanting more in life. It is in nature of man. At the Cannes Film Festival last May, Ron Tutor announced himself as Hollywood’s newest movie mogul. Tutor, the construction magnate who only months earlier had led a group that acquired the storied independent film company Miramax from the Walt Disney Co. for $663 million, hosted a lavish party aboard his $65 million yacht Pegasus II, which has six suites, a gym and a screening room.

But the business of film is not in Mr. Tutor’s taste as far as I see. The house that Harvey and Bob Weinstein built has not produced a film nor put any titles in development. Mr. Tutor says that he believes in his experience in the construction business and that it can be used to his advantage in Hollywood. Yet, we haven’t seen one title with a convincing story under name. The construction business differs in many ways from film business. Director David O. Russell walked away from his $26 million unreleased comedy titled Nailed due to the problems and disagreements with Tutor and Bergstein. Bergstein and Tutor met around 2000 introduced by Bergstein’s then-girlfriend, who had known Tutor through a “lady friend” of his, said Tutor in a July 2010 deposition. The then-sixty something Tutor began to frequent L.A. nightclubs with Bergstein, 22 years his junior. It seems to me that Mr. Tutor’s been spending more time in the parties, rubbing shoulders with Hollywood A-Lists, women, holding expensive drinks in hand, smiles, laughs, chewing on a toothpick instead of spending time in the office and come with a strategy to contribute to cinema.

Hollywood pursuits of Mr. Tutor have become a distraction as Robert Ottinger, a shareholders’ attorney stated, and he went on saying that that Tutor should be removed from CEO chair. Tutor’s poor business judgments led him to lawsuits and struggles. If he would be a passionate aficionado of cinema, art, and films, he wouldn’t be in this position. Hollywood increasingly is wondering whether Tutor’s investment in Miramax is fueled by simple vanity or whether he has a viable plan to create a lucrative next act for a company that counts 284 Academy Award nominations and 68 Oscars in its pedigree. The silent rooms of Miramax offices have been brokering digital deals with likes of Netflix and Hulu to generate revenue from the film library and this brings something to my mind. Mr. Tutor stated that his construction experience will be useful in the film business. I don’t think so, Mr. Tutor. I reiterate that film business isn’t construction business. It is crystal clear that he is successful in construction respectively, and it is also clear that when it comes to films, Mr. Tutor has no idea how to deal with stories, ideas, and producing those titles. They are saying that Tutor is a man who knows what he is doing and he will work hard to get what he wants. That’s good, but he’s been showing off his bank account to A-Lists in parties in Yacht from the beginning. He’s been involved with names that have no mindset of distributing films. Besides all that, Tutor shows anger against those who disagree with him. I personally think that he should let someone else sit in his place to open the door for new ideas, bring people who understands the concept of film business. Arrogance and decisions behind closed doors, and then heading off to your lavish parties is not going to get the production banner titles that are Oscar worthy. To avoid fading in the film business, Tutor must forget all things, but to focus on films and before doing that, he needs to earn peoples trust. And in order to earn everyone’s trust, Tutor must show responsibility not bank account and your lavish yacht, which can be destroyed with one wave of twister.

 Thanks to THR for their comprehensive report.

Mad Men Season Five Delivers With A Long-Overdue 2 Hour Debut.

After a 17-month hiatus that was largely the result of unresolved red-tape issues amongst actors and studio executives, Mad Men is back.   The two-episode season five debut is impressive, and this is being said after AMC’s fellow show The Walking Dead ended with a terrific/terrifying season finale that was the most watched in television history.  

I am pleased that executive producer Mathew Weiner and his team of talented writers decided to entertain the possibility of black persons working at Sterling-Cooper-Draper-Pryce advertising agency.  Joan is semi-back from maternity leave and is already fearful that her job might be taken, so the notion of a black secretary may cause personal and social issues.  And isn’t this is what AMC’s period piece all about? 

The character development is still top-notch, and I really admire the professional intensity between Pete Campbell and Roger Sterling, the latter of the two is actually trying to steal clients from the former character.  Don Draper ‘s 2^nd (and rather sudden) marriage is strained after his wife throws him an unwanted surprise birthday party. 

Fringe’s ratings have gone down so much that the show was forced to shoot digitally vice film in its fourth and probably final season.  Mad Men is still shot on 35mm film with anamorphic lens, thus the visual continuity of the show remains unchanged.  But most importantly the notion of good character development, dialogue, and exposition has remained unchanged, yet simultaneously avoids redundancy.  

As Spike Lee speaks up Tyler Perry sheds tears

I don’t know how I missed this long simmering war of words between Spike Lee and Tyler Perry. This is old news, but to me it is quite fresh as I could not help, but to laugh loud. Mr. Lee made my day. Those of you, who don’t know who Tyler Perry is just Google him, I am not going to explain who he is. And, if you don’t know who Spike Lee is I am not going to say anything else except, “That’s a shame.”  First of all, we at Cinematic Impact discuss the impact of cinema, and the effect of a film-maker’s work and a writer’s passion. We discuss how perfect a film is and at times like this article, we bring the spotlight on film-makers and their films that has no impact whatsoever on anything as well. Even on Scooby Doo. And this brings us to Mr. Tyler Perry.

I haven’t seen one film of Mr. Perry from beginning to end or end to its beginning, for first you can’t tell the difference between the opening scene and the final scene. It was about few months ago, I was changing channels and came across a film by Mr. Perry, and I don’t even know what the title was. All I remember is that there was a tall lady with white hair driving a car in dark with other characters sitting in the back. Jesus! – That’s what I said. I turned off the television. Leaned my back against the sofa and closed my eyes to think for a minute. This is what I was thinking: Are you kidding me, Tyler Perry? – What in the god’s green earth is Tyler Perry trying to prove here? Can someone answer that to me?

My intention is not to offend anyone here. I know Mr. Perry has a fan base and his films have its own audience. Yes, its own audience. Mr. Perry’s films have no impact and will never have any kind of positive impact on anyone and it is a fact. Let’s face it. – We have a veteran film-maker like Spike Lee, whose credit includes films like Malcolm X, Miracle at St. Ana. He has his own style and the reason I am bringing Mr. Lee’s name in this article, for there is something interesting Mr. Lee said to Tyler Perry few years ago that made Mr. Perry weep.

This Following Content is brought to you by Cinematic Impact. Courtesy of Huffington Post.

Perry, in both a message on his website and a press conference to promote "Madea's Big Happy Family," hit out against Lee, who in 2009 said, among other things, that Perry's films "harken back to 'Amos n' Andy'." (Wait – I remember the title now. Madea’s Big Happy Family), and to abbreviate the title it goes something like this “MBHF.”

There is more and this is how Mr. Perry the director of MBHF, a film that has no meaning in any way comes back in a conference at Mr. Lee the director of Malcolm X, a film which is a masterpiece. "I'm so sick of hearing about damn Spike Lee," Perry said during the press conference. "Spike can go straight to hell! You can print that. I am sick of him talking about me, I am sick of him saying, 'this is a coon, this is a buffoon.' I am sick of him talking about black people going to see movies.  – what?

And this is how M. Lee puts it all nicely in a professional manner directly to Mr. Perry the director of MBHF:  "Each artist should be allowed to pursue their artistic endeavors, but I still think there is a lot of stuff out today that is coonery and buffoonery," he said in '09. "I know it's making a lot of money and breaking records, but we can do better. ... I am a huge basketball fan, and when I watch the games on TNT, I see these two ads for these two shows (Tyler Perry's 'Meet the Browns' and 'House of Payne'), and I am scratching my head. We got a black president, and we going back to Mantan Moreland and Sleep 'n' Eat?"

I agree with Mr. Lee here. Of course, who is going to agree with Tyler Perry? – And this is what Tyler Perry says about MADEA. - "Madea is a cross between my mother and my aunt. She's the type of grandmother that was on every corner when I was growing up," Perry said. "She smoked. She walked out of the house with her curlers and her muumuu and she watched everybody's kids. She didn't take no crap. (Yeah, like us.)  She's a strong figure where I come from. In my part of the African-American community. And I say that because I'm sure that there are some other parts of the African-American community that may be looking at me now going, 'Who does he think he's speaking of?' But, for me, this woman was very, very visible." – Mr. Perry, yes, she is visible to us as well, but why?

My respect goes to all grandmothers in the world. And, I am apologize on behalf of Mr. Perry to all kind grandmothers. And with all grandmothers now I like to stand and shout, ‘Go To Hell Perry" as there is nothing cinematic in his films. And as far as I see there is nothing new to learn. It's mind boggling, for he somehow manages the funds and his film gets distributed to waste people's money and most importantly their time. Perry in his own words calls another film-maker, Go To Hell. Mr. Perry you are not aware that you are taking the spot of another film-maker/writer who is seeking for a golden opportunity to make a impact, and when someone stands up and criticizes you and your work, which has no meaning whatsoever you have the audacity to disrespect them and come back with phrases that only makes sense to you. Who cares what's going on with your characters in your films? - It's time to stop crying, stop writing nonsensical storylines. It's time to shine, and bring the audience something better than Madea and her big happy family. With all due respect to Mr. Lee, I disagree with him when he referred to Perry as an artist, for there is nothing artistic in Perry's work. I would like to comprehend the point of stories. If he makes it to entertain the audience. There is nothing entertaining in his films. - Why is this guy even allowed to conduct a press conference?

Michael Bay is an Idiot (TMNT Reboot)

Michael Bay is the dark lord of collecting childhood memories and ripping them apart for profit! If he could get away with it, he would hit babies in the face and punt puppies. Bay, who is pegged to do a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (TMNT) live action reboot, graciously revealed a vital piece of information regarding his vision for the smash hit franchise. The ninja turtles will be of extraterrestrial origin, not bi-products of mutation. To no surprise, this tidbit has already sparked fanboy uproar and I happen to be on that frustrated bandwagon. As reported by Entertainment Weekly, Bay claims that retelling the turtles characters as aliens is a direction towards realism.

When you see this movie, kids are going to believe one day these turtles actually do exist when we are done with this movie Michael Bay

Sure, because swapping out mutated amphibians with alien amphibians trained in the art of ninjitsu is the enthused facet that will drive viewers into believability. I trust that my sarcasm was well implied? This envision is not a slight creative liberty of the ilk of Bay slapping painted flames onto Optimus Prime in The Transformers movie series just because he thinks it would look cool. The turtles becoming aliens is a ripple that redefines the entire story in itself, not that Bay had any concern to retain the integrity of what made TMNT the cherished hit that it was. To understand the drastic changes that are inevitably forced upon the franchise, it helps to know the original 80’s animated series’ synopsis as it was the cartoon, not the comics, which escalated the turtles to the popularity they share today. 

TMNT begins with the honorable Hamato Yoshi, a skilled member of Japan’s ninja Foot Clan. Yoshi is framed by Oroku Saki, a fellow clansman who indirectly convinces their sensei that Yoshi means to attack the sensei with a blade. The ruse leads to the expulsion of Yoshi from the Foot Clan and his relocation to America under a guise of shame. Unable to adapt to society, Yoshi opts to delve in the sewers of New York’s underbelly. It is within this dreary existence that Yoshi befriends the sewer dwelling rats and a foursome of young turtles that had recently been lost through a drain. A stroll away has Yoshi returning to his underground domicile to discover his belongings, his pet turtles, and now himself, exposed to a peculiar green sludge that would later be identified as mutagen. The effects of the mutagen contact led to a crossbreed metamorphosis that changed Yoshi into the likeness of the rat he last touched and the turtles into the likeness of Yoshi, the human they last had touched. Now indefinitely fated to remain in hiding, Yoshi takes on the name of Splinter while becoming both father and martial arts trainer to the humanoid turtles. The discipline that Splinter passes to his pupils is exercised for purposes of fighting crime while attempting to maintain a low profile. A relationship in practice that would eventually attract the attention of a reporter name April O’ Neil, who aids in masking the turtles’ whereabouts. The turtles would also soon encounter their destined arch-nemesis, an armor suited man name Shredder whose presence is no coincidence to that of the turtles’ existence.

I hope that synopsis doesn’t sound interesting to you because it isn’t going to happen in the Michael Bay incarnation. If the turtles are to be aliens, there likely isn’t going to be a cavalcade of humanoid animals for the turtles to encounter in the absence of mutagen, including no Splinter. The mystery behind where the mutagen came from or how it came to be spilled into the sewer will not be explored. The Shredder will either not be mention or be less than a tie-in to the plot as he is supposed to be. Subsequent villains, such as the mutagen fused Rocksteady and Bebop or the sinister Krang from Dimension X who funds the arsenal used against the turtles and companions, won’t make their appearances either. Hell, for all I know, the story might not even take place on Earth. The hypotheticals all indicate to a dark place for this reboot.

Granted, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Movie (1990) wasn’t a gold star itself. The movie borrowed loosely from the comics, slapped on a silly premise about restoring morality to misguided youths, and made a mockery of Casey Jones who in the 80’s cartoons was arguably the coolest secondary character in the series. You won’t find me praising the original 90’s TMNT movie nor any of its sequels. This isn’t about them. This is about the potential for something worthy of the TMNT name to emerge in the live action sequence. What Michael Bay has in store is certainly not it.

These turtles are from an alien race, and they are going to be tough, edgy, funny and completely loveable. Michael Bay

Bay’s movies do tend to carry a fat wallet behind them, so I expect effects that are going to be eye popping. It is the story that is going to reek of saturated stupidity. Bay, who is not a writer himself, almost entirely scripted Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen during a writer’s strike because he was confident that nobody really gives a shit about a story, they just want to see things fight each other and stuff blow up. Considering that Revenge of the Fallen over quadrupled its budget worldwide despite being rated only 20% on Rotten Tomatoes and had an even greater financial success with its 3^rd title Dark of the Moon, is proving Bay is correct and that essentially most movie goers have the attention spans of unsalted peanuts. So, will the new TMNT movie be another hit for Bay? I say without a doubt and it is a damn shame too. Not all the bad press in the world is going to keep this movie from turning a successful profit. I wish people would see Michael Bay’s name on a title and say. “Fuck that guy! I’m not watching that.