Ten Movies That Will Never Be

[McMullen]

"An idealistic campaign staffer for a popular Presidential candidate has their idealism shaken to the core when it is discovered that the candidate, while still a sincere proponent of all the causes and policies that led the staffer to join the campaign in the first place, has committed various moral indiscretions that violate the staffer's personal code of right and wrong. After a dark period of deep, introspective soul searching ... the staffer decides to continue supporting the candidate anyway - because this is the real world where a leader's 'niceness' or 'good intentions' don't mean jack squat if they're going to support wrongheaded policies."

Primary colours

That was my first thought as well. Unfortunately, it was kind of a forgettable movie, as this is the first time I've remembered seeing it in all the years since I saw it.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Also won't happen because Hollywood believes that every Christian is a Corrupt Catholic or a Protestant Jack Chick Clone. Combined with the fact that they refuse to do biblical resurch means that my character will never make the screen.

Um, no, it's just that characters are not people, they are stylized representations of people, and they don't get character traits that have absolutely bugger all relevance to how they act. If a character is described as a Christian, then said Christianity is SIGNIFICANT to their character arc, and "I'm very patient" is not a SIGNIFICANT result of being a Christian, since patience and Christianity are not ideologically related.

If this sort of thing were done, seven will get you ten that it'd be decried as tokenism (which it is), because there'd be no reason whatsoever within the story to even MENTION that the character was Christian aside from "we're trying to be cosmopolitan".

Might as well make the dude a Wiccan, it'd have exactly the same purpose, i.e. none.

 

[shrekfan246]

This column can be seen as satire when viewed from two different angles. One of them leads to "bad" satire" and one leads to "good" satire.

"Bad" satire: "The movie industry is stuck in the past, championing outdated views by peddling safe and uncontroversial crap to the slack-jawed masses. Here are some pitches that would blow people's minds because they simply don't play to eternally perpetuated stereotypes."

This is bad satire because 1) Anyone with half a brain (and one hopes a writer assumes his audience has half a brain because you'd think preaching to idiots every week would be depressing) already knows that Hollywood keeps making trite films. There is no relevation to be had here. and 2) Simply stating something is ridiculous is not good satire. Even if you use a number of opposite examples in order to be "funny". One must make a commentary such as,

"Good" satire: "Hollywood produces a lot of shlock these days, but you know what would be just as awful? Doing the exact opposite of what they've been doing. The stories would be no less predictable, there would be no conflict, and 'guess they were right all along' isn't the best way to teach lessons, moral or otherwise. Here are some examples of that, aren't they bad? Good thing there are people blending both ideas together in order to make good films."

If MovieBob is doing the second then I guess he really did trick everyone. Knowing what we know about him through his other videos it's just easier to assume it's another self-righteous jab from an admitted misanthrope.

First, I would like to say that I agree with you completely.

Getting that out of the way, I'd like to point out that even if it is part of the "bad satire" section, it's still necessary because all of those trite films Hollywood produces over and over again are still making far too much money to make them actually try something that isn't "safe". While it can safely be assumed that the majority of users here on The Escapist do indeed fall into the category of "people with half a brain" and therefore won't have any revelations by reading Moviebob's column, there are far, far many more people out there in the world who just don't care if Hollywood takes chances or not. Sure, they probably won't read this column and won't get a revelation and so it could be argued that Moviebob shouldn't be so cynical, but that's part of the point in itself.

I won't argue the semantics of good and bad satire, especially because I do not know whether Moviebob was stating this as a jab at how the movie industry could be even worse than over-used stereotypes. I will argue that however pointless it is for Moviebob to post something like this article here on The Escapist, a place well-known for being frequented by people educated in all things geek-culture related (video games, movies, television, animation, comics, books, etc., anything that has ever remotely been attributed to geeks/nerds), his article does still have a point to make. It's just that the point is typically already in the lime-light for his particular audience and so they assume he's merely being pretentious and preachy.

Also, I'd like to say that the group I pointed out in my first paragraph who don't care about Hollywood taking chances or not also tend to, from a technical standpoint, fall into the category of people with at least half a brain. Most people have at least half a brain. Just because people have brains, and indeed use them on a daily basis for strenuous thinking activities, doesn't meant that they think about or care about whatever Hollywood does. After all, how many people have defended the Transformer's movies as being "great if you just turn your brain off and enjoy the explosions" or something to that effect?

 

[Harry Mason]

Also, it's pretty obvious that you guys whining about how conceded and "preachy" he sounds aren't in on the joke. You guys realize this article is satire, right?

*sigh*

I generally prefer for satire to be you know, witty? Maybe thoughtful? This is just angry. Furthermore- Precisely. The idea of "satire" however is to improve people, organizations or society yes? You point out something that's wrong, you ridicule it and you try to change it for the better. But in espousing the belief that atheists are inherently superior to religious individuals or that the "uncivilized" "little brown brother" could only benefit from accepting our civilization into his heart there is quite a bit of conceit is there not? What else is the "white man's burden" if not the height of arrogance? And yet here you are defending it. I would ask how reprehensible this warrior's culture is if it could produce a man who could get the better of the organized criminals and modern technology of our world. And so now it's time for him to abandon that culture and embrace the one of the criminals he has stamped under his feet? Why would he? Why SHOULD he? Do you know what kind of suffering that kind of thinking has lead to in the real world? You probably think Bill Maher is funny too. To each their own.

I understand that you can say "Oh it's all a joke, why don't you just laugh at it?" But the thing is, Bob is not a stranger, he is not simply throwing these ideas out here to play opposite day, we know him. He's throwing them out there because these are the things that he believes. And some of them are pretty self-absorbed.

Alright, I'm at a loss. If people don't get the joke, they will never get it, apparently.

Where you're getting racist and anti-religious sentiment from these reversals of movie tropes is beyond me. He pitches a movie about a man who finds out there is no god and subsequently lives a happier life, and you get "Espousing the belief that atheists are inherently superior to religious individuals?" No, it a direct, comedic reversal of a movie plot that has been re-made hundreds of times. It's a joke.

And for the record, no. The "point" of satire is not to "improve society" or even change it. It's merely to make fun of it. Do you think people who make fun of the cast of "Jersey Shore" want people to rise up and take action against Snooky? No. They want to laugh at her. That's all.

If we can't laugh at things we like, religion for instance, then we have no right to like them in the first place.

 

[Ghengis John]

Of course he thinks that his opinion is right, otherwise it wouldn't be his opinion would it?! Would you prefer if we lived in a world where every time someone tried to make a point they had to suffix it with "but of course this is just my humble opinion and I have absolutely no right to assume my thoughts and beliefs mean anything to anyone else, lowly mortal that I am." How fucking dull would that be?

I know some people will disagree with me but there are ways of talking about things, even controversial things, that don't make you look like you imagine yourself to have the only viable opinion. Everyone's going to think that their opinion is the best, naturally, it belongs to them, but of course most of us know that we're going to be wrong sometimes don't we? You don't have to preface everything with some kind of rules of order oath, but how about just not being arrogant and demeaning about it? Do you know what was the worst thing about Bob's video on genetically modified foods? Not only was he woefully misinformed but he made me sit there and listen to him smugly eat a carrot for 30 seconds. If you don't do that kind of stuff you don't look like an ass when you're wrong and it's that much easier to accept other people's input because doing so does not engender you towards being an ass.

How was that?

And for the record, no. The "point" of satire is not to "improve society" or even change it. It's merely to make fun of it. Do you think people who make fun of the cast of "Jersey Shore" want people to rise up and take action against Snooky? No. They want to laugh at her. That's all.

But you don't understand my young friend, that's not satire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire

For the record, I don't hold it against you. People misuse a lot of words. Derision is not in and of itself satire.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Wait, I've got one:

Gay early-20's college student, after much soul-searching, has decided to come out to utterly prosaic white-bread parents, and takes their flamboyantly gay SO along for moral support. However, said coming-out results in happy encouragement from the aggressively white-bread parental units, along with cheerful tales of their own younger-days sexual experimentation. The SO semi-embraces a version of suburban "normalcy", making the college student extremely uneasy and leading to all sorts of relationship conflicts.

Although that's probably been done somewhere as well. Most trope subversions HAVE been done in one version or another.

 

[DRD 1812]

First, I would like to say that I agree with you completely.

Getting that out of the way, I'd like to point out that even if it is part of the "bad satire" section, it's still necessary because all of those trite films Hollywood produces over and over again are still making far too much money to make them actually try something that isn't "safe". While it can safely be assumed that the majority of users here on The Escapist do indeed fall into the category of "people with half a brain" and therefore won't have any revelations by reading Moviebob's column, there are far, far many more people out there in the world who just don't care if Hollywood takes chances or not. Sure, they probably won't read this column and won't get a revelation and so it could be argued that Moviebob shouldn't be so cynical, but that's part of the point in itself.

I won't argue the semantics of good and bad satire, especially because I do not know whether Moviebob was stating this as a jab at how the movie industry could be even worse than over-used stereotypes. I will argue that however pointless it is for Moviebob to post something like this article here on The Escapist, a place well-known for being frequented by people educated in all things geek-culture related (video games, movies, television, animation, comics, books, etc., anything that has ever remotely been attributed to geeks/nerds), his article does still have a point to make. It's just that the point is typically already in the lime-light for his particular audience and so they assume he's merely being pretentious and preachy.

Also, I'd like to say that the group I pointed out in my first paragraph who don't care about Hollywood taking chances or not also tend to, from a technical standpoint, fall into the category of people with at least half a brain. Most people have at least half a brain. Just because people have brains, and indeed use them on a daily basis for strenuous thinking activities, doesn't meant that they think about or care about whatever Hollywood does. After all, how many people have defended the Transformer's movies as being "great if you just turn your brain off and enjoy the explosions" or something to that effect?

Fair enough, it is HIS column after all and Bob can do what he wants with it, but I'll still refute that this edition had value. I just don't see the point in saying something when you either expect most of your audience to agree with you (or at least be on the same page as you) or when you know those that "need to hear the message most" probably won't.

You see Bob has a lot of other columns/videos where he plays against both of those. Sometimes he educates people about something they probably have no idea about or he takes a contrary opinion to the audience that already exists here and makes a commentary. This specific column feels like it speaks to no one.

As for your second point, again, sure. There are plenty of intelligent people who simply don't care about such things. I like some stupid movies myself (and I'm, like, WAY smart), but I generally figure that kind of person doesn't enter into arguments like this. They make a conscious effort to enjoy or lampoon something and thus are not the idiot-masses or the elite. They're just people.

 

[Jackel86]

#2 is just "Milk", right?

 

[JMeganSnow]

No only was he woefully misinformed but he made me sit there and listen to him smugly eat a carrot for 30 seconds.

How is it misinformed to state facts like everything we ever eat, ever, is genetically modified food, in fact, every creature that exists today on earth is "genetically modified" by the very process of natural selection.

Granted, tinkering around with genetics in food doesn't always lead to universally beneficent results--read "Wheat Belly" by Dr. William Davis about some of the negative results of the modification of ancient Einkorn wheat into the modern Triticum aestivum. (Then again, I don't recall anything that's ever been done in the history of the human race that turned out well for EVERYONE, depending on how you judge such things.) I don't recall Bob saying it did. Instead, what he said was "scare-mongering" about "Frankenfoods" without any evidence of specific harms resulting from specific products is *just plain stupid*. Which it is. Are you then in favor of hysterical panicking over nothing? If so, say so. In which case, you're an idiot. But hey, everybody's entitled to be a dumbass occasionally. Or, if not *entitled*, it's *going* to happen *anyway* so there's no point in throwing a fit over it.

That, and unless Moviebob came to your house and tied you to a chair and stuffed his mouth in your ear while he chewed on a carrot, he never MADE you do ANYTHING. You are AWARE that you can just TURN THE VIDEO OFF, eh?

The only people I know who get huffy over people being definitive are the ones who lack the ability to distinguish between facts and opinions. Now, I get huffy over people disseminating incorrect facts and people treating their opinions AS facts (particularly if they then feel the need to run down people who don't share those opinions). But I NEVER get huffy simply over people saying X is X and that's the way it is, period.

 

[Trishbot]

To be honest, all these ideas sound like they'd be really boring, terrible movies to watch.

Where's the one where "Typical white American male goes to movie and is pandered to with movie cliches for and hour and a half. He emerges from the theater, neither embittered or inspired, because he knows it's just a f***king movie and he likes being entertained."

I'm all for diversity in movies, and movies like District 9 and Slumdog Millionaire thrived with hardly any American cast members in sight, but art house and foreign language movies do exactly what MovieBob wants them to do.

Ooh, I got an idea for a movie!
"Movie critic becomes jaded with Hollywood movies, failing to grasp that movies cost millions of dollars and put the jobs and well-beings of hundreds of people on the line for every new venture, thus they will always tend to bank on the safest way to make money. He then discovers that international movies, independent films, and art house pieces do exactly what he craves; telling original stories with strong messages with unique characters that run counter to Hollywood cliches, albeit with far less of a budget or experienced professionals involved. This opens the critics eyes that, wonder of wonders, a world of movies exists outside of Hollywood studio lots."

 

[Blindswordmaster]

1st premise: I love it. Showcase the era through someone who lived it!
2nd premise: Ok, you've got a character, but what's the plot? What does he do?
3rd premise: I love it. Set it in the Congo, but we're going to have everyone speak English. I don't think it would have the same impact with subtitles, but I'm up for debate.
4th premise: I love it, but I don't think it can fill 2 hrs. Also needs Danny Trejo.
5th premise: Love it. Make his break through stem-cell research and put him before some kind of review board. Brilliant!
6th premise: I like it. Show some real inner conflict. Great.
7th premise: I like the character, but what do they do? What's the plot?
8th premise: Don't think it'll fill 2 hrs.
9th premise: Can it fill two hours?
10th premise: Action comedy? Love it.

 

[shrekfan246]

Fair enough, it is HIS column after all and Bob can do what he wants with it, but I'll still refute that this edition had value. I just don't see the point in saying something when you either expect most of your audience to agree with you (or at least be on the same page as you) or when you know those that "need to hear the message most" probably won't.

You see Bob has a lot of other columns/videos where he plays against both of those. Sometimes he educates people about something they probably have no idea about or he takes a contrary opinion to the audience that already exists here and makes a commentary. This specific column feels like it speaks to no one.

As for your second point, again, sure. There are plenty of intelligent people who simply don't care about such things. I like some stupid movies myself (and I'm, like, WAY smart), but I generally figure that kind of person doesn't enter into arguments like this. They make a conscious effort to enjoy or lampoon something and thus are not the idiot-masses or the elite. They're just people.

I would argue that the value lies in pointing out what's wrong with the stereotypes that are portrayed in most films. I would argue that if it weren't for you having a point in saying:

"I just don't see the point in saying something . . . when you know those that "need to hear the message most" probably won't." and "This specific column feels like it speaks to no one."

Most of the people (here, at least) are already aware of the issues and stereotypes that are prevalent in Hollywood films, so yes, this particular article seems to lack a bit of focus in who it actually speaks to. I snipped the first part of the first quote because there is quite a lot of merit in openly speaking about things that a vast amount of people agree with you on. Granted, a lot of examples stumble into the black hole of a pitfall that is the business and corporate world, but it's still valid.

The issue really runs much larger and extends out to the three groups you so eloquently identified: The "idiot-masses", the "people", and the "elite". Trying my hardest to not offend anyone from any particular group (I consider myself to be in the second), the first two groups will typically provide large amounts of money to films such as Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean, Harry Potter, or any number of other highly advertised films because they look like a fun way to kill a few hours, while the third group (and sections of the second group) believe that movies should provide them with some long-lasting worth after the film is actually finished, or at least have some sort of meaningful message told in a unique and stylish manner.

The first group will often not look past the actual content of the film itself after they are done watching. The second group, if they liked the film, might look up the director/producer/composer/actors in the film to see what other projects they've done and keep an eye out on future endeavors. However, in both cases, often what is considered "safe" in Hollywood is what makes the most money, and what makes the most money is what then is created. That's why The Expendables destroyed Scott Pilgrim at the box office. Scott Pilgrim is a movie for the "elite". A fair number from the "people" might like it as well (I did), but it has a very small amount of mass-appeal (though Scott Pilgrim in particular also stumbles a bit from hinging on being liked by video game/comic book nerds instead of just movie buffs, and also has a shot in the foot for being known as a "hipster" thing).

. . . I'm rambling. I'll shut up now before I get even further off-topic.

 

[Jake the Snake]

The one about the kid going to prison going to prison and realizes how good he has it has been done. Actually it's about a GROUP of rebellious rich californian teenagers. It's called Havoc. Anne Hathaway is in it.

...oh and she's naked for two scenes. Which is just lovely.

 

[Ghengis John]

No only was he woefully misinformed but he made me sit there and listen to him smugly eat a carrot for 30 seconds.

How is it misinformed to state facts like everything we ever eat, ever, is genetically modified food, in fact, every creature that exists today on earth is "genetically modified" by the very process of natural selection.

Because there is a marked difference between the transgenic modification he was referencing in regards to "going into DNA" and selective breeding.

Instead, what he said was "scare-mongering" about "Frankenfoods" without any evidence of specific harms resulting from specific products is *just plain stupid*. Which it is. Are you then in favor of hysterical panicking over nothing? If so, say so. In which case, you're an idiot. But hey, everybody's entitled to be a dumbass occasionally. Or, if not *entitled*, it's *going* to happen *anyway* so there's no point in throwing a fit over it.

Woah now, there's no need to get hostile over it. There were two problems, the first was that Bob painted his opposition out to be torch-brandishing villagers. You for instance automatically assume somebody has to be a "dumbass" to have concerns over genetically modified foods. That was the impact that he had upon you. That's what I was talking about in my previous post, his opinions ripple out onto others in nonconstructive ways.

Would you hear me out though? What would you say if I told you that he missed the entire point of why people should be legitimately concerned over GMO's? What if I told you that there were actual non-hysterical, non panicking and scientifically grounded concerns? Concerns that have nothing to do with when you EAT the food and everything to do with what the organisms can do to the environment? From cutting species barriers for disease vectors to ribbons, to cross breeding with wild stock, to the inordinate amount of power they put into the hands of the companies with the patents for the crops to the unforeseen consequences they have displayed when placed out in the field (such as making neighboring crops sterile or killing endangered butterflies) there are real concerns. I'm not saying I'm against the crops themselves, but there is a wealth of information he did not feel he needed to share with you. Is this starting to sound a little less "just plain stupid" to you?

That, and unless Moviebob came to your house and tied you to a chair and stuffed his mouth in your ear while he chewed on a carrot, he never MADE you do ANYTHING. You are AWARE that you can just TURN THE VIDEO OFF, eh?

I don't know about you but I honestly believe in hearing somebody out, even if I don't agree with them.

The only people I know who get huffy over people being definitive are the ones who lack the ability to distinguish between facts and opinions. Now, I get huffy over people disseminating incorrect facts and people treating their opinions AS facts (particularly if they then feel the need to run down people who don't share those opinions). But I NEVER get huffy simply over people saying X is X and that's the way it is, period.

And if they told you that X was Y and that's the way that it was, period. Would you then get huffy? And if you didn't know X was not Y what would you say to the man who came to tell you that X was X? You'd apparently tell him he has the right to be a dumbass.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Of course he thinks that his opinion is right, otherwise it wouldn't be his opinion would it?! Would you prefer if we lived in a world where every time someone tried to make a point they had to suffix it with "but of course this is just my humble opinion and I have absolutely no right to assume my thoughts and beliefs mean anything to anyone else, lowly mortal that I am." How fucking dull would that be?

I know some people will disagree with me but there are ways of talking about things, even controversial things, that don't make you look like you imagine yourself to have the only viable opinion. Everyone's going to think that their opinion is the best, naturally, it belongs to them, but of course most of us know that we're going to be wrong sometimes don't we? You don't have to preface everything with some kind of rules of order oath, but how about just not being arrogant and demeaning about it? Do you know what was the worst thing about Bob's video on genetically modified foods? No only was he woefully misinformed but he made me sit there and listen to him smugly eat a carrot for 30 seconds. If you don't do that kind of stuff you don't look like an ass when you're wrong and it's that much easier to accept other people's input because doing so does not engender you towards being an ass.

How was that?

I know that it is possible to go too far when expression one's opinion, I just don't see anywhere in this article where Bob was going too far.He was just making fun of tired movie tropes in the form of theoretical alternatives to those tropes (Which as a critic falls quite neatly into his job description). That's a long way away from the "lol xD everyone is stoopid but meeee!" approach.

 

[Ghengis John]

I know that it is possible to go too far when expression one's opinion, I just don't see anywhere in this article where Bob was going too far.He was just making fun of tired movie tropes in the form of theoretical alternatives to those tropes (Which as a critic falls quite neatly into his job description). That's a long way away from the "lol xD everyone is stoopid but meeee!" approach.

Yeah well, I honestly hope I'm wrong. I'd be happy enough to see phantoms that aren't there ala Evan Narcisse and have to say sorry than I'd be to see Bob getting increasingly angry. If I've misread him and he's not being self-righteous at all that'd make me happier than being right.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

While a lot of these would make excellent characters or situations in an ensemble television show (specifically because they run counter to Hollywood's 'invert real life and turn it up to 11' philosophy), I think a better reason none of these ideas would make it into movies is for the same reason my typical day at work hasn't been opted for a screenplay- they're normal, plain and boring. We go to see movies for atypical (and often over-the-top or bombastic) situations, not for "normal slice-of-life" stuff. Would R.E.D. have been such a fun movie if the characters did nothing more than garden and complain about benefits?

However, since we're in this mode anyway, here's a pitch:

"An aged man of Asian descent becomes the de-facto guardian of a young American child. Amazingly, neither adopts the other's lifestyle or mannerisms to a ridiculous degree, but the two become friends and learn from each other's history and world-view. Also, martial arts is not involved in any way."

 

[Scrythe]

Whoa, a film critic passive-aggressively listing common clichés in popular media?

What a completely fresh and novel idea!

Spoiler: But in all seriousness...

As a fan, I feel that it may be time for Bob to take a week vacation and clear his head. This year has not been kind to him so far, and he's rapidly running out of things to talk about. I'm not being a dick here, I'm genuinely concerned for the guy.

 

[Drake the Dragonheart]

I know this was about Bob's pitches
(could you use the phrase "in a shocking twist" anymore there Bob? I only kid. I liked some, but where is the conflict in pitch 2? That one sounds like "ordinary life except the protagonist is homosexual." Or was it pitch 3? I already lost track!
But I have a couple of my own, although they may fall into what hollywood regular does but here it goes

" In the future an orphanage or day care facility run by machines and computers is secretly reprogramming anyone sent there to be a deadly top notch secret assassin." This actually came about when my friend and I were in the store and he decided to buy and try some baby food, then we somehow got onto "what if in the future there was a orphanage or day care facility that was completely computerized." Then it somehow led to "you know what might be a neat movie?""If the computers were programming the the kids to be top notch covert assassins.""

Robert Rodriguez rose to the challenge of turning a joke grindhouse movie preview/trailer into an actual full length movie (Machete). Well I place the challenge of turning a Gabriel Iglecias one-liner joke into a full length movie that parodies the Fast and the Furious. Hey look its "The Fat and The Furious." The other challenge here of course is actually making a good parody, and not just being a "_____ movie" movie. Also, not getting hit with massive copyright suits. Oh and if anyone does make this, My good friend and I want to be in on it.

For a serious one along the lines of Bob's pitches

" A young person, a warrior, just coming of age, having grown up in a remote village completely isolated from the rest of the world, has his/her village discovered, and now struggles to unite the beliefs, values, and traditions of his/her peoples' ancient ways with those of the modern world he/she has just discovered." or along similar lines

" A young fellow, born into today's world, but feeling an inexplicable fondess and affection toward the culture, codes, and belief systems (the positive aspects of such anyway)of the past, especially those of the knight and the samurai, while fully understanding they had there dark aspects as well, tries to understand their place in this world.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Because there is a marked difference between the transgenic modification he was referencing in regards to "going into DNA" and selective breeding.

No there is not. In fact, it was selective breeding, not direct DNA modification, that produced modern 48-chromosome mutant wheat which is almost entirely unsuitable for human consumption. *Both* methods can have unpredicted outcomes which can be good or bad. Heck, you can say the same thing about ANY HUMAN ACTIVITY. However, *refraining* from tinkering does have one utterly predictable and inevitable outcome: people starving to death.

No sane person is in favor of every bizarre thing that some random scientist might happen to come up with. This does not justify hysteria and scare-mongering tactics.

Honestly, if someone comes up to you and says, "scare-mongerers are idiots", why would you then go out and say "he means me! but I have legitimate concerns! How dare he insult me!" If the shoe DOESN'T fit, DON'T WEAR IT. Otherwise you're insulting YOURSELF. Which is also kind of stupid.