And, if that weren’t such a high honor itself . . .
“Weird Al” gets his first ever Porn Parody!
The link goes to The Onion AV Club but the word “Porn” is prominently featured in the headline, so I’m going to treat it as a NSFW link and put it under a Spoiler tag. In terms of graphic images, it’s more or less SFW.
The article describes WoodRocket dot com’s photo gallery for “Weird & Naked UHF”, a parody of Al’s movie UHF, with non-nude photos included for the AV CLub article and a link to the full uncensored gallery.
O.K., I fully recognize that it is tacky to bump a Thread just to say “Hey, everybody! Read my last post!!!” and I will accept any disapprobation that may be heaped upon me . . .
. . . but I can only conjecture that the Porn Parody news failed to incite response simply because everyone who was interested in a “Weird Al” Thread had already had their fill after four pages and, therefore, anyone who might be interested in the news of the porn parody just did not see my post announcing it.
I just can’t believe that anyone here read the news of the porn parody and yet felt no need to comment on it.
C’mon! When would you ever again have the opportunity to type a sentence like:
“Hey, the woman playing Stanley Spadowski is really hot!”
?
O.K., I won’t bump the Thread again.
If no one’s interested in the UHF porn parody, it’s your own loss.
Question: I was thinking of buying the album on iTunes, since I have a credit there, and it would be my first non-physical purchase of one of his albums (on the assumption that I could just burn my own copy). Would I be missing anything substantial by doing so?
The artwork is cool but there isn’t anything special about the packaging: just a booklet stuffed in a standard jewel case. There may be some jokes in the liner notes, I don’t have it in from of me to check right now.
No “easter eggs” or hidden tracks.
None of the porn linked above is included in the CD booklet.
I’d say the booklet doesn’t provide anything of value to anyone who would even consider buying the digital album instead. If you’re not the kind of fan who considers the physical CD with artwork to be a must-have even before seeing it, then I’d say that this particular release isn’t spectacular enough that it would sway you from your inclination toward the iTunes purchase.
Not so clear to me. I thought it was clear that there’s no excuse for writing words with numbers, unless you’re 7 years old (or your name is “Prince”).
Al is usually pretty current with his jokes as well, and the movie Se7en is old enough that the target audience for “Blurred Lines” probably wouldn’t remember it. Hell, I watched Se7en shortly after it came out on DVD, and I certainly didn’t think of it when I heard the song.
But then, maybe he was thinking of the movie, in which case the line is a triple word play.
Right. The movie thing doesn’t make any sense. Sorry, gonzoron family. And when that movie came out I called it “SeSevenen” whenever I could. I think that kind of typography silly.
And yet would know who Prince is? And that he uses numbers for letters in song titles? Al still attempts (and succeeds) to remain hip to the youngsters, but there are gags for all ages in his best songs. I’m sticking with my interpretation. You’re free to stick with yours. Guess we’ll have to wait for another “Ask Al” or “I am Weird Al AMA” to ask him to be sure…
The IMDb has a precise definition for what the title of a film is. They consider it to be the title that appears on the screen during the title sequence of the film. They do not consider it to be the title that appears on the film posters or in the advertisements for the film or on the DVD cases or in TV showings or any other such thing. The title that appears on the screen during the film is Se7en. The MPAA board has a different definition, which I don’t know about.
Similarly, the IMDb and the Oscars have different definitions of what year a film opened. The IMDb considers it to be the first public showing of the film, no matter where that happens or for how long it lasts. The Oscars considers it to be the year that it showed for a week straight at a movie theater in Los Angeles County.
shrug If Al made the video himself, I’d agree, but he contracted it out to an animator named Jarrett Heather. I don’t know how closely together they worked, or if Heather just missed the (alleged) Se7en joke or decided to go a different way with it. So I’m going to keep being “wrong” if you don’t mind. In the grand scheme of things, a 2 second gag in a parody song is not high on my list of things to get worked up about.
The thing that kills me is that I knew you were going to reject this clearly definitive cite and I went ahead and posted it anyway, hoping against hope that it would resolve this. I’m a fool of a Doper, I guess. And I’m going to keep trying: you don’t think Weird Al saw the video before it was done and approved of its contents?
I’m not sure why you’d think I’d consider the video definitive, since my first post on the subject was:
Clearly I’d seen the video and been unconvinced.
Of course he saw and approved it, but would he really tell the guy to go back and fix it for missing/reinterpreting one joke? Maybe he liked that version better. Maybe it was “good enough” and there wasn’t time to fix it. I don’t know. The fact remains that the video is the video and the song is the song and the video doesn’t prove anything with respect to the intent of the song.
Of course. :smack: I’d lost track of where this ridiculousness began.
Yes. These are professional creative people and paying attention to detail is really important. Botched jokes aren’t very funny, and neither are obscure references to movie titles. For the record, your version still doesn’t make sense; there’s nobody named Seven in Seven (the killer is John Doe) and nobody in the movie writes words using numbers. It’s just something they did with the title. And yes, Prince is still somewhat well known. In fact he’s kind of a big deal.A really big deal.
