Monday, March 23, 2009

Pointless Nostalgia 8: Snack Fruit Is Always The Sweetest


No, the picture to the left is not of a character from Alien Nation. Nor is it a vampire that's just been stabbed with a vial of the anticoagulant EDTA by Blade. Nope, it's just some kid that's had an extreme reaction to a lunchtime treat, and from the looks of it, a bad allergic reaction.

This edition of Pointless Nostalgia brings us back to school, and more specifically, the lunch hour we always looked forward to while there. While we were incarcerated in our provincially-sponsored educational jails, the few times we had to have a little fun on our own were cherished as the temporal treasures they were. From kindergarten to Grade 9, recess (short or long), gym class (for the athletic) or field trips (fun ones, not educational ones) provided a much needed respite to allow kids to be kids, that is, act stupid. Lunch was another one of those treasured times, but it wasn't the kids who got to act stupid. It was the parents. The parents who packed their kids' lunches.

Today I had to pop into Safeway to pick up a few things, when I found myself wandering aimlessly, as I often do at Safeway (there's just so much to look at!). I really like to watch people in all their grocery shopping glory and make internal comments about their choices. Mostly, I try to mentally urge overweight people to put away the 24-packs of pop. That's packs, as in many more than one. After catching a glimpse of an attractive lady, I stumbled into the aisle that had some nutritious things, like bran bars and other stuff that tastes like flavoured nut and particle board. In amongst the healthy and tasty snack façade, I saw something I thought went the way of Gene Siskel.

Gushers were still being made? And people were still buying this shit?

For the uninitiated, Gushers are one of many "fruit" snacks that claimed to be a good substitute for candy in children's lunches or any time that kids clamoured for a sugary treat. While it may be true that the snack contained Vitamin C (25% of the daily recommended, in fact), basically it was candy, just in a different form. Looking at this nutritional panel, one pack contained 13 grams of sugar. Sure, they're not Dunkaroos, but come on. If any parent bought these, and thought it would be a good source of nutrition, then they've failed the test of parenting, and repo men should be by shortly to repossess their children. No, Gushers were candy, and nobody should be fooled into thinking they're something different.

Also, they tasted like shit.

Seriously, I hated Gushers and their stupid commercials. The way the "juice" squirted into your mouth after biting was a rather disgusting sensation. However, since I grew up through the eighties and early nineties, I experienced the heyday of fruit snack development and selection. I yearn for the days when there was a plethora of fruit snacks that looked like stuff, or were based on things. Back then, fruit snacks were another juvenile status symbol, like name-brand clothing and top-of-the-line school supplies. If you had the best fruit snacks, the coolest lunchtime edibles, then you could be a god. And I'm sure if God ate fruit snacks, he'd eat any one of the following:

Probably the very first ever-versatile fruit snack was Fruit Roll-Ups. Every kid has eaten a Fruit Roll-up in North America. It's a part of our culture. In fact, I think you have to name at least three flavours on the American citizenship test. If you didn't have FRUs at some point in your school year, you might as well have been a leper or someone who wears Levi's Orange Tabs. After FRUs got a little boring, Betty Crocker decided to make "pop-outs", where kids could pop shapes out and play with them. That was pretty much as stupid as it sounds. It's a malleable jelly sheet, it's not an action figure.

In the late eighties/early nineties, Betty Crocker rolled out Fruit By The Foot, which was exactly like Fruit Roll-Ups, but longer! It boasted "3 feet of fun!" FBTF was pretty cool, mostly for the fact that you could whip your friends with it. However, I went to a Catholic school, and using the excuse "I'm pretending to whip Jesus" doesn't tend to go over that well. (commercial).


Among the many "shaped" fruit snacks out there, there was one that soared above the rest and rained flavour bombs on their homes. Thunder Jets Fruit Snacks. Sure, anyone could eat dinosaurs, gummi bears, sharks or whatever popular kids' TV show or movie was out at the time, but only the bravest children could eat fruit snacks shaped after jet-planes. Seems now like a blatant attempt to get boys to eat fruit (of any nature), but methinks there's an underlying attempt by the Air Force to get entrenched into kids' psyches early on. I know when I ate these, I just wanted to buzz the tower and play some shirtless volleyball.


But the greatest fruit snack of them all proved the age-old saying: "Kids like candy, moron". So what better way to disguise a fruit snack, then by fashioning it after pop? Enter Sodalicious. Every kid likes pop (except for the diabetics), so this was a natural move. Kids like the idea of having pop as a snack, and parents are dumb enough to believe that this should be a part of a healthy lunch. Look at the commercial! The memories! Who doesn't remember squawking the same "So, Sodalicious!" line over and over again? And everybody had their favourite flavour. Out of the flavours like Cherry, Cola and Orange, I think everyone had a special place in their hearts for Root Beer. If anyone anywhere has some Sodalicious still in a cupboard or something, I'll give up my first born child for it. Please note that the odds are slim on a child being conceived by me any time soon (on purpose, anyway), so I'll probably just end up threatening you for them.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Watchmen Update!


Last post I pondered whether or not the new film "Watchmen" could live up to the universe-crushing amount of hype surrounding it prior to its release.

After seeing it on Friday, I needed the last few days to digest, decompress and calm the fuck down. Because I can say without hyperbole, that it lived up to the hype, times ELEVENTY-BILLION INFINITY.

Yeah, it was pretty good. So good that an image of the film now graces my office computer, and that's a HUGE deal. I don't just blanket my monitor with shitty Microsoft stock images. I only want the best when I turn on my screen, so that I can begin the day feeling a bit more awesome than when I arrived at work.

So why are you still reading this? If you're at work, leave! If you're at school, absolutely leave! If you're at home, leave, then get a job. Get out to your closest theatre and prepare to get your nuts smashed.

Friday, March 06, 2009

Who's Watching The Watchmen?


In a few hours, I will be watching the 'Watchmen'. And I hate the fact that I've had to wait so long to see this film. I just hate time so much.

As a big fan of the graphic novel that made it's debut in 12 issues between 1986 and 1987, I have been looking forward to this film like any other average fan. I haven't been sleeping well. I haven't really been eating (that might set me apart from a lot of fans, actually. A lot of fans are fat.). I've been thinking about this film, the characters, the script, the directing, whether or not the craft services were good, if the grips did their jobs well, if I can make any good Halloween costumes from this, etc., etc. Basically, because of this film, I've been making myself stupid...more so than usual.

Back in July, I posted the first trailer for Watchmen, and I asked myself some very important questions. Questions like, "Will 'Watchmen' give me the same neural orgasm that '300' did? Will 'Watchmen' have the same grossly exaggerated amount of slow-motion scenes, possibly making the movie 6 1/2 hours long? Will I have to go to the bathroom during the middle of it, forcing me to contemplate whether or not I have to piss myself in order to avoid missing a single second? Will this film live up to the planet-crushing amount of hype?"

These questions will be answered tonight, especially the last and most important one. Now, I am not a rabid fanboy. I'm not a fan with such a distorted sense of entitlement and reality that I believe that every single moviemaker owes me because I bought a book. No, I haven't been blowing up the internets for the last year with my opinion about the film because I'm just a guy who likes films. However, I know when a film adaptation's been done right and when it's been done horribly wrong. The Dark Knight? Just wonderful. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? Baby vomit.

I do believe that certain films become victims to their own hype, and few actually rise above (see Dark Knight), but the common problem is that many films aren't that bad at all, they just succumb to the immense weight of the accumulated hype and impossible expectations of the rabid masses. Will 'Watchmen' rise above? Only time will tell.

Let's have a look at some other films that I've anxiously awaited night and day for, and how they fared in my opinion.

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999): I waited years for the first episode of Star Wars, and I nearly killed someone in rage after seeing it. Okay, it wasn't that bad, but it wasn't good. Jar Jar Binks ruined two generations of fans who loved the 'Wars, and George Lucas proved that he wasn't the Midas of the film world.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), The Two Towers (2002) and The Return of the King (2003): As a long-time fan of the books I started reading at an early age, I was on the verge of having a nervous breakdown before each film of the trilogy came out, and nearly died from anticipation for the next. After "King" came out, I went through a small bit of film depression because there were no films to look forward to. Were they worth it? You bet your sweet ass they were. Jar Jar Binks isn't going to win a fucking Best Picture Oscar, is he? IS HE?

Sin City (2005): I'm really into the graphic novel adapations, so upon hearing that they were making this series into a film back in 2004, I nearly went into a catatonic state. Lucky for me, I'm not that fucked up. I saw it four times in the theatres, I have two copies of the DVD, and I dressed as "Kevin" for Halloween that year. Yeah, I'd say it was pretty good in my eyes.

Transformers (2007): If there's any film that has had more hype and buildup than this film, I've yet to see it. My generation, that is, the generation that grew up with the Transformers cartoons, had all the action figures and slept with Transformers bedsheets, were merciless in our demands for this film. It had to be absolutely perfect and it couldn't mess with our beloved childhood memories (because I'm sure there'd be dork riots if it did, right?). After getting all stupid over this film up until its release date, I found that afterwards, I was just content. Nobody fucked it up that badly, but it wasn't going to make me buy new sheets.

Speed Racer (2008): I was getting my face set for stunned for this film. I wrote about the trailer giving me wet dreams in high-definition colour and sound, and I couldn't believe that directors as weird and talented as the Wachowski brothers were helming the ship on this one. I mean, this was fucking Speed Racer! I cursed the fact that time was in my way of seeing this movie.

Funny thing, is that I actually didn't see Speed Racer. And haven't seen it. Oops.