Ghost Busted!

Say, are you sick of hearing the interminable controversy surrounding the Ghostbusters remake? Tired of being labeled anti-feminist because you thought the film was tepid at best? Are you happy the movie finally came, flopped and went so you never have to hear about it ever again?

HAW! You wish, pal! I've got bad news for you— the Ghostbusters 2016 controversy is back! Except instead of focusing on the movie, the public is now turning its outraged eye toward the Halloween costumes based on the film!

Apparently people are incensed with the Women's Ghostbusters Movie Costume ($39.99) and the Women's Deluxe Ghostbusters Movie Costume ($49.99). The Fusion website (whatever that is), is enraged that neither of these costumes comes complete with the requisite pair of ghostbusting boots. And they're positively livid that the model here is shown posing in a pair of (gasp) heels!

Jesus wept.

Slow news day, Fusion? Goodness, you reeeeeeally had to reach for that one. You'd better be careful, or you're going to pull a muscle straining for something to be outraged about.

I should point out that there are actually boots ($34.99) available to complete your Women's Ghostbusters Movie Costume, but they're sold separately. But that apparently doesn't matter, as the damage has already been done by the model wearing (brrrr…) heels.

Fusion's also quite infuriated by the Ghostbusters 2016 line of wigs— especially the Patty one, natch (as seen on the right). OK, I'll admit that they all look like piles of hot garbage and don't look remotely like the styles worn by any of the actresses in the film. But they cost $19.99 each! Of course they look terrible! What the hell do you expect for a measly twenty bucks? 

Fusion is also very upset that the Women's Ghostbusters Movie Costumes come in "Women's" sizes only, but the Men's Ghostbusters costumes feature a somewhat unisex "Adult" label. Said Fusion, "Is the idea of a boy or a man wanting to dress as a female Ghostbuster really that unthinkable?" I suppose it's not unthinkable. "Unlikely" might be a better word.

I guess the politically correct hellscape that passes for our society is now at the point where women's costumes are required to come in men's sizes, or someone's going to experience icky bad feelings. And we can't have that.

Fusion then continued their whinging, complaining that if women want to dress as characters from the original film, their only option is the Sexy Ghostbuster costume. Really? The only option? Why couldn't a woman just buy the goddamned Men's Ghostbusters costume and call it a day?

Besides, isn't this called "capitalism?" If no one wanted a Sexy Ghostbuster costume, then it wouldn't exist. This is hardly the first time these have been available-- somebody must be buying them.

So let me see if I can wrap my head around this. People are complaining that a model's shown wearing impractical heels, they're mad that the cheap wigs look like cheap wigs and won't make them look exactly like Melissa McCarthy, they're pissed that there are no male versions of a female costume (?) and hate that the Sexy Ghostbuster costume exists even though they could just buy the male version. Got it.

I suggest forgetting the whole thing and just buying this stylish Slimer hat/mask instead.

Everything Old Is New Again

Last year when I reviewed Star Wars: The Force Awakens, my biggest complaint with it was that it was pretty much a remake of the original film, Star Wars: A New Hope. Virtually everything in The Force Awakens has an analogue in the Original Trilogy. There's even a third Death Star that needs blowed up!

I didn't just imagine that. In an interview earlier this week JJ Abrams actually admitted copying the original:

“The weird thing about that movie is that it had been so long since the last one. Obviously the prequels had existed in between and we wanted to, sort of, reclaim the story,” Abrams said. “So we very consciously—and I know it is derided for this—we very consciously tried to borrow familiar beats, so the rest of the movie could hang on something that we knew was Star Wars.”

Basically, they felt they wanted to give audiences a reminder of what made Star Wars great. Something simple and familiar. And then, Episodes VIII and IX could have the freedom to get weird.

“This movie was a bridge and a kind of reminder,” Abrams said. “The audience needed to be reminded what Star Wars is, but it needed to be established with something familiar, with a sense of where we are going to new lands, which is very much what 8 and 9 do.”

Yes, I can certainly see why Abrams needed to remind the public just what Star Wars is. Because lord knows, in the past thirty nine years there have been no animated TV series, comic books, novels, reference books, newspaper strips, magazines, video games, plush toys, action figures, board games, prop replicas, t-shirts, bedspreads, pillowcases, rugs, posters, art prints, pajamas, outerwear, hats, costume replicas, museum exhibits, shoes, jewelry, toasters, waffle makers, makeup, shampoo, soap, soup, dog toys, Lego sets, coffee, coffee creamer, tea infusers, bike helmets, lawn ornaments, Christmas decorations, Christmas tree ornaments, chopsticks, clocks, watches, towels, cake pans, cakes, key rings, phone cases, guitars, oven mitts, gloves, necklaces, belts, kites, toy cars, backpacks, cardboard cutouts, headphones, bandaids, skateboards, underwear, dishes, mugs, glasses, lunch boxes, furniture, toilet seats, purses, wallets, dog bowls, model kits, cereals, soups, candies, facial tissues, trading cards, DVDs, blu rays, CDs, and even theme parks based on the property.

Thank you, JJ Abrams, for reminding me that Star Wars exists. 

Thanks A Lot, Deadpool!

WonderBlog Powers, Activate! Form Of... An Angry Blogger! Shape Of... An Outraged Comic Fan!

The Deadpool movie has been out for less than a month as of this writing, and in that time it's racked up over $300 million dollars. And that's just here in the States. Worldwide it's closing in on $700 million! Astonishing!

This is absolutely unprecedented for an R-rated film, which theoretically prevents a good chunk of the movie-going public from seeing it (I say theoretically, because there are a lot of Parents Of The Year out there taking their five year olds to see this incredibly violent and profane film).

Naturally Deadpool's huge box office numbers are attracting the attention of every studio executive in Hollywood, all of whom are eager to duplicate its massive success.

A few days after Deadpool's premiere, James Gunn (director of Guardians Of The Galaxy) took to the interwebs, saying he's worried that Hollywood will learn the wrong lesson from the film's success and begin pumping out subpar, R-rated clones. Said Gunn:

"After every movie smashes records people here in Hollywood love to throw out the definitive reasons why the movie was a hit. I saw it happen with Guardians. It “wasn’t afraid to be fun” or it “was colorful and funny” etc etc etc. And next thing I know I hear of a hundred film projects being set up “like Guardians,” and I start seeing dozens of trailers exactly like the Guardians trailer with a big pop song and a bunch of quips. Ugh."

"So, over the next few months, if you pay attention to the trades, you’ll see Hollywood misunderstanding the lesson they should be learning with Deadpool. They’ll be green lighting films 'like Deadpool' – but, by that, they won’t mean 'good and original' but 'a raunchy superhero film' or 'it breaks the fourth wall.' They’ll treat you like you’re stupid, which is the one thing Deadpool didn’t do."

Gunn is absolutely right here, as well as eerily prophetic. In fact, just a scant twenty four hours after he posted his rant, 20th Century Fox announced that their upcoming Wolverine 3: Even Wolverinier will be rated R!

And in even worse news, this week Warner Bros. announced that their upcoming Batman V Superman, which is rated PG-13, will be rated R when it comes to home video. Yep, you heard right, an R-rated Batman and Superman.

Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh... That was the sound of the tattered remains of my soul leaking out of my body.

Jesus Jet-skiing Monkey Farting Christ On A Pogo Stick! If ever there was a superhero who should never, never, EVER star in an R-rated film, it's Superman! 

Superman was the grandfather of all superheroes. He stands for Truth, Justice And The American Way! He saves airplanes falling from the sky and knocks planets back into orbit, but isn't too busy to rescue a cat from a tree. He's the perfect do-gooder superhero. He's... well, he's super!

Superman and his adventures should be suitable for all ages. He was never meant to be a violent, neck-snapping psychopath. And yes, I know he killed in the comics in his early days, but that was before his character was nailed down. And I'm sure he's busy killing now, in today's blood-soaked and rape-filled comics. But that's not the Superman I grew up with, nor the one I want to see in a film.

Superman is not that complicated. He's pretty darned simple, and yet somehow Warner Bros. has completely missed the point of the character in his own film a couple years ago, and they're doing it again now.

Wolverine I can see being R-rated. After all, he's got freakin' knives that come out of his hands, and he swings 'em around disemboweling people left and right. His actions practically scream "R."

I don't like the idea of an R-rated Batman, but he's been going down the grim and gritty path for many years now, ever since Frank Miller's seminal comic The Dark Knight Returns, which seems to be the inspiration for Batman V Superman. So while it doesn't make me happy, an R-rated Batman isn't totally out of the question.

But an R-rated Superman? Absolutely, positively not.

In happier news, this week Marvel Studios brought a small amount of well needed order back to the cosmos, when they announced they have absolutely no plans to ever make an R-rated superhero movie. Good for them.

Stamp Out Daylight Savings Time!

Once again it's that magical time of year when I'm forced against my will to get up at 4:30 AM and pretend it's 5:30 AM.

Daylight Savings Time. How I loathe it.

I'll bet if you asked any of our current lawmakers why we still adhere to this outdated and abhorrent custom, not a one of them would be able to offer a logical explanation. Most would probably say it has something to do with farmers and giving them more time to plant crops. It does not. 

DST was originated by the Germans in 1916 as a way to save fuel during WWI. Yes, that's right. We all lost an hour of our lives today due to a decision made by our former enemies over a hundred years ago. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Most people believe DST saves energy by giving us an extra hour of light at night. It does no such thing, and studies have shown energy usage actually goes up a percentage or two during DST. It's also dangerous, as auto wrecks and suicides rise the week after it's implemented.

For decades I lived in a part of the country that didn't recognize DST. We were on the same time all year round, and guess what? The city wasn't razed to the ground. We were never visited by seven plagues. Dogs and cats didn't begin living together. We happily went about our business while the rest of the country used more power, crashed their cars into one another and hanged themselves. The only minor downside of not recognizing DST is that our TV shows started at 7PM in the spring, and 8PM in the fall.

It's way past time we stopped this antiquated and ridiculous tradition. I urge everyone to relentlessly pester their lawmakers to repeal this idiotic piece of legislation, until they throw up their hands in defeat and cede to our wishes. 

Even better, let's all just ignore DST Let the government do whatever they want with their clocks, and we'll all just keep ours on the same time year round. Sure, we'll all be an hour late for work eight months out of the year, but that's a small price to pay to keep our internal clocks regulated.

This Week In Odd Supermarket Sightings

A couple of years ago I went on one of my patented, crowd-pleasing rants about Big Cereal's insidious new practice of surreptitiously shrinking their product boxes while keeping the price the same.

I specifically called out Kellogg's for aiming their Shrink-O-Tron ray at their Crunchy Nut cereal, reducing it by almost a full ounce while leaving the price at an inflated $3.99 or whatever it cost.

Wiseacre that I am, I quipped that if left unchecked, we'd eventually see ridiculously thin boxes of cereal like the one on the right here.

Looks like my little joke was frighteningly prescient. Take a look at this suspiciously narrow box of cereal I spotted in the wild on my latest expedition to the grocery. It's a good two inches narrower than its neighbors on either side. If it gets any narrower it's gonna be hard for it to stand upright without assistance.

I have no doubt that this svelte new box holds significantly less than the previous version did, while costing exactly the same (if not more).

I was right about the boxes getting thinner in the future— I was just wrong about the direction.

———————————————————————————————

I also recently spotted this at my local grocery— yes, we now live in a world in which it's possible to buy muffin tops, sans the boring, less delicious and disposable bottoms. Just like in the 1997 The Muffin Tops episode of Seinfeld.

All will hail and pay homage to our new prophet and seer, Elaine Benes!

Free Speech

Saw this mobile manifesto a couple of days ago in the parking lot of my local grocery.

I may not agree with what he says, but I'll defend to the death his right to... ah, who am I kidding? I ain't throwing my life away for this nut job's incoherent ramblings.

So what the hell is this tin foil hat wearer going on about here? What life or death message was so important that it needed emblazoned on the back of his truck in crudely scrawled, foot high letters, for all the world to see?

Based on the tiny, barely visible pot leaf on the door, I think it's got something to do with marijuana. Exactly what it has to do with pot though, I have no idea.

I think maybe he's for the legalization of pot. Prohibition means to, well, prohibit something. I guess he's asking if the criminalization of pot has made the world a safer place? Or would we all be better off if everyone was at home on their couches, stoned our of their minds? He's got Indiana plates, and pot ain't legal here. In fact, the Hoosier state has some of the strictest marijuana laws in the country. So I think he's ranting against Indiana's drug laws. 

Honestly I'm not really sure. Figuring out what this demented screed means is like trying to catch a butterfly. Every time I've almost got a hold of it, it flutters away just out of my reach.

One would think if one is going to go to the trouble of reducing the resale value of one's truck by slathering it with an indelible proclamation, one would at least make sure it was coherent and intelligible.

What Are Jittery Soccer Moms Offended By This Week?

This week, Susan Schrivjer, a Florida mother with way too much time on her hands, entered her local Toys R Us store and was appalled to find out that they actually sell toys.

Schrivjer, who really needs to learn how to spell her last name, was shocked and stunned when she saw Breaking Bad action figures on the shelves. She predictably started a petition protesting the sale of such items in a children's toy store.

"Toys R Us is well known around the world for their vast selection of toys for children of all ages. However their decision to sell a Breaking Bad doll, complete with a detachable sack of cash and a bag of meth, alongside children's toys is a dangerous deviation from their family friendly values" said Schrivjer, who is renowned for knowing what's best for the rest of the country.

"Kids mimic their action figures, if you will," said the well known stick-in-the-mud. "Do you want your child in an orange jumpsuit?"

Jesus wept. This is why we can't have nice things. 

First of all, what a timely observation, Ms. Schrivjer! These figures have been hanging on the pegs at Toys R Us for at least two years now, and nobody said boo until now. I'd say that's a good indication they're not going to cause the downfall of our civilization.

Second, if your kid, or any other kid wants one of these figures, which I find unlikely, whatever happened to saying "no?" Saying no and letting the rest of the population get on with their lives, instead of trying to force your uptight values on the rest of us.

She's really gonna need her fainting couch when she finds out they sell Game Of Thrones and Walking Dead figures as well!

Look morons, here's the deal. Whether you like it or not, some comics are for adults, some video games are for adults, and some toys are for adults. Get that through your heads. That's the way it's been for many years.

These toys are clearly made for adult collectors. Adult as in grown up, not as in "bowm chica bowm bowm." They're in the adult collector aisle, which is a thing at Toys R Us, and they're plainly marked as being for adults. 

No kid is going to want these toys anyway. Kids want superheroes and Power Ranger figures. They have zero interest in an unarticulated figure of a grizzled guy in a hazmat suit. If they even see these figures at all, they're going to glance at them for a second and then move on.

How the hell would a kid even know what they are in the first place? If your kid is watching Breaking Bad, you've got bigger problems that what Toys R Us stocks on its shelves.

I don't get why this panicky busybody's opinion carries so much weight in the first place. So she doesn't like what Toys R Us sells. So don't shop there! Go to Target or Walmart and let the rest of us live our lives, free of her misguided beliefs. Why doesn't Toys R Us just tell her to go pound sand and be done with it?

If the Jittery Soccer Mom Brigade really wants something to fuel their outrage, what about the entire aisle of Burly Men In Speedos, er, I mean the Wrestler Figure aisle marketed toward little boys?

Or Mattel's line of slutty Bratz dolls. Surely those aren't sending out a positive message. Where's all the sturm and drang over those?

As if all this wasn't enough, Toys R Us announced today that they're caving and pulling the Breaking Bad figures from their stores nationwide. Sigh. 

Damn you, Toys R Us. God damn you and the lily-livered, cowardly giraffe you rode in on. One brittle, overprotective helicopter parent complains because she fears her precious snowflake is going to see a flippin' toy and immediately start cooking meth, and you fold like a cheap card table.

Shame on you, and everyone who supported this nut job and her asinine petition.

George Carlin Was Right

Saw this on the internet superhighway today. Facebook is considering labeling posts from The Onion as satire, so as not to confuse and bamboozle their dimmer readers.

Please tell me this is an article from The Onion.

I Am Spurious Yellow Update

I first wrote about this back in March, but it's time for an update.

First there was Monsters, Inc. Note the army of minions in yellow hazmat suits.

Then there was Despicable Me. These minions aren't wearing hazmat suits, but they're still yellow.

Then there was Escape From Planet Earth. Army. Yellow. Hazmat. Minions. I'm beginning to sense a pattern here...

And in theaters this very moment is Free Birds. Jesus Jetskiing Christ! Again with the army of minions in yellow hazmat suits! What the hell, Hollywood?

One could argue that the Despicable Me Minions are simply a coincidence, as they're an army of beings who just happen to have yellow skin.The Escape and Free Birds troops though are just plain old fashioned ripoffery...

 

Is there some show business law that says every computer animated kid's movie has to contain an army of yellow hazmat-suited minions? 

Did the same conceptual artist work on all these films? Does he bounce from studio to studio, designing armies of yellow minions before being fired and starting the cycle anew at another company?

Next year I fully expect to see a poster for Army Of Yellow Hazmat-Suited Minions: The Movie!

Tie-yi-yi-yime Ain't On My Side

So this morning I had to force myself to crawl out of bed at 5 freakin' a.m. and pretend it was 6. Thanks, Daylight Savings Time! You're the greatest!

Why do we keep allowing this to happen? Why do we let the government turn us all into jet-lagged zombies for a week or so every March? How did this godforsaken practice get started in the first place?

Most credit DST to America's favorite bespectacled founding father Benjamin Franklin, who wrote a letter in 1784 saying that if we all got up with the sun we'd use fewer candles at night. There's two things wrong with that idea: A. Candles and B. He wrote this treatise as a joke while flirting with the ladies in Paris.

The idea didn't even gain acceptance in Franklin's time. It wasn't until World War I (and later WWII) that the practice finally caught on as a way to conserve coal. Yeah, coal. Like back when you had to shovel hunks of coal into the stove in the middle of your living room and huddle around it to keep from freezing to death in your own home. That's patriotic and all, but... I'm pretty sure those wars ended several years ago (Spoiler alert! We won!). We could probably go ahead and stop using those two conflicts as an excuse.

Some say we need to continue DST because of the energy savings as supposedly the earlier we get up in the morning, the less electricity we'll use for lighting in the evening. However, recent studies have shown that the amount of electricity saved by DST is about 1%. That's nowhere near enough to make it worth plunging your face in a sink full of ice water in an effort to try and wake yourself after getting up an hour earlier.

So much for the so-called benefits of DST. Are there any downsides other than falling asleep at your desk the first week after the time change? There are indeed. Studies show that traffic accidents spike the Monday after the DST switch, as motorists try to catch a few winks behind the wheel. I have no problem believing this, as I saw 2, count 'em two wrecks this morning within a couple miles of one another.

I'm tempted to just say "screw all y'all" and leave my clocks alone, functioning on my own personal time. Besides dulling my senses for a week, I've got a lot of clocks in my house and I've got better things to do than spend a couple hours changing them. Sure I'll be an hour late to work every day until November but that's a small price to pay for my freedom from chronal oppression. Descendit cum tempore!

I Am Spurious Yellow

Last weekend I went to the cineplex, and while waiting in line for my $4.99 each popcorn and drink (or get the Combo Deal for only $10!) I saw this poster for the new film Escape From Planet Earth.

Didn't see it, won't see it, have zero interest in ever seeing it. It looks like nothing more than a pastiche of every CGI log that Hollywood's squeezed from its supple, spray-tanned ass cheeks in the past six or seven years and I guarantee you that at some point during the run time there's a montage set to Smash Mouth's All Star.

But Bob, you're saying, lighten up! Take your medicine! It's just a kid's movie, for Thor's sake! Doesn't matter. Just because it's for an undiscerning audience of kids who haven't developed taste yet is no excuse for turning out crap. And derivative crap, to boot!

Don't believe the derivative part? OK then, look closely at the poster. Notice the yellow-uniformed goons chasing the lead characters. Do they look familiar to you? Does it feel like you've seen them somewhere before? No?

How about now?

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then what is blatant duplication?

That rustling noise you hear isn't the wind in the leaves, it's the sound of a thousand Disney lawyers stuffing legal pads into their Armani briefcases.

Then there's this. Maybe not in the same ballpark, but definitely on the same block. 

What the hell is it with CGI henchmen and the color yellow? Is it some kind of law or something?

Things I Just Don't Get: Wood Panel Cars

I try to keep up with all the things the kids today like, such as pogs, Alf and the Rubik's Cube. But hip as I am, even I can't keep up with all the new trends. Sometimes I just don't understand what's going on. 

Some Things I Just Don't Get.

Take the wood paneled car, for instance. I've never quite understood the point of gluing sheets of wood to the side of a car. Are the wooden panels supposed to look stylish? Does the paneling make the car seem more luxurious? More rustic? Tropical?

Obviously the panels are supposed to be an accent of some kind, but I just can't see how a low-tech substance like wood is supposed to enhance the look of a sleek, modern metallic vehicle.

Does a wooden car have more perceived value? Am I meant to gaze enviously at such vehicles as they pass by and think, "Wow, look at that! A car made out of wood! Shucks, my old jalopy's nothing but chrome and steel."

Maybe it's a throwback to a more innocent time when households had one TV set, families dressed up when they went to a restaurant and everyone had basement "rumpus rooms" that were covered in wood paneling?

Perhaps it's some kind of misguided status symbol. I can see it now: a social-climbing suburban housewife looks out the window and sees her neighbor's wooden car parked across the street. "Murray!" she screeches. "Come look! The Goldblatt's have a new car! And it's made of wood! One of the expensive ones, no doubt, like oak or teak. That settles it, we're going car shopping tomorrow night!"

Now that I think about it, why do the panels only cover the sides of these cars? Why not go all out and cover the whole vehicle so that it looks like the entire thing was carved out of wood? Now that would be stylish! You'd have style seeping out of your ears if you owned a totally wooden car!

Once a common sight on the nation's roads, the wood-paneled car's popularity has waned in recent years. No doubt because drivers wised up and thought, "Why am I sitting inside a gasoline powered wooden vehicle?" There are still plenty of them out there though if you look hard enough.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I prefer my car to look like it was manufactured on an assembly line in some sort of factory. I don't want to drive around in something that looks like it was cobbled together by the Professor from Gilligan's Island.

Bad Idea Of The Week

This week marked the premiere of the movie The Oogieloves In The Big Balloon Adventure.

Never heard of them? Yeah, me either. Few rational humans have. It's the story of Goobie, Zoozie and Toofie, three actors in unappealing 1990s-era animatronic suits who live in Lovelyloveville. If your breakfast is still sitting in your stomach after reading that, then you've a stronger constitution that I have.

The movie is the brainchild of one Kenn Viselmann (who apparently has an "n" fetish), the marketing genius who brought The Teletubbies to American shores. In other words, Public Enemy #1.

Viselmann says the big draw of this movie is that it's "interactive," encouraging the audience to sing along with the characters, shout at the screen and dance in the aisles. Viselmann says he got the idea after watching audiences yelling at the screen during Tyler Perry movies and The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Excuse me now while I shudder uncontrollably for a few minutes.

As they say in every Star Wars movie, "I've got a baaaaad feeling about this."

If there's one thing the American public absolutely does not need, it's incentive to talk during a damn movie. Our society doesn't need a children's film that encourages them to yell at the screen, sing out loud and dance in the aisles. Such a film will only teach children that this is acceptable behavior. This kind of thing needs to be squelched now. Violently squelched, with extreme prejudice, before it has a chance to catch on and grow.

This I vow: if ten years from now I'm sitting in a theater and everyone around me is singing and dancing in the aisles, I will hunt down Mr. Kenn Viselmann and punch him squarely in the throat. And then I'll get mad!

Somehow they managed to blackmail recruit some actual recognizable names to star in this mess: Toni Braxton, Christopher Lloyd (!), Cary Elwes, Chloris Leachman and Jamie Pressly. The actors are all inexplicably wearing ghastly and overdone makeup that looks like my Nana applied it and makes everyone looks a good fifty to sixty years older than they really are. Actor Chazz Palminteri also stars in the film, cause you know, kids just loooove watching Chaz Palminteri. In fact my two young nephews watch The Usual Suspects and A Bronx Tale over and over and over every day.

Actually there may be no cause for alarm here. According to news accounts, the Oogieloves is on track to becoming one of the lowest-grossing films ever. It premiered on 1,500 screens on August 29 and brought in a paltry $60,000 total. I'll do the math for you-- that comes out to only $40 per theater!

Good! An idea like this one needs to die a painful and fiery death.

The Shrink-O-Tron Strikes Again: Triscuits

Back in April I posted a long-winded vitriolic rant about how the wretched blackguards at Nabisco had reduced my beloved Triscuit snack crackers from a 9.5 ounce box down to a mere 9. Needless to say I was not happy with this development.

Now they're at it again! I was browsing my local Big!Lots a couple of days ago and saw that the Triscuit box has been smallified even further! It's now a mere shadow of its former self, weighing in at a wispy 8 ounces. We've lost one and a half ounces of crackery goodness in the space of but four months!

This is getting ridiculous. Do they really think no one will notice? Do they really think I won't realize that I can now only cram eight fistfuls of crackers into my mouth at a sitting instead of ten like I used to?

Of course even though the size and contents of the box is steadily vanishing before our very eyes, fortunately for the Nabisco shareholders the price is staying rock steady and hasn't gone down a single penny.

At this rate I fully expect to see something like this sometime next year.