http://www.netflix.com/AwardPage?awardId=76 && http://www.netflix.com/AwardPage?awardId=77. Those are the Razzie Award pages for worst actor and worst actress for the last 29 years. Paris Hilton in The Hottie and the Nottie. Mariah Carey in Glitter. Bo Derek in Ghosts Can't Do It (and others). Pia Zadora. Liza Minelli. Bill Cosby in Leonard Part 6. Sylvester Stallone in Rhinestone (I think that's the one with Dolly Parton if I remember the trailers correctly). Norbit. Little Man.
If you can watch all of them. ALL of them. I'll give you something special. A bottle of something special for Kyle if he can do it. An extra $70 toward whatever I get Ming for his birthday if he can do it. But you have to watch all of them. It's a trust dare. Kyle should be able to - he's already sat through part of Shortcut to Happiness, and that's not even on the list. The rest should be simple. Ming, I'm not so sure of. There are movies older than Forrest Gump on the list. You could watch them together - do it MST3K style like Joel or Mike and the Bots. A mere 116 hours out of your lives to watch movies if there's no overlap, and you've probably already seen a few of them so you've got a head start. Sounds like a good dare to me.
7 comments:
Oh, God, please don't. You'll lose so many IQ points, you won't be worth hanging out with anymore! -PTW
A good dare? It sounds more like "eat the giant pizza" dare to me. While I think this one would be a lot more do-able, I can only ask the question of why I would actually want to do it. If I look at it just from a cost-benefit perspective, valuing my time at a mere $1 an hour, I'm down $46 dollars on the deal.
Then again, I suppose I could hook up all three Netflix-ready devices I own, allowing me to watch three of the movies at the same time. You didn't say I couldn't, so I'm saying I can. I'd also require liberal amounts of beer as a condition of making such an attempt. The numbers would work from a monetary perspective and I might be able to knock off the whole list in one long weekend. I would probably never be the same though...
I told you it's a trust dare. You have to put in a good faith effort, not some sort of trickery. But you might just be watching television anyway. This is a way to make money while you do something you'd normally be doing while you cook or lounge. If you can't answer some basic questions about the plot, you aren't really watching the movies.
It's not trickery. There's nothing to say I can't divide my attention between three movies and still keep track of the plots of each movie. As for getting paid for doing something I would be doing anyway while engaged in other activities, I'm not sure if the pay would offset the value of spending the same amount of time watching something good for which I'm not getting paid.
Maybe all three of us should watch the entire list and see who finishes first? Only one movie at a time, Jen can throw challenge questions at us to spot check for adequate attention expenditure. That would be like a competition dare eh.
My time is worth more than the extra $70. How about me watching any 10 movies you pick out of those lists?
FD
10 movies is not enough. That's not pain. That's an inconvenience. 30 movies hurts. 60 movies is unendurable pain. I'll do $35 worth of something for half the list. I understand that's painful. Kyle...are you suggesting we have super shitty movie night? That's a hell of a reason to hang out.
I was originally thinking we all work our way through the list independently, and the first one who finishes wins. There can be only one!
That said, I like the idea of super shitty movie night/nights. I'd be down with that concept. We need to figure out some sort of schedule for doing this eh...
Post a Comment