Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


"I'm #1 at the box-office, Sugar Tits!"
December 11, 2006 2:26 AM   Subscribe

"I'm #1 at the box-office, Sugar Tits!" The mystery continues: what or who is Sugar Tits? Is it a baby pacificer? Is it a breakfast cereal? Is she an "attractive female law officer dispatched to oppress good Christian men by her masters within the international conspiracy of invisible Zionist superjews"? Maybe it's Mel's next movie?
posted by Strawman (44 comments total)

 
Mel's current next movie, Tortures of the Indians Apocalypto, just opened at #1. In costume, in Mayan with subtitles, art house multi-culti as all get out. Suck on that, sugar tits. All three of you.

posted by jfuller at 3:25 AM on December 11, 2006


Am I a Magoo for the tubes? I don't see any sugar tits references in the lead link.
posted by maryh at 3:30 AM on December 11, 2006


"of the tubes" I meant of course.
posted by maryh at 3:37 AM on December 11, 2006


I don't like Mel Gibson, but I do respect him for introducing me to the glorious expression that is 'sugar tits'. Makes my girlfriend laugh everytime.
posted by slimepuppy at 3:59 AM on December 11, 2006


SNL recut of the Apocolypto trailer
posted by filmgeek at 4:31 AM on December 11, 2006


HA! How funny, I just watched that Apocalypto trailer 2 minutes ago... Coincidence? I think not, Sugar Tits!
posted by PigAlien at 5:12 AM on December 11, 2006


$14.2 million is an abysmal opening for a major motion picture with a famous director. Don't believe the hype.
posted by Optamystic at 5:39 AM on December 11, 2006


OK, so I'm a bit of an anthro geek, but what I know about Apocalypto really bugs me. Looks like he's taking massive liberties with Mayan history and getting very, very confused about Mayan versus central Mexican sacrificial practices.

What the hell am I saying, this is a Hollywood movie....
posted by lodurr at 5:55 AM on December 11, 2006


Did you know that sugar tits may actually cure cancer?
posted by roue at 6:10 AM on December 11, 2006


"Tits... sounds like a snack. New Nabisco Tits! Betcha can't eat just one!" -George Carlin
posted by clevershark at 6:21 AM on December 11, 2006


What's the post here? An uninteresting report of a movie's opening numbers? Wikipedia? UrbanDictionary? Or just the yuck factor of saying "sugar tits"?
posted by signal at 6:40 AM on December 11, 2006 [1 favorite]


Hey Brian Atene is making movies again!
posted by schwa at 6:41 AM on December 11, 2006


Zuker Brusten!
posted by Balisong at 6:41 AM on December 11, 2006


Hey! That's famous thesbian, Brian Etene!

Oh wait, no it's not.
posted by humannaire at 7:07 AM on December 11, 2006


Fucking sugar tits. Sugar tits are responsible for all the wars in the world.
posted by three blind mice at 7:21 AM on December 11, 2006


According to Hubert Selby in his novel Requiem for a Dream, a sugar tit is a wad of butter and sugar tied up into a cloth napkin. You give it to the kiddies to suck on and shut them up. I can't speak to the plural, however. Sounds like a term of endearment to me.

(I don't much care about Mel Gibson, myself.)
posted by scratch at 7:24 AM on December 11, 2006


If you only see one Mayan language movie made by a sexist anti-semite this holiday season, make it this one!
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:30 AM on December 11, 2006 [2 favorites]


FWIW, here's my review of Apocalypto. I wouldn't exactly call it "art house multi-culti as all get out."
posted by muckster at 7:45 AM on December 11, 2006


muckster, I'm curious; what did you think of Sin City?
posted by Land Stander at 7:52 AM on December 11, 2006


Hated it.
posted by muckster at 7:55 AM on December 11, 2006


Ze's take on sugartits...
posted by rodo at 8:06 AM on December 11, 2006


Maya scholar weighs in.
posted by lovejones at 8:54 AM on December 11, 2006


I suppose Mel Gibson and Jimmy Carter will have to make a pair from now on. Step off the righteous path of political correctness, even for a moment, and the old ladies won't ever rest. But I wonder why people now use jokes to display their colors and announce their compliance with the order? Why not politics? Or dress? It's as if there's been a deliberate effort to isolate comedians as the last remaining functionaries with the moral authority necessary to ensure that social mores are enforced. This is a pretty ingenious optimization when you think about it. The little people laugh at their cages, the big people get to phone in their domination, and nothing ever changes since nobody takes comedians at the end of the day. It's humor--you're supposed to laugh. Nobody gets angry at jokes. Anyways do you suppose Mel Gibson jokes will still be kosher in 2007? Will this be lifetime condemnation or will he eventually be allowed to return to the fold? I suppose we may just have to make an example of him. It's not like we can pick and choose at this point.
posted by nixerman at 8:56 AM on December 11, 2006


Thanks for that link, lovejones.
posted by muckster at 9:07 AM on December 11, 2006


Apocalypto now:
Within the first five minutes of the movie, someone eats a testicle. At the time, this graphic display was shocking and repulsive (Gibson employs very able FX people), but somewhere after the heart chewing and around the second beheading, I longed for the halcyon days of the testicle appetizer. We were so young then." [via]
Apocalypto could be a feature-length version of the Red Hot Chili Peppers' "Under the Bridge" video (YouTube).
posted by kirkaracha at 9:10 AM on December 11, 2006


Excerpt from my linked article:

It is surely no surprise that "Apolcalypto" has very little to do with Maya culture and instead is Gibson's comment on the excesses he perceives in modern Western society. I just wish he had been honest enough to say this. Instead he has created a beautiful and disturbing portrait that satisfies his need for comment but does violence to one of the most impressive of Native American cultures.

The only reason I wanted to see this movie was for a portrayal of what a Mayan society would have looked like, informed by the most current information about them that we have. I've seen so many pictures of these deserted Mayan cities, and the idea of seeing them come to life on film was exciting. Unfortunately, it seems Gibson chose to make them flat, villanous archetypes, a mere plot device to push his "redemption through christianity" agenda. A shame, and a wasted opportunity.
posted by lovejones at 11:40 AM on December 11, 2006


lovejones, I don't know whether I admire your optimism or am dumbfounded by it. I never thought it would be anything approaching "accurate."

That said, it seems to be so wildly inaccurate that I find myself cringing. I mean, really -- Spaniards coming ashore as the great cities fall? A Sodom and Gomorrah laundy list of Classic Maya collapse scenarios, condensing hundreds of years of declien and fall into two hours? For that matter, mass sacrifice, period, which was really a central Mexican thing. (The Maya went in for quality, not quantity: They preferred a few good ones to a lot of mediocre ones. It might take them several months to sacrifice you, particularly if you were an especially juicy [read: royal] sacrifice...)

But then, "it's only a movie." (Please, someone else rant about that, I haven't got the energy today.)
posted by lodurr at 11:54 AM on December 11, 2006


A nice, concise critique of Apocolypto
posted by serazin at 12:13 PM on December 11, 2006


The thing that dumbfounded me the most was the eclipse. I just confirmed with Traci Ardren that there is no reason to believe that the Maya "forgot" their astronomical skills. Gibson isn't interested in Mayan culture at all; it's just the backdrop for a very clichéd and ultraviolent chase movie.
posted by muckster at 12:19 PM on December 11, 2006


Well, lodurr, I wasn't expecting a documentary, but I was expecting something that didn't blatantly ignore documented history, as you detail in your comment. I think it is the extent of this disregard which is surprising.
posted by lovejones at 12:42 PM on December 11, 2006


And I've always wondered if there is a bit of a double-standard in terms of which cultures had "capital punishment" and which cultures had "human sacrifice." Folks from Europe were roasting people alive in public spectacles as late as the New York slave rebellion. We know that impalement was used (rarely) as an execution method up to the 20the century.

And perhaps I am stretching for a bit of equivalence here. But apologists for European Imperialism have been stretching just as much in promoting the myth of a kindly expansion of a culture untainted by the brutal excesses of their own divinely-justified bloodlust.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:51 PM on December 11, 2006 [1 favorite]


I was expecting something that didn't blatantly ignore documented history
So you never saw Braveheart, I guess.
posted by forrest at 1:15 PM on December 11, 2006


“a very clichéd and ultraviolent chase movie.”

Indeed. Similar general issue to “A Clockwork Orange” in that order ultimately trumps nihilim for any thinking being - I’m thinking of course of the book. But the differences between the book and the film are similar to the schizm between Gibson’s message and his execution.

/ “Sin City” was no “Kiss Me Deadly” but it should have been.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:30 PM on December 11, 2006


Skip the movie and read Charles Mann's 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus (review; MonkeyFilter thread).

I've always wondered if there is a bit of a double-standard in terms of which cultures had 'capital punishment' and which cultures had 'human sacrifice.'

Mann talks about a similar point in his book. European cultures from the period are usually described as kingdoms with kings, while Indian societies that are at least as large and advanced are described as tribes with chiefs.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:50 PM on December 11, 2006


Lovejones, thanks.

Anyone read "American Holocaust" and let me know how many human sacrifices it took to make Jesus and his ilk get righteous erections.

Good to see our imperial double standard racism is back and still profitable. I got a movie script about how the evil africans were caught in perpetual choke-rape until white and muslim slave traders saved them from their heathen ferocity that I think Gibson would love. Or am I out of line here?
posted by sarcasman at 3:07 PM on December 11, 2006


sarcasman: Are you certain it wasn't produced already?

I'll just blatantly throw in a spoiler, it's a movie about African dictatorships in which almost every person of color with a speaking line is either a murderer or a victim, leaving Nichole Kidman to save her country.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:35 PM on December 11, 2006


Eat shit Mel Gibson! How dare he use such a complex and little understood society as a back drop for his simplistic and crappy propaganda for Christianity.

As someone mentioned earlier, this was a seriously wasted opportunity. I hope Quetzal Coatl (sp) chews on Mel's balls in Xibalba for eternity!
posted by snsranch at 4:00 PM on December 11, 2006


What Optamystic said.

I'd bet there are plenty of people that are very disappointed with that number ($14.2 million). What was the budget, $40M+? Passion o' da Christ did a $64M opening weekend...just sayin'

I know lots of people have enjoyed Gibson's work, but for me...Gallipoli, Year of Living Dangerously- outstanding. Other than those, I got nothin'. Admittedly, I haven't seen it all.
posted by jaronson at 5:31 PM on December 11, 2006


art house multi-culti as all get out

I'm gettin' too old for this (bull)shit.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:45 PM on December 11, 2006


The Mayans never really left. They simply didn't have any economic mechanisms to keep their temple cities open. As time went on the top heavy culture became unsustainable due to the lack of any kind of economic placeholders or abstracted currency. Usually, beyond the elite priesthood, the cities were staffed with workers and artisans who were seasonally employed, and rotated out with others. The rest of the time they lived in simple huts in jungle clearings.

But clearly, their descendants are still there, with many of the same spiritual beliefs (now couched in Catholicism of course).
posted by Burhanistan at 10:17 PM on December 11, 2006


What twisted pontiff declared "sugar tits" novel and amusing again and decided to send you as his messenger to bring this to the public?
posted by tehloki at 9:40 AM on December 12, 2006


What twisted pontiff declared "sugar tits" novel and amusing again and decided to send you as his messenger to bring this message to the public?
posted by tehloki at 9:40 AM on December 12, 2006


Maya in the Thunderdome: In "Apocalypto," Mel Gibson paints a feverish, childish version of the Maya -- and mangles decades of scholarship about this complex civilization.
posted by homunculus at 10:26 PM on December 15, 2006


kirkarcha: European cultures from the period are usually described as kingdoms with kings, while Indian societies that are at least as large and advanced are described as tribes with chiefs.

This is why I like to point out to people that the great unifying kings of Europe, like Harald Hardrede, Alfred the Great and Charlemagne, were nothing more than what anthropologists call "paramount chieftains." That in fact, the Magna Carta is basically wrapping a set of formal rules around a paramount chieftaincy.

I'm not a historian, but it seems to me there must be a line that's crossed somewhere (at least, in european terms) between the old chieftainships and what we would recognize today as a "king" (or "queen") with a "kingdom." I think it makes sense to think of it as being at the point where the positions are no longer renegotiable -- where they can no longer fall to someone outside of the "succession." In france, wouldn't that be Charles Martel? (May have my history really wrong, there. Maybe I'm thinking of Godfroi de Boullion.) In England, William the Bastard Conqueror.

That would serve to illustrate, though, the lack of common terminology, since the mesoamerican rulers had a strictly hereditory ascension. In that, they were unlike "chiefs" and "chieftains", and that's why historians and ethnohistorians haave typically referred to them as "kings" or "lords."
posted by lodurr at 6:28 AM on December 16, 2006


« Older The La Contessa,...   |   Forget the fact that the Wii m... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments