Check It Out

Posts Tagged ‘wtf’

Remember those creepy dolls from when we were kids that would cry if you shook them, or leak water from their crotch when you stomped on them?

Don’t pretend you don’t know what I’m talking about; maybe you didn’t have to abuse your dolls to get them to work properly, but my cousins and I always had the generic knock-off dolls, and they required very strict parenting in order to live up to their full potential. Anyway, remember those dolls? Looking back, you probably think they were pretty creepy. Well, in the words of that song by a group apparently called Bachman-Turner Overdrive (Thank you, Google) b-b-b-baby, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!

I submit for your examination, Exhibit A:

This is a set of plush dolls that you can apparently buy in Japan, and on Amazon when they’re not sold out. They come as a set and retail for $40-50. In other words, that’s some fancy shit. Can you imagine being tucked into bed with these when you were a kid? This is an example of where potty-training by positive reinforcement has gone WAY too far.

Get ready, because Exhibit B is a very disturbing image, imho:

From China (or perhaps Japan again, I’m not so good at identifying the characters) we have another appallingly misguided attempt at a body-function educational toy. I’m not even sure where to start on this one. It’s a baby, growing pubic hair and some kind of funky ankle hair. I wonder if it’s a one-time use toy, or if you can yank its hair to make it grow and shave it all off again, like that Barbie whose hair you could yank and cut to the tune of four feet.

The jury will now direct its attention to Exhibit C:

I’m not sure what this toy is actually called, because I can’t read Japanese, but it’s basically a game of Russian Roulette, except instead of a bullet, plastic feet come out and kick you in the head. Needless to say, if this happens, you lose. I guess if you buy this game, being kicked in the head is the only reasonable course to take from there, anyway.

Exhibit D at least deserves an honorable mention for the concept:

At first glance, this is any old beach ball with a vaguely creepy religious message emblazoned across it, kind of like the lame favors they give out at Vacation Bible School (because when I think vacation, I for sure think Bible!) The thing that strikes me is that it’s a beach ball. Are kids supposed to think they’ll be able to walk on water while they play with this? I hope they test it in the shallows first.

And now Exhibit E, for your consideration:

This toy is called “Sixfinger”, and it is apparently supposed to look like a finger that can write like a pen, shoot missles, and who knows what else. I don’t really understand why this toy finger does all these things, but I can tell you, looking at this picture, a finger wasn’t the first thing that came (ha) into my head. Tell me I’m not the only one, here.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please view Exhibit F:

I present to you: Facebank! Yep, that’s what this is supposed to be. A bank. Look, I was never a very brave kid, I’ll admit, but I can’t be the only one who would have been completely terrified to stick my hand in this thing’s mouth. I’m not sure I want to know what you have to do to the thing to get your money back out of it? I hope it doesn’t involve the Sixfinger.

And at last, we have Exhibit G:

That is not a real cat. It is a toy robot cat. It has been programmed to act like a real cat, except without the puking and hating you. It purrs and rolls over, and just generally looks at you in a creepy, dead-eyed way. They have a version on toy shelves here called “Fur real” friends, and let me tell you, walking past a toy aisle and having that thing reach a paw for you is seriously creepy.

That’s all for today, but I saw so many creepy toys that I may have to return to this topic some other Wednesday.

What’s the creepiest toy you ever saw/owned?

Also, side note: If anyone knows how to make it so that I can align text and images side-by-side without having the next paragraph of text ride up to be alongside the first picture, please let me know! I tried for so long to make my comments next to the images, but the text and images wouldn’t stay lined up the way they did in my preview.

Snowmageddon. Blizzardgate. Plain old Bullshit.

Whatever you call it, we were all expecting a monster of a storm in New England yesterday, and we got it… if you call half an inch of snow “it”.

Because the folks that manage the webpages for each of the local news stations are obviously better at their jobs than the meteorologists are, the snow prediction maps from yesterday morning are no longer available online. Since you’re reading my blog, you’re going to have to trust my memory on this one: According to WHDH, we were supposed to get 8-12 inches in Worcester and 12-15+ south of Worcester. WBZ had Worcester pegged for 5-8 and south of the city at 8-14″, and Fox was calling for 4-8″ in Worcester and 8-12″ to the Connecticut border.

They all picked a pretty wide range. 4-8″? I always aim for classy, so let’s use the ever-amusing penis size analogy. Wouldn’t you REALLY like to know which end of the spectrum to be expecting? And yet, allowing themselves the margin of error between a sock puppet and a porn star, they still managed to completely miss the mark by, oh, say, another porn star.

I don’t have hard data because I’m too lazy to obtain any information that doesn’t appear on the first page of Google results, but if I had to throw out a percentage to indicate how often the weather predictions I see on TV actually turn out to be reasonably close to what actually happens, I’d give them 60%. That’s not even a passing grade in public school! You could flip a quarter every day that’s cloudy and below 32 degrees and probably come up almost as accurate as them.

I know the weather’s variable and unpredictable and all that, and yeah, I am aware that I’m living in New England, but with all the millions of dollars put into weather predicting technology can’t they do a little better? They make obscene amounts of money, and they’re hyped up on TV like they’re the supreme, all-knowing gods of weather.

Just cut the crap, please. Stop paying these meteorologists millions of dollars to tell you what any old geezer with a metal hip will tell you.

Here’s my take on the forecast maps for yesterday:

Sorry, DC.

What better to write about on WTF Wednesday than the downhill evolution (devolution?) of a creepy doll?

There are a lot of people that are worried about the effect that Barbie dolls might have on the body image issues and self-esteem of little girls. By now, we all know that Barbie would have to be 7′2″ to have the same proportions as a human that she owns as a doll, and there are many who are disturbed by her eternally plastic grin and those feet that are bent into the shape of high heels.

Personally, I think the stick-thin celebrities and glossy magazine covers that scream “YOU NEED TO LOSE WEIGHT NOW, FATTY MCUGLYPANTS!” are far more damaging, but regardless of where you stand on the Barbie issue, there’s a new bad girl in town. Move over, Barbie – Bratz has you beat in triplicate.

The original Bratz doll was worrying enough in its own right. Here’s an image of one of the first Bratz dolls to hit the market:
Remember being worried about Barbie being too thin? This doll’s waist is literally the same size around as her WRIST. Really healthy. Never mind the fact that her legs are twice as long as they should be for her torso size, and her lips are larger than her breasts. She’s also presumably school-age judging by the backpack she carries, and I don’t think any parent really wants their school-age girl going out in five-inch (comparably) platform heels and showing the majority of her midsection.

I’m one of the last people that will ever say we should be censoring the world from children, but I do find these dolls disturbing. Let’s take a look at those shoes. Have you ever seen shoes like that in the real world that weren’t on stage? Don’t get me wrong here, I like Vegas strippers and all the footwear the image entails, but not for little girls, please?

The thing is, it gets worse. This is a sampling of what I saw in the stores at Christmas time:

Let’s not even mention the weird body proportions, since we already covered that with the regular Bratz Dolls. What I think is creepy here is that these are obviously supposed to be babies and toddlers, as evidenced by their accessories. (Unless, of course, they’re trying to tell you that it’s fine for an older girl to ride in a stroller and carry around a baby bottle, which is possibly even weirder than what they ARE propagating.) I don’t know about you, but I am disturbed by the idea of babies wearing eyeshadow and lipstick.

And as for the Bratz Babyz (Ugh, and they blame the internet for the shitty way kids spell these days? At least the internet has spell-checking built into most sites) wedding set… Can’t we just let kids be kids without shoving relationships and marriage down their throats from the second they come out of the womb?

Now, I do give kids credit. I seriously doubt that most kids are going to look at a Bratz doll and say “Oh no, I’m ugly, my eyes aren’t the size of my fists!” but it is one more block in the foundation we’re laying for children. What are they supposed to think, when magazine covers feature Lindsay Lohan photoshopped into having the same garish proportions as their lipstick-wearing dolls?

Thoughts?

Welcome to the first installment of my new weekly blog feature, WTF Wednesdays. Today we’re going to start with a guessing game.

So, can you guess what this is a picture of?

If you guessed that it’s a close-up image of a Pocket Rocket Personal Vibrator….

… you’re wrong! The picture is actually a new cosmetics product from Olay. It’s supposed to smooth out eye wrinkles. Don’t believe me?

Here’s the new Olay product:

Really, Olay? Really? I don’t care what they’re calling it, I’m writing it off as the first time I’ve seen a vibrator commercial on basic cable.