The type of guy I saw in both commercials was a guy with an shaggy afro haircut (I’m pretty sure that’s the correct term to use regardless of the race of the person).

Seeing the two commercials so close to another another made me realize that I’ve seen that type of guy before. He’s on a promotional poster around the corner from my house. He’s on television, usually in a high school or college posse of friends. And he’s in most party scenes in movies.

He’s a friend with a ‘fro. You know, a laid-back guy, just hangin’ out, takin’ it easy, lookin’ to have a good time, all smiles, whatever, no big deal, it’s cool man, just happy to be here.

Friends with ‘fros are everywhere on commercials, TV shows, and movies…so why haven’t I ever seen one in real life? Do they really exists, or are they just the laid-back version of the Sasquatch?

I’m not even quite sure I understand the appeal. If friends with ‘fros are so rare in real life but so prevalent on TV, what is it about them that makes TV producers want to cast them? Is it just the distinct hair, or are they getting in touch with something deep down inside all of us that wants a really laid back, Frisbee-playing, tie-dye-wearing, scruffy looking friend with a ‘fro? Maybe it’s in our genes.

Have any of you ever had a friend with a ‘fro? Or do they only exist on the silver screen?

For Contrivances 1-10, click here.

In Percy Jackson’s world, the equivalent of Hogwarts (don’t worry, I’ll get to Hogwarts in a minute) is something called Camp Halfblood, where teenagers spend all day clashing swords and shooting bows and arrows. Because those are important skills to have in 2012.

The surprising thing to me about Camp Halfblood is that not only are the children genuinely trying to hurt each other as they train, but their instructors are actually encouraging them to hurt each other. These aren’t plastic swords or Nerf arrows–they’re real! Why are those activities in the curriculum? Why would parents let their kids attend this school?!

Okay, on to Hogwarts. Let’s start with Quidditch. On paper, Quidditch looks like a lively game that’s similar to handball, but with flying players. But in reality, it’s an extremely violent game where you fly around hundreds of feet off the ground and try to knock opposing players off their broomsticks. And even if they don’t plummet to their death, getting hit in the head with a bludger will break your face. Why would you sign up for this game? What parent would let their child play Quidditch?!

Finally, here’s the big one: The Triwizard Tournament. Tell me, parents, would you sign your 14-year-old up for a competition that will require them to (a) fight a dragon, (b) swim through an enchanted lake for upwards of 20 minutes without a breathing apparatus, and (c) run through a maze? (Okay, the maze wouldn’t be all that deadly if Voldemort hadn’t gotten involved.) None of that seems like a good idea.

Despite all that, would you still let your child attend Hogwarts? I’m homeschooling Biddy, that’s for sure.

1. Midnight in Paris: The whimsy of this movie delighted me from the first scene to the last, and the theme of nostalgia has stayed with me like no other film’s theme this year.
2. Harry Potter 7.2: The last few Harry Potter movies left me wanting, but this one fulfilled my every desire for closing out the series. 5 points for Gryffindor!
3. Win Win: How such a simple movie made such an impact on me, I don’t know. It’s heartfelt, funny, and extremely well written.
4. The Fighter: Amazing acting makes this movie stands out, and the fight scenes are some of the best I’ve ever seen on film. Amy Adams in her underwear certainly didn’t hurt.
5. Real Steel: The best action movie of the year. It’s pure popcorn entertainment at its best.
6. Captain America: The First Avenger: The best comic book movie of the year. And it’s a period piece!
7. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: This one is still fresh on my mind, but it deserves recognition for such a tight script and some truly chilling scenes. Rooney Mara is a revelation as Lisbeth Salander.
8. Exit Through the Gift Shop: Probably the most fascinating documentary I’ve ever seen. It’ll let you into a hidden world that you know nothing about.

And my least favorite movies of 2011:

1. The Hangover Part II
2. Young Adult
3. Your Highness
4. Buried
5. Everything Must Go
6. The Dilemma
7. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
8. Percy Jackson & the Lightning Thief

Here’s last year’s list. What were your favorite movies you watched for the first time in 2011?

a. Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked

b. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1

c. Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol

The answer, clearly, is that the first two were sold out, so I was dragged into Mission: Impossible. Fine, I’ll go see a movie by the director of one of my favorite movies (Brad Bird of The Incredibles) with a great cast, futuristic technology, and an extended scene filmed on the exterior of the tallest building in the world. But only if I absolutely have to.

This Mission: Impossible was released on IMAX screens a few days before it will be released on regular screens. There’s nothing I love more than seeing a movie “early,” so that was a big selling point for me. But I thought it would also be a good excuse to see an IMAX movie for the first time even though the closest true IMAX theater is 30 minutes away from me.

My observations:

• IMAX is really proud of itself. There were 3–count them, 3–promotions before the movie that talked about how great IMAX is. It’s as if IMAX is an excited little kid that can’t stop talking about how high he can jump in his new sneakers. I somewhat expected the movie to be interrupted by more IMAX promotions, perhaps voiceovers during key scenes where IMAX footage was featured.
• It’s not that big. Okay, it’s big. At least, it seemed bigger than normal theater screens vertically. But the way it was hyped, I thought the screen was going to rock my world. I thought that walking into theater would be akin to walking into a theater for the first time when I was a little kid (I’m pretty sure my first theater movie was The Jungle Book, but it might have been Showgirls. Apples and oranges.
• Big action scenes are pretty awesome on IMAX. I have to give both Brad Bird and IMAX credit for this–the big action sequences truly are larger than life on IMAX. I can’t think of a better way to watch that Dubai tallest building scene, not to mention the half dozen other action sequences in the movie.

Bottom line, is it worth the $16? For 99% of movie, no. But based on the trailer I saw today for The Dark Knight Rises, for some movies it’s definitely worth it.

What movies have you seen on IMAX, and what do you think?

I started thinking about this while watching that terrible movie Young Adult. In the movie, Charlize Theron is a successful writer (albeit a ghost writer, but successful nonetheless). But the movie portrays the successful people as those who had settled down and had kids. Their jobs weren’t important. The focus was on family.

So I started thinking about other movies with single adults. Pretty much every Seth Rogen movie portrays him as man-boy. In fact, there’s at least one grownup in every Judd Apatow who fits that description (Bridesmaids being the most recent example).

There are a crop of movies with divorced dads as the protagonists. Steve Carrell comes to mind as someone who’s in a bunch of them, but there are other actors who take those roles.

Single adult women in movies usually fall into two categories: Single moms juggling more than they can handle and career-driven women who are “too busy” to focus on family. Why can’t a career-driven woman in a movie be lauded for her achievements, and perhaps written in a more well-rounded way to reflect real-life women? And why can’t a single mom simply have her act together like so many single mothers in real life?

I think my overall concern here is that people–not just movies–equate having a family to happiness and success. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with having a family. But in my opinion, there are SO many different ways to define success, and you can achieve many of them as a single person.

Contrary to what the movies will have us believe, being single is inherently not a failure. For all you single people out there, you are not failures due to your relationship status. Choose your own path to success. Choose your own path to happiness.

And if all fails, follow the Seth Rogen formula in Knocked Up and get a stranger pregnant. Then come talk to me about what happiness looks like.

I'm using Gossip Girl for the photo because (a) this contrivance happens in every single Gossip Girl scene and (b) Blake Lively makes me lively.

In TV and movies, scenes always end with one person walking out of the room or just not saying somethng important.

This NEVER happens in real life.

Someone makes a key point in an argument and the other person leaves. Someone needs to say “I love you,” but he/she walks out instead. Someone needs to clarify something that is an obvious misconception, but instead one character leaves OR everyone just stands there quietly looking at each other when a one liner would obviously fix the situation.

This is BS. It does not happen in real life.

The entire Lost series was based around this, as are many soap operas and dramas. I once thought it would be fun to do a spoof of Lost that was either (1) nothing but the important lines that went unsaid or (2) just cuts of the important lines (and subsequent walking out/silence) before someone walked out or held his/her tongue when he/she shouldn’t have. I think it would’ve been a Youtube sensation 5 years ago.

I am genuinely surprised at the sheer number of conversations in movies and TV that end with someone walking out of the room. Especially when there are obvious things the other person could say, but they just sit there, inexplicably tongue-tied at such a critical junction.

Can you think of even one conversation in your life that ended with someone walking out of the room in the middle of the conversation. Even door-slamming “I’m so mad I can’t talk” usually end in some sort of punctuation. But when there’s a simple misconception on the line, like when a girlfriend catches you making a casserole in the kitchen with your au pair and it’s not what it looks like! Even then she sticks around while you explain in detail why you were really hot and couldn’t wear anything but the apron and sure, you don’t really need an au pair because you don’t have kids, but it’s so European and chic and yes, fine, I probably could have explained the difference between American thongs and foreign thongs to her. Even in that situation, you’d have the chance to say a few words before your girlfriend left.

But not on TV or in the movies. On TV or in the movies she would just walk away while the au pair whisks your casserole.

Explain to me the logic in this. Why on earth are transparent computer screens considered better technological design than current computer screens?

Here’s how I see it: The only benefit to having a transparent screen is that people on the other side can see through it. So if you’re trying to share your work with someone else, they can see it, albeit reversed.

That said, consider all the things that actually make transparent computer screens considerably worse than even an average modern-day screen:

1. People on the other side can see through it. Think about this for two seconds and then tell me if you want the average passerby in your office seeing what’s on your computer screen at any given time. I’m not saying you’re looking at porn at the office, but odds are next to those spreadsheets and e-mail, you have Facebook or AmyAdamscuddleswithcats.com open in the side window.
2. Transparency means lower quality. In movies, the only graphics on transparent computer screens are blue and green lines and text. So, no more 8-million color HD screens. Once you go transparent, you’re jumping back to the Apple 2E in terms of monitor quality. At least you can still play Oregon Trail in the future.
3. Transparency means more distractions. Picture yourself trying to enter data into a spreadsheet on your computer. Now picture yourself doing that while people walk around in the background, directly behind your screen. It would be incredibly distracting.

1. Girl meets guy, girl instantly takes a dislike to guy. Guy does not change and continues to infuriate girl until suddenly girl realised she is in love with said guy.
2. The bad boy who meets a girl who totally changes his bad boy behavior

In a way, these contrivances are opposites–the first is about a bad boy who does not change, while the second is about the bad boy who ends up showing his softer side.

The thing is, it works. Bad boys make good cinema. I’ll state my case with the ultimate bad boy of all time: Han Solo.

Women like Han Solo because he’s cool, dashing, adventurous, and devil-may-care. Men like Han Solo because he’s the epitome of our ego: he does whatever he wants, says whatever he wants, goes wherever he wants…and he still gets the girl.

But the key is that deep down, Han Solo cares. Imagine if he simply hadn’t returned at the end of Episode IV to help destroy the Death Star (spoiler alert!) We’d have a very different impression of Han today. But for whatever reason–the glory, the thrill of battle, or perhaps the hint of a conscience–Han does return, and we love him for it.

Do Han Solo-like bad boys exist in real life? Maybe. Perhaps you women have dated them. Regardless, I’m perfectly happy for that movie trope to persist. I think it makes great entertainment. Without it, we wouldn’t have Han Solo, Captain Jack Sparrow, or Prince Charmont from Ella Enchanted.

“Bob and I are going to splash around in the public fountain. U in?” she wrote.

I texted back. “I wouldn’t step foot in those syringe-filled waters if you paid me.”

Obviously there probably aren’t fresh needles festering in the fountain in my neighborhood. But seriously, who wants to splash around in a public fountain? I guarantee you that people pee in there. Guarantee it.

And yet as noted by alert reader Sarah, people splash around in public fountains in movies all the time. I think they actually prefer it to sprinklers, fire hydrants, and backyard pools because they look better on film. If you’re transcendently happy in the movies, odds are you’ll end up in a public fountain. If you’re clumsy in a movie, chances are you’ll end up falling into a fountain in a mall. And if you get in fight in the movies, especially in England, part of the fight will take place in a fountain (see every Hugh Grant movie ever made).

I would say that people don’t step foot in fountains in real life, but as my friend’s text indicates, clearly people do. But I think this is something people do because of the movies. Movies have taught us that public fountains are good places to rejoice, fall, and fight. Life imitates art.

Have you ever willingly entered a public fountain? If so, please indicate the severity of the toe fungus that you developed immediately afterwards (on a scale from 1-10).

Real Steel (Oct. 7): I’m a sucker for robots fighting each other.

Tower Heist (Nov. 4): I’m also a sucker for a big heist film ala Ocean’s 11.

A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas (Nov. 4): Name one good reason not to see this.

Immortals (Nov. 11): It’s been a while since I’ve seen a great epic battlefield movie. Could this be it?

The Descendents (Nov. 18): After Sideways, I’ll watch pretty much anything by this director.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Dec. 21): Ditto for David Fincher (Fight Club, Se7en, The Social Network)

Mission: Impossible–Ghost Protocol (Dec. 21): The brilliant Brad Bird (The Iron Giant, The Incredibles) makes the jump to live action? I’m there.

What are you looking forward to?