Hooray for Captain Spaulding |
Posting to you live
|
Thursday, July 31, 2003
Posted by Daniel Frank at
9:27 PM
# | |
Posted by Daniel Frank at
9:19 PM
# | |
Posted by Daniel Frank at
9:14 PM
# | |
Posted by Daniel Frank at
9:08 PM
I contimplated at one point that I should have tried a few years back to get a job as a Universal Studios tour guide. But I realize that I'd get fired for, every time the bus passes actual filming, doing the old Looney Tunes gag of "Quiet on the set. Quiet on the set. QUIIIIIIEEEEEEETTTTTTT!!!!!" While a good time was had, one realizes why Universal constantly has to offer two-for-one deals. The park is wildly inefficient which is inexcusable considering Disneyland had been around for thirty years when Universal expanded from just a tour to a theme park. For example, they have a nice Lucille Ball exhibit but I had to hunt to find a semi-nearby store with I Love Lucy merchandise. Disney would, of course, have dropped us off in a Lucy store at the end of the exhibit. If they can't figure out how to get money out of people, how's the management of the rest of the park? I do have to admit that the lady dressed as Lucy Ricardo who was hectoring us in line while we waited to buy tickets did a good imitation. # | | Wednesday, July 23, 2003
Posted by Daniel Frank at
3:12 PM
UPDATE: The LA Times has placed a correction in the article that the house is not the home of millionaire Bruce Wayne and his youthful ward Dick Grayson but merely looks like their house. Good thing I didn't plop down 8 mil on that shack. # | | Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Posted by Daniel Frank at
12:27 AM
# | | Monday, July 21, 2003
Posted by Daniel Frank at
11:39 AM
# | |
Posted by Daniel Frank at
11:38 AM
# | | Friday, July 11, 2003
Posted by Daniel Frank at
3:05 PM
# | |
Posted by Daniel Frank at
2:57 PM
# | | Sunday, July 06, 2003
Posted by Daniel Frank at
4:16 PM
Speaking of cut Ray Bolger Oz footage, here is a sequence of the Scarecrow dance cut for time. Notice the song lyric "Perhaps then I'll deserve ya/And even be worthy orv ya" which lends support to the above hypothesis. # | | Thursday, July 03, 2003
Posted by Daniel Frank at
10:36 PM
UPDATE: Here's what a lawyer friend had to say about the suit: Activision signed a license with Viacom where they paid $20 million up front for rights to produce Star Trek games over ten years. None of the press coverage goes into the right detail, which is whether the license agreement requires Viacom to use "best efforts" to market Star Trek or just "commercially reasonable efforts." If the contractual language is "best efforts", then Activision probably has a case. That might seem like a "wacky lawsuit," but the critical difference is that it's an expression of freedom of contract: Viacom chose to bind itself to a particular standard of business conduct in exchange for money. Activision, having paid the money, is entitled to enforce the promise.It's really a dispute over money, rather than over "Star Trek." This is a vast oversimplification of what other issues might be involved, but I'm not prepared to say which party is in the right or wrong without looking at the contract.I honestly didn't think it was a wacky lawsuit. I would argue that it's a dispute over money and Star Trek. Activision thinks Viacom is doing a lousy job with Star Trek and thus wants (and may be legally entitled to have) their license fee reduced. Of course Viacom's defintion of a lousy job may be that there aren't 2-3 new shows on the air. This whole thing could have been avoided by doing a Captain Sulu show. # | |
Posted by Daniel Frank at
10:21 PM
Sherlock Holmes, now there was a detective!...Maybe we shouldn't dismiss the possibility of the butler being guilty. I know "the butler did it" is a cliche but things become cliche because they're true...This case is tough to figure out. What's not tough to figure out is the neverending appeal of Mr. Frank Sinatra...I've got a mystery for you: What happens to all my missing socks? We oughta call Charlie Chan in on that one!... # | |
Posted by Daniel Frank at
10:08 PM
Hackett said he once thought he was on the edge of a great movie role. Martin Scorsese called him up and said he wanted to come over and talk to him about working in "GoodFellas."The interesting thing is that Henny Youngman took that part and, thanks to his joketelling style, managed to fit ten jokes in that one minute role. # | | Wednesday, July 02, 2003
Posted by Daniel Frank at
11:26 AM
At this pace, the star will be 75 when "T5" comes out. But hell, why not? If Clint Eastwood can play action roles well past even the Republicans' idea of retirement age, surely Arnold can follow suit.) [emphasis added]Did I miss some massive Republican conspiracy to raise the retirement age and ship off the elderly to work on oil pipelines or something? The last change to retirement age (at least Social Security-wise) was in 1983 and appears to have had bipartisan support. # | | Tuesday, July 01, 2003
Posted by Daniel Frank at
12:26 AM
Then, in 1952, Curly's health takes a decided turn for the worse, and the Stooges come to grips with the fact that their beloved star is dying. More than ever, Shemp wants out of the Three Stooges. After seeing what has happened to his baby brother, Shemp realizes that the same fate awaits him if he keeps taking hits on the head. In an effort to appease Shemp, comedian Buddy Hackett is asked to take Curly's place. Hackett agrees to the idea, until he drops by a Stooges rehearsal and witnesses the boys hitting each other with pipes, wrenches and other pain-inducing tools. Hackett backs out of the deal, and Moe breaks it to Shemp that the elder Howard is going to have to remain a Stooge a little while longer, as no suitable replacement is forthcoming.Although the book's self-description suggests that stuff in it should be taken with a grain of salt, it seems more likely to me that Moe would want Shemp before bringing in other folk in to the group. Buddy Hackett's website and his album # | |
Posted by Daniel Frank at
12:05 AM
What is especially odd is that the friend (who is not particularly wacky) has the nutty idea. Now perhaps the friend suggested the idea because he knew it would get Jerry in trouble and he wanted to get into the pants of the fiancee. As the girlfirend was played by Janet Leigh, who could blame him? If that was his motivation, it was not very well established in the first half-hour of the picture. The excellent Jerry Lewis biography King of Comedy by Shawn Levy notes that this film was one of Jerry's first attempts to do a more mature comedy. And this may have been the very problem. Jerry is not playing "The Kid" and does not act wacky unless disguised as one of the three boyfriends (or a boyfriend's twin sister). There are thus long stretchs of non-comedic behavior which perhaps made the flimsy premise stand out. Levy also notes that the film is "more mindful...of its narrative obligations" which is perhaps my other problem: Such an idiotic premise is taken much more seriously by the film than it deserves. # | |
|