Anchorhead

[tangent]

Man, I've got spring training fever, bad. Winter has me down. I've started listening to (even more) baseball talk, reading baseball articles, I've printed out the Spring Training schedule, I downloaded the Outlook regular season 2010 schedule for my email, and I even bought a Spring Training t-shirt. Dammit - come on March. I hate the off-season.

[/tangent]

Back on topic;

I watched Conan's last Tonight Show.  The few moments at the end, where he asked his fans, particularly the younger ones. not to be cynical - class all the way.  It's a message they needed to hear, and they needed to hear it from him.  Well done, Conan.

I'll watch when Leno gets the show back, but I bet The Tonight Show doesn't get its respect, following, & ratings back until someone else finally takes over after Leno retires.  I think people are worn out from all this ugliness and Leno represents part of that ugliness.  Good or bad, win or lose, innocent or not - Leno is part of the negative & hateful drama of the past month.  Even as a fan, I feel a sense of emotional fatigue from all of this and have no desire to see any of them for a while.

C3PX said:

Is there a prerequisit of watching Star Wars at least once a day to be on these forums or something? Because if so, I have been in the wrong place for all these years.

If that's the case, I'm way down on my quota as well.  I last watched Star Wars a few days after the 06 DVD was released.  I'm entirely NPR Radio version now.  Which, oddly enough, I started listening to today. I'm about an hour into it.  I generally listen to it three times a year. Don't know when I'll ever watch the film version again. It's just not as deep as the NPR version. I don't want to go back to Star Wars Lite.

TV's Frink said:

Repeated Wall of Text (TM) .....

;-)

EyeShotFirst said:

Actually you could see land in that scene. They could have easily been nearing the port.

This screen grab shows the start of the journey.  It ends just after Crete, which is 160 miles long. That sub traveled about 400 miles.

For the record, Raiders is one of my top ten films of all time.  I love it - have since I first sat in the theater in 1981.  I've seen more times than I could count, collected the one-sheets, had the soundtrack as soon as it was released - still listen to it regularly, silk-screened my own t-shirts, have nearly all the novels, etc, etc. 

My point; I'm a huge fan of the film & the series.  I've been on board since the beginning.  However,  I have a grounded understanding of what it is - a modern take on old comic book\movie serial\pulp\bigger-than-life adventures. Also, I've not let my dislike of Lucas' handling of Star Wars cloud my judgment of an unrelated franchise that he doesn't even have total control over.

skyjedi2005 said:

greedo shot first to make a point against the republicans and the nra. 

skyjedi2005 said:

None of those things was done with bad pointless and annoying cgi and worked in the context of the indiana jones universe

Correct, they were done with bad pointless and annoying models and fake-looking matte paintings that stand out from the live action. Had the technology been available in the 80s, they would have been done with CGI.

Look, man - your Kingdom hate is well documented here - well documented - I get it - really...I do. You manage to work it into half your posts, regardless of subject matter. However, if you're going to claim that the first three films are somehow void of silly & over-the-top pulp, you're not being honest.  The series has been comic book pulp since its inception. 

Monkeys jumping on soldiers driving a car are no more unrealistic than a monkey who says "uh oh" and then salutes a Nazi - and the raft falling out of an airplane, onto a mountain, then over a cliff, and then landing safely in a river is every bit as preposterous as a fridge being blown through the air.

You don't like your treasured memories to be sullied with 2008ness? - then just say so.  However, claiming that one of the three sequels is more over-the-top than the others is denial. They were all four done by the same people - they know their character and the world he exists in - they invented it, as well as shaped it.

Also they were done long before lucas lost it and made the special editions of star wars and the prequels.

Misplaced Prequel & SE hate - completely unrelated to the Indiana Jones franchise.

I have to say, I'm getting a little worn out on Conan's grandstanding & complaining. It's back to my earlier statement & long-time feeling that Conan is just too narcissistic.

I might be a little more sympathetic to his childish complaining were he just a victim of NBC's poor planning, but he doesn't have the ratings to back all of this up. He had his own devoted fans for 16 years (or were they?), but they didn't follow him to 11:30 - blame them, not Leno. Leno's show did poorly in prime time, but it was the only real gamble.

Conan, on the other hand, stepped into a 56-year-old proven time slot - on a 56-year-old late night dynasty - THE standard for all who followed & copied. A show that until the day he took over was #1 in the ratings. When he took over, the ratings sunk to the lowest in the show's history.

Conan - shut it.

skyjedi2005 said:

 More crazy than flying through the air in a nuked fridge, monkeys helping attack russians, or mayan temples transforming into alien saucer ships?

Or falling out of an airplane in a life raft and landing on the ground safely and go over a giant cliff, or a mine car as a roller coaster that jumps broken sections of track, or a monkey that speaks English, or a boat that doesn't sink while it's being torn to pieces by a giant screw, or a gargantuan bolder that rolls along tree roots, or an airplane that drives through a tunnel after after having it's wings torn off in flight, or riding the outside of a submarine for miles?

Warbler said:

Conan may be able to get another show on another network, but it won't carry with it the legacy, history and prestige the Tonight Show has.

 

But does his core fan base really care?  And just how core are they really? They're out there in the rain, somehow not at work, carrying signs that say "I'm With CoCo", checking their Facebook page, and running down the street trying to get a free pizza slice from a Conan staffer.  Doesn't seem to be a lot of deep thinking going in that crowd. I would guess that the legacy & prestige of The Tonight Show is lost on them.

Interesting you guys bring up DVRs & anachronistic TV watching. In this article from my earlier post, that issue is touched upon.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/dont-cry-for-me-downtown-burbank/

"It seems obvious that what’s really at play here is a generation gap. A younger, more vocal, more online audience simply doesn’t like Mr. Leno’s show, which has gradually come to represent an entire pre-digital, Middle American culture that the Internet commentariat wishes would just get out of the way. Unfortunately for them, their parents are more likely to be watching television at 11:35 p.m. than they are."

I thought the term "internet commentariat" was interesting also. Because that seems to be exactly how it's being played out in public. The 30 - 60 generation seems to be waiting to see how it all works out. Meanwhile the 20-somethings (from the looks of the photos of supporter gatherings, the few blogs I've read, and some of my co-workers) are making it a point to go online en masse and attack the enemy. They don't seem to understand that by not watching the shows they're taking sides over, they're part of the reason there's a problem in the first place.

I work with a 24 year-old who is firmly in the Conan camp. Says it's one of his favorite shows - he makes a point of watching online segments every few days. Says also sometimes watches an entire show if he remembers to record it. He also watches Conan less now that he's on just after the news. He's not often settled in for the night that early.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/dont-cry-for-me-downtown-burbank/

Conan isn't the poor innocent he's making himself out to be. I wonder how many of his sign-holding, anti-Leno blogging supporters have bothered reading any of the history behind all of this.

I watched this last night.  It was interesting to hear Leno explain it all.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/leno-deconstructs-his-own-predicament/?hp

 It also makes it clear, again, that Conan's jabs at Leno - "you can do anything in America, as long as Jay doesn't want to do it also" - really appear self-serving, as well as incorrect. Jay didn't want any of this - he didn't want to be forced off the Tonight Show, didn't really want a prime time gig, and he's not telling NBC to move Conan out of the 11:30 slot. Conan has been less than truthful and unnecessarily snarky through all of this.

Warbler said:

Anchorhead, you complain that the Tonight Show is too much like his old show,  what did you expect it to be.  

I expected it to be more intelligent interview, less frat-boy humor. As I mentioned earlier, I've never cared for Conan's syle. Too much Conan, not enough guest.

The only reason the Tonight show under Jay didn't  "look like his old show" was because Jay didn't have a show.

Yes Warbler, as I said earlier, I've been following Leno's career since the late 70s.  I started watching The Tonight Show years before that and did so every night. Back then there were only five TV channels. Three national, two local. The tonight Show was a staple for me.  I grew up with it.   I used to tape the audio of the show by putting a small cassette recorder next to the speaker, and I'd listen to it again the next day. I formed my taste for certain comedic styles through those 70s Carson years.

For me, Conan isn't really the style I lean toward. He can be funny, for sure, but not someone I follow. And the way he's handled himself through all of this certainly isn't making me a fan.

This is my email reply to someone who asked me about this same thing last week. I cut & pasted it, so if it's jacking up the board, let me know and I'll remove it.

My Thoughts on the late night mess;
I’ve never been a Conan fan. If I had to guess, I’d say I’ve probably watched portions of maybe five or six shows of his – first & last Late Night, first few Tonight Shows, and bits from a few others.  His style seems to be a touch narcissistic, which I don’t really dig.  For me, I feel he’s tarnished the Tonight Show because he comes across as though he’s bigger than the show and its 60 year history.

He didn’t take over as host of the Tonight Show -  so much as he just moved his old show into the earlier time slot and called it the Tonight Show. On the few episodes I watched – I couldn’t really tell the two apart, other than a set change. Because of that, I’m not terribly concerned with where he ends up.  

Leno, on the other hand, I’ve been a big fan of since his stand-up days in the late 70s\early80s. I made a point of watching him whenever I could. I’ve spoken to him a few times in person, at a motorcycle hangout we both used to frequent in the 80s, and he seems like a nice guy. I’ve also read his autobiography and again, he seems like a nice, genuine guy.

That said, when Leno was hosting the Tonight Show, I watched maybe twice a week – almost never for the guests, just for the monologues and features – Jaywalking, Headlines, Mr. Brain, etc. I think he’s much more interesting and much more humorous. 
 
The New York Times did a lengthy piece on all of this last week.  One of the things they pointed out is that the promise of Conan getting the Tonight Show was actually a contract demand made by Conan, under threat to leave for a competing network or be paid-out. It’s not really poor Conan being mistreated by NBC.  It’s Conan’s ego not being able to deliver ratings and viewers.  To me, his open letter to “people of Earth” feels like more of the same – ego disguised as humility.

Here is the article; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/business/media/08leno.html?ref=media

Aside from the poor ratings of both shows (Conan’s Tonight Show ratings are the lowest in the show’s history), here are two passages that help explain how it got to this point,;

“The exact terms of Mr. O’Brien’s contract are not known, but he is rumored to have built into the deal he made five years ago to stay at NBC a guarantee that he would host “The Tonight Show” or NBC would owe a penalty of as much as $45 million.”

“For Mr. Leno, who made no secret that he was unhappy about being moved from “The Tonight Show,” the change represents something of a vindication, even if his crown has been tarnished by his 10 p.m. experience.”

SilverWook said:

I thought Vader's first name was Garth for a while! ;)

Chunkage contained...

Mielr said:

Nowadays, you go to see a movie once or twice and then wait for it to come out on DVD or blu-ray.

In '77, kids went to the theater multiple times, trying to sink in as much as possible before it left theaters because there was no video release of it until several years later (and most didn't have VCRs back then anyhow). Your only hope to see it again was a summer re-release the following year.

These days, it's a couple of times in the theater, then a few months later all you have to decide on is which to pick - the regular DVD, the Blu-ray, the Extended Edition, the Collectors Edition, or the Limited & Numbered Metal Case Edition.

It's an entirely different world now.

ABC said:

Please everyone take a minute and wonder why they didn't make the end of the story (the return in the country) with the concrete buildings ect... Looks too much as where you live ?

In a  interview I read shortly after the film was released, Jackson said he's never liked that chapter of the book, so he just left it out of the film.

It is to me the heart of the book. Such a message is 1000 times far powerful and somehow awakening...

It's certainly a very important part of the story. Funny that Jackson says he doesn't like that part of the story.  I can't imagine anyone liking it. It's harsh, but it's important in showing the loss of innocence of the heroes - both in what happens to their home, as well as how they deal with it now that they've grown and matured through the story.

Jackson sort of fairy-taled the ending - the boat sailed off and everyone lived happily ever after. That's not how the story ends.  Which gets us into a different area of alteration\change discussion - people altering other people's work.  I'm not talking about superficial changes for time constraints or combining/removing minor characters.  I'm talking about bigger story-changing alterations. Which to me, is what the absence of The Scouring is.

I guess I'm of the mind that if you're going to tell someone else's story - then tell the story. Why alter it to the point of making it a completely different story? Why not just make a similar but different take on the story, the way Lucas did with Star Wars?

Every time I discuss these types of things, I'm immediately reminded of an episode of Emeril Lagasse's cooking show from years ago.  He was making a dessert and discussing the ingredients as he went along.  When he got to the sweetening portion, he said "use a cup of sugar...if you don't have sugar, use molasses...if you don't have molasses, use Karo syrup...if you don't have Karo syrup - then make a different dessert". His point being - make it correctly or don't make it at all.

Two thoughts;

1.  I hate 3-images-a-second trailers (and films).  Way too much work to try and figure out what's happening. If you want me to have an interest in your product, don't ask me to work for it.  I'm the customer - you need me - not the other way around.

2.  It looked like it may be an interesting update of the story - until it became a CGI fest the last 15 seconds of so (the tank thing falling).  It had that completely impossible in the physical world look that seems to be all the rage in CGI-driven special effects shots these days.

I'll pass.

auximenies said:

C3PX said:

But again, I can forgive this, because the whole thing, exactly as it was originally written, is readily available to the world in the same sort of quality as the replacement.

 

I think this is the key.  Because the medium is the written word, as long as the former text is available to read, it is therefore available in the same quality as the replacement. 

I'm with C3PX & Aux on this one.  Altered words & altered images are entirely different animals.  Your mind builds the scenery when you read.  All you need are the words, in any form, and you have the story.  With altered films, someone else is making visual decisions for you.  Which - for me anyway - is a problem if it tries to compete with an image that's been completed for 30 years.  I have zero interest in trying to reconcile the two.

That, by the way, is precisely why I never watched the SEs.  I didn't want any of the images in my head trying to contradict the originals - images or story.

As far as going back and changing past works to try and force them to fit later works; That's something I just can't make sense of.  To me, it's a slap in the face to an artist's original fans, as well as a lie.  The past can't be changed - no matter how hard you try to make it for the original fans to remember - no matter how many times you lie about what you originally said & did.  Yes, I'm looking at you Mr. Lucas.

C3PX said:

I have a bunch of short scripts I have written over the years, and just last week got the bright idea of perhaps bringing some of them to life via clay animation. I know the basic principals of making claymation, but I'd like to get my hands on some sort of guide detailing the tools and tricks of the trade. 

Man, keep us posted. I'm a big fan of claymation, so it will be interesting to see your work.

Here's another column on the message of the film.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/opinion/08brooks.html

Correct, they don't automatically make you hit more homers because you've become bigger & stronger, although they can. To me, the records are tainted because someone like McGwire took them for so long that he - and he admits this is why he did it - ended up playing in considerably more games, which pads the numbers he would have had otherwise. Nine innings instead of seven, 150 games instead of 130, etc. That adds up over the course of ten years.

By his own admission, he was ready to retire a few years earlier because he was taking too long to get over injuries. He decides instead to juice and ends up playing a few more seasons. That's an awful lot of homers that figure into his total of 583.

Add to that the fact that by being in more games, he had more RBIs - those are runs that may have been game changers for the Cards. He altered his personal records, as well as the possible outcome & standings of other teams - both the Cards and team in other divisions. Particularly if a team is only one or two games back at the end of the season.

Whether he's doing it out of ignorance or denial, his explanation that the only thing the juice altered was his personal health is incorrect.

It was an interesting interview, to say the least. Here's a link for those who are interested;

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=7148421&topic_id=7898602

The recent openness of the juicing was in large part due to Canseco's 2005 book. For those of us who followed baseball in the late 80s & early 90s, Canseco was always a loose canon. He was embarrassingly conceited and he didn't come across as terribly bright either. I never cared for the guy and didn't pay too much attention to what ever he was blathering in interviews.

Because of that, I paid little heed to Canseco's tell-all book. To me, it was just more attention-whoring. Funny that looking at it several years later, after all this time, Canseco actually did something that helped the game - albeit, for the wrong reasons.

My point with bringing up Canseco is that I found it interesting that McGwire - while coming clean, giving details, dates, etc, live, on national TV - said Canseco's account of him (McGwire) injecting himself in the bathroom before taking the field is false.

I'm inclined to believe McGwire because at this point I have no reason not to.

I will say, however, that I found it disappointing that McGwire thinks the steroids didn't help him break records. He said it was because of his ability, not the juice. The juice allowed him to play more often than he would have otherwise - that aspect had a direct effect on the records he set & broke.