Joel Goldsmith was the score composer for Stargate Universe -- a short-lived, but high-quality science fiction tv series. His music for SGU made a lasting impression on me. The son of Jerry Goldsmith, Joel passed away in 2012, and he left very large shoes to fill.
So, here's a shortlist of musicians I would consider to compose music for any future iteration of Stargate Universe (hopefully a continuation).
People who have contributed a lot to science fiction and fantasy, and who are now major composers:
* Brian Tyler -- Best-known for his piece from Frank Herbert's Children of Dune, which featured in the first trailer for Star Trek 2009. Tyler also contributed to Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Regeneration". Track here. Tyler is now known for his work on major action movies.
* Steve Jablonsky -- Desperate Housewives (the theme is best-known), The Island, Ender's Game. Major composer, lots of movies.
* Ramin Djawadi -- Thunderbirds (film), Prison Break, Game of Thrones, The Island (additional music).
Other film and television composers:
* Ty Unwin -- BBC's documentary series: Earth, Space, Journey to the Edge of the Universe, The Incredible Human Journey, and several others.
* Leonard J. Paul -- The Corporation (documentary)
* Peter Golub -- Countdown to Zero (documentary)
Musicians who have written scores for films:
* Trent Reznor / Nine Inch Nails -- The Social Network, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (U.S. version)
* Pärt Uusberg -- In the Crosswind (Risttuules)
Musicians who should and would, given the opportunity:
* Front Line Assembly -- pioneering work in Techno-Industrial, soundtrack for the AirMech game
* Mike Foyle & Signalrunners -- Love Theme Dusk, Shipwrecked.
Composers, who generally don't write for film, but whose works have extensively been used in film and television:
* Arvo Pärt
Kuvatud on postitused sildiga television. Kuva kõik postitused
Kuvatud on postitused sildiga television. Kuva kõik postitused
reede, 23. september 2016
pühapäev, 15. november 2015
Claire and Frank (possible spoilers, you've been warned)
Based on information from IMDb forums and Season 3 synoposes
Not actually spoilers, but a theory nonetheless, so half-spoilers.
Rape is one of the reasons Claire might have decided not to have children.
I think Frank is the one in the marriage who is unable to procreate. It's possible Claire might have tried and not had any results from Frank. (I wonder, though, if Frank knows it himself.)
All that would then explain why Claire had had three abortions; because despite having had an otherwise healthy marriage with Frank, she could have been conceived by other men (the day-after pills don't always work), but a different-looking child would eventualy become obvious. And then there's DNA testing.
Claire's biological clock ticking, she decides to get preggers anyway. That's why she wants to separate from Frank and a possible divorce, because she is very certain the child is not his in the first place.
If she's pregnant, then it's possible she might be using it as pretext to disassociate herself from Frank, because she knows that he killed Russo and Zoe. If the murders are eventually revealed as such, she can later claim some plausible deniability. The moodiness might be caused by pregnancy or might even be intentional to throw Frank off the loop, because she needs her female moodiness and the pregancy to disassociate herself from him.
Not actually spoilers, but a theory nonetheless, so half-spoilers.
Rape is one of the reasons Claire might have decided not to have children.
I think Frank is the one in the marriage who is unable to procreate. It's possible Claire might have tried and not had any results from Frank. (I wonder, though, if Frank knows it himself.)
All that would then explain why Claire had had three abortions; because despite having had an otherwise healthy marriage with Frank, she could have been conceived by other men (the day-after pills don't always work), but a different-looking child would eventualy become obvious. And then there's DNA testing.
Claire's biological clock ticking, she decides to get preggers anyway. That's why she wants to separate from Frank and a possible divorce, because she is very certain the child is not his in the first place.
If she's pregnant, then it's possible she might be using it as pretext to disassociate herself from Frank, because she knows that he killed Russo and Zoe. If the murders are eventually revealed as such, she can later claim some plausible deniability. The moodiness might be caused by pregnancy or might even be intentional to throw Frank off the loop, because she needs her female moodiness and the pregancy to disassociate herself from him.
teisipäev, 2. aprill 2013
Stargate Universe, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and 2001: The Space Odyssey—A Perspective
This was published first to make sure that the post lasts longer than in IMDb forums.
I've reminisced a bit since first replying in this [IMDb] thread, so got some new ideas in support for TMP.
"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (TMP) was released ten years after "2001: A Space Odyssey" (2001), so it's historically placed within the timeframe of a generation that also had first-hand experience of 2001, which there is a huge fanbase of, and which extensively features elements of observation and contemplation. And, so, this is what the creators of TMP probably leaned on, most likely to offer an intelligent and ethereal view of space, in order, perhaps, to unintentionally counteract the "pew-pew-pew" effect of Star Wars.
So, when I think of Stargate Universe (SGU) and TMP having similarities, then a fair amount of all of that was borne out of 2001. Now that I'd thought of it, 2001 must have provided the people over at SGU quite a bit of influence in how SGU was presented.
When 2001 was initially released, it was lambasted by critics and a rather incredulous public, while only later was the film accepted as a classic. I hope for the same trend to happen with SGU, and, to a certain extent, to have happened already with TMP.
I've reminisced a bit since first replying in this [IMDb] thread, so got some new ideas in support for TMP.
"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (TMP) was released ten years after "2001: A Space Odyssey" (2001), so it's historically placed within the timeframe of a generation that also had first-hand experience of 2001, which there is a huge fanbase of, and which extensively features elements of observation and contemplation. And, so, this is what the creators of TMP probably leaned on, most likely to offer an intelligent and ethereal view of space, in order, perhaps, to unintentionally counteract the "pew-pew-pew" effect of Star Wars.
So, when I think of Stargate Universe (SGU) and TMP having similarities, then a fair amount of all of that was borne out of 2001. Now that I'd thought of it, 2001 must have provided the people over at SGU quite a bit of influence in how SGU was presented.
When 2001 was initially released, it was lambasted by critics and a rather incredulous public, while only later was the film accepted as a classic. I hope for the same trend to happen with SGU, and, to a certain extent, to have happened already with TMP.
pühapäev, 10. veebruar 2013
James Cromwell
...on mitmekülgne näitleja, kes mängib tihti suuri ninasid:
- poeet Virgilius, treener, doktor (6x), direktor
- äriinimesed: ärimees, meediamogul (2x William Randolf Hearst), pankur;
- vaimulikud: isa (2x), reverend (2x), preester (2x), piiskop (2x), kardinal, paavst;
- jõuametkond: vangivalvur (2x);
- võmmid: politseinik, ohvitser (2x), detektiiv (3x), seersant, deputy (3x), politseišeff;
- kapteniauaste on nii politseinike kui sõjaväelaste seas, seega:
kapten (3x); - sõjaväelased: kolonel, major, kindralleitnant, kindralmajor, admiral;
- riigiaparaat: kohtunik (3x), senaator (2x), minister (2x, sh. Andrew W. Mellon ja Hank Paulson), peaminister, suursaadik;
- riigipead jmt: president (4x, s.h. Lyndon B. Johnson (2x) ja George W. Bush), Prints Philip (Edinburgh' hertsog)
teisipäev, 21. august 2012
Why Falling Skies is too 'family-friendly'
And why is there little to no swearing.
This was in reply to a Falling Skies IMDb thread posing just these questions.Well, people do swear in real life, but it's probably very difficult to make that balance right on television.
If you'll ever see an episode of "The Borgias" (a historical tv series produced in Canada and filmed mostly in Hungary), then people there don't swear either, but you'll see everything else: death, murder, battles, intrigue, sex, whores, flogging (torture), subterfuge and politics. Even urination.
Most of the time, people don't swear and generally discourage swearing (in public) in a prude, vain, and hopeless attempt to instill polite (aka more 'cultured') language in children, while in real life all it amounts to is just procrastinating the use of such verbiage by young people.
One of the reasons swearing is not used on American tv is that it would turn off many older/prude/conservative viewers, who would then prohibit their children from watching a show. That would result in dismal ratings from those with Nielsen boxes, no matter how flawed that system is (I have a suspicion these boxes aren't distributed all that evenly, either).
On the other hand, Falling Skies seems to be meant for a slightly younger audience than your average teenager who already knows foul language.
So, for example, if you want to know which is the youngest demographic a show is catering to, see who's the youngest major character (babies don't count). In Star Trek: The Next Generation, that was "Wesley Crusher" (played by writer and actor Wil Wheaton, who now has over two million followers on twitter). So, the older the youngest character in a show, the greater likelihood there is to encounter more mature themes.
And if suddenly the characters in "Falling Skies" started swearing as they actually would in real life, then by now it would be very out of character of them to do so. In a way, they should have done that from the outset, but now it's most likely far too late, because we all know now that they are coincidentally a very polite lot.
In conclusion, the only recourse to actual people with children would be not to swear themselves, or at all — just in case them kids accidentally overhear something — and suggest the youth not to use such language in polite company. This would basically ensure the kids learn by example. (Disclaimer: Your mileage may vary.)
kolmapäev, 8. august 2012
Alternate dialogue between Weaver and Tector
Warning: Here be spoilers of some sort regarding the episode "Death March" from "Falling Skies". I wanted to write this as a comment on IMDb in a forum post, but then started having doubts about its policy on publishing fan fiction on its forums, so moved my ideas here.
I found it very disrespectful of Weaver to push Tector like that and so blatantly play on the feelings of a person who's driving a large truck. If I were Tector, I would have asked Weaver if he wanted to take over driving, or I would have stopped the truck and gone to the back just to avoid Weaver asking questions, but maybe that's just me.
I guess Tector couldn't stop driving, because they were low on fuel anyway, and there was no immediate reason to stop driving and unnecessarily spend fuel on slowing down and then later going on again. Weaver, of course, was using the situation. I think then I would have given Weaver "Don't push it. Sir."
We don't really know what was Weaver's reason to start pushing so hard on Tector. One reason could have just been the plain lack of manpower, and perhaps he wanted to find out if Tector has more in him than he has so far let know. Maybe it's that he's looking for someone who would in the future be able to command just in case something happens to Weaver himself.
So here I'm playing around with an alternate exchange between Weaver and Tector:
(Not exactly spoilers, but hey, I had like two options of how this would go, so here's one... I considered adding a Southern accent to Weaver, but might have fumbled it, 'cuz I can't distinct Black Southern and White Southern in writing. And it all may be a cliche of my own, so beware)
Option #1
- T: "Don't push it. Sir."
Here, Weaver would pause to process the Sir, as it alludes to Tector deferring to his command. Weaver now knows that Tector is alot more trustworthy, but realizes that Tector said as much just to avoid Weaver pushing him.
And after a while,
W: So you were a soldier?
Tector is silent and avoids eye contact.
Weaver realizes that his assumptions have been correct, but doesn't feel they've been completely confirmed to stop asking. Out of boredom, and to try to pull more out from Tector, Weaver would start talking about himself, maybe about some ambush he experienced, and some similar stuff, about the deaths, and such and such.
Tector, who is not really as stupid as he lets on, would pre-empt this by cutting off Weaver's speech:
- T: Don't tell me about some ambush, and that you lost people and that you regret it, and that you wished you were the one to go...
Tector's breathing has become heavier, while Weaver stops, realizing he hit one of Tector's sweet spots. Weaver is silent, while Tector tries to keep his calm.
But,
Weaver then explains his realization that what keeps him going are all the people there behind him, which he then calls responsibility, "Ya know?"
- T: I know. I know what it's like to be in a battlefield. And what it's like to lose your mates.
- W: I just wanted to know.
- T: I don't think I want you to know. Yet.
This at least is a second confirmation to Weaver that Tector has had advanced military training of some sort. This would make Weaver want to know more about Tector, but he knows he has to tread gently.
- W: What if somethin' happened to me again?
This makes Tector think.
- T: Tom can take over.
- W: He was on the alien ship.
- T: What, you distrust him now?
- W: No!
- T: Hal?
- W[with doubt]: He's a good boy, but he ain't got long-term experience.
Tector pauses a bit, and then, almost non-chalantly:
- T: Well, Pope's a good shot.
- W: Pope?! Pope's a firebrand! Yer too good to know it yerself!
[A pause ensues.]
Here I thought Tector would start opening up by explaining his two tours of duties in Iraq and Afghanistan. But not the ambush.
- W: So you are a soldier?
Tector tells his rank and where/who he was stationed with.
I relized that the second dialogue option would be even more intersting:
Option #2
- T: "Don't push it!"
Here, Weaver learns that there might be soft spot in Tector.
- W: Ya know, I've been thinkin' about givin' it all up, too.
- T: Oh yea, tell me abot it! [said dismissively]
Weaver takes it as if Tector is challenging Weaver to humour Tector, so Weaver (perhaps out of feeling insulted about it) starts blathering about his experience of loss from his past military experience and into the post-invasion times; all the while progressing into more and more desolate and macabre descriptions, whilst Tector becomes at first slowly, and then more visibly distraught. As Weaver continues without at first actually looking at Tector, we see Tector breathing more heavily and wiping his left cheek onto the left jacket arm (assuming Weaver doesn't notice from that angle, or intentionally doesn't pay attention), while Weaver goes on and on [insert somewhere Weaver's wish to give it all up and a death wish, too] until Tector audibly sniffs, crying his eyes red while trying to drive a truck, which starts veering off-course. Noticing this, Weaver stops his blather, realizing he's taken it much too far, and helps guide the driver's wheel that Tector somehow holds to turn the truck's course straight.
(This is actually a dangerous situation in another sense, as here Weaver could lose Tector's emotional trust.)
Weaver is silent and keeps his left hand on the wheel of the truck, as Tector tries to regain composure so as to be able to drive the truck on his own.
Weaver just says:
- W: I'm very sorry.
- T: No you're not.
Weaver is very angry (because he did feel really sorry for Tector, knowing that he had experienced a traumatic event before the invasion), but doesn't show it. Weaver eventually becomes really sad himself, looking down, and then forward, but without all the water.
After a minute or so silence:
- W: So you were a soldier?
- T: I was.
- W: Something happened, right?
- T: Yeah. Lots of things.
Weaver finally, but much more shortly, explains his past feelings of despair and then his rationale for going on, and the case for responsibility for the people behind his back.
Tector then says that he knows, like he understands, and starts telling how he was deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, his rank and which group he was deployed with, and about the ambush. Some moisture exits Tector's eyes again, but he maintains composure.
Weaver finally pats Tector on the shoulder:
- W: I honestly didn't know.
- T: I didn't want you to know.
- W [looking at Tector]: We really need people like you.
Here's a pause, to let Tector calm down completely.
- Weaver: So you are a soldier?
- Tector [who is now more determined and looking at Weaver for a moment]:
Yes, Sir, I am.
Weaver feels moved. Maybe he'd say something cliche, like
- W: It is an honor to have you with us.
Tector, though begins explaining his doubts, that his initial plan was only going to take the 2nd Mass to Charleston, until he suddently stops the truck because of the broken bridge.
I found it very disrespectful of Weaver to push Tector like that and so blatantly play on the feelings of a person who's driving a large truck. If I were Tector, I would have asked Weaver if he wanted to take over driving, or I would have stopped the truck and gone to the back just to avoid Weaver asking questions, but maybe that's just me.
I guess Tector couldn't stop driving, because they were low on fuel anyway, and there was no immediate reason to stop driving and unnecessarily spend fuel on slowing down and then later going on again. Weaver, of course, was using the situation. I think then I would have given Weaver "Don't push it. Sir."
We don't really know what was Weaver's reason to start pushing so hard on Tector. One reason could have just been the plain lack of manpower, and perhaps he wanted to find out if Tector has more in him than he has so far let know. Maybe it's that he's looking for someone who would in the future be able to command just in case something happens to Weaver himself.
So here I'm playing around with an alternate exchange between Weaver and Tector:
(Not exactly spoilers, but hey, I had like two options of how this would go, so here's one... I considered adding a Southern accent to Weaver, but might have fumbled it, 'cuz I can't distinct Black Southern and White Southern in writing. And it all may be a cliche of my own, so beware)
Option #1
- T: "Don't push it. Sir."
Here, Weaver would pause to process the Sir, as it alludes to Tector deferring to his command. Weaver now knows that Tector is alot more trustworthy, but realizes that Tector said as much just to avoid Weaver pushing him.
And after a while,
W: So you were a soldier?
Tector is silent and avoids eye contact.
Weaver realizes that his assumptions have been correct, but doesn't feel they've been completely confirmed to stop asking. Out of boredom, and to try to pull more out from Tector, Weaver would start talking about himself, maybe about some ambush he experienced, and some similar stuff, about the deaths, and such and such.
Tector, who is not really as stupid as he lets on, would pre-empt this by cutting off Weaver's speech:
- T: Don't tell me about some ambush, and that you lost people and that you regret it, and that you wished you were the one to go...
Tector's breathing has become heavier, while Weaver stops, realizing he hit one of Tector's sweet spots. Weaver is silent, while Tector tries to keep his calm.
But,
Weaver then explains his realization that what keeps him going are all the people there behind him, which he then calls responsibility, "Ya know?"
- T: I know. I know what it's like to be in a battlefield. And what it's like to lose your mates.
- W: I just wanted to know.
- T: I don't think I want you to know. Yet.
This at least is a second confirmation to Weaver that Tector has had advanced military training of some sort. This would make Weaver want to know more about Tector, but he knows he has to tread gently.
- W: What if somethin' happened to me again?
This makes Tector think.
- T: Tom can take over.
- W: He was on the alien ship.
- T: What, you distrust him now?
- W: No!
- T: Hal?
- W[with doubt]: He's a good boy, but he ain't got long-term experience.
Tector pauses a bit, and then, almost non-chalantly:
- T: Well, Pope's a good shot.
- W: Pope?! Pope's a firebrand! Yer too good to know it yerself!
[A pause ensues.]
Here I thought Tector would start opening up by explaining his two tours of duties in Iraq and Afghanistan. But not the ambush.
- W: So you are a soldier?
Tector tells his rank and where/who he was stationed with.
I relized that the second dialogue option would be even more intersting:
Option #2
- T: "Don't push it!"
Here, Weaver learns that there might be soft spot in Tector.
- W: Ya know, I've been thinkin' about givin' it all up, too.
- T: Oh yea, tell me abot it! [said dismissively]
Weaver takes it as if Tector is challenging Weaver to humour Tector, so Weaver (perhaps out of feeling insulted about it) starts blathering about his experience of loss from his past military experience and into the post-invasion times; all the while progressing into more and more desolate and macabre descriptions, whilst Tector becomes at first slowly, and then more visibly distraught. As Weaver continues without at first actually looking at Tector, we see Tector breathing more heavily and wiping his left cheek onto the left jacket arm (assuming Weaver doesn't notice from that angle, or intentionally doesn't pay attention), while Weaver goes on and on [insert somewhere Weaver's wish to give it all up and a death wish, too] until Tector audibly sniffs, crying his eyes red while trying to drive a truck, which starts veering off-course. Noticing this, Weaver stops his blather, realizing he's taken it much too far, and helps guide the driver's wheel that Tector somehow holds to turn the truck's course straight.
(This is actually a dangerous situation in another sense, as here Weaver could lose Tector's emotional trust.)
Weaver is silent and keeps his left hand on the wheel of the truck, as Tector tries to regain composure so as to be able to drive the truck on his own.
Weaver just says:
- W: I'm very sorry.
- T: No you're not.
Weaver is very angry (because he did feel really sorry for Tector, knowing that he had experienced a traumatic event before the invasion), but doesn't show it. Weaver eventually becomes really sad himself, looking down, and then forward, but without all the water.
After a minute or so silence:
- W: So you were a soldier?
- T: I was.
- W: Something happened, right?
- T: Yeah. Lots of things.
Weaver finally, but much more shortly, explains his past feelings of despair and then his rationale for going on, and the case for responsibility for the people behind his back.
Tector then says that he knows, like he understands, and starts telling how he was deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, his rank and which group he was deployed with, and about the ambush. Some moisture exits Tector's eyes again, but he maintains composure.
Weaver finally pats Tector on the shoulder:
- W: I honestly didn't know.
- T: I didn't want you to know.
- W [looking at Tector]: We really need people like you.
Here's a pause, to let Tector calm down completely.
- Weaver: So you are a soldier?
- Tector [who is now more determined and looking at Weaver for a moment]:
Yes, Sir, I am.
Weaver feels moved. Maybe he'd say something cliche, like
- W: It is an honor to have you with us.
Tector, though begins explaining his doubts, that his initial plan was only going to take the 2nd Mass to Charleston, until he suddently stops the truck because of the broken bridge.
[spoilers end here]neljapäev, 17. november 2011
Women, kids, and Stargate Universe
To refer to a user on GateWorld Forums who contended that the most populous demographic watching Stargate Universe (SGU) were older (white) men who would watch any and all Stargate that was available. He asked if women and kids "killed" SGU — implying those Nielsen viewers who didn't watch Stargate Universe, thereby letting SyFy have low ratings as the official reason as to not renewing SGU.I haven't seen the Nielsen statistics, but based on information presented here (that mostly men watched), then the conclusion is that not all [i]Nielsen[/i] women could watch the show — preferring "Dancing With The Star(let)s". — And those that could watch couldn't let their kids watch, effectively sacrificing watching it themselves.
Part of SyFy's favoured demographic wasn't adult enough: The young kids who couldn't see (under-14's), and older kids who wouldn't watch (the video game generation not interested in character drama). And assuming those were mostly male. The 'girl' demographic could have been turned off either by the very concept of science fiction, or other interests, such as Dancing With My Two Left Feet and a goth woman scientist secretly infatuated with her father-figure-boss.
There's been another thread over here questioning if any of the women characters could have been or could have become someone like Carter (I haven't read through all the thread yet, but I do have a draft reply for it), or very nearly as perfect as her. You know, these people are very few and far between anyway; the closest real-life examples are women astronauts or someone like Valerie Plame. — I have to admit I dropped my jaw when I first saw her on tv (IIRC :-).
This must probably be a cultural thing that women in nowadays' U.S.-based (or -targeted) television shows are very strong characters, possessing almost superwoman-like capabilities in each show, including NCIS, SG-1, and so on; as if that were something who young American women would strive to be, thereby failing to tolerate characters more fallible than your average superchick.
Truth of the matter is, that most people (including women) just are not as perfect as the 'hero'-type characters presented on popular tv shows. I have to contend that SGU was so realistic in its presentation that it perhaps turned viewers off to the collective dismay of us fans. I remember an unintentionally funny line by an SGU hater who wrote (on IMDb, I think) that tv shows weren't supposed to show real life...
Oh, and the kids that did watch SGU, didn't watch it from a Nielsen box, but I guess, very much on their own terms. I am also considering failures in marketing SGU, but I don't know where did the responsibilities lie as to who was supposed to do exactly what.
neljapäev, 1. september 2011
Why SyFy canceled SGU
Disclaimer: The post is all my personal opinion, based on some facts
I'd like to add a few of my own thoughts here about why SGU was cancelled. It's all speculation and I've said it before.
Just before MGM entered a pre-packaged bankruptcy, SyFy was probably considering picking the show up for the third season, but after MGM entered bankruptcy proceedings and before it emerged from bankruptcy (a matter of just a few weeks or even less, I might add), SyFy decided not to pick up SGU for S3.
The reason, which is all speculation and inference – is based on the facts that before MGM entered bankruptcy, it was 20% owned by Comcast, which owns 51% of NBC Universal (the other 49% owned by General Electric), which owns SyFy; and 20% of MGM owned by Sony. Thus, with both Comcast/NBC Universal & Sony owning 40% of MGM, it was still (simultaneously) a competitor to them.
After MGM emerged from a pre-packaged bankruptcy, the former owners didn't own it anymore.
Right after it became clear that Comcast+GE/NBC Universal (owner of SyFy) wouldn't own 20% of MGM anymore, any incentive for Comcast's television property to cough up 50% production costs to produce more SGU evaporated. — To reiterate, just because SyFy's parent company/ies didn't own 20% of MGM anymore. (The production went roughly $2 mil. per episode, AFAIK, with 50% by MGM proper.)
And imagine how all the money really ran around. I would love for some regulator to look into this.
My opinion is that SyFy's move of SGU to a terrible timeslot was intentional and I assume, that more than anyone else were Comcast/NBC Universal/SyFy aware that MGM would eventually go into bankruptcy after which they wouldn't own it anymore. Letting SGU fail ratings-wise worked as a convenient excuse not to finance its production any further.
</end of speculation>
The only facts are who and how much anyone owned MGM and who then did not own MGM at which time and who did then and still owns SyFy/NBC. See MGM Holdings article at Wikipedia.
Everyone knew that MGM were haemorraging money like crazy and most potential buyers wanted as a condition of any sale of MGM for it to go through bankruptcy, so that MGM would not be under its former owners. Source here.
Where I think SyFy is culpable in letting SGU's ratings go is shuffling SGU's air times too much; Joseph Mallozzi directly (AFAIK) blames moving SGU to Tuesdays against "Dancing with the Stars" (and starlets) and NCIS (a police-procedural show), in a time of year that is not Summer; I also noticed indirect finger-pointing at what I understand to be rather creative accounting practices (search for Bailey writes in text) over at skiffy. Now it cancelled Eureka.
I'd like to add a few of my own thoughts here about why SGU was cancelled. It's all speculation and I've said it before.
Just before MGM entered a pre-packaged bankruptcy, SyFy was probably considering picking the show up for the third season, but after MGM entered bankruptcy proceedings and before it emerged from bankruptcy (a matter of just a few weeks or even less, I might add), SyFy decided not to pick up SGU for S3.
The reason, which is all speculation and inference – is based on the facts that before MGM entered bankruptcy, it was 20% owned by Comcast, which owns 51% of NBC Universal (the other 49% owned by General Electric), which owns SyFy; and 20% of MGM owned by Sony. Thus, with both Comcast/NBC Universal & Sony owning 40% of MGM, it was still (simultaneously) a competitor to them.
After MGM emerged from a pre-packaged bankruptcy, the former owners didn't own it anymore.
Right after it became clear that Comcast+GE/NBC Universal (owner of SyFy) wouldn't own 20% of MGM anymore, any incentive for Comcast's television property to cough up 50% production costs to produce more SGU evaporated. — To reiterate, just because SyFy's parent company/ies didn't own 20% of MGM anymore. (The production went roughly $2 mil. per episode, AFAIK, with 50% by MGM proper.)
And imagine how all the money really ran around. I would love for some regulator to look into this.
My opinion is that SyFy's move of SGU to a terrible timeslot was intentional and I assume, that more than anyone else were Comcast/NBC Universal/SyFy aware that MGM would eventually go into bankruptcy after which they wouldn't own it anymore. Letting SGU fail ratings-wise worked as a convenient excuse not to finance its production any further.
</end of speculation>
The only facts are who and how much anyone owned MGM and who then did not own MGM at which time and who did then and still owns SyFy/NBC. See MGM Holdings article at Wikipedia.
Everyone knew that MGM were haemorraging money like crazy and most potential buyers wanted as a condition of any sale of MGM for it to go through bankruptcy, so that MGM would not be under its former owners. Source here.
Where I think SyFy is culpable in letting SGU's ratings go is shuffling SGU's air times too much; Joseph Mallozzi directly (AFAIK) blames moving SGU to Tuesdays against "Dancing with the Stars" (and starlets) and NCIS (a police-procedural show), in a time of year that is not Summer; I also noticed indirect finger-pointing at what I understand to be rather creative accounting practices (search for Bailey writes in text) over at skiffy. Now it cancelled Eureka.
reede, 17. juuni 2011
Sulnis Silik
This I replublished as a comment (which was intended as such) in a thread on IMDb
I'm going to add myself as a huge fan of Stargate Universe, too ^_^
Well now, in chronological order, the non-Star Trek series I've followed and which still remain my favourite (with marks):
* Earth 2 +++
* "Roswell" +++
* Farscape ++++
* "Battlestar Galactica" reimagined +++
* Stargate Universe ++++
TV show I'm willing to consider:
* "Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles" (I've seen a few episodes and the series had lots of potential, but it was axed)
TV series I liked back in the day:
* "Babylon 5"
* "Time Trax" and
* "TimeCop" (both shows very similar in concept) — don't ask me why, but there was a particular night about ten or even more years ago when a Nazi-themed episode of "TimeCop" aired on one channel and later that night another channel featured the "Philadelphia Experiment II" film (the plot of which is very, very reminiscent of ENT's "Storm Front," Parts I & II). I must have seen this one a decade or more ago on German TV.
wrt "Enterprise", I'm going to add that I've gone through a marathon of a number of episodes and now seem to have greater appreciation of it, despite the continuity flaws and all.
With the exception of Jolene Blalock, none of the primary characters are very astounding or particularly deep, so I'd add that the storylines, vfx and guest actors add the most spice, especially Jeffrey Combs as Shran and John Fleck, who most fabulously played Silik.
What I would have done to the cast: Phlox should have been killed off or reassigned to Cold Station 12 in Season 1/Season 2, somehow replaced by Silik to "play doctor". Silik could have been disowned by his very own Suliban Cabal, for example. Unfortunately, he was put to the very top of the Cabal food chain, so there wasn't anyone to replace him, but I'm sure Future Guy could have made necessary arrangements to the past to affect Silik's life in as punishment for some infraction...
So, in any absence of a good doctor in uncharted territories, the deliciously bad-@$$ Silik could have then slowly gained the Enterprise crew's trust, but still stay sneaky and cause surprises and trouble, yet remaining too essential for the crew to be replaceable by any Federation-approved doctor.
Silik's unfamiliarity with the Hippocratic Oath could have added another layer of drama; his expert knowledge in very many things Milky Way Galaxy could have given an addition to suspense and provided a different dimension of knowledge compared to T'Pol's Vulcan-sanitized view.
The only caveat that I see with Silik's appearance is whether there was such colour makeup paint at the time for Silik's apperance that wouldn't adversely affect an actor's internal organs the way it happened to Virginia Hey in Farscape.
I'm going to add myself as a huge fan of Stargate Universe, too ^_^
Well now, in chronological order, the non-Star Trek series I've followed and which still remain my favourite (with marks):
* Earth 2 +++
* "Roswell" +++
* Farscape ++++
* "Battlestar Galactica" reimagined +++
* Stargate Universe ++++
TV show I'm willing to consider:
* "Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles" (I've seen a few episodes and the series had lots of potential, but it was axed)
TV series I liked back in the day:
* "Babylon 5"
* "Time Trax" and
* "TimeCop" (both shows very similar in concept) — don't ask me why, but there was a particular night about ten or even more years ago when a Nazi-themed episode of "TimeCop" aired on one channel and later that night another channel featured the "Philadelphia Experiment II" film (the plot of which is very, very reminiscent of ENT's "Storm Front," Parts I & II). I must have seen this one a decade or more ago on German TV.
wrt "Enterprise", I'm going to add that I've gone through a marathon of a number of episodes and now seem to have greater appreciation of it, despite the continuity flaws and all.
With the exception of Jolene Blalock, none of the primary characters are very astounding or particularly deep, so I'd add that the storylines, vfx and guest actors add the most spice, especially Jeffrey Combs as Shran and John Fleck, who most fabulously played Silik.
What I would have done to the cast: Phlox should have been killed off or reassigned to Cold Station 12 in Season 1/Season 2, somehow replaced by Silik to "play doctor". Silik could have been disowned by his very own Suliban Cabal, for example. Unfortunately, he was put to the very top of the Cabal food chain, so there wasn't anyone to replace him, but I'm sure Future Guy could have made necessary arrangements to the past to affect Silik's life in as punishment for some infraction...
So, in any absence of a good doctor in uncharted territories, the deliciously bad-@$$ Silik could have then slowly gained the Enterprise crew's trust, but still stay sneaky and cause surprises and trouble, yet remaining too essential for the crew to be replaceable by any Federation-approved doctor.
Silik's unfamiliarity with the Hippocratic Oath could have added another layer of drama; his expert knowledge in very many things Milky Way Galaxy could have given an addition to suspense and provided a different dimension of knowledge compared to T'Pol's Vulcan-sanitized view.
The only caveat that I see with Silik's appearance is whether there was such colour makeup paint at the time for Silik's apperance that wouldn't adversely affect an actor's internal organs the way it happened to Virginia Hey in Farscape.
laupäev, 4. juuni 2011
Miks Stargate Universe tegemine tühistati
See kõik on kahtlused ja spekulatsioon, kuid faktilised andmed vähemalt annavad teatud pildi sellest, mis võis olla "Stargate Universe" tühistamise taga.
Ameerika telekanal SyFy otsustas SGU tegemist eelmise aasta lõpus mitte uuendada peale seda kui MGM läks planeeritud pankrotikaitsesse (Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection). SGU finantseerimine oli SyFy ja MGM vahel pooleks. SyFy on USA kaabelkanal, mis kuulub NBC Universal alla ja viimase omanikud on 51% Comcast, 49% General Electric. Enne MGM pankrotikaitsesse astumist oli Comcast 20% MGM omanik (teistest meediaettevõtetest oli ka Sony 20% omanik). Kui MGM pankrotikaitsest väljus, sai MGM endale täiesti uue omanikeringi.
Võib väita, et SGU oli rohkem korporatiivpoliitika kui reitingute ohver. Minu kahtluste järgi võis MGM-ist voolata selle omanike taskusse suurel hulgal raha, niigi nõrgenenud MGM oli lõpuks suurtes võlgades ja ei suutnud enam võlgu üleval pidada. MGM on peale selle veel konkurent NBC Universal (Comcast) ja Sony stuudiotele.
Minu väitel võib olla kaalu, kuna ammugi võlgades MGM potentsiaalsed ostjad ütlesid 2008. ja 2009. aastatel, et nad enne MGM-i endale ei osta kui viimane läheb pankrotikaitse protsessist läbi, misjärel endised omanikud ettevõtet rohkem enam ei oma. — Sest võimalikud ostjad ei teadnud mitte ainult, et MGM-i rahaseis on vilets, vaid ka seda, et sealt voolab raha välja. Seetõttu nad nõudsidki ostu peatingimusena MGM-ile pankrotikaitsest läbiminekut, et raha äravoolule lõpp teha.
SyFy tõenäoliselt omab veel SGU-le ekslusiivset lepingut SGU uute osade esimesteks näitamisteks ja ma arvan, et leping veel kehtib. SGU-d loodeti teha 5 hooaega ja võib oletada, et leping kehtib viis aastat. Isegi kui MGM tahaks sarja kogu Stargate frantsiisi omanikuna teistel kanalitel näidata, ei ole see eksklusiivlepingu pärast võimalik — oletatavasti ootab MGM-i rikkumise eest suur leppetrahv, kui MGM SGU-d enne teatud aega mujal näitab. Ning nii ootab MGM, kuni leping otsa lõpeb ja MGM-l on siis vabadus SGU-d teistele Ameerika kanalitele pakkuda.
SGU madalate reitingute üheks põhjuseks võis olla osade "Stargate SG-1" ja "Stargate Atlantis" fännide äärmiselt valulik reaktsioon SGU võetud uue ja realistlikuma kvaliteedi suhtes, mispeale hakkasid need fännid SGU sarja infantiilselt vihkama ja seda muidugi ka mitte vaatama.
* Teine põhjus on see, et USA-s valitsev Nielseni reitingusüsteem on oma aja ära elanud, sest paljud inimesed enam telekat ei vaata ja vaatavad telesaateid alternatiivsete allikate kaudu.
* Kolmas põhjus on see, et SyFy kandis SGU reedeõhtuselt ajalt teisipäevaõhtusele ajale ja SyFy (endise nimega SciFi) tõi samale ajale ameerika wrestlingu. Teisipäevasele õhtule ülekandmisega "uskus" SyFy, et siis on ehk paremad reitingud, aga viga tehti selles, et ei arvestatud suviste ja sügiseste hooaegade erinevustega, kus antud käik oleks suvise hooaja puhul töötanud, aga sügisel olid samal ajal suurteks konkurentideks "Navy NCIS" protseduurisari ja "Tantsud tähtedega" Ameerika variant.
* Väidetakse, et SyFy kandis SGU üle meelega halvale ajale, et reitingud viletsad oleksid ja et siis oleks võimalik kuulutada SGU näitamine kahjumlikuks ja saada mingi suurem maksusoodustus, millele üks SGU produtsente Joseph Mallozzi viitas, küll mitte otsesõnu.
Vot nii.
Ameerika telekanal SyFy otsustas SGU tegemist eelmise aasta lõpus mitte uuendada peale seda kui MGM läks planeeritud pankrotikaitsesse (Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection). SGU finantseerimine oli SyFy ja MGM vahel pooleks. SyFy on USA kaabelkanal, mis kuulub NBC Universal alla ja viimase omanikud on 51% Comcast, 49% General Electric. Enne MGM pankrotikaitsesse astumist oli Comcast 20% MGM omanik (teistest meediaettevõtetest oli ka Sony 20% omanik). Kui MGM pankrotikaitsest väljus, sai MGM endale täiesti uue omanikeringi.
Võib väita, et SGU oli rohkem korporatiivpoliitika kui reitingute ohver. Minu kahtluste järgi võis MGM-ist voolata selle omanike taskusse suurel hulgal raha, niigi nõrgenenud MGM oli lõpuks suurtes võlgades ja ei suutnud enam võlgu üleval pidada. MGM on peale selle veel konkurent NBC Universal (Comcast) ja Sony stuudiotele.
Minu väitel võib olla kaalu, kuna ammugi võlgades MGM potentsiaalsed ostjad ütlesid 2008. ja 2009. aastatel, et nad enne MGM-i endale ei osta kui viimane läheb pankrotikaitse protsessist läbi, misjärel endised omanikud ettevõtet rohkem enam ei oma. — Sest võimalikud ostjad ei teadnud mitte ainult, et MGM-i rahaseis on vilets, vaid ka seda, et sealt voolab raha välja. Seetõttu nad nõudsidki ostu peatingimusena MGM-ile pankrotikaitsest läbiminekut, et raha äravoolule lõpp teha.
SyFy tõenäoliselt omab veel SGU-le ekslusiivset lepingut SGU uute osade esimesteks näitamisteks ja ma arvan, et leping veel kehtib. SGU-d loodeti teha 5 hooaega ja võib oletada, et leping kehtib viis aastat. Isegi kui MGM tahaks sarja kogu Stargate frantsiisi omanikuna teistel kanalitel näidata, ei ole see eksklusiivlepingu pärast võimalik — oletatavasti ootab MGM-i rikkumise eest suur leppetrahv, kui MGM SGU-d enne teatud aega mujal näitab. Ning nii ootab MGM, kuni leping otsa lõpeb ja MGM-l on siis vabadus SGU-d teistele Ameerika kanalitele pakkuda.
SGU madalate reitingute üheks põhjuseks võis olla osade "Stargate SG-1" ja "Stargate Atlantis" fännide äärmiselt valulik reaktsioon SGU võetud uue ja realistlikuma kvaliteedi suhtes, mispeale hakkasid need fännid SGU sarja infantiilselt vihkama ja seda muidugi ka mitte vaatama.
* Teine põhjus on see, et USA-s valitsev Nielseni reitingusüsteem on oma aja ära elanud, sest paljud inimesed enam telekat ei vaata ja vaatavad telesaateid alternatiivsete allikate kaudu.
* Kolmas põhjus on see, et SyFy kandis SGU reedeõhtuselt ajalt teisipäevaõhtusele ajale ja SyFy (endise nimega SciFi) tõi samale ajale ameerika wrestlingu. Teisipäevasele õhtule ülekandmisega "uskus" SyFy, et siis on ehk paremad reitingud, aga viga tehti selles, et ei arvestatud suviste ja sügiseste hooaegade erinevustega, kus antud käik oleks suvise hooaja puhul töötanud, aga sügisel olid samal ajal suurteks konkurentideks "Navy NCIS" protseduurisari ja "Tantsud tähtedega" Ameerika variant.
* Väidetakse, et SyFy kandis SGU üle meelega halvale ajale, et reitingud viletsad oleksid ja et siis oleks võimalik kuulutada SGU näitamine kahjumlikuks ja saada mingi suurem maksusoodustus, millele üks SGU produtsente Joseph Mallozzi viitas, küll mitte otsesõnu.
Vot nii.
Kas päike võib tulevikus ikkagi pilve tagant paista?
Lootust muidugi veel on, sest produtsendid ja näitlejad on öelnud, et ettenähtavas tulevikus SGU-d ei tehta. Kolm aastat ootamist, nagu vähemalt SGU-st endas lõpuks teada saab, on nähtavasti varjatud vihje eksklusiivlepingule SyFy-ga ja et selle lõpp tuleb ära oodata. Samal ajal on MGM-il soojas uus Bondi-film ja kaks "Kääbiku"-filmi ning selle kolme aasta jooksul on MGM-il siis ka aega koguda raha päris oma asjade tegemiseks. MGM-i asju ajab praegu Spyglass Entertainment, kust tuleb $500 miljonit laenu või investeeringuid, millega teha praeguseid ja tuleviku-projekte, mille pealt oleks võimalik teenida ja saadud tulu investeerida näiteks SGU tegemisse. Et siis kolme aastaga on lootust saada ka piisavalt raha, et SGU-d edasi teha ja siis mitte tingimata SyFy-s näidata.kolmapäev, 11. mai 2011
2011. Eurovisiooni lauluvõistluse I vooru lemmikud ja tulemused
| Esinemisjärjekord | Hinne | Igast märkmed | ||||||||
| 1. | Poola | ... | ||||||||
| 2. | Norra | ~ | "haba haba" | |||||||
| 3. | Albaania | ++ | ||||||||
| 4. | Armeenia | ~ | "boom boom" | |||||||
| 5. | Türgi | ... | ||||||||
| finaal | + | 6. | Serbia | ++++ | /super retro ja estraad | |||||
| finaal | 7. | Venemaa | ... | /vaherepliike vihkan, muidu oleks saanud hinnata | ||||||
| finaal | 8. | Šveits | ++ | /aeglane | ||||||
| finaal | + | 9. | Gruusia | +++ | /väga elav | |||||
| finaal | + | 10. | Soome | ++++ | "Da-da-dam" :> | |||||
| 11. | Malta | + | (shimeil :) | |||||||
| 12. | San Marino | +++ | ||||||||
| 13. | Horvaatia | ++ | ||||||||
| finaal | + | 14. | Island | +++ | /1 pluss oli musi eest ^_^ | |||||
| finaal | + | 15. | Ungari | +++ | /geihümn | |||||
| + | 16. | Portugal | +++ | /for creativity | ||||||
| bööö, sai finaali! | 17. | Leedu | + | /nõrk, nõrk, nõrk | ||||||
| finaal | + | 18. | Aserbaidžaan | ++++ | ||||||
pühapäev, 19. detsember 2010
Sell Stargate Universe to another channel?
I recently posted this to GateWorld, but getting it here in my blog is just faster. I slightly edited the text for less ambiguity and better grammar.
2. The other problem is in marketing the show: First-viewing rights went to Anglo-Saxon countries (U.S., then Canada, then UK and Australia) and then some other country's channel got the episodes later or that channel wasn't quite interested: people in that country already had the episodes online (by any means): iTunes does not extend to enough useful territories, Hulu is only U.S.-based and did anyone consider having the episodes up on VEVO (an ad-supported YouTube project)?
The trick is in timing: Some very successful movies (The Matrix series came to mind) are screened near-simultaneously worldwide to avoid losses in second and third countries, because by the time a movie screens there, people in those might have already seen the material outside the movie theatre and may thus stay away from there.
Crazy idea #1: is for MGM to produce a quality SGU episode and launch it as a movie, worldwide (with nearly the same production budget). And many episodes back-to-back that way. I know it hasn't been done before.
Crazy idea #2: In trying to continue SGU on another channel, a collection of interested TV networks from around the world (I first thought Europe, where Atlantis was very popular, but then there's Australia, NZ, Japan, and maybe some friendly Latin-American countries) could create a collective financing pool to help produce SGU with the current producers keeping the creative freedom and all those channels could then near-simultaneously air the episodes. This would off-set the need to get individual episodes by ambiguous means. Now, how to get the channels interested in product and project, is another matter.
In addition, good DVD marketing could also help.
Farscape had the Library project and the Military/Navy project — donate VHS's (at the time) and DVD's to libraries and military/navy outposts. We could do the same and even more.
(This was my first post on GateWorld)
On causes and effects
1. I read some of the possible factors for cancellation by SyFy and one of them was timing, where a four-month delay throughout the winter is bad for an arc-based show, because new and casual viewers could quickly lose interest, which is why ABC kept airing "Lost" without much interruption. I belive that the choice to move the series to Tuesdays was a bad move (schoolkids are busy doing homework, other people working inside a week, while Fridays are freer).2. The other problem is in marketing the show: First-viewing rights went to Anglo-Saxon countries (U.S., then Canada, then UK and Australia) and then some other country's channel got the episodes later or that channel wasn't quite interested: people in that country already had the episodes online (by any means): iTunes does not extend to enough useful territories, Hulu is only U.S.-based and did anyone consider having the episodes up on VEVO (an ad-supported YouTube project)?
The trick is in timing: Some very successful movies (The Matrix series came to mind) are screened near-simultaneously worldwide to avoid losses in second and third countries, because by the time a movie screens there, people in those might have already seen the material outside the movie theatre and may thus stay away from there.
Crazy idea #1: is for MGM to produce a quality SGU episode and launch it as a movie, worldwide (with nearly the same production budget). And many episodes back-to-back that way. I know it hasn't been done before.
Crazy idea #2: In trying to continue SGU on another channel, a collection of interested TV networks from around the world (I first thought Europe, where Atlantis was very popular, but then there's Australia, NZ, Japan, and maybe some friendly Latin-American countries) could create a collective financing pool to help produce SGU with the current producers keeping the creative freedom and all those channels could then near-simultaneously air the episodes. This would off-set the need to get individual episodes by ambiguous means. Now, how to get the channels interested in product and project, is another matter.
In addition, good DVD marketing could also help.
Farscape had the Library project and the Military/Navy project — donate VHS's (at the time) and DVD's to libraries and military/navy outposts. We could do the same and even more.
(This was my first post on GateWorld)
pühapäev, 18. aprill 2010
What the years do to people
Here's an edited and complemented posting, which I first wrote as a reply to a forum posting I originally made on an IMDb forum:
Only that he was about 25 while playing an 18-year-old (the film was released on 15.03.1991 and Grieco was born 23.03.1965), but this might have been a running gag about how much older actors play teens. The movie was funny, but not necessarily because of Richard Grieco.
To provide some context, then I am gay, too.
I should say that I kinda fail to see anything hot in him, despite his above-average looks at that time (I had to Google to see what he was like back then :-).
When watching the movie, I only passingly noticed him as the lead there, where the best-performing actor was actually Linda Hunt. Thereafter, I often confused Hunt with Mindy Sterling, who played Frau Fabrissina, a cohort of Dr. Evil in Austin Powers movies. Granted, Hunt's Ilsa Grunt and Sterling's Frau Fabrissina were both very similar characters and I think that Fabrissina may have in part been modelled after Ilsa Grunt: both characters are evil, diminutive, authoritarian and murderous women who are not in their first youth anymore and who have or have had an affair with the main antagonist.
In Estonia, "If Looks Could Kill" (will be referenced below as ILCK) was never seen in cinemas, with the reason being that the film was released in 1991, which was the year when Estonia regained its independence from the Soviet Union (the first widely seen and distributed Hollywood flicks were "Home Alone" and "Hot Shots" or "Hot Shots 2").
Instead, ILCK had a few airings on TV many-many years after 1991 (2000-ish and later), when I wasn't young enough anymore to see what was it in Grieco that charmed the generation before me.
When searching for pictures of Grieco in Google Images (using "Richard Grieco" with quotes for the exact phrase search), I stumbled upon a blog called "My New Plaid Pants" with a post ("The Hall of Hubba-Bubba", dated April 5, 2007) praising the various famous male physiques of the era (mostly 1980's and very-very early 1990's). There, one of the images near the top was the Diet Coke Guy, or Lucky Vanous (who I think was much hotter than Grieco). Since I had then just seen from my Google image search what Grieco looks nowadays, I was intrigued to see what Lucky Vanous looks now...
Despite both having had different fates (Grieco evidently continued acting; yet while Vanous (born 1961) became instantly famous, he struggled as an actor, so a few years back he opened a successful healthy fast food restaurant in L.A.), it is my judgment that Vanous now looks much-much cuter than Grieco:
From then-and-now comparisons of Grieco, I thought that his face does not look as natural than it did in his youth or in 12-year-old basketball images on his IMDb profile's gallery page, when his face appeared more natural.
Only that he was about 25 while playing an 18-year-old (the film was released on 15.03.1991 and Grieco was born 23.03.1965), but this might have been a running gag about how much older actors play teens. The movie was funny, but not necessarily because of Richard Grieco.
To provide some context, then I am gay, too.
I should say that I kinda fail to see anything hot in him, despite his above-average looks at that time (I had to Google to see what he was like back then :-).
When watching the movie, I only passingly noticed him as the lead there, where the best-performing actor was actually Linda Hunt. Thereafter, I often confused Hunt with Mindy Sterling, who played Frau Fabrissina, a cohort of Dr. Evil in Austin Powers movies. Granted, Hunt's Ilsa Grunt and Sterling's Frau Fabrissina were both very similar characters and I think that Fabrissina may have in part been modelled after Ilsa Grunt: both characters are evil, diminutive, authoritarian and murderous women who are not in their first youth anymore and who have or have had an affair with the main antagonist.
In Estonia, "If Looks Could Kill" (will be referenced below as ILCK) was never seen in cinemas, with the reason being that the film was released in 1991, which was the year when Estonia regained its independence from the Soviet Union (the first widely seen and distributed Hollywood flicks were "Home Alone" and "Hot Shots" or "Hot Shots 2").
Instead, ILCK had a few airings on TV many-many years after 1991 (2000-ish and later), when I wasn't young enough anymore to see what was it in Grieco that charmed the generation before me.
When searching for pictures of Grieco in Google Images (using "Richard Grieco" with quotes for the exact phrase search), I stumbled upon a blog called "My New Plaid Pants" with a post ("The Hall of Hubba-Bubba", dated April 5, 2007) praising the various famous male physiques of the era (mostly 1980's and very-very early 1990's). There, one of the images near the top was the Diet Coke Guy, or Lucky Vanous (who I think was much hotter than Grieco). Since I had then just seen from my Google image search what Grieco looks nowadays, I was intrigued to see what Lucky Vanous looks now...
Despite both having had different fates (Grieco evidently continued acting; yet while Vanous (born 1961) became instantly famous, he struggled as an actor, so a few years back he opened a successful healthy fast food restaurant in L.A.), it is my judgment that Vanous now looks much-much cuter than Grieco:
- 1996 look
- Hottest Restaurant in LA
The page links to a large large image with a long URL, so I only referred to a blog article: Find the image with this description next to it: "Gordon Naccarato, Lucky Vanous, Mariel Schneider", then click on it for a 1600x1200-res original. - http://luckydevils-la.com/news
The page features a more-or-less viewport-wide image of Vanous. - Some images on flickr
- Other Lucky Vanous information:
- People Magazine: Lucky Vanous
- Canyon News 11.2009 article
- Getting Lucky in the New Year - Lucky Vanous a pop culture icon
- Lucky Vanous: career pursuits and life lessons.
- Blogger posting (just one)
From then-and-now comparisons of Grieco, I thought that his face does not look as natural than it did in his youth or in 12-year-old basketball images on his IMDb profile's gallery page, when his face appeared more natural.
pühapäev, 19. aprill 2009
"Gilmore Girls", why I dislike it and other TV that I enjoy
Originally, this post was submitted in reply to a guy who likes "Gilmore Girls".
Links to come later.
I beg to differ about "Gilmore Girls": For all of the substance it purports to show, the show lacks much of it anyway because of its superficiality and unrealistically fast pace — Too much information. The series is essentially about people who are hearing one another, but not really listening.
In a similar fashion, other 'next-door-girl' youth-targeted television is just as well ungrokkable:
"7th Heaven" (the worst), "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Xena", "Felicity", "The O.C." and much more of that.
All of these paint a variation of "A Catcher in the Rye" in a female soup.
Maybe it's just a matter of taste — or that I am a 27-year-old guy of the Cold-Y Generation and that I don't watch, nor pay attention to this kind of blather anymore. Hence I tend to prefer 'guy' shows over 'girl' shows.
Despite that, qualities that I've enjoyed in some of the recent 'woman stuff' film and television are context, narrative, thoughtfulness and emotion.
For example, "The Golden Girls", "Valley of the Dolls", "Sex and the City" and "Desperate Housewives" pretty much sum up the fun parts. Whilst two of those do share similarities with "Gilmore Girls" for being relatively fast-paced, they still harbor the aforementioned qualities.
"Saved by the Bell", "Beverly Hills, 90210" and "Melrose Place" (and all the preceding soaps and telenovelas) were important novelties in the Post-Soviet era in Estonia — My three sisters and I watched that stuff with abandon (Once the novelty fell off, I quickly opted for Trek :). Maybe then it didn't matter whether the series centered around boys or girls, these shows were simply cool to watch when we were kids.
Just that I am past all of that and there is very little in me that relates to much anything in "Gilmore Girls".
Some of the 'next-door-neighbour' and similar shows featuring women and female youth that had their moments (in order of importance):
"Malcolm in the Middle", "That '70s Show", "Scrubs", "Dawson's Creek", "Smallville", "One Tree Hill".
Youth-oriented TV shows that I enjoy (or really enjoyed at the time of watching):
"Heartbreak High" (AU), "Daria", "Family Guy", "Kyle XY" (notice how the first and last letter are K and Y :) and "Roswell".
Chick flicks, like "Moulin Rouge!", "Down With Love", "My Big Fat Greek Wedding", "Bend It Like Beckham", "Kill Bill" Volumes 1 & 2, "Romy and Michele’s High School Reunion" also keep the standard high up.
Links to come later.
"... and I think Gilmore Girls was a brilliant show."
I beg to differ about "Gilmore Girls": For all of the substance it purports to show, the show lacks much of it anyway because of its superficiality and unrealistically fast pace — Too much information. The series is essentially about people who are hearing one another, but not really listening.
In a similar fashion, other 'next-door-girl' youth-targeted television is just as well ungrokkable:
"7th Heaven" (the worst), "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Xena", "Felicity", "The O.C." and much more of that.
All of these paint a variation of "A Catcher in the Rye" in a female soup.
Maybe it's just a matter of taste — or that I am a 27-year-old guy of the Cold-Y Generation and that I don't watch, nor pay attention to this kind of blather anymore. Hence I tend to prefer 'guy' shows over 'girl' shows.
Despite that, qualities that I've enjoyed in some of the recent 'woman stuff' film and television are context, narrative, thoughtfulness and emotion.
For example, "The Golden Girls", "Valley of the Dolls", "Sex and the City" and "Desperate Housewives" pretty much sum up the fun parts. Whilst two of those do share similarities with "Gilmore Girls" for being relatively fast-paced, they still harbor the aforementioned qualities.
"Saved by the Bell", "Beverly Hills, 90210" and "Melrose Place" (and all the preceding soaps and telenovelas) were important novelties in the Post-Soviet era in Estonia — My three sisters and I watched that stuff with abandon (Once the novelty fell off, I quickly opted for Trek :). Maybe then it didn't matter whether the series centered around boys or girls, these shows were simply cool to watch when we were kids.
Just that I am past all of that and there is very little in me that relates to much anything in "Gilmore Girls".
Some of the 'next-door-neighbour' and similar shows featuring women and female youth that had their moments (in order of importance):
"Malcolm in the Middle", "That '70s Show", "Scrubs", "Dawson's Creek", "Smallville", "One Tree Hill".
Youth-oriented TV shows that I enjoy (or really enjoyed at the time of watching):
"Heartbreak High" (AU), "Daria", "Family Guy", "Kyle XY" (notice how the first and last letter are K and Y :) and "Roswell".
Chick flicks, like "Moulin Rouge!", "Down With Love", "My Big Fat Greek Wedding", "Bend It Like Beckham", "Kill Bill" Volumes 1 & 2, "Romy and Michele’s High School Reunion" also keep the standard high up.
pühapäev, 7. detsember 2008
Cold Y Generation
This is what I planned to write Wikipedia: Talk: Cold Y Generation, but for the sake of brevity there, I placed the bulk here. Maybe will expand later with more relevant stuff and other links.
We used fountain pens at first and second class (and maybe beyound) to exercise good handwriting (no "kid" font). The childhood historical shift was the end of the Cold War, but here termed as sovereign countries regaining their independence, which I recall in a manner similar to how User:209.6.159.204 remembers the Berlin Wall event: knowing that things happened, but confused at first as to why. So I never understood either (and was poorly interested on) what "Rambo" and "Commando" were until I learned their short synopses in my 20's and saw a couple scenes from these. I can vaguely remember the Challenger accident and the Chernobyl incident.
Ditto on reality tv and the MTV Generation. I am still aware of the much more simplistic way of life before the onslaught of Internet technology, of which I was a very early adopter compared to my peers at that time. 9/11 did make an impact, perhaps for the reasons of having been disinterested in evening news in early years and later having had the chance to follow 9/11 on the net through MSNBC's live feed (which was shown in a small window) to see the eventual demise of WTC7 (missed the first two towers because of school).
Never had a VHS player in a household and no cable for a very long time. Never got the vibe of popular local or U.S.-focused social networking websites targeted at Gen-Y'ers.
To present a cultural vantage point (like Jman did) of what I watched in the 1980's, then I can tell that I, perhaps willingly, as a means to an escapade, grew up on lots of TV: Soviet kid's cartoons and Estonian kid's films, MacGyver (on Finnish TV), Latino soaps and then throughout 1990's "Santa Barbara", "The A-Team" and "The Equalizer", the horrendous "Saved by the Bell" (still all 1980's stuff), some of "BH 90210" and "Melrose Place" (and "Valley of the Dolls" to boot :), "Star Trek: TNG", then later DS9 and followed Farscape into adulthood.
cbc.ca column
We used fountain pens at first and second class (and maybe beyound) to exercise good handwriting (no "kid" font). The childhood historical shift was the end of the Cold War, but here termed as sovereign countries regaining their independence, which I recall in a manner similar to how User:209.6.159.204 remembers the Berlin Wall event: knowing that things happened, but confused at first as to why. So I never understood either (and was poorly interested on) what "Rambo" and "Commando" were until I learned their short synopses in my 20's and saw a couple scenes from these. I can vaguely remember the Challenger accident and the Chernobyl incident.
Ditto on reality tv and the MTV Generation. I am still aware of the much more simplistic way of life before the onslaught of Internet technology, of which I was a very early adopter compared to my peers at that time. 9/11 did make an impact, perhaps for the reasons of having been disinterested in evening news in early years and later having had the chance to follow 9/11 on the net through MSNBC's live feed (which was shown in a small window) to see the eventual demise of WTC7 (missed the first two towers because of school).
Never had a VHS player in a household and no cable for a very long time. Never got the vibe of popular local or U.S.-focused social networking websites targeted at Gen-Y'ers.
To present a cultural vantage point (like Jman did) of what I watched in the 1980's, then I can tell that I, perhaps willingly, as a means to an escapade, grew up on lots of TV: Soviet kid's cartoons and Estonian kid's films, MacGyver (on Finnish TV), Latino soaps and then throughout 1990's "Santa Barbara", "The A-Team" and "The Equalizer", the horrendous "Saved by the Bell" (still all 1980's stuff), some of "BH 90210" and "Melrose Place" (and "Valley of the Dolls" to boot :), "Star Trek: TNG", then later DS9 and followed Farscape into adulthood.
cbc.ca column
Tellimine:
Postitused (Atom)