Monthly Archives: January 2011

Our pal Robert J. Elisberg files his final report on this years' Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. A lot in there about 3-D TVs and I agree with Bob's skepticism about them catching on as big as some are predicting.

The Directors Guild has signed a new three-year contract. It's essentially a status quo deal which provides for modest cost-of-living increases and a few minor trade-offs. Only days ago, the Screen Actors Guild and AFTRA also signed a new three-year contract with modest cost-of-living increases and a few minor trade-offs.

Back when the Writers Guild settled its last strike and signed its current contract, there was some speculation that a "perfect storm" was coming into alignment; that the WGA, the DGA and the combo of SAG and AFTRA might all link arms to some extent since their contracts were all coming up for renewal at the same time. This did not happen, largely because SAG and AFTRA had such trouble linking arms at all. If you recall, after the WGA and DGA made their last deals, SAG and AFTRA splintered and the latter egregiously undercut the former. It's an achievement that they just managed to negotiate together this time.

This time around, the Producers might have elected to negotiate first with the WGA. Our contract expires May 1, whereas the DGA and SAG-AFTRA contracts didn't expire until June 30. Instead, in what was probably a wise strategy, the Producers opted to dicker last with the Writers Guild. Presumably, those talks will commence soon.

The WGA recently solicited input from its members on an ambitious Pattern of Demands which lists many areas in which we'd like to have the contract improved. I'll be very surprised if any of those demands are even discussed. We're going to wind up with modest cost-of-living increases and a few minor trade-offs. And a lot of very angry members.

One of my oft-spouted beliefs is that abstinence education and pledges do not work. I'm sure they make a lot of parents feel good but they're lulled into a bogus sense of security that their kids are not having sex. As further proof that it's a sham, consider the fact that an awful lot of young people who have taken abstinence pledges and who claim they're not having intercourse are coming down with sexually-transmitted diseases. Wonder how that happened.

I usually like Ricky Gervais but I would much rather have watched twenty minutes of him doing stand-up than to sit through (or in my case, TiVo through) an extremely boring awards show. He did as much as you can expect a host in that situation to do: He added some life and interest to an event that no one would have otherwise cared much about. I suspect the Hollywood Foreign Press folks who run that show are delighted with the attention he brought to it, and that any negative comments from officials there are just them trying to distance themselves from selective outrage. Or maybe they were just pissed about his jokes about how the award can be bought.

If he'd done any of that on the Oscars, a lot of folks would have punched Mr. Gervais right in his childish "you can't stop me from misbehaving" grin. That's because a lot of people care about the Oscars, whereas the Golden Globes really exist for only four reasons…

One is to have a TV special from which someone can make some money by broadcasting the proceedings.

Another is to give awards that can be used to promote product. "Winner of three Golden Globes" is apparently a valuable thing to say in advertising.

Another is just to give awards to people who like getting awards and don't care if, as in this case, they have no idea who votes them or what criteria is applied. It's like, "So what? It's an award!"

And lastly, it's apparently a great party. I suspect more stars who aren't nominees attend the Golden Globes than go to the Academy Awards, even though every single attendee has more respect for the latter. But the Golden Globes reportedly (I've never been) have great food and free free-flowing liquor and there's a veneer of the kind of glamour that everyone yearns to find in Hollywood but so rarely encounters.

I don't see that Ricky Gervais spoiled any of that except, arguably, the last. Actually, I do understand why some who were present to be insulted by him might have objected. He had weeks of time and a crew of writers to craft what he was going to say about them. If they wanted to return fire, they had about ten seconds to come up with something off the tops of their well-coiffed heads. It wasn't exactly a fair fight.

I suspect Gervais will not host the Golden Globes again, not because they won't want him back but because he won't do it. If he does, the presenters and nominees will all come armed with scripted Ricky Gervais insults and it won't be a bad awards show. It'll be a bad Friars Roast.

I'm swamped with things in dire need of handling so I'm going to take a day or two off from blogging. Please forgive me for that…and if you've sent me an e-mail lately, please forgive me for probably not answering it yet. All will normalize soon.

A consensus seems to be emerging in my state that the recall of Governor Gray Davis in 2003 was a mistake. A lot of folks are writing articles like this one by George Skelton, a prominent California commentator. I have seen no pushback anywhere. No one is writing, "Thank God we got rid of Davis" pieces. And it seems to be true what Skelton writes; that the entire recall movement was not because Californians were eager to rid themselves of Mr. Davis. It was more or less ginned up by Congressman Darrell Issa, who wrongly thought it would put him into the governor's chair. Issa now seems poised to try and stampede some sort of impeachment move against Barack Obama.

In his defense, Arnold Schwarzenegger is reduced to insisting that serving as governor cost him $200 million in lost earnings. That's probably true though I don't see why anyone should feel sorry for him. So let's do some math here…

Issa spent a reported $1.7 million to collect the signatures necessary to trigger the recall. The recall and special election cost the state an estimated $75 million and then there was around $20 million spent in state transition costs to go from Governor Davis to Governor Schwarzenegger. Add in Arnold's $200 million and what various candidates (including Arnold) spent to campaign for the seat and you easily have over $300 million bucks spent or foregone to make a switch that in hindsight, few think did any good. With financial wizardry like that, is it any wonder this state is in debt to the tune of…what is it this week? $250 billion?

I don't think, by the way, that's all (or even mostly) Arnold's fault. I think this state's governance has serious structural problems. There's this theory out there that if you limit a government's ability to raise taxes, you will "starve the beast" and spending will fall into line. That has not happened here. There is no connection between what the people demand in services and what they're willing to pay to get them. This is not a Democratic problem and it is not a Republican problem. It's a problem that people want to spend no more than ten cents in taxes but receive a dollar's worth of government. I think (hope) Jerry Brown will do better than any of his recent predecessors…but even if he does a lot better, the crisis will persist to some degree. I still think we oughta consider burning the whole state down for the insurance money.

Have you ever wondered how Google Maps takes all those street view photos? Here's a picture someone took of a vehicle that was driving around my neighborhood taking such pictures recently.

I recognize the location. Here's the current Google Maps photo of the Walgreens you see in the photo. As you can see from the different signs on the store, the new photo has not yet displaced what was there. But some day soon, it probably will.

Number fifteen in a series…

Have you been watching The Million Dollar Money Drop, the show where contestants are handed a million dollars and lose it right before your eyes? This is not a show about people winning money. It's a show about them losing it and going home empty-handed and disappointed. Last week, couple after couple lost the million, including one that crapped out on the first question. There have only been a few who left with any money at all and they've taken home amounts that seem tiny, given how they all started with a million dollars and the dream of keeping all or most of it.

Can you have a giveaway show where almost nothing is given away? No, and the ratings are bearing that out.

I'm a little fuzzy on the status of the series. At the end of the initial "tryout" run, there was an announcement that sounded like the show had been renewed…but I think the episodes they're running now are part of the initial series of tapings. That would be why we haven't heard anything more about that couple that lost on one question even though they had the right answer. They've been invited to come back when new episodes are shot…and none have been since then. I'm hearing that there may not be any more. If there are, I'll bet the producers make some revisions in order to cut back the number of folks who crash and burn. No one will watch a show like this unless it seems like someone has a shot at the million.

Among the punditry, David Frum has become quite an interesting figure. He has solid credentials as a Conservative and Republican, having written speeches for George W. Bush, including the one wherein that president flexed his testicles by denouncing "The Axis of Evil." These days though, a lot of those on the right loathe and denounce Frum. Why? Because he's telling them a lot of things they don't want to hear, mainly that their strategies won't get them where they want to go. He thinks the Becks and Limbaughs out there are creating a fantasy world for their followers to live in, that compromise with Democrats is preferable to trying (and often failing) to rake in all the chips, and that the Sarah Palin faction is leading his/their party off the cliff. As a result, a lot of folks on the right hate him more than they hate Obama, Biden, Michael Moore, Hillary, Olbermann or any of their enemies.

In this piece, Frum lays out a few of the mistakes he thinks his side is making. Pay particular attention to the first, which is the one about the fantasy world. I think the man's right and I don't think anyone who should listen to him will listen to him.

You know who that man is? Bet you don't. It's Max Davidson, who once upon a time was a fairly big comedy star in this country. That he's so utterly unknown these days is due to three things. One is that his important work was all in silent films. Another is that an awful lot of the films he made have been lost. A third, which may not be unrelated, is that the character he played on the screen was a cliché Jewish stereotype. That was probably the biggest problem. Davidson was a good actor and a funny one — or at least he is in the few films of his I've ever been able to see. But he played this little hunched-over Jew who mugged and shrugged all the time. When that act started to get old, it got old in a hurry.

I didn't know much about him so I was delighted to see that Richard Bann — who knows absolutely everything about movies, especially those made on the Hal Roach lot — has written the best article ever about the forgotten clown. And it's not just the best because it's the only one.