I'm finding the whole Jay/Leno/Tonight Show argument very amusing. This is mostly because I don't really have a side in the fight. I don't really watch late night television unless there's a guest I find particularly interesting. In all honesty, I'm surprised that some of these shows still exist. In the days of cable TV and DVDs and DVRs I'd think people would be watching something more interesting than moderately amusing but poor interviews with movie actors and the like. Then again, that's when most people are relaxing for bed and likely want something calming that they don't have to really concentrate on.
Part of the fight seems to surround Jay Leno's intention to 'retire' from the Tonight Show. I'm seen it argued that Jay decided to step down and his recent 'unretirement' is poor form and Favre-like. I believe that Jay's attitude near the end of his term and his 'new' show reveal the truth regarding the situation: NBC pushed him to quit. During the course of the five years between that decision and the execution of the deal, Leno's position changed. His ratings improved. Suddenly, it wasn't NBC politely pushing him aside for the new blood, they were taking a gamble with Conan and felt the need to keep Jay around as insurance.
Note: “I was very surprised Jay was forced out of The Tonight Show,” says veteran Letterman Executive Producer Rob Burnett. “It was surprising to me that the guy who has been at it for as long as he has and is still hosting a profitable show, that NBC would decide out with the old and in with the new.”
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/106051-Midnight_Madness_Late_Night_TV.php
Already in 2006 people didn't believe it wasn't Jay's decision to quit. Another article from 2006 points to Jay being the 'good soldier'. It also makes this comment: 'there's reason to believe O'Brien would attract a narrower niche than the current occupant.'
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117952095.html?categoryid=1682&cs=1
It seems reasonable to say that there was some concern that Conan and the Tonight Show weren't a good fit. By 2008, the 2005 decision to remove the fading Jay and replace him with the strong Conan was starting to look less and less solid. Jay's ratings were on the upswing and Conan's weren't.
http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2008_04_25.html#015123
As these articles remind us, Jay was expected to be a free agent at the end of his time on the Tonight Show. Speculation had him reviving his show on another network as no one expected him to continue to play the 'good soldier' role by continuing his show on the same network but at an earlier time.
http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2008_12_09.html#016325
Conan's first week as host of the Tonight Show garnered a lot of curious eyes. The bulk of those eyes left immediately. By his second week as host, Conan's rating was lower than Jay's had been. Jay had been beating Letterman. Conan couldn't do that.
http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2009_06_12.html#017259
NBC had trapped themselves in a corner and it's still not clear at this moment how it will be resolved. At this point it certainly looks like Jay will soon be back on the Tonight Show and Conan will no longer be employed by NBC but will be well paid to not work for them. NBC has to scramble to fill five hours of prime-time programming. No matter what happens, they are hosed to some degree.
I think that's what interests me the most about all this. This is television history, one way or another. Even if it becomes nothing more impactful than changing the host of the Tonight Show, that's still something. It seems more likely that it will damage NBC from a long-term perspective. Could this be the first step in the demise of the network? Probably not. If it is, it shouldn't be a surprise.
16 January 2010
15 January 2010
A Few Thoughts on Comics from This Week
There was a week where nothing shipped, there was the New Year's Sale, I don't know what else prevented me from doing some comic reviews. Most likely there was nothing exciting to talk about during those weeks. Let's not worry about those weeks. What happened this week?
The Marvels Project #5 came out this week. The art is still great, the story is still great, and, perhaps most interesting, this issue looks back on an early adventure of the original Captain America. Very exciting. Good reading.
Invincible Iron Man #22 features the next step in the process to revive Tony Stark: bring in Doctor Strange. There's a great two page spread near the end of the issue showing Doc Strange using his abilities to dip into Tony's head. It's this great mix of motion and hand gestures and energy. Loved it.
Amazing Spider-Man #517 brings us a new Rhino. We also get to see the old Rhino working to move on with his life. The art's a little dark and grimy at times, not always in a good way. The original Rhino trying to be a gentleman of sorts is an interesting twist. I'm liking it so far.
My copy of Transformers #3 has a badly printed cover, one that has a hint of Doctor Who #7 to it. I'm really wondering what the point of the humans collecting Transformers will be. I can't see the storyline going on forever but I think I've said something similar about Dark Avengers more than once and that book's still coming out so what do I know? Seeing some of the Autobots and Decepticons working together is interesting.
Speaking of Doctor Who #7, we get a new artist for the interiors of the book, or the old artist back again. It looks better but he has a habit of posing the characters in weird ways, ways that do look very 'snap shot' but are the sort of poses that you might delete from your digital camera and try again.
The Muppet Show Comic Book #1 is a great rebound from the #0 issue that I didn't care for much. The Muppets take the show on the road for awhile as the Theatre is rebuilt. The structure of the book remains similar to an episode of the Show, with the occasional song and familiar skits but with the added complication of the various temporary sites where the show will be presented. Thankfully Statler and Waldorf have cousins in this town that show up to heckle. In an almost frightening development, when the Muppets hit the road, one member remains behind in the city. Fozzie decides he needs to stand on his own for awhile. The issue makes it clear we'll be following him until he rejoins the group but Kermit's understanding sadness as Fozzie explain this to him is heartbreaking. I'm back on board with this book.
Good stuff.
The Marvels Project #5 came out this week. The art is still great, the story is still great, and, perhaps most interesting, this issue looks back on an early adventure of the original Captain America. Very exciting. Good reading.
Invincible Iron Man #22 features the next step in the process to revive Tony Stark: bring in Doctor Strange. There's a great two page spread near the end of the issue showing Doc Strange using his abilities to dip into Tony's head. It's this great mix of motion and hand gestures and energy. Loved it.
Amazing Spider-Man #517 brings us a new Rhino. We also get to see the old Rhino working to move on with his life. The art's a little dark and grimy at times, not always in a good way. The original Rhino trying to be a gentleman of sorts is an interesting twist. I'm liking it so far.
My copy of Transformers #3 has a badly printed cover, one that has a hint of Doctor Who #7 to it. I'm really wondering what the point of the humans collecting Transformers will be. I can't see the storyline going on forever but I think I've said something similar about Dark Avengers more than once and that book's still coming out so what do I know? Seeing some of the Autobots and Decepticons working together is interesting.
Speaking of Doctor Who #7, we get a new artist for the interiors of the book, or the old artist back again. It looks better but he has a habit of posing the characters in weird ways, ways that do look very 'snap shot' but are the sort of poses that you might delete from your digital camera and try again.
The Muppet Show Comic Book #1 is a great rebound from the #0 issue that I didn't care for much. The Muppets take the show on the road for awhile as the Theatre is rebuilt. The structure of the book remains similar to an episode of the Show, with the occasional song and familiar skits but with the added complication of the various temporary sites where the show will be presented. Thankfully Statler and Waldorf have cousins in this town that show up to heckle. In an almost frightening development, when the Muppets hit the road, one member remains behind in the city. Fozzie decides he needs to stand on his own for awhile. The issue makes it clear we'll be following him until he rejoins the group but Kermit's understanding sadness as Fozzie explain this to him is heartbreaking. I'm back on board with this book.
Good stuff.
13 January 2010
'Spidey 4' No More
I'm assuming you may not have heard the news yet but here it is: Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire are no longer associated with the next Spider-Man movie. Details at the link:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=24380
I'm not comfortable with this move.
Despite people's concerns and comments on the first two Spider-Man films, they were generally well received and made a boatload of cash. The third movie was less well received. Interviews seem to point the blame at Sony for that drop off. From what Raimi has said, his plan was for Spidey 3 to have Sandman and Vulture in the film. Replacing Vulture with Venom was the studio's idea as 'everyone' wants to see Venom. In interviews from the time of the original movie, Sam paints a picture of himself as a big Spidey fan as a kid. His connection with the character seems to go up to 1980 or so. Venom doesn't appear until the very late 1980s. It makes sense then that he would gravitate to villains he is familiar with from his youth. While the overall Venom storyarc is similar to the comics, the details are weird and the storyarc doesn't feel part of the rest of the movie. They don't click together well.
Reportedly Sam wanted to use his Vulture ideas in the fourth movie and Sony wanted any villain except Vulture. They also wanted Black Cat, another character that pops up for the first time in the 80s, as well. Within a week of that information getting out, Sam was off the movie.
Now, if all of the above is true, or at least mostly true, I'm concerned. The first two films seem to be more Sam's vision and, again apart from the details, they work quite well. Once Sony starts expressing their opinions more obviously, there are more issues. I'm uncomfortable with what Sony will accomplish all on their own.
This is not to say that this next movie can't be good. Perhaps they'll get a director and a story together that both does what Sony wants and still tells a good Spider-Man story. Perhaps the characters will be cast 'better' this time around. Perhaps they'll reboot the series and perhaps not.
Based on 'Spider-Man 3', I'm just not expecting an improvement in things.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=24380
I'm not comfortable with this move.
Despite people's concerns and comments on the first two Spider-Man films, they were generally well received and made a boatload of cash. The third movie was less well received. Interviews seem to point the blame at Sony for that drop off. From what Raimi has said, his plan was for Spidey 3 to have Sandman and Vulture in the film. Replacing Vulture with Venom was the studio's idea as 'everyone' wants to see Venom. In interviews from the time of the original movie, Sam paints a picture of himself as a big Spidey fan as a kid. His connection with the character seems to go up to 1980 or so. Venom doesn't appear until the very late 1980s. It makes sense then that he would gravitate to villains he is familiar with from his youth. While the overall Venom storyarc is similar to the comics, the details are weird and the storyarc doesn't feel part of the rest of the movie. They don't click together well.
Reportedly Sam wanted to use his Vulture ideas in the fourth movie and Sony wanted any villain except Vulture. They also wanted Black Cat, another character that pops up for the first time in the 80s, as well. Within a week of that information getting out, Sam was off the movie.
Now, if all of the above is true, or at least mostly true, I'm concerned. The first two films seem to be more Sam's vision and, again apart from the details, they work quite well. Once Sony starts expressing their opinions more obviously, there are more issues. I'm uncomfortable with what Sony will accomplish all on their own.
This is not to say that this next movie can't be good. Perhaps they'll get a director and a story together that both does what Sony wants and still tells a good Spider-Man story. Perhaps the characters will be cast 'better' this time around. Perhaps they'll reboot the series and perhaps not.
Based on 'Spider-Man 3', I'm just not expecting an improvement in things.
12 January 2010
Clever Fellows and Computers Means Restored Television Programme
For years, decades even, the pilot episode of the British programme 'Are You Being Served?' was only retained as a black and white telerecording (simply put this is a means of transferring video to film by pointing a film camera at a flat television screen and filming it) of the original colour videotape. It existed, which is more than can be said for a number of programmes, but always stuck out as it was the only episode not to be retained as the original colour videotape.
A few years ago, a clever fellow worked out a way to have a computer look at the frames in a telerecording and generate a frame between two existing film frames. By adding this extra information to the recording, it gave it more of the look of the original video.
A couple years ago another clever fellow realized that the fuzzy quality of some telerecordings was due to the colour information being retained on the telerecording in the form of dots. He whipped up a way for a computer to decipher the dots into colour information, testing it with telerecordings that still had an original colour videotape in existence so that he could hone the technique.
I believe both processes have been applied to the pilot episode of 'Are You Being Served?' and it was broadcast in Britain around Christmas time. The motion still looks a bit like film but the colour is impressive indeed.
Ah computers and clever fellas. If they could only get all those bored fellas that write computer viruses to work on restoring old Television, who knows what they could accomplish?
A few years ago, a clever fellow worked out a way to have a computer look at the frames in a telerecording and generate a frame between two existing film frames. By adding this extra information to the recording, it gave it more of the look of the original video.
A couple years ago another clever fellow realized that the fuzzy quality of some telerecordings was due to the colour information being retained on the telerecording in the form of dots. He whipped up a way for a computer to decipher the dots into colour information, testing it with telerecordings that still had an original colour videotape in existence so that he could hone the technique.
I believe both processes have been applied to the pilot episode of 'Are You Being Served?' and it was broadcast in Britain around Christmas time. The motion still looks a bit like film but the colour is impressive indeed.
Ah computers and clever fellas. If they could only get all those bored fellas that write computer viruses to work on restoring old Television, who knows what they could accomplish?
11 January 2010
Music Monday - Kirsty MacColl
A pretty lady, a cute funny song, and an unfortunately sad ending. Not to the song, to the pretty lady.
http://www.justiceforkirsty.org/
http://www.justiceforkirsty.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)