My regular viewing of back to back episodes of "Friends" was rudely interrupted last night by the local news. Apparently, the LAPD was set to invade the Occupy LA encampment and start arresting people and spraying them with poison.
And there's nothing the local news loves more than the possibility of a live voluntary manslaughter.
I ended up watching the coverage for over an hour, mostly because nothing was happening. I love when the poor reporter has to just keep rambling when nothing is happening.
They always try to over hype every little event. This is mostly seen during high and/or slow speed chases. That's 4 hours of driving and 2 seconds of action. But for those 4 hours they'll be like "his hands are not at the 10 and 2 positions!". "He is really tailgating right now, you really should be 10 feet for every increment of 10mph you are going!"
So this live reporter was walking among the protesters trying to make it seem exciting even though the cops were nowhere in sight. At one point, there was yelling and running and a mob formed, and it was because a CNN truck was parking and there was a homeless guy sleeping in the spot.
That's what I'm missing Friends for! And it was gonne be "The One Where Courtney Cox Sucks at Acting Like She's Crying!"
But it was pretty interesting because all the guy was left to do was walk among them and ask questions. He would just randomly stick a microphone in people's faces and ask "why are you here?"
Not a single one could form a coherent sentence in reply. Not one. And I watched and I waited, and it did not happen.
I thought it was fairly revealing since it wasn't some edited together package to make people look bad. This was completely spontaneous and random, and not cut together with an agenda. And I have to say, the reporter wasn't even going up to the people who looked like cousins of the Unabomber.
I don't want to go all Newt on these people but it's not shocking they don't do well in job interviews. Clearly, a lot of these folks were out there just cause they didn't have much else to do.
I don't doubt there are well intentioned people doing well intentioned things, but unfortunately when you get a big group together in a camping environment, things are gonna start getting tea party level stupid.
Perhaps it's time to move things from the "living on the streets" phase to the "let the smart people" talk phase.
I admire anyone who is willing to go out and express their first amendment rights. Unfortunately, I have an aversion to living outdoors, not bathing and other people. But I'm happy someone is out there doing it.
And they've done well in terms of changing the conversation, etc., but man, it might be time to go home.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
I Haven't Puked Since 1987
And I don't plan to. But as is Thanksgiving tradition, after hanging out with my young nephews over the holiday I've been knocked on my ass by a bug of some sort.
They were sick on Thanksgiving, one of them was throwing up constantly, and now they've stuck me with it. What is it with these kids and carrying around illnesses? Their parents become immune and then perfectly innocent uncles get victimized. Not cool.
The government would like us to believe that AIDS was spread by a gay flight attendant. Not true. It was some kids who had a play date with a bunch of monkeys, and then the monkeys fucked them.
The bummer is that I finally have some time off and have to spend it laying in bed and being miserable. Although in fairness, that was pretty much what I had planned regardless of health.
I don't recall the circumstances of my last puke. I don't know what I ate or what the problem was, but I remember sitting up in my bed in the middle of the night and vomit launching out of my nose and mouth simultaneously. Come to think of it, a pasta dinner may have been involved cause I've had an aversion to fusilli ever since.
It was horrifying. I made a vow at that moment that I would never puke again. That still stands today, and is the reason I'm known as the Cal Ripken of ralphing.
But I am hurting right now. I just hope I can keep the promise I made to myself so long ago. You know what they say, you sit out one day with a barf and the next thing you know you get Wally Puked, er, Pipped.
They were sick on Thanksgiving, one of them was throwing up constantly, and now they've stuck me with it. What is it with these kids and carrying around illnesses? Their parents become immune and then perfectly innocent uncles get victimized. Not cool.
The government would like us to believe that AIDS was spread by a gay flight attendant. Not true. It was some kids who had a play date with a bunch of monkeys, and then the monkeys fucked them.
The bummer is that I finally have some time off and have to spend it laying in bed and being miserable. Although in fairness, that was pretty much what I had planned regardless of health.
I don't recall the circumstances of my last puke. I don't know what I ate or what the problem was, but I remember sitting up in my bed in the middle of the night and vomit launching out of my nose and mouth simultaneously. Come to think of it, a pasta dinner may have been involved cause I've had an aversion to fusilli ever since.
It was horrifying. I made a vow at that moment that I would never puke again. That still stands today, and is the reason I'm known as the Cal Ripken of ralphing.
But I am hurting right now. I just hope I can keep the promise I made to myself so long ago. You know what they say, you sit out one day with a barf and the next thing you know you get Wally Puked, er, Pipped.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Who is Marshall Brickman?
A documentary about Woody Allen premiered a few days ago on PBS and it is really good. You can watch it online here.
Surprisingly, Woody cooperated with the movie and is interviewed throughout. Because of this, there isn't much about the whole "fucking his daughter" thing. The focus is on the movies and his process, and if you like his work, that's what you want to hear about.
It also does a nice job of glossing over all of the garbage that came between Deconstructing Harry (which I think is highly underrated) and Match Point (which is overrated).
But one thing that the movie didn't do that I would've liked is talk about Marshall Brickman. He was a co-writer on Sleepers, Annie Hall, and Manhattan. He's interviewed in the documentary, but it's just to fawn over Woody's greatness. There's nothing in there about their collaboration, how it came about, and his contribution to those films.
Annie Hall and Manhattan happen to be Woody's most critically acclaimed and successful movies. Seems like a pretty big coincidence that this other guy helped write those two and hardly any of the rest. Isn't it natural to suppose that something about Brickman's contribution helped make that happen?
I have no doubt Woody is a genius. And making a movie every year is insane. But perhaps collaboration, or lack thereof, is the reason so many of his movies have been, well, crappy.
Just look at Midnight in Paris, which despite the fact that it somehow did well at the box office, is an incredibly lazy movie. It had potential, but every scene took the least interesting/enjoyable route possible. It just feels like these movies are spit out of his typewriter in one shot and then go directly in front of the cameras. And after watching the documentary, that seems to be exactly what happens. Unfortunately, making good movies are a lot harder to do than that.
It's the George Lucas syndrome. The Star Wars prequels sucked because George wrote them by himself and no one had the balls to tell him Jar Jar Binks was a bad idea. In the same way, there was no one to add jokes and story and goodness to Cassandra's Dream, Scoop, Hollywood Ending, Small Time Crooks, Whatever Works, Celebrity...
Marshall Brickman was the key! Well, maybe not the key, but at least he was an opposing voice to say "hey, before we go shoot this first draft, how about we read it over again and punch it up?"
It's too easy when you're working by yourself to go down some bad roads. It helps to have someone there to challenge you and keep you on the genius track. Woody has missed that.
Anyway, I just thought this would be explored a little more since the rest of the movie features Woody as a one man dynamo. And it's so clear that the few times he wasn't, the best art was produced. But that's a minor quibble, cause the rest of the documentary is pretty darn enjoyable.
Surprisingly, Woody cooperated with the movie and is interviewed throughout. Because of this, there isn't much about the whole "fucking his daughter" thing. The focus is on the movies and his process, and if you like his work, that's what you want to hear about.
It also does a nice job of glossing over all of the garbage that came between Deconstructing Harry (which I think is highly underrated) and Match Point (which is overrated).
But one thing that the movie didn't do that I would've liked is talk about Marshall Brickman. He was a co-writer on Sleepers, Annie Hall, and Manhattan. He's interviewed in the documentary, but it's just to fawn over Woody's greatness. There's nothing in there about their collaboration, how it came about, and his contribution to those films.
Annie Hall and Manhattan happen to be Woody's most critically acclaimed and successful movies. Seems like a pretty big coincidence that this other guy helped write those two and hardly any of the rest. Isn't it natural to suppose that something about Brickman's contribution helped make that happen?
I have no doubt Woody is a genius. And making a movie every year is insane. But perhaps collaboration, or lack thereof, is the reason so many of his movies have been, well, crappy.
Just look at Midnight in Paris, which despite the fact that it somehow did well at the box office, is an incredibly lazy movie. It had potential, but every scene took the least interesting/enjoyable route possible. It just feels like these movies are spit out of his typewriter in one shot and then go directly in front of the cameras. And after watching the documentary, that seems to be exactly what happens. Unfortunately, making good movies are a lot harder to do than that.
It's the George Lucas syndrome. The Star Wars prequels sucked because George wrote them by himself and no one had the balls to tell him Jar Jar Binks was a bad idea. In the same way, there was no one to add jokes and story and goodness to Cassandra's Dream, Scoop, Hollywood Ending, Small Time Crooks, Whatever Works, Celebrity...
Marshall Brickman was the key! Well, maybe not the key, but at least he was an opposing voice to say "hey, before we go shoot this first draft, how about we read it over again and punch it up?"
It's too easy when you're working by yourself to go down some bad roads. It helps to have someone there to challenge you and keep you on the genius track. Woody has missed that.
Anyway, I just thought this would be explored a little more since the rest of the movie features Woody as a one man dynamo. And it's so clear that the few times he wasn't, the best art was produced. But that's a minor quibble, cause the rest of the documentary is pretty darn enjoyable.
Monday, November 21, 2011
The Possible Expansion of Team Handleman
Recently, my agent left the agenting business to do something totally different: become a manager. What's the difference between an agent and a manager? Well, nothing.
Okay, not completely nothing. A manager is supposed to be more involved in your career, he/she will read your stuff, give you notes, and guide you more than an agent does. An agent makes your deals, a manager is more of a partner in crime. Also, a manager can "produce" things. So if I sell a show, my manager can attach himself as a producer. An agent isn't allowed to do that.
None of this really matters, but basically now I have a manager and no agent. The guy is still doing the same shit as before though, so it doesn't really make a difference to me. Hopefully, the new company he is at has better resources and a better profile than his previous spot, although that probably doesn't matter that much.
After this happened, some agents have come out of the woodwork wanting to represent me. It appears the ratings of the show I'm on have earned it some respect in the industry, and now they think they will be able to make money off me because of it.
I know I've said this many times, but I find this to be very strange. I'm doing the same shit I've always done, but I lucked out and got on a show that people like and now people magically think I know what I'm doing.
What bothers me is that none of these business people - agents, studio executives - seem to know what is going on at shows.
There are morons on hit shows, and there are geniuses at awful ones. And yet no one who can do anything about it knows the difference. Thus, a moron who writes on Parks and Rec will get whatever job they want, and a genius on Mike and Molly will be shunned for the next 2 years. It's a flawed system.
But whatever, I'm benefiting right now so I need to take advantage of it. The question is: do I really need more of Team Handleman? Do I want to give up another 20% of my meager earnings?
I don't know.
On the one hand, I don't want to limit myself. I want as many people finding me work as humanly possible.
On the other, that's probably a myth. The fact is, agents haven't really ever gotten me anything. Almost every job I've ever got was through friends or connections. And with all of the sad stories of Team Handleman's ineptness in the past, do I really need more idiots involved in my life?
Which brings us to another problem, my bitterness. Some of these same people wanting to talk to me have rejected me in the past! They didn't want me when I was writing low rated Mexican jokes. And now here they are. Where were you when I needed you, motherfuckers?!
But there's also another part of me that still thinks like I did 10 years ago: that agents can actually help. It's a crazy notion, and I cling to it when things get bleak.
Alas, I can't complain. This is a good problem to have, I'm just not sure what to do and I don't want to blow it. With any luck, the next show I write for will be awful and I can be left alone and die penniless.
Okay, not completely nothing. A manager is supposed to be more involved in your career, he/she will read your stuff, give you notes, and guide you more than an agent does. An agent makes your deals, a manager is more of a partner in crime. Also, a manager can "produce" things. So if I sell a show, my manager can attach himself as a producer. An agent isn't allowed to do that.
None of this really matters, but basically now I have a manager and no agent. The guy is still doing the same shit as before though, so it doesn't really make a difference to me. Hopefully, the new company he is at has better resources and a better profile than his previous spot, although that probably doesn't matter that much.
After this happened, some agents have come out of the woodwork wanting to represent me. It appears the ratings of the show I'm on have earned it some respect in the industry, and now they think they will be able to make money off me because of it.
I know I've said this many times, but I find this to be very strange. I'm doing the same shit I've always done, but I lucked out and got on a show that people like and now people magically think I know what I'm doing.
What bothers me is that none of these business people - agents, studio executives - seem to know what is going on at shows.
There are morons on hit shows, and there are geniuses at awful ones. And yet no one who can do anything about it knows the difference. Thus, a moron who writes on Parks and Rec will get whatever job they want, and a genius on Mike and Molly will be shunned for the next 2 years. It's a flawed system.
But whatever, I'm benefiting right now so I need to take advantage of it. The question is: do I really need more of Team Handleman? Do I want to give up another 20% of my meager earnings?
I don't know.
On the one hand, I don't want to limit myself. I want as many people finding me work as humanly possible.
On the other, that's probably a myth. The fact is, agents haven't really ever gotten me anything. Almost every job I've ever got was through friends or connections. And with all of the sad stories of Team Handleman's ineptness in the past, do I really need more idiots involved in my life?
Which brings us to another problem, my bitterness. Some of these same people wanting to talk to me have rejected me in the past! They didn't want me when I was writing low rated Mexican jokes. And now here they are. Where were you when I needed you, motherfuckers?!
But there's also another part of me that still thinks like I did 10 years ago: that agents can actually help. It's a crazy notion, and I cling to it when things get bleak.
Alas, I can't complain. This is a good problem to have, I'm just not sure what to do and I don't want to blow it. With any luck, the next show I write for will be awful and I can be left alone and die penniless.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Where's Steve Buscemi?
I'm a big boxing fan, so I ordered the Pacquao/Marquez ppv fight last weekend. However, there was a problem. Steve Buscemi was sitting ringside and he was all I could look at.
It was impossible to concentrate on the fight because the sight of Buscemi's face glaring at me was so disturbing. We all know that Buscemi is a different looking guy for someone who gets leading roles. But actually, Buscemi is a different look guy, period. In a crowd of faces, his pale whiteness shines through.
During the fight I tweeted "you may be able to pick out steve buscemi at the pacquiao fight because he's the whitest, most awful looking man in the world"
But I was pissed because I figured no one else was watching to fully appreciate it. A replay is on right now so I took a picture of it. See if you can spot Buscemi...
I promise you that is not photo shopped.
It was impossible to concentrate on the fight because the sight of Buscemi's face glaring at me was so disturbing. We all know that Buscemi is a different looking guy for someone who gets leading roles. But actually, Buscemi is a different look guy, period. In a crowd of faces, his pale whiteness shines through.
During the fight I tweeted "you may be able to pick out steve buscemi at the pacquiao fight because he's the whitest, most awful looking man in the world"
But I was pissed because I figured no one else was watching to fully appreciate it. A replay is on right now so I took a picture of it. See if you can spot Buscemi...
I promise you that is not photo shopped.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
The Bizarro Joe Paterno
I've hated Joe Paterno for the last 10 years. I hated Bobby Bowden too. I hate any coach who can't retire and holds on just to set meaningless records and preserve their "legacy".
An 80 year old man cannot possibly be in charge of 100 college athletes. Heck, a 50 year old man can barely do it. That's an unmanageable amount of personalities, and it's actually 3 times that amount when you count their parents, who are even worse.
My hatred for Paterno really picked up steam when he began "coaching" from up in the press box. Then I found out he didn't even go into the locker room at halftime to talk to the team. Sorry, but you're not the coach. You're an old figurehead that the team feels sorry for.
Maybe it's because I would retire tomorrow if I could that I have such a thing about old people not quitting, but obviously it came back to bite Paterno on the ass. Perhaps the same motivation that drove him to hang onto that job is the same one that ended up being his undoing. But it turns out, the best thing he could've done was leave 10 years ago. You can only screw things up by hanging around and being alive, just look at 2pac compared to Snoop. 2pac is one of the greats of Hip Hop, Snoop has a sitcom in development with NBC.
Well, there's another 80 year old who doesn't want to give it up. But in this case, he is being forced out without a scandal necessitating it. His name is Regis Philbin.
Regis is leaving this week. I know this because I've been watching Regis and Kelly ever since Soap Net had the nerve to switch Beverly Hills 90210 from its 8am & 9am time slot. Assholes.
Has anyone been watching Regis and Kelly lately? It's pretty fascinating and I'm surprised it isn't being discussed more. The reason:
Regis doesn't want to leave. And even more interesting, it seems like Kelly can't wait to get rid of his excitable ass.
There's a weird tension every morning. Regis talks about what he's going to do next, and Kelly gently tells him he'll be fine. Normally, the person in Regis' situation would be talking about spending more time with his family or relaxing, but no, he clearly wants to keep working.
Unlike Paterno or Bowden or most 80 year olds who don't know when to let go, I'm actually rooting for Regis. He's not hanging out in the press box picking up bullshit wins while doing nothing. He's still got it.
And I don't like Kelly. She was a natural at this morning talk show thing, or at least she used to be. But I think that the every day grind has ruined her. She's faking it now. Her energy is fake. Her stories are fake. She's run dry, and now she's acting. And if any of you watched All My Children in the early '90's, you know that acting is not her strong suit. It's just too hard to come in every morning for an hour and talk about the wacky stories from your life. No one has that many wacky stories.
But Regis does!
Have you met any 80 year olds lately? They shouldn't be driving, much less be on TV. But Regis is an exception. If he was really done, he'd be too tired to fight it. But ever since it was announced that they were getting rid of him, he's made it uncomfortable for Kelly and the fat, 40 year old female audience every day and I like it.
Maybe it is time for him to leave. You don't want to go out too late. But Regis is still throwing fast balls and he's meant to do that show. He's great at it. I just hope that 90210 goes back to its old time slot so I can go back to not caring.
An 80 year old man cannot possibly be in charge of 100 college athletes. Heck, a 50 year old man can barely do it. That's an unmanageable amount of personalities, and it's actually 3 times that amount when you count their parents, who are even worse.
My hatred for Paterno really picked up steam when he began "coaching" from up in the press box. Then I found out he didn't even go into the locker room at halftime to talk to the team. Sorry, but you're not the coach. You're an old figurehead that the team feels sorry for.
Maybe it's because I would retire tomorrow if I could that I have such a thing about old people not quitting, but obviously it came back to bite Paterno on the ass. Perhaps the same motivation that drove him to hang onto that job is the same one that ended up being his undoing. But it turns out, the best thing he could've done was leave 10 years ago. You can only screw things up by hanging around and being alive, just look at 2pac compared to Snoop. 2pac is one of the greats of Hip Hop, Snoop has a sitcom in development with NBC.
Well, there's another 80 year old who doesn't want to give it up. But in this case, he is being forced out without a scandal necessitating it. His name is Regis Philbin.
Regis is leaving this week. I know this because I've been watching Regis and Kelly ever since Soap Net had the nerve to switch Beverly Hills 90210 from its 8am & 9am time slot. Assholes.
Has anyone been watching Regis and Kelly lately? It's pretty fascinating and I'm surprised it isn't being discussed more. The reason:
Regis doesn't want to leave. And even more interesting, it seems like Kelly can't wait to get rid of his excitable ass.
There's a weird tension every morning. Regis talks about what he's going to do next, and Kelly gently tells him he'll be fine. Normally, the person in Regis' situation would be talking about spending more time with his family or relaxing, but no, he clearly wants to keep working.
Unlike Paterno or Bowden or most 80 year olds who don't know when to let go, I'm actually rooting for Regis. He's not hanging out in the press box picking up bullshit wins while doing nothing. He's still got it.
And I don't like Kelly. She was a natural at this morning talk show thing, or at least she used to be. But I think that the every day grind has ruined her. She's faking it now. Her energy is fake. Her stories are fake. She's run dry, and now she's acting. And if any of you watched All My Children in the early '90's, you know that acting is not her strong suit. It's just too hard to come in every morning for an hour and talk about the wacky stories from your life. No one has that many wacky stories.
But Regis does!
Have you met any 80 year olds lately? They shouldn't be driving, much less be on TV. But Regis is an exception. If he was really done, he'd be too tired to fight it. But ever since it was announced that they were getting rid of him, he's made it uncomfortable for Kelly and the fat, 40 year old female audience every day and I like it.
Maybe it is time for him to leave. You don't want to go out too late. But Regis is still throwing fast balls and he's meant to do that show. He's great at it. I just hope that 90210 goes back to its old time slot so I can go back to not caring.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
The Kindle Fire
I'm a Kindle man. Always have been. This is something that I am occasionally mocked for. I guess it's cooler to have an Ipad. But there's one thing the Kindle can do that the Ipad can not:
You can fricking use it when you go outside!
I live in southern California. That means the weather is nice all of the time, which means that's where I like to read. I have multiple decks!
When you switch over to the E-Reader world, you do not do it halfway. You go all in. Thus, how in the hell could I ever switch to the Ipad if I like to read outside? It can't happen. If I were to switch, all reading would have to end. Well, not on my watch.
Now there is a new Kindle out. The Kindle Fire. In fact, it came out today. But this Kindle is "better" than the other Kindles. It's in color. It has a screen like the Ipad.
This is a problem.
Can you read it outside?
That's the only question I have. I don't give a shit about the dual core technology, or all the movies and TV shows, or God Damn apps, none of it! I only need one thing: to be able to read outside.
So you'd think that someone might tell me the answer to that question. But no. I've read every review, every blog, and no one has mentioned it. No one.
It's the one and only valuable commodity the Kindle has over the Ipad. No matter what the Ipad can do, it couldn't match the Kindle's ability outside. And yet, this is ignored.
I think some of these geeks get too caught up on a bunch of garbage no one uses. Stick to the basics, people. The Kindle will never be the Ipad. But it can be enjoyed on my deck, and that's the important thing. Or at least it used to be.
You can fricking use it when you go outside!
I live in southern California. That means the weather is nice all of the time, which means that's where I like to read. I have multiple decks!
When you switch over to the E-Reader world, you do not do it halfway. You go all in. Thus, how in the hell could I ever switch to the Ipad if I like to read outside? It can't happen. If I were to switch, all reading would have to end. Well, not on my watch.
Now there is a new Kindle out. The Kindle Fire. In fact, it came out today. But this Kindle is "better" than the other Kindles. It's in color. It has a screen like the Ipad.
This is a problem.
Can you read it outside?
That's the only question I have. I don't give a shit about the dual core technology, or all the movies and TV shows, or God Damn apps, none of it! I only need one thing: to be able to read outside.
So you'd think that someone might tell me the answer to that question. But no. I've read every review, every blog, and no one has mentioned it. No one.
It's the one and only valuable commodity the Kindle has over the Ipad. No matter what the Ipad can do, it couldn't match the Kindle's ability outside. And yet, this is ignored.
I think some of these geeks get too caught up on a bunch of garbage no one uses. Stick to the basics, people. The Kindle will never be the Ipad. But it can be enjoyed on my deck, and that's the important thing. Or at least it used to be.
Monday, November 14, 2011
This Is a Republican Front Runner
How are we supposed to take these people seriously? I'd feel better about all of his attempted blow job rapes if he at least knew his shit.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
161 Pounds
Diet update. I've lost 14 pounds (started at 175). And you know what? Other than the lack of pooping and Pepsi it hasn't been that hard. I really don't see that big a difference between now and my old, fat self. I look the same, though my belly has shrunk a bit.
Here's the list of things I didn't eat that I normally would have over the last month:
Spaghetti, rice, garlic bread, potatoes, soda, lemonade, cookies, ice cream, triscuits, wheat thins, grilled cheese, blts, muffins, donuts, and ribs.
I want to thank whoever recommended probiotics, that may have pushed me over the top. However, we can't be sure, because there were some extenuating circumstances this week.
I was engaged in some nerve wracking negotiations and also had several meetings, and you know that always helps my flow. Plus, I basically did not eat on Wednesday or Thursday because I was so worked up. So maybe it was a combination of those things and the yogurt.
I'm pretty much at my goal weight, and you know that means: time to do as all dieters do and balloon back up to fatter than I was before. Thanks for you help and concern.
Here's the list of things I didn't eat that I normally would have over the last month:
Spaghetti, rice, garlic bread, potatoes, soda, lemonade, cookies, ice cream, triscuits, wheat thins, grilled cheese, blts, muffins, donuts, and ribs.
I want to thank whoever recommended probiotics, that may have pushed me over the top. However, we can't be sure, because there were some extenuating circumstances this week.
I was engaged in some nerve wracking negotiations and also had several meetings, and you know that always helps my flow. Plus, I basically did not eat on Wednesday or Thursday because I was so worked up. So maybe it was a combination of those things and the yogurt.
I'm pretty much at my goal weight, and you know that means: time to do as all dieters do and balloon back up to fatter than I was before. Thanks for you help and concern.
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Steve Jobs Was a Jerk
In the hype leading up to the release of the Steve Jobs book it was always stressed that it would be a no holds barred account of his life. Jobs wife reportedly told the author Walter Isaacson not to whitewash anything.
And there was this exchange between Isaacson and Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes:
Steve Kroft: I think it’s a tough book.
Isaacson: It’s a book that’s fair. I mean, this is a real human being.
Kroft: He had lots of flaws.
Isaacson: He was very petulant. He was very brittle. He could be very, very mean to people at times. Whether it was to a waitress in a restaurant, or to a guy who had stayed up all night coding, he could just really just go at them and say, “You’re doin’ this all wrong. It’s horrible.” And you’d say, “Why did you do that? Why weren’t you nicer?” And he’d say, “I really wanna be with people who demand perfection. And this is who I am.”
Coming into the book, I didn't really have an opinion on Steve Jobs. I had an Apple IIc growing up, and then, like most people, I was out of the Apple universe until I came back for the Ipod, and then a Mac computer, and then the Iphone.
I was expecting to learn about a difficult genius who revolutionized computing. Instead, I learned about the world's biggest asshole.
Steve Jobs wasn't just a petulant man with a lot of flaws. He was a monster.
There wasn't a page of this book where I didn't hate Steve Jobs more than I did on the page before it. It's incredible that anyone accepted this behavior or he's revered the way he is. But I guess that's how awesome the Iphone is.
I haven't seen this interpretation before, but I honestly haven't read a book about someone I despised this much. Usually you root for the guy you're following, good or bad. But not here. He's constantly doing things that are unforgivable: impregnating a girl, claiming the kid isn't his, calling her a slut, sabotaging his own company, telling people their work is shit, freezing out his "friends", stabbing people in the back, stabbing people in the front, stabbing people just cause he can. There is nothing redeeming about this dude. Nothing.
Oh yeah, there is one thing: he made boatloads of money making gadgets.
I guess when all is said and done, that's all that matters and all people will remember.
But I always think of the people who actually had to put up with this shit on a day to day basis. The fact is that if any of us, even the most Apple adoring assholes, had to have Steve Jobs as our boss, we'd want to murder him. And I don't think that can be forgiven just because the Hanging With Friends App is so fun.
I guess his accomplishments made him great, but even some of those are a bit questionable.
I knew that Jobs started Apple and then was pushed out in the '80's. And from what little I knew this seemed like madness. Jobs was the genius! They screwed everything up! But now that I read the book I know that it was all his fault. He's the one who screwed everything up.
And then he didn't even learn from those mistakes, and repeated them again with his next venture, NeXT. He was a maniac to work with, and it wasn't even working.
The only parts of the book I liked are when Jobs and Bill Gates get together, because Bill Gates was the only guy who could look him in the eye and tell him he was a dick. I read the Paul Allen book and didn't like Gates that much. But after reading this one, he's my new hero.
Which brings me to another misconception: Jobs would frequently say this about Bill Gates:
“Bill is basically unimaginative, and has never invented anything, which I think is why he’s more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology. He just shamelessly ripped off other people’s ideas.”
That is the Pot calling the kettle a turtleneck wearing wannabe hippie. He did the same thing. Steve Jobs never invented anything.
The genius behind Apple in the beginning was Steve Wozniak. His invention of the Apple I and the Apple II is what carried that company for a decade. Jobs big thing was the original Macintosh, which he stole from the same place Gates stole from, Xerox.
The genius behind Pixar was John Lasseter. Jobs deserves credit for investing his money in it, but he wasn't the reason it became successful. Far from it.
His whole career was letting other people come up with things, and then trying to put his spin on it. For 2/3's of his career, he couldn't even get that right.
He wasn't a perfectionist, he was a man without an original idea.
He was pretty much a failure until 10 years ago. That's a testament to his drive and wealth. He kept getting chances at the plate, and he finally knocked one out of the park. Because of that, he will always be remembered as an innovator and a genius. But to me, he'll always be a jerk.
And there was this exchange between Isaacson and Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes:
Steve Kroft: I think it’s a tough book.
Isaacson: It’s a book that’s fair. I mean, this is a real human being.
Kroft: He had lots of flaws.
Isaacson: He was very petulant. He was very brittle. He could be very, very mean to people at times. Whether it was to a waitress in a restaurant, or to a guy who had stayed up all night coding, he could just really just go at them and say, “You’re doin’ this all wrong. It’s horrible.” And you’d say, “Why did you do that? Why weren’t you nicer?” And he’d say, “I really wanna be with people who demand perfection. And this is who I am.”
Coming into the book, I didn't really have an opinion on Steve Jobs. I had an Apple IIc growing up, and then, like most people, I was out of the Apple universe until I came back for the Ipod, and then a Mac computer, and then the Iphone.
I was expecting to learn about a difficult genius who revolutionized computing. Instead, I learned about the world's biggest asshole.
Steve Jobs wasn't just a petulant man with a lot of flaws. He was a monster.
There wasn't a page of this book where I didn't hate Steve Jobs more than I did on the page before it. It's incredible that anyone accepted this behavior or he's revered the way he is. But I guess that's how awesome the Iphone is.
I haven't seen this interpretation before, but I honestly haven't read a book about someone I despised this much. Usually you root for the guy you're following, good or bad. But not here. He's constantly doing things that are unforgivable: impregnating a girl, claiming the kid isn't his, calling her a slut, sabotaging his own company, telling people their work is shit, freezing out his "friends", stabbing people in the back, stabbing people in the front, stabbing people just cause he can. There is nothing redeeming about this dude. Nothing.
Oh yeah, there is one thing: he made boatloads of money making gadgets.
I guess when all is said and done, that's all that matters and all people will remember.
But I always think of the people who actually had to put up with this shit on a day to day basis. The fact is that if any of us, even the most Apple adoring assholes, had to have Steve Jobs as our boss, we'd want to murder him. And I don't think that can be forgiven just because the Hanging With Friends App is so fun.
I guess his accomplishments made him great, but even some of those are a bit questionable.
I knew that Jobs started Apple and then was pushed out in the '80's. And from what little I knew this seemed like madness. Jobs was the genius! They screwed everything up! But now that I read the book I know that it was all his fault. He's the one who screwed everything up.
And then he didn't even learn from those mistakes, and repeated them again with his next venture, NeXT. He was a maniac to work with, and it wasn't even working.
The only parts of the book I liked are when Jobs and Bill Gates get together, because Bill Gates was the only guy who could look him in the eye and tell him he was a dick. I read the Paul Allen book and didn't like Gates that much. But after reading this one, he's my new hero.
Which brings me to another misconception: Jobs would frequently say this about Bill Gates:
“Bill is basically unimaginative, and has never invented anything, which I think is why he’s more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology. He just shamelessly ripped off other people’s ideas.”
That is the Pot calling the kettle a turtleneck wearing wannabe hippie. He did the same thing. Steve Jobs never invented anything.
The genius behind Apple in the beginning was Steve Wozniak. His invention of the Apple I and the Apple II is what carried that company for a decade. Jobs big thing was the original Macintosh, which he stole from the same place Gates stole from, Xerox.
The genius behind Pixar was John Lasseter. Jobs deserves credit for investing his money in it, but he wasn't the reason it became successful. Far from it.
His whole career was letting other people come up with things, and then trying to put his spin on it. For 2/3's of his career, he couldn't even get that right.
He wasn't a perfectionist, he was a man without an original idea.
He was pretty much a failure until 10 years ago. That's a testament to his drive and wealth. He kept getting chances at the plate, and he finally knocked one out of the park. Because of that, he will always be remembered as an innovator and a genius. But to me, he'll always be a jerk.
Monday, November 07, 2011
Eddie Murphy Will Never Be Funny Again
There's been a lot of Eddie Murphy talk lately because of his new movie "Tower Heist". Uncharacteristically, Eddie's been making the rounds of all the talk shows promoting it, and there's been a bit of an Eddie revival going on. People think the old Eddie might be coming back.
Well, he isn't. Old Eddie died in 1992.
There is no bigger Eddie Murphy fan than me. He's probably the biggest reason I ended up in comedy, him and the fact that I'm willing to talk about my poop schedule with a bunch of blog reading strangers.
I used to do Mr. Robinson sketches of my own in my living room. I was 8 years old. "Can you use ransom in a sentence, boys and girls? I ran-some ladies dog out of her yard and now I got him".
I owned the "Delirious" VHS and cassettes, two forms of media people I work with have never heard of.
And then, of course, there were the classic movies he churned out: "48 Hours", "Trading Places", "Beverly Hills Cop", Beverly Hills Cop 2", "Coming to America", and "Boomerang". Sometimes people forget about "Boomerang", but it is one of my favorites. It's also the end of Eddie Murphy as I choose to remember him (although "Distinguished Gentleman" has its moments).
The real end of Eddie Murphy came with "Beverly Hills Cop 3". It's really the perfect movie to demonstrate the difference between the old Eddie and the new, deceased Eddie. It's the same formula we've loved in the past, but instead the guy playing Axel Foley is no longer funny.
And after that? Well, "Vampire in Brooklyn", and it was looking like Eddie was going to fade away and he'd have to reinvent himself somehow. But instead, he went back to the well of wearing makeup and playing different characters in "Nutty Professor".
The movie made a lot of money, but only because it's impossible for a mass audience to resist a film featuring a black comedian in drag. Regardless, Eddie was back. But not really.
I remember seeing that in the theater and feeling very uncomfortable. I did not laugh once. It was sad. There was something different about this guy. He wasn't Eddie Murphy, but he was trying like hell to be. Over trying, really. He was like the Busta Rhymes version of Eddie, just a lot of yelling and histrionics.
That's been the guy we've seen in crappy movies ever since.
For the last 15 years, he has mostly done stuff for kids. And his fans have held out hope that some day the old Eddie would come back. This notion has reached a fever pitch lately as he has said that he wants to do more R rated comedies, and possibly get back into standup.
It doesn't matter. It won't work. You can't just get it back when you're 50 years old and have more money than you'll ever need. When you lose it, you lose it. Especially when you're no longer hungry. The edge is gone.
If people want to see classic Eddie Murphy, they should rent one of his old movies, cause that's as close as they're gonna get.
This idea of great comedians losing it fascinates me for some reason. They are almost like boxers. There's a certain point where age and success catches up to them and they can't be great anymore.
Billy Crystal is a shot fighter. Bill Cosby got punched in the face too many times. Chevy Chase is about as coherent as Muhammad Ali.
But Eddie's a little different than these guys, because he's not just funny. He's got talent coming out of his ears. So he can do stuff like "Dreamgirls".
He can still be an actor, and entertaining, he just can't be funny like the old Eddie was. And I don't know if it's racist, but he used to be handsome, and now he has morphed into donkey from Shrek. So there's also that.
Well, he isn't. Old Eddie died in 1992.
There is no bigger Eddie Murphy fan than me. He's probably the biggest reason I ended up in comedy, him and the fact that I'm willing to talk about my poop schedule with a bunch of blog reading strangers.
I used to do Mr. Robinson sketches of my own in my living room. I was 8 years old. "Can you use ransom in a sentence, boys and girls? I ran-some ladies dog out of her yard and now I got him".
I owned the "Delirious" VHS and cassettes, two forms of media people I work with have never heard of.
And then, of course, there were the classic movies he churned out: "48 Hours", "Trading Places", "Beverly Hills Cop", Beverly Hills Cop 2", "Coming to America", and "Boomerang". Sometimes people forget about "Boomerang", but it is one of my favorites. It's also the end of Eddie Murphy as I choose to remember him (although "Distinguished Gentleman" has its moments).
The real end of Eddie Murphy came with "Beverly Hills Cop 3". It's really the perfect movie to demonstrate the difference between the old Eddie and the new, deceased Eddie. It's the same formula we've loved in the past, but instead the guy playing Axel Foley is no longer funny.
And after that? Well, "Vampire in Brooklyn", and it was looking like Eddie was going to fade away and he'd have to reinvent himself somehow. But instead, he went back to the well of wearing makeup and playing different characters in "Nutty Professor".
The movie made a lot of money, but only because it's impossible for a mass audience to resist a film featuring a black comedian in drag. Regardless, Eddie was back. But not really.
I remember seeing that in the theater and feeling very uncomfortable. I did not laugh once. It was sad. There was something different about this guy. He wasn't Eddie Murphy, but he was trying like hell to be. Over trying, really. He was like the Busta Rhymes version of Eddie, just a lot of yelling and histrionics.
That's been the guy we've seen in crappy movies ever since.
For the last 15 years, he has mostly done stuff for kids. And his fans have held out hope that some day the old Eddie would come back. This notion has reached a fever pitch lately as he has said that he wants to do more R rated comedies, and possibly get back into standup.
It doesn't matter. It won't work. You can't just get it back when you're 50 years old and have more money than you'll ever need. When you lose it, you lose it. Especially when you're no longer hungry. The edge is gone.
If people want to see classic Eddie Murphy, they should rent one of his old movies, cause that's as close as they're gonna get.
This idea of great comedians losing it fascinates me for some reason. They are almost like boxers. There's a certain point where age and success catches up to them and they can't be great anymore.
Billy Crystal is a shot fighter. Bill Cosby got punched in the face too many times. Chevy Chase is about as coherent as Muhammad Ali.
But Eddie's a little different than these guys, because he's not just funny. He's got talent coming out of his ears. So he can do stuff like "Dreamgirls".
He can still be an actor, and entertaining, he just can't be funny like the old Eddie was. And I don't know if it's racist, but he used to be handsome, and now he has morphed into donkey from Shrek. So there's also that.
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
I've Plateaued
We are coming up on a month of the great diet experiment of 2011. Things haven't changed much since I last reported. I'm pretty sure there's only one thing to blame for this:
Pooping.
I can't poop! What happened? This has been a struggle since I made the change and I can't figure it out. I'm eating a high fiber breakfast, drinking more water than I've ever drank in my life, exercising regularly, eating tons of fruits and vegetables, I'm leguming it up, people!
I can't figure it out. I'm seemingly doing everything you need to do in order to poop constantly, and yet...nothing.
The only great poop day I've had is when I had a big meeting and I woke up and absolutely shit my brains out. It was a rare double header - one at home, one at the studio. That's how much was backed up, and it took being a pussy about talking to people to make it run for the exits.
It's possible that my body got so used to not having fiber or water that it's chemistry has changed. Isn't that what happens to heroin addicts? Pepsi and white bread were my smack and I can't go back.
It's a working theory.
I'm giving this 2 more weeks.
Pooping.
I can't poop! What happened? This has been a struggle since I made the change and I can't figure it out. I'm eating a high fiber breakfast, drinking more water than I've ever drank in my life, exercising regularly, eating tons of fruits and vegetables, I'm leguming it up, people!
I can't figure it out. I'm seemingly doing everything you need to do in order to poop constantly, and yet...nothing.
The only great poop day I've had is when I had a big meeting and I woke up and absolutely shit my brains out. It was a rare double header - one at home, one at the studio. That's how much was backed up, and it took being a pussy about talking to people to make it run for the exits.
It's possible that my body got so used to not having fiber or water that it's chemistry has changed. Isn't that what happens to heroin addicts? Pepsi and white bread were my smack and I can't go back.
It's a working theory.
I'm giving this 2 more weeks.
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Joke Stealing UPDATE
Awhile ago I wrote a post about joke stealing. I said that yes, joke stealing goes on, but it's pointless to call people out on it because it's very difficult to tell where joke stealing ends and similar ideas begin. It's better to just do great jokes and let the rest take care of itself.
Recently, a show has come on MTV that is quite similar to the show I work on. A lot of people ask me about it. It's silly to claim that it is copying us or anyone else, because our show is similar to a lot of shows that came before us. Including stuff I've worked on in the past. What I'm saying is, none of this is original shit. A dude standing on a green screen showing clips has been around since the invention of green screens.
What I find interesting though is not that the show on MTV is similar to ours, but that they don't seem to care.
Every show I've ever worked on has been extremely vigilant about not wanting to do jokes that other shows have already done. It's bad form to tell the same joke Letterman did 4 days ago. Comedians have more leeway on stage because they aren't being filmed, so it's harder to bust them. But when you're making a TV show, the evidence is on tape (or hard drives or whatever they use now). And the last thing you want is someone watching to go, "Kimmel already did this".
So it's pretty surprising to me to see a TV show that simply doesn't mind doing things that have already been done. Granted, internet videos are a tough thing. Everyone uses them. The same ones go around and many get played everywhere. It happens and it's no big deal.
But you know you're gonna get compared to us. Especially assholes on Twitter, they live for this kind of stuff. So wouldn't you want to avoid it? We certainly do.
So for those wondering, I don't care about that show. I am very happy that people can watch both and decide for themselves. We don't want to do anything they've done, I just find it amazing that they don't feel the same way.
Recently, a show has come on MTV that is quite similar to the show I work on. A lot of people ask me about it. It's silly to claim that it is copying us or anyone else, because our show is similar to a lot of shows that came before us. Including stuff I've worked on in the past. What I'm saying is, none of this is original shit. A dude standing on a green screen showing clips has been around since the invention of green screens.
What I find interesting though is not that the show on MTV is similar to ours, but that they don't seem to care.
Every show I've ever worked on has been extremely vigilant about not wanting to do jokes that other shows have already done. It's bad form to tell the same joke Letterman did 4 days ago. Comedians have more leeway on stage because they aren't being filmed, so it's harder to bust them. But when you're making a TV show, the evidence is on tape (or hard drives or whatever they use now). And the last thing you want is someone watching to go, "Kimmel already did this".
So it's pretty surprising to me to see a TV show that simply doesn't mind doing things that have already been done. Granted, internet videos are a tough thing. Everyone uses them. The same ones go around and many get played everywhere. It happens and it's no big deal.
But you know you're gonna get compared to us. Especially assholes on Twitter, they live for this kind of stuff. So wouldn't you want to avoid it? We certainly do.
So for those wondering, I don't care about that show. I am very happy that people can watch both and decide for themselves. We don't want to do anything they've done, I just find it amazing that they don't feel the same way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)