Travis McClain

As I indicated, I started turning my attention to single discs in my library rather than whole seasons. Here's what I've knocked out in the last couple of days:

Hee Haw Episode #83372 Guests: George Strait, The Statler Brothers, The Aldridge Sisters (50 minutes) ***
I found two of the Time Life Hee Haw DVDs at Half Price Books a few years back; this one and another featuring Waylon Jennings. I grew up watching Hee Haw at my dad's, and I've been a big fan of George Strait for years so it seemed fun to watch him in an episode. Strait is notorious for shying away from this kind of thing so it's particularly curious that he was able to be prodded into it at that early stage of his career. The humor is corny, which I actually dig, but it also relies too heavily on some embarrassingly outdated gender role perceptions that make me cringe. Still, all in all a fun if not particularly noteworthy outing.

The Best of The Johnny Cash Show (83 minutes) ****
This was a Christmas gift a few years ago, which I watched at the time but haven't come back to since. I wish there'd been more clips from the show featuring Cash's interactions with the guests, because it's fun to watch him chat with Waylon, Merle Haggard and Ray Charles. The performances are mostly terrific, though there were a few where I kind of tuned out. There's also a double-disc expanded version of this compilation, but I've got the single-disc version.

The Directors "The Films of Robert Zemeckis" (60 minutes) ***
Save-A-Lot had an assortment of The Directors DVDs for a dollar apiece once upon a time and I picked up the Zemeckis volume then but until this weekend I've never bothered to watch it. There isn't a lot of insight to be found here that couldn't have been pieced together from the odd DVD bonus featurette or commentary track, though the advantage here is that it compiles anecdotes from several of his films in one place. The bit I found most curious was his description of why black comedies are so hard to sell in America: the test audience loves them in the viewing, but will never rate them very high because they're conditioned to look down on such movies. It'd be interesting to see whether he still feels that's true a decade later after things like South Park have made that kind of humor more mainstream.

Jerry Seinfeld "I'm Telling You for the Last Time" Live on Broadway (75 minutes) ****
From my Letterboxd review:

Giles

is the "Akira Kurosawa: It Is Wonderful to Create" on several of Kurosawa Criterion releases from a tv series? is that eligable?

Travis McClain

I ran a quick search on the web and on Criterion.com for more information but I didn't see anything that readily answered this question. Does anyone have more knowledge of it? Perhaps one of our resident Criterion/Kurosawa/Japanese cinema gurus?

As for me, I popped in a couple of Justice League DVDs this evening. They were fun. I hadn't watched either in quite some time; at least seven years and probably longer.

I think I'm pretty much done participating, though I'll watch the premiere of Dallas tomorrow night and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report the last few nights of the challenge. I'll be moving onto the Academy Awards Challenge either tonight or tomorrow; I got a free rental code for Redbox that I used to check out Searching for Sugar Man so that's going to be my first viewing for that challenge.

Also, be sure to pay attention to this thread and your inbox regarding the prizes! I'll generate those random numbers on 1 February. The first drawn winner gets his or her pick, then down the line with each winner picking from the remaining prizes.

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

I'm fairly sure it isn't, if that helps any.

Giles

I'll save those for another Challenge, but I've always wondered since there are quite a few of these, why or for whom were these created for - cinema? tv? home video? ... you got me?

ntnon

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut

The Mask and Men in Black both have direct animated spin-off TV shows, and were nominated.

All the Godfathers were edited together into a TV version - would that allow watching the movies rather than the omnibus "Saga".

Depending on how far you stretch the criteria, since Shrek the Halls was a TV special, that allows the nominated/winning Shrek and Shrek 2 ultimately have ties to TV...

How about movies that inspire TV series'? M*A*S*H for certain (maybe The Odd Couple?) springs to mind - but the shows may have been "inspired by" rendering those problematic.

(Also, your Trek film list is out of order...)

ntnon

I'd like to offer to split the hair here and suggest that I'm in agreement with both of you - and that the problem is terminological.

One of my personal bugbears is "experts" (and others) seeing/reading into things that which is not there. So while there's, broadly speaking, no such thing as over-analyzing (and it's a good - if perhaps mildly snobby! - point that the complaint is often leveled when it's a level of discussion/analysis that is out of one's own comfort zone), there is definitely a problem sometimes with incorrect pseudo-analysis.

Digging deeper into certain films to see conscious and unconscious analogies to political situations of existential fears, for instance, is often merely involved and extreme analysis. Willfully alleging that similar opinions and motivations are incontrovertibly deliberately present sometimes oversteps into pseud-ism. Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe; coincidences happen; people can - and do! - read whatever they like into things regardless of authorial intent, etc., etc.

Not sure that makes sense, but I know what I mean!

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

As far as I know, home video is the answer.

Travis McClain

They were both comic books first so they don't really count (even though the animated series do bear a stronger resemblance to the movie versions).

Though Fanny and Alexander *is* on our eligible list, that's because Ingmar Bergman conceived it as a TV mini-series but it was the theatrical cut that won the Oscar. The Godfather "Saga" cut was done retroactively, and not part of the original artistic intent of the films.

Although, the "special TV cut" of a film is a sort of niche-within-a-niche and might be something for us to kick around in the future. Right now, though, I think there's more than enough eligible content without opening Pandora's box.

As with The Mask and Men in Black, Shrek and M*A*S*H were originally a books and The Odd Couple was originally a play.

Chronologically, yes, but not alphabetically.

I'd agree with this. Last year, I read a translation of Tao te ching that was written in the 1980s. The translator took it upon himself to "update" some of the passages, making references to things like factories and even bombs. He argued in the afterword that his objective was to demonstrate the applicability of the original text to the modern world and that he felt his changes were true to the "spirit" of the Tao. That required not only some staggering hubris, but a level of "analysis" so far down the rabbit hole that it grafted itself over the source material.

ntnon

Interesting... I'm not sure why that first point would disqualify them, particularly given the second. Obvious The Adventures of Superman, The New Adventures of Superman, Superman: The Movie and Superman Returns are all separate adaptations of original source material (even if Returns pretends at semi-hemi-sequality), but those two cartoons were created directly as a result of the success of the films, and I think (memory) and sort-of-read (vaguely, yesterday) do share divergences from their sources that tie them definitively to the movies and not the comics.

I'm very-mildly-inclined - as a spirit-of-the-challenge thing, if movies are allowed at all - to only count films that spin out of a TV show (South Park, Star Trek), and not vice versa (Stargate, The Mask), but if the deciding factor is shared universe, I think those count. Likewise, M#A#S#H.

I sort of understood the reasoning there (intent and sequence-of-events), but surely - again, in my personal, changeable, view - that either disqualifies watching them both or neither: if you watch the TV F&A, it didn't win an Oscar; if you watch the film it wasn't on TV.

I should add that I have no strong feelings on this - just remembered that the "Saga" existed!

Hard to get hold of in all but a very small handful of cases, I would suggest. (And thus Pandora-less.) Excepting the act of watching ANY film on TV (bowdlerised/cut or otherwise), which would be an interesting thought to ignore!

Hm. I don't see how the original source is relevant to whether a film would count as being in the same universe as a TV item. I did read - contrary to what I thought I remembered elsewhere - that Odd Couple (TV) is not necessarily in the same universe as the film, but Shrek and M*A*S*H clearly are. I don't follow the logic of how M*A*S*H could reasonably be excluded on the technicality of the film being related to a (series of) books more than a TV show.

But, again, I'm just advocating because it's interesting to!


That's a whole different tangent! And a very 'six of one' question from my perspective: modernising or updating and "localising" can very easily be hubristic and ghastly, but can also very much do what you suggest was the intention. There's an entirely separate - hopefully related! - thought I sometimes have watching older shows: what are the clothes/cars/amounts of money supposed to imply about this character? Does a character wear a particular type of hat to signify conformity, career, status or idiosyncrasy? Is their car - now very much an antique - indicative of wealth, taste, ultra-(then)modernity, etc., etc.? Some anime/manga translations use direct translations, others a 'spirit of intention' to draw parallels to the equivalent reference in a different culture: those can be (meant to be) helpful and not necessarily anything to do with over-analysis.

ntnon

As another aside, I have now read the Big Bang Theory article.

And I disagree with it both in whole and in part.

I do also detect a hint - despite the contrary allusions (not obvious statements, I don't think) - that the author does not rigorously follow the show (for instance, there's reference to Community's paintball episodes, and none to TBBT's). And there's some key examples of pseudo-analysis - particularly the definite reading-something-into-it-that-isn't-there (or at least 'isn't there in different peoples' opinions').

The article says "I am proud of being enthusiastic about the things I love and The Big Bang Theory wants to tell me not to be. It wants me to be like Penny, intellectually inferior but far more socially acceptable." That is the exact opposite of the message I get from it. Indeed, it's the exact opposite of what Penny takes from her interactions - Penny is becoming less like stereotype-Penny and more like the stereotype-nerds/geeks. It's a sitcom. It uses broad strokes, cliches and stereotypes. There's as much laughing with as laughing at. And there's at least as much laughing at Penny (and her friends) as laughing at Sheldon (and his). As for Community, I enjoyed almost all of the first season and parts of the second. But it - to my mind - became a (bordering on unfunny) parody of itself very quickly. Abed is not really revered (or marginalised) any more than Sheldon. Several of the characters (Jeff, Annie, Pierca, etc.) rotate into the role Penny fills almost-alone in Big Bang, giving the illusion of shared targets of ridicule. Yes, Community did an episode entirely based on D&D; Big Bang did at least one based on RPGs - and the jokes, laughs (at and with) were fairly evenly distributed in both. (Neil got a far greater metaphorical-beating than Raj or Sheldon, too.)

They're both celebratory (but Community is actually more insular and snobby) of 'nerd culture'; they both dumb-down 'nerd culture' to bullet points and cliches. They both mock all characters. Etc. An interesting article, but not one I agree with, nor one I think based on anything other than personal interpretation - I could easily (and might, but not at 3am!) argue that Community is FAR more sexist than Big Bang, or that Troy and Abed are the butt of as many mildly-homophobic jokes and remarks as Raj and Howard. But it doesn't matter. They're both fictions, and more than that both sitcoms.

Travis McClain

Using Superman is a handy microcosm of all this continuity business. You can't say that any Superman TV series was spun-off from a Superman movie because they were all originally spun out of the comic book. What you can demonstrate is that there's a direct continuity between, say, Superman and the Mole Men and The Adventures of Superman. There is not, however, any continuity between The Adventures of Superman and Superman: The Movie. This is why none of the direct-to-video DC Universe Superman movies released to date are eligible for the TV on DVD* Challenge.

Whether a film came before or after (or even during) a series is actually only relevant for the optional checklist. Its eligibility for the challenge rests only on whether it is part of the direct continuity of the TV series.

In the case of Fanny and Alexander, you'd have to watch the TV cut for it to be eligible for the TV on DVD* Challenge, but the Academy Awards Challenge permits you to watch any cut of an Oscar-nominated film. It's a sort of "squares and rectangles" thing.

If we go back to Superman, think of it this way: M*A*S*H, the movie, was an adaptation of the novel. Now suppose instead of just one movie and the TV series, there was an entirely new M*A*S*H movie adaptation or entirely new TV series. They'd be distinct from the existing film and TV series, and we would trace their roots to the novel just as we trace all Superman movies and TV series to the comic book - regardless of whatever influence any screen incarnation may have had on another.

I know this is all nit-picky, and I trust you (and everyone else) realize that part of this is just the nature of such things. I'm perfectly open to making changes in the guidelines of the challenge if that's what's desired but the main reason for the pickiness is simply to guard against using the existence of TV series to justify watching a lot of movies. That would be contrary to the spirit of the challenge, and our best safeguard against that is to be fairly restrictive about which movies are eligible in the first place.

That's a fun discussion to have, but perhaps best suited for another thread. I will say, though, that the centuries-old Tao te ching is not in my estimation the kind of text that invites one to arbitrarily decide how to demonstrate the application of the text to modernity in the course of translation. I think it particularly absurd and borderline insulting because it presumes that the kind of reader who would even bother with something like the Tao needs to have those kinds of dots connected for him or her in the first place. I mean, come on. Have a little respect for, and trust in, your target demographic!

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

You got the same thing I did and everything you talked about are the things I managed to read before finally giving up on it. I just didn't believe that he did watch it like he said he did and his examples seemed to indicate that to me, so I stopped reading. It just didn't seem like he was being honest and already had his mind made up about what a show is trying to mean without really experiencing it with an open mind and then coming to a conclusion.

It's a bit like some posts I was reading somewhere else about men in media. They're saying it's a male dominated thing and prove it by pointing out shows that have a dominate male with lesser status females. Yet at the same time, shows and commercials that have idiot males and smart females, is still showing that men are better than women. In some cases, sure I could see it but saying that about all shows and commercials like that is going into something with your mind already made up.

LJG765

Me too, though I think I read about 3/4ths of it before giving up. nton just said what I couldn't a lot more eloquently than I!

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

As long as we can get someone here to read for us

BobO'Link

I read the whole thing and agree with nton 100%.

shadokitty

Finally got my net problem straightened out, needed a new phone line. I actually made it through an hour long show on Netflix without having to refresh the page one single time. Yay for me

LJG765

Exactly!

I really tried...but it was so one sided about how the show was so bad and blah blah blah.

Anyway, I've been watching a blast to the past-My Two Dads. It's a lot funnier than I remember. I have a disc with 10 episodes and it's been a fun look back at the show.

LJG765

Doing pretty good on my last push. Finished watching the disk of My Two Dads. On to the Perils of Penelope Pitstop. It has been showing on Boom or it was this summer at least. I was able to find a really good deal on the set, so picked it up. It's just pure fun escapism. And, of course, you got to love Paul Lynde's voice as the Hooded Claw!

mrcellophane

I decided to do a bit of jumping around today. I started with an episode of American Dad! and a short marathon of Family Guy while I finished up some grading and worked on lesson plans. After getting home, I watched a couple episodes of Speed Racer (which I adore) and an episode of Starhunter (to get a third country for the checklist). Now, I realize why I got the latter so cheap; it is really bad. I suppose I may have watched an off episode (episode 6 is the first one on the first disc), but it was probably the worst thing I have watched this challenge, and I watched episodes of The Tribe (which was better acted and scripted). Anyway, that is probably destined for the sell pile. Cannot see myself watching the remaining 21 episodes when there are much better things in my collection.

Ash Ketchum

One pleasant discovery I made was in the latest sentai (super-team) series from Japan, "Tokumei Sentai Go-Busters," which will provide the basis for the 2015 Power Rangers season. I'm watching it in Japanese with no subtitles. When the Go-Busters transform into their Power Rangers costumes, a voice in their wrist-strapped transforming device speaks the English phrase, "It's morphin' time!" Which, of course, originated in the 1993 American sentai remake/re-edit, "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers." It all comes full circle.

BobO'Link

I've always like Paul Reiser better in that than Mad About You. BL has had S1 for $10 over the past couple of months. I've almost picked up a copy on a couple of occasions just for nostalgia. Your mention of the show makes me want to go by and see if they still have one.

LJG765

I admit I almost picked it up myself and talked myself out of it. At the time, I had this 10 episode compilation, hadn't watched it in over a year and just didn't know if it had held up. Now, I wish I had. Next time I go in, I'll check again, too. Don't think I can get rid of the single disc one, though, as it skips around seasons.

Never did like Mad About You...so I agree about this one being his better series!

shadokitty

I also agree that Paul Reiser was better in My Two Dads than he was in mad About You.

shadokitty

Just hit 95 items watched with Farewell, Big Brother from Robotech. 5 more to go till I hit 100.