Hello again everyone! It's me again, your friendly neighbor blogger. Scratch that, friendly neighborhood blogger sounds like something gross I don't want to be. I guess I'll just have to be happy being me, good old Jeffrey.
Anyway, as some of you may or may not know, I collect movie memorabilia and toys. Today's blog will focus on my toy collection. I know I'm not five years old anymore, but I'm still a Toys 'R' Us kid, so lay off. lol Seriously though, I just enjoy collecting toys, I don't know why, but I'm not going to fight it. It's not the worst thing a person can do and I am certainly not alone. Plus, some toys really go up in value. My dad collected old toys, mainly models and die-cast cars. I collect mainly action figures and movie related cars (from models to die-cast cars).
Anyway, one of the toy lines I've been trying to collect all of is the Star Wars concept figures. Hasbro has been making them here and there since 2007 and some of them have been exclusives (such as the concept versions of General Grievous, C-3P0, R2-D2, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda, and Luke Skywalker). I have most of them from the 2007 set and I want to finish the collection. Most of the figures are based on the early works of Ralph McQuarrie. I love these figures because it's almost like a piece of movie history brought to life. The funny thing is that I really don't love collecting Star Wars toys. Hasbro keeps reissuing the same toys over and over again. How many Jar Jar Binks figures does one man need anyway? I do love the concept toys and I think those figures maybe among the few Star Wars toys that may go up in value.
Sorry this blog wasn't funny today, I just thought I'd give you readers an idea of what I blow my money on. Take care everyone and I hope you keep safe! :)
Monday, March 22, 2010
Sony Entertainment Is Evil
Hello again all my blog readers! Who am I kidding, there are literally negative amounts of people reading my blog. I don't see how that's possible but it is. Anyway, if you are one of the lucky few people to actually read my blog, you rock and roll! Seriously, take a look around, if you see anyone else, just know that you are better than them simply because you are reading my super cool kick ass blog. If there isn't anyone else around, call a friend and make sure you let them know that a guy by the name of Jeff Stansberry thinks you are better than him/her. If by some weird miracle you two are both reading my blog, just know that you are both better than Carrot Top, although you already stood a 99.9999% chance of being better than him even before reading this blog. Still, you are super duper awesome in my book so that counts for something! :)
Anyway, I was reading a news article about Sony Entertainment that really bugged me. Columbia Pictures (a division of Sony Entertainment) is having second thoughts about having Ivan Reitman direct "Ghostbusters III", even though they already inked a deal for him to return. The buzz is that Sony really wants a younger director for "Ghostbusters III" to give it a younger and hipper vibe. This is beginning to sound like the whole "Spider-Man" 4/reboot mess all over again. "Ghostbusters" and even it's sequel are considered classic films to many people. I grew up watching the "Ghostbusters" films and their animated adventures in the classic cartoon "The Real Ghostbusters". I owned many of the toys (I still do) and I even own the "Ghostbusters" theme song on CD. If you go on E-Bay, Ghostbusters items are still selling like hot cakes and the recent "Ghostbusters: The Video Game" was a huge success. Clearly, people still love the Ghostbusters the way they are. So why does Sony feel the need to change everything? Change can be good, no one is knocking change, but not all change is for the better. Making "Ghostbusters III" feel younger and hipper just seems unnecessary to me. Ivan Reitman directed "Ghostbusters" and "Ghostbusters 2", he clearly knows what he's doing. Sure, a younger director may end up making a great Ghostbusters film, but he may also screw it up. Plus, it's very stupid on Sony's part to even consider replacing Ivan Reitman as the director considering he can personally kill the film if he wishes.
In case you are wondering what I am talking about, let me explain. When the original "Ghostbusters" film was being made, Columbia Pictures inked a deal for future sequels should the film become a hit. As we all know, "Ghostbusters" and "Ghostbuster 2" were huge hits for the studio hence the desire to make a "Ghostbusters III". However, the contracts for Ivan Reitman, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis (the original director and the principal cast) allow any one of them to single handedly veto and kill any future sequels they don't like. Why would Sony risk having the project killed just so they can have their way? Probably because they are stupid bird brains (or evil, I haven't decided yet). Sony may indeed be evil, and I'm talking super evil, like Jay Leno or Paris Hilton evil, so be warned before going to see another Columbia/Tri-Star/Sony picture.
Why does Sony feel they have to target young audiences to go see all their upcoming films? When will Sony learn that every movie doesn't and shouldn't be marketed to tweens? I have no problem with tween films, Summit can make as many "Twilight" films as they want for all I care, but every movie doesn't and shouldn't be modeled after "Twilight". Does Sony honestly think that the female audience that went crazy and fell in love with "Twilight" are going to fall in love with "Spider-Man Version 2.0" or "Ghostbusters III"? I realize that Sony wants to get as many butts in the seats as possible when people go to see their films, but they aren't going to get people seeing their films when they are gearing them for the wrong audiences. I loved "Spider-Man 1-3" (yes, even the third one) and I loved "Ghostbusters 1-2", I don't love "Twilight" though. I'm not knocking it either, the books and films aren't geared for me. That's the thing though, I'm not dying to see "The Twilight Saga: Spider-Man Dawn". You know what I do want to see? That's right, "Spider-Man 4". I don't want to have to choose between Team Spider-Man and Team Green Goblin. Sony is losing their core audiences for their films by trying to cater to a different fan base that probably won't care for their new slate of films. Sony executives, here is a tip for you, leave your films alone. Until the day you Sony executives write a film or direct one, let the creative people make the movies and also make you money and leave them to make the movies, they are in good hands!
Anyway, sorry for the rant. Sony and NBC have just been really bugging me lately. I can't believe how out of touch some of the studio executives are getting. Peace out everyone and take care! :)
Anyway, I was reading a news article about Sony Entertainment that really bugged me. Columbia Pictures (a division of Sony Entertainment) is having second thoughts about having Ivan Reitman direct "Ghostbusters III", even though they already inked a deal for him to return. The buzz is that Sony really wants a younger director for "Ghostbusters III" to give it a younger and hipper vibe. This is beginning to sound like the whole "Spider-Man" 4/reboot mess all over again. "Ghostbusters" and even it's sequel are considered classic films to many people. I grew up watching the "Ghostbusters" films and their animated adventures in the classic cartoon "The Real Ghostbusters". I owned many of the toys (I still do) and I even own the "Ghostbusters" theme song on CD. If you go on E-Bay, Ghostbusters items are still selling like hot cakes and the recent "Ghostbusters: The Video Game" was a huge success. Clearly, people still love the Ghostbusters the way they are. So why does Sony feel the need to change everything? Change can be good, no one is knocking change, but not all change is for the better. Making "Ghostbusters III" feel younger and hipper just seems unnecessary to me. Ivan Reitman directed "Ghostbusters" and "Ghostbusters 2", he clearly knows what he's doing. Sure, a younger director may end up making a great Ghostbusters film, but he may also screw it up. Plus, it's very stupid on Sony's part to even consider replacing Ivan Reitman as the director considering he can personally kill the film if he wishes.
In case you are wondering what I am talking about, let me explain. When the original "Ghostbusters" film was being made, Columbia Pictures inked a deal for future sequels should the film become a hit. As we all know, "Ghostbusters" and "Ghostbuster 2" were huge hits for the studio hence the desire to make a "Ghostbusters III". However, the contracts for Ivan Reitman, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis (the original director and the principal cast) allow any one of them to single handedly veto and kill any future sequels they don't like. Why would Sony risk having the project killed just so they can have their way? Probably because they are stupid bird brains (or evil, I haven't decided yet). Sony may indeed be evil, and I'm talking super evil, like Jay Leno or Paris Hilton evil, so be warned before going to see another Columbia/Tri-Star/Sony picture.
Why does Sony feel they have to target young audiences to go see all their upcoming films? When will Sony learn that every movie doesn't and shouldn't be marketed to tweens? I have no problem with tween films, Summit can make as many "Twilight" films as they want for all I care, but every movie doesn't and shouldn't be modeled after "Twilight". Does Sony honestly think that the female audience that went crazy and fell in love with "Twilight" are going to fall in love with "Spider-Man Version 2.0" or "Ghostbusters III"? I realize that Sony wants to get as many butts in the seats as possible when people go to see their films, but they aren't going to get people seeing their films when they are gearing them for the wrong audiences. I loved "Spider-Man 1-3" (yes, even the third one) and I loved "Ghostbusters 1-2", I don't love "Twilight" though. I'm not knocking it either, the books and films aren't geared for me. That's the thing though, I'm not dying to see "The Twilight Saga: Spider-Man Dawn". You know what I do want to see? That's right, "Spider-Man 4". I don't want to have to choose between Team Spider-Man and Team Green Goblin. Sony is losing their core audiences for their films by trying to cater to a different fan base that probably won't care for their new slate of films. Sony executives, here is a tip for you, leave your films alone. Until the day you Sony executives write a film or direct one, let the creative people make the movies and also make you money and leave them to make the movies, they are in good hands!
Anyway, sorry for the rant. Sony and NBC have just been really bugging me lately. I can't believe how out of touch some of the studio executives are getting. Peace out everyone and take care! :)
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
He-Man: Not the Brightest Dude In Greyskull
Hello again everyone! I'm back to spread more wisdom across this land! I'm feeling good today. I've been catching up on "Lost" and "Caprica" and it's a beautiful day outside. It's hard to top a day like today. :)
So, I should probably start by telling you the subject of this post is going to be about He-Man. My oldest brother used to love the cartoon show "Masters of the Universe" when he was a kid. I, on the other hand, never cared to much for it. I don't know why, maybe Skeletor reminded me of a poor man's Crypt Keeper, I just never got into it. Anyway, He-Man (aka Prince Adam) was the main character in the hit cartoon classic "Masters of the Universe". Prince Adam would transform into He-Man and no one in the whole flipping planet of Eternia could figure out that Prince Adam and He-Man were one in the same even though they looked exactly the same! I mean, even Superman wore classes, changed his posture, and modified his speech patterns some to fool people into thinking he was the mild mannered Clark Kent. Not Prince Adam, he just wears less clothes as He-Man. Did He-Man have a part time job as an exotic dancer or something? I mean, come on, the dude wore furry underwear! Why? To protect him in battle? I know if I were going into battle knowing that my enemies were going to be swinging swords and axes at me, I'd want armor protecting me, not furry underoos, especially in that area! Prince Adam was clearly far from a master of disguise. Having Dolph Lundgren portray the role in the film version of "Masters of the Universe" certainly didn't help make He-Man seem even remotely intelligent.
On a side note, it looks like Nick Jones has landed himself a juicy cameo in the upcoming "Green Lantern" film. It seems that his cameo role will be of John Stewart, a man who later becomes a Green Lantern himself in the comics. Congratulations Nick Jones and I wish you all the best.
Well, that's all for me for now. I hope everyone has a good day and be safe everyone! Please, come back to this blog often, I'm begging you! :-P
So, I should probably start by telling you the subject of this post is going to be about He-Man. My oldest brother used to love the cartoon show "Masters of the Universe" when he was a kid. I, on the other hand, never cared to much for it. I don't know why, maybe Skeletor reminded me of a poor man's Crypt Keeper, I just never got into it. Anyway, He-Man (aka Prince Adam) was the main character in the hit cartoon classic "Masters of the Universe". Prince Adam would transform into He-Man and no one in the whole flipping planet of Eternia could figure out that Prince Adam and He-Man were one in the same even though they looked exactly the same! I mean, even Superman wore classes, changed his posture, and modified his speech patterns some to fool people into thinking he was the mild mannered Clark Kent. Not Prince Adam, he just wears less clothes as He-Man. Did He-Man have a part time job as an exotic dancer or something? I mean, come on, the dude wore furry underwear! Why? To protect him in battle? I know if I were going into battle knowing that my enemies were going to be swinging swords and axes at me, I'd want armor protecting me, not furry underoos, especially in that area! Prince Adam was clearly far from a master of disguise. Having Dolph Lundgren portray the role in the film version of "Masters of the Universe" certainly didn't help make He-Man seem even remotely intelligent.
On a side note, it looks like Nick Jones has landed himself a juicy cameo in the upcoming "Green Lantern" film. It seems that his cameo role will be of John Stewart, a man who later becomes a Green Lantern himself in the comics. Congratulations Nick Jones and I wish you all the best.
Well, that's all for me for now. I hope everyone has a good day and be safe everyone! Please, come back to this blog often, I'm begging you! :-P
NBC=Fail
Hello again everyone! Sorry for the delay in posting a new blog but I've been busy on other things on the computer today, and by busy, I mean spending time on E-Bay. :-P So anyway, I hope you enjoy my newest post!
I like keeping up to date on what is going on in Hollywood, as many of you probably have figured out, so I was very pleased to hear that "Green Lantern" officially started filming today. Green Lantern has become my favorite comic book hero, so when I first heard that DC and Warner Bros. gave Green Lantern the green light, I flipped out. "Green Lantern" already has a fine cast in place including Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Peter Sarsgaard, Mark Strong, Temuera Morrison, Jay O. Sanders, Taika Cohen, Jenna Craig, and Tim Robbins. It will be directed by James Bond veteran Martin Campbell (Casino Royale, GoldenEye, The Mask of Zorro, The Legend of Zorro, Edge of Darkness). It is set to be filmed in 3D (which will be a rant for another day) for a release date next summer. I am very excited about this film and I hope it turns out good!
On a sad note, Peter Graves passed away last night. I loved the original "Mission: Impossible" series that he starred in from season 2 on. I also loved his comedic performance in the comedy classic "Airplane!". I will miss him as an actor and I hope he finds peace on the other side.
Now onto another subject, the stupidity of NBC. Everyone who knows me can tell you that I have been very vocal about my distaste for NBC and how they handled the Jay Leno/Conan O'Brien situation. Conan O'Brien should have kept "The Tonight Show" and Jay Leno should have been sent packing. His show, the now canceled "Jay Leno Show", was the main problem with NBC's late night line up and it was Leno who should have been shown the door, not Conan O'Brien. Yes, I know Conan O'Brien's ratings were not fantastic either, but a large part of that had to do with having Jay Leno as a lead in show. Jay Leno's ratings when he first started "The Tonight Show" weren't a lot better than Conan O'Brien's ratings, and he did not have to compete with an established late night show like Conan O'Brien did. When Leno started on "The Tonight Show", Letterman's "The Late Show" had not even premiered. Leno took over "The Tonight Show" in 1992 while Letterman's "The Late Show" premiered in 1993. Conan O'Brien already had his work cut out for him. I truly believe (along with the other members of Team Coco) that had Conan O'Brien been allowed to stay on "The Tonight Show" longer, he would have dominated the late night ratings.
I seriously don't understand what NBC's malfunction is. I just read recently that they are interested in picking up the long running series "24" should Fox decide not to renew it. Now, I have no beef with "24", it's always had a solid cast, from Kiefer Sutherland to Katee Sackhoff, but it has not been doing well in the ratings for the past couple of years. Does NBC really need another show that no one watches anymore? Besides, I think Fox has the right idea with ending "24" this season and trying to start a film franchise out of it with Kiefer Sutherland again in the lead role. Sorry NBC, but "24" can't solve your ratings problem.
I honestly wonder if NBC is run by monkeys. I am seriously starting to think they have no idea what people want or how to market what they already have. I personally believe that if the executives of NBC had been in charge of marketing the film "2001: A Space Odyssey" back in 1968, they would have found a way to screw it up. I could just see the NBC executives putting together what little brain power they have and coming up with a special sneak preview event for "2001: A Space Odyssey". Their genius idea, screen the first ten minutes of the film to audiences around the world. Then they would wonder why everyone thinks "2001: A Space Odyssey" is a film about monkeys throwing poop at each other. Oh yeah, I bet you didn't know that the monkeys at the beginning of the film "2001: A Space Odyssey" would later become the same executives at NBC! It's funny how things work that way.
Anyway, enough of me for now. I do hope you enjoy my little rants. I hope you have a good day and take care everyone! :)
I like keeping up to date on what is going on in Hollywood, as many of you probably have figured out, so I was very pleased to hear that "Green Lantern" officially started filming today. Green Lantern has become my favorite comic book hero, so when I first heard that DC and Warner Bros. gave Green Lantern the green light, I flipped out. "Green Lantern" already has a fine cast in place including Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Peter Sarsgaard, Mark Strong, Temuera Morrison, Jay O. Sanders, Taika Cohen, Jenna Craig, and Tim Robbins. It will be directed by James Bond veteran Martin Campbell (Casino Royale, GoldenEye, The Mask of Zorro, The Legend of Zorro, Edge of Darkness). It is set to be filmed in 3D (which will be a rant for another day) for a release date next summer. I am very excited about this film and I hope it turns out good!
On a sad note, Peter Graves passed away last night. I loved the original "Mission: Impossible" series that he starred in from season 2 on. I also loved his comedic performance in the comedy classic "Airplane!". I will miss him as an actor and I hope he finds peace on the other side.
Now onto another subject, the stupidity of NBC. Everyone who knows me can tell you that I have been very vocal about my distaste for NBC and how they handled the Jay Leno/Conan O'Brien situation. Conan O'Brien should have kept "The Tonight Show" and Jay Leno should have been sent packing. His show, the now canceled "Jay Leno Show", was the main problem with NBC's late night line up and it was Leno who should have been shown the door, not Conan O'Brien. Yes, I know Conan O'Brien's ratings were not fantastic either, but a large part of that had to do with having Jay Leno as a lead in show. Jay Leno's ratings when he first started "The Tonight Show" weren't a lot better than Conan O'Brien's ratings, and he did not have to compete with an established late night show like Conan O'Brien did. When Leno started on "The Tonight Show", Letterman's "The Late Show" had not even premiered. Leno took over "The Tonight Show" in 1992 while Letterman's "The Late Show" premiered in 1993. Conan O'Brien already had his work cut out for him. I truly believe (along with the other members of Team Coco) that had Conan O'Brien been allowed to stay on "The Tonight Show" longer, he would have dominated the late night ratings.
I seriously don't understand what NBC's malfunction is. I just read recently that they are interested in picking up the long running series "24" should Fox decide not to renew it. Now, I have no beef with "24", it's always had a solid cast, from Kiefer Sutherland to Katee Sackhoff, but it has not been doing well in the ratings for the past couple of years. Does NBC really need another show that no one watches anymore? Besides, I think Fox has the right idea with ending "24" this season and trying to start a film franchise out of it with Kiefer Sutherland again in the lead role. Sorry NBC, but "24" can't solve your ratings problem.
I honestly wonder if NBC is run by monkeys. I am seriously starting to think they have no idea what people want or how to market what they already have. I personally believe that if the executives of NBC had been in charge of marketing the film "2001: A Space Odyssey" back in 1968, they would have found a way to screw it up. I could just see the NBC executives putting together what little brain power they have and coming up with a special sneak preview event for "2001: A Space Odyssey". Their genius idea, screen the first ten minutes of the film to audiences around the world. Then they would wonder why everyone thinks "2001: A Space Odyssey" is a film about monkeys throwing poop at each other. Oh yeah, I bet you didn't know that the monkeys at the beginning of the film "2001: A Space Odyssey" would later become the same executives at NBC! It's funny how things work that way.
Anyway, enough of me for now. I do hope you enjoy my little rants. I hope you have a good day and take care everyone! :)
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Jar Jar Binks Should Be Pushing Daisies
Hello again everyone! Welcome back to my blog. Once again, I am sitting here bored out of my mind and wondering what to do next and what to write about on my blog. I hope my latest post entertains you, even for a little bit, because I am making this up as I go along!
Earlier this week, I went by my local library and rented a few DVDs. I love our library, it was books, CDs, DVDs, and now even has Blu-rays to rent. Anyway, I rented the last disc of "Pushing Daisies" season 2 and the complete first season of "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" (the new CGI version still running on Cartoon Network). I really enjoyed the show "Pushing Daisies", it's a shame it was canceled before it was finished. Luckily, Bryan Fuller is hard at working on a graphic novel to wrap up the shows loose ends. Chi McBride, who played the role of Emerson Cod on "Pushing Daisies" and is currently co-starring in the delightful new show "Human Target", has seen a few pages of the "Pushing Daisies" graphic novel already and states that it is "off the hook". Chi McBride is a great actor and he picks great material to work on, so if he's sold on it, I am as well. Hopefully it will be released soon.
Now, let me move onto "Star Wars: The Clone Wars". I had seen the CGI movie in theaters in 2008 and left the theater with mixed feelings about it. I am a huge science fiction fan and I love the classic "Star Wars" films and I even found the prequel trilogy enjoyable to a point. Now, I do admit that I am a bigger "Star Trek" fan than I am a "Star Wars" fan, but "Star Wars" will always have a soft spot in my heart as well. The movie "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" was released in 2008 during one of the biggest years for films in history. It was an enjoyable enough movie, especially considering it was a actually a kids movie. The main problem I had with it was it's time setting. It seemed to take place somewhere in between the previous "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" series (the hand drawn version which came out before "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith". Also, it would be hard to follow this new Clone Wars series without having seen the previous Clone Wars series.
Anyway, onto the actual "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" TV show. The show takes place after the Clone Wars movie and has a very similar style. I actually think it works better since it's more of an anthology series and it also seems to work better for the period the Clone Wars takes place in. My main problem with the series was one of the biggest problems with the prequel movies, Jar Jar Binks. Now to be fair, Jar Jar Binks isn't in most of the episodes. I think he was in four of the twenty-two episodes. The problem is, four was enough. The first Jar Jar Binks episode featured Ahmed Best reprising his voice role of Jar Jar Binks. The episode got annoying quickly. Things got worse however, Jar Jar Binks was annoying enough when Ahmed Best voiced the role in the prequel movies and on the first Clone Wars episode, but Jar Jar Binks was even more annoying (if that's possible) when B.J. Hughes took over the role and it sounded like Jar Jar Binks was doing a bad Jar Jar Binks impersonation (if that makes any sense). All in all though, "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" was fairly entertaining, there just isn't much to it besides mindless fun.
Well, that's it for me for the moment. I'm sure I will have more to rant soon. Take care everyone and be safe! :)
Earlier this week, I went by my local library and rented a few DVDs. I love our library, it was books, CDs, DVDs, and now even has Blu-rays to rent. Anyway, I rented the last disc of "Pushing Daisies" season 2 and the complete first season of "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" (the new CGI version still running on Cartoon Network). I really enjoyed the show "Pushing Daisies", it's a shame it was canceled before it was finished. Luckily, Bryan Fuller is hard at working on a graphic novel to wrap up the shows loose ends. Chi McBride, who played the role of Emerson Cod on "Pushing Daisies" and is currently co-starring in the delightful new show "Human Target", has seen a few pages of the "Pushing Daisies" graphic novel already and states that it is "off the hook". Chi McBride is a great actor and he picks great material to work on, so if he's sold on it, I am as well. Hopefully it will be released soon.
Now, let me move onto "Star Wars: The Clone Wars". I had seen the CGI movie in theaters in 2008 and left the theater with mixed feelings about it. I am a huge science fiction fan and I love the classic "Star Wars" films and I even found the prequel trilogy enjoyable to a point. Now, I do admit that I am a bigger "Star Trek" fan than I am a "Star Wars" fan, but "Star Wars" will always have a soft spot in my heart as well. The movie "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" was released in 2008 during one of the biggest years for films in history. It was an enjoyable enough movie, especially considering it was a actually a kids movie. The main problem I had with it was it's time setting. It seemed to take place somewhere in between the previous "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" series (the hand drawn version which came out before "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith". Also, it would be hard to follow this new Clone Wars series without having seen the previous Clone Wars series.
Anyway, onto the actual "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" TV show. The show takes place after the Clone Wars movie and has a very similar style. I actually think it works better since it's more of an anthology series and it also seems to work better for the period the Clone Wars takes place in. My main problem with the series was one of the biggest problems with the prequel movies, Jar Jar Binks. Now to be fair, Jar Jar Binks isn't in most of the episodes. I think he was in four of the twenty-two episodes. The problem is, four was enough. The first Jar Jar Binks episode featured Ahmed Best reprising his voice role of Jar Jar Binks. The episode got annoying quickly. Things got worse however, Jar Jar Binks was annoying enough when Ahmed Best voiced the role in the prequel movies and on the first Clone Wars episode, but Jar Jar Binks was even more annoying (if that's possible) when B.J. Hughes took over the role and it sounded like Jar Jar Binks was doing a bad Jar Jar Binks impersonation (if that makes any sense). All in all though, "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" was fairly entertaining, there just isn't much to it besides mindless fun.
Well, that's it for me for the moment. I'm sure I will have more to rant soon. Take care everyone and be safe! :)
Saturday, March 13, 2010
What's In A Name?
Welcome back everyone to the most happening blog yet! I'm not actually sure what is happening at the moment, but something is happening, that's for sure! Anyway, the topic of the moment is names in general.
My name is Jeffrey Stansberry and I actually like my name unlike some people. I do sometimes sit and wonder to myself what my pen name might be if I ever became a paid writer. I'm not sure if I'd use my actual name or not (for various reasons). That caused me to think of what other actors have done to their names to change them or make them more unique. This got me thinking of the actors Liam Neeson and Topher Grace. As many of you might be able to figure out, Liam is the last part of Mr. Neeson's actual first name, William. Also, Topher is the last part of Mr. Grace's actual first name, Christopher. So, in the proud tradition of Liam Neeson and Topher Grace, I could change my name to Frey Stansberry. The problem is, that name would make me sound like a free fruit sample Wal-Mart gives out on aisle 3. I guess just using my actual name wouldn't be all that bad. After all, to quote that Shakespeare character, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
Speaking of that, I could totally see Hollywood remaking "Romeo and Juliet" again and renaming it something like "Romeo and Toliet" Troma Entertainment already made "Tromeo and Juliet" so it could happen. Just think of the improvements that could be made to Shakespeare's classic using state of the art CGI. The Capulet family could now be giant alien toilets the way Shakespeare originally intended! (Note: I may have dreamed Shakespeare told me that, I am not 100% on that). I can just see Toliet now, "A nose by any other dame would smell ass sweat." That is about as romantic as you can get!
Thank you for once again checking out my blog! Take care everyone and be safe this fine day. :)
My name is Jeffrey Stansberry and I actually like my name unlike some people. I do sometimes sit and wonder to myself what my pen name might be if I ever became a paid writer. I'm not sure if I'd use my actual name or not (for various reasons). That caused me to think of what other actors have done to their names to change them or make them more unique. This got me thinking of the actors Liam Neeson and Topher Grace. As many of you might be able to figure out, Liam is the last part of Mr. Neeson's actual first name, William. Also, Topher is the last part of Mr. Grace's actual first name, Christopher. So, in the proud tradition of Liam Neeson and Topher Grace, I could change my name to Frey Stansberry. The problem is, that name would make me sound like a free fruit sample Wal-Mart gives out on aisle 3. I guess just using my actual name wouldn't be all that bad. After all, to quote that Shakespeare character, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
Speaking of that, I could totally see Hollywood remaking "Romeo and Juliet" again and renaming it something like "Romeo and Toliet" Troma Entertainment already made "Tromeo and Juliet" so it could happen. Just think of the improvements that could be made to Shakespeare's classic using state of the art CGI. The Capulet family could now be giant alien toilets the way Shakespeare originally intended! (Note: I may have dreamed Shakespeare told me that, I am not 100% on that). I can just see Toliet now, "A nose by any other dame would smell ass sweat." That is about as romantic as you can get!
Thank you for once again checking out my blog! Take care everyone and be safe this fine day. :)
The Evolution of Rocks
Hello again everyone! I have more random thoughts for my kind followers! As the title of this blog might suggest, my new blog is about the subject of evolution and rocks. Now I know some of you out there don't believe in evolution, but you might change your mind upon reading my thoughts on the matter.
Rocks don't seem like much on the surface. There is nothing much to them except that they are hard and villagers can throw them at Frankenstein and other Universal Studios monsters. Rocks, in general, stayed that way for years. That was until 1975, the year in which a man named Gary Dahl met the first intelligent rock and made first contact. The rock's name was Brainiac and he led Gary Dahl to his tribe. Brainiac's rock tribe was wild and untamed. Gary Dahl decided to take it upon himself to capture, train, and domesticate these wild rocks and sell them to people as a few kind of pet. Dubbed "The Pet Rock", Gary Dahl made millions of dollars on these new advanced rock life forms. These rocks even had a pedigree (at least that is what the pet carrier they were sold in stated)! If that isn't proof of evolution, I don't know what is. Still need more proof? I've got you covered on that front as well. One of the advanced rocks born in 1972 even became a famous actor and adobted a human name. His name used to simply be The Rock before changing it to Dwayne Johnson to fit into our world. Ironically, he ended up playing a new Universal Studio monster, that of The Scorpion King, so angry villagers might actually end up throwing his relatives at him! That has to stink.
So there you go, proof of evolution without all those boring facts and pesky scientific data. Aren't you glad that I'm around to teach you! Take care everyone and continue to be safe! :)
Rocks don't seem like much on the surface. There is nothing much to them except that they are hard and villagers can throw them at Frankenstein and other Universal Studios monsters. Rocks, in general, stayed that way for years. That was until 1975, the year in which a man named Gary Dahl met the first intelligent rock and made first contact. The rock's name was Brainiac and he led Gary Dahl to his tribe. Brainiac's rock tribe was wild and untamed. Gary Dahl decided to take it upon himself to capture, train, and domesticate these wild rocks and sell them to people as a few kind of pet. Dubbed "The Pet Rock", Gary Dahl made millions of dollars on these new advanced rock life forms. These rocks even had a pedigree (at least that is what the pet carrier they were sold in stated)! If that isn't proof of evolution, I don't know what is. Still need more proof? I've got you covered on that front as well. One of the advanced rocks born in 1972 even became a famous actor and adobted a human name. His name used to simply be The Rock before changing it to Dwayne Johnson to fit into our world. Ironically, he ended up playing a new Universal Studio monster, that of The Scorpion King, so angry villagers might actually end up throwing his relatives at him! That has to stink.
So there you go, proof of evolution without all those boring facts and pesky scientific data. Aren't you glad that I'm around to teach you! Take care everyone and continue to be safe! :)
Friday, March 12, 2010
Rick Ashtley Vs. Ivan Drago
Hello again everyone! Like so many of you out there in cyberspace, I love surfing YouTube. YouTube offers a wide variety of video clips to enjoy. From music videos to movie trailers to home videos of guys sitting on the toilet, YouTube has a little something for everyone. Unfortunately, I, like so many other people, have been the victim of rickrolling. What is rickrolling you might ask? It's an old bait and switch technique on YouTube in which you go looking for a video (such as puppies joining the CIA) and upon clicking on the video you wanted to see, you are instead greeted by the the unholy video of Rick Ashtley and his "hit" song "Never Gonna Give You Up".
How exactly did Rick Ashtley get a recording contract anyway? I mean, I guess I can understand to a degree. The man is hilarious to watch. Seriously, watch the music video to "Never Gonna Give You Up" and try not laughing at the way he dances. I think it's been scientifically proven to be impossible. Rick Ashtley is most likely the reason why everyone thinks white men can't dance. I honestly thought the poor man was having a seizure during the music video. Plus, he kept smiling during the video and it got to the point that it started to get creepy. Last but not least, the trench coat he was wearing throughout most of the music video was not helping his case. I half expected him to flash someone midway through the video.The music video is funny for a completely different reason as well, and that is because of all the celebrity look-alikes. Rick Ashtley looks a lot like David Caruso circa 1987. I'm sure the "CSI: Miami" star loves the fact the Rick Ashtley could be his brother. The background dancers also look like (B) movie stars! The bartender reminds me of Hollywood Montrose (Meshach Taylor) from "Mannequin" and "Mannequin: On the Move". Then we have my favorite celebrity look-alike, that of the blond guy who looks like a less buff version of Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren) from "Rocky IV". Perhaps it was old Ivan Drago. My guess is that after Rocky Balboa defeated him, Drago had to leave Russia in disgrace. When he arrived in America, he stopped working out and decided to create a new dance style. He wanted to mix voguing with Riverdance to create the ultimate dance style. He teamed up with Rick Ashtley and unleashed his new dance (dubbed "Dance, Dance Revolution") on the world, only to find out that he was upstaged by Hollywood Montrose. Poor Ivan Drago, he never catches a break.
So yeah, that was my rant of the day. Thank you everyone for reading and I hope you enjoy! Take care and be safe everyone! :)
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Friday Night Cold Sweat
Hello again everyone! Did you miss me? Of course you did! Well, I'm back to talk about more random things. Enjoy! :-P
As anyone reading my blog probably already knows, I am a huge film buff. I have hundreds of movie posters in addition to owning original movie props. I love films new and old. One of my mom's favorite movies is "Saturday Night Fever". What many of you may or may not know is that film actually had a sequel entitled "Staying Alive". The film featured John Travolta reprising his famed role of Tony Mamero under the direction of Sylvester Stallone and it was a stinker. "Saturday Night Fever" was such an iconic film, it's sad that the sequel missed the mark so badly. This got me thinking though, why not make another sequel? Sure, Hollywood is roboot/remake crazy now, but they are reboot crazy for newer movies (such as Hulk, Spider-Man, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, Superman, ect.). Older movies that actually might benefit from a remake, on the other hand, are being granted sequels. Examples of this includes "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" and "Tron Legacy". So why not give another sequel to "Saturday Night Fever"? Paramount could even make a prequel with a different actor and entitle it something like "Friday Night Cold Sweat". That sounds like the perfect direct-to-DVD project for Paramount! :-P
Well, I better get going. Take care everyone and have fun!
As anyone reading my blog probably already knows, I am a huge film buff. I have hundreds of movie posters in addition to owning original movie props. I love films new and old. One of my mom's favorite movies is "Saturday Night Fever". What many of you may or may not know is that film actually had a sequel entitled "Staying Alive". The film featured John Travolta reprising his famed role of Tony Mamero under the direction of Sylvester Stallone and it was a stinker. "Saturday Night Fever" was such an iconic film, it's sad that the sequel missed the mark so badly. This got me thinking though, why not make another sequel? Sure, Hollywood is roboot/remake crazy now, but they are reboot crazy for newer movies (such as Hulk, Spider-Man, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, Superman, ect.). Older movies that actually might benefit from a remake, on the other hand, are being granted sequels. Examples of this includes "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" and "Tron Legacy". So why not give another sequel to "Saturday Night Fever"? Paramount could even make a prequel with a different actor and entitle it something like "Friday Night Cold Sweat". That sounds like the perfect direct-to-DVD project for Paramount! :-P
Well, I better get going. Take care everyone and have fun!
Pop Culture Junkie
Hello yet again everyone! I swear that I usually don't write this much but today is special. Why? I have no idea but I'm awake and bored. That should be reason enough for anyone.
Anyway, I decided to post a little bit more about myself. I am a huge pop culture junkie. I love movies, television shows, and music. I write a lot and I am hoping to make it as a writer soon (fingers crossed). I have even performed a few times at open mic nights at comedy clubs here in Michigan. Now, I know what you're thinking, you're thinking "but you don't need to be talented to perform at open mic nights." This is true. Trust me, I know that for a fact. After listening to people perform tired and old rountines or flat out bad routines, it's easy to figure out why people don't take open mic nights seriously. I like to think I was pretty good though. Needless to say, that got me nowhere. I'm hoping this blog might help me get some attention. Who doesn't love attention, right?
Anyway, I just finished watching the film "Defiance" today. I thought it was pretty good and it looked great on Blu-ray. Liev Schreiber was fantastic in the film. Liev Schreiber is a grat actor and it's hard to believe he hasn't been given a big lead role yet. He was the best part of "X-Men Origins: Wolverine". Stealing the spotlight from Hugh Jackman and his portrayal of Wolverine isn't an easy task either. Give this man the lead in a movie already! (If he wants it that is). The only problem I have with Liev Schreiber is that Microsoft Word Processor keeps arguing with me about what his name is. I type in Liev and it keeps correcting me without asking and replaces Liev with Live. His name isn't Live Schreiber! It's Liev, I even double checked! Take that Microsoft! :-P
Well, I'm getting tired so I'll probably head to bed. Take care everyone!
Anyway, I decided to post a little bit more about myself. I am a huge pop culture junkie. I love movies, television shows, and music. I write a lot and I am hoping to make it as a writer soon (fingers crossed). I have even performed a few times at open mic nights at comedy clubs here in Michigan. Now, I know what you're thinking, you're thinking "but you don't need to be talented to perform at open mic nights." This is true. Trust me, I know that for a fact. After listening to people perform tired and old rountines or flat out bad routines, it's easy to figure out why people don't take open mic nights seriously. I like to think I was pretty good though. Needless to say, that got me nowhere. I'm hoping this blog might help me get some attention. Who doesn't love attention, right?
Anyway, I just finished watching the film "Defiance" today. I thought it was pretty good and it looked great on Blu-ray. Liev Schreiber was fantastic in the film. Liev Schreiber is a grat actor and it's hard to believe he hasn't been given a big lead role yet. He was the best part of "X-Men Origins: Wolverine". Stealing the spotlight from Hugh Jackman and his portrayal of Wolverine isn't an easy task either. Give this man the lead in a movie already! (If he wants it that is). The only problem I have with Liev Schreiber is that Microsoft Word Processor keeps arguing with me about what his name is. I type in Liev and it keeps correcting me without asking and replaces Liev with Live. His name isn't Live Schreiber! It's Liev, I even double checked! Take that Microsoft! :-P
Well, I'm getting tired so I'll probably head to bed. Take care everyone!
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Hollywood News
Hello again everyone! It seems like just minutes ago since I posted my last blog. (Note: It may very well have been minutes ago). Anyway, I wanted to pass along the sad news of Corey Haim's passing to anyone living under a rock. I will miss Corey Haim and I hope he finds peace in the afterlife.
In happier Hollywood news, the new trailer for Ridley Scott's latest epic "Robin Hood" has hit the net right on the heels of the fantastic new "Iron Man 2" trailer. Both movies look great and I am eagerly looking forward to them both. I'm hoping Ridley Scott's latest crusades epic will be in the same vain of his most underrated film to date, "Kingdom of Heaven". Though I'm sure that casting Russell Crowe as Robin Hood is an attempt to mix "Kingdom of Heaven" with his most acclaimed film yet, "Gladiator". I'll be there on or around May 14th! :)
In other recent news, I just learned that Spider-Man no longer has Wood for Mary Jane Watson! lol I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself there. It seems that Evan Rachel Wood has left Julie Taymor's Broadway production of "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark". Evan Rachel Wood was cast in the lead female role of Mary Jane Watson, a role played by Kirsten Dunst in the movies. The band U2 has created several musical pieces for the Broadway production.
Spider-Man has had nothing but problems recently. In the comic world, he just lost his job like so many of us in real life. In the film universe, Tobey Maguire has been let go in favor of a "High School Musical" meets "Spider-Man" reboot. I guess Sony doesn't realize that we all saw that movie ten years ago when it was called "Spider-Man". I already paid to see that once, sorry Sony. At least Spider-Man got to hang out with President Obama recently. I guess he has had some luck.
Well, I'm done ranting for now. Take care everyone and be safe! :)
In happier Hollywood news, the new trailer for Ridley Scott's latest epic "Robin Hood" has hit the net right on the heels of the fantastic new "Iron Man 2" trailer. Both movies look great and I am eagerly looking forward to them both. I'm hoping Ridley Scott's latest crusades epic will be in the same vain of his most underrated film to date, "Kingdom of Heaven". Though I'm sure that casting Russell Crowe as Robin Hood is an attempt to mix "Kingdom of Heaven" with his most acclaimed film yet, "Gladiator". I'll be there on or around May 14th! :)
In other recent news, I just learned that Spider-Man no longer has Wood for Mary Jane Watson! lol I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself there. It seems that Evan Rachel Wood has left Julie Taymor's Broadway production of "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark". Evan Rachel Wood was cast in the lead female role of Mary Jane Watson, a role played by Kirsten Dunst in the movies. The band U2 has created several musical pieces for the Broadway production.
Spider-Man has had nothing but problems recently. In the comic world, he just lost his job like so many of us in real life. In the film universe, Tobey Maguire has been let go in favor of a "High School Musical" meets "Spider-Man" reboot. I guess Sony doesn't realize that we all saw that movie ten years ago when it was called "Spider-Man". I already paid to see that once, sorry Sony. At least Spider-Man got to hang out with President Obama recently. I guess he has had some luck.
Well, I'm done ranting for now. Take care everyone and be safe! :)
Howdy!
Hello kind and cruel cyber world! I have finally decided to create a blog in hopes that someone will actually read my insane rants. Okay, let me start by saying that I am not actually insane. I am also not "insane in the membrane" as the kids (in the early '90s) say. I am (semi) normal but I do love to talk about random subjects and I love to talk about stupid things.
Let me start you off with an example of my randomness. I started talking about the '90s a second ago. I grew up in that time period and let me tell you, I do miss it. It was a simpler time (at least for me). Turtles were huge and could talk, kick-ass, and eat pizza. Teenagers with attitudes could morph and become power rangers with cheap costumes. Chipmunks could sing and flirt with human women with no one questioning their motives. Mutants could kick ass in animated progams such as "Toxic Crusaders" and "X-Men". Batman changed his face almost every movie (see Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, and George Clooney) before Christian Bale became the new iconic Dark Knight. Last but not least, you knew that any movie starring Shaq (aka Shaquille O'Neal) was doomed to stink monkey butt. As you can tell, it was a time of moral goodness and innocence (for me that is). Sadly, that time has passed.
Theses past few years have been hard on me (and for a lot of other people as well). I've had a lot of hardships befall me and it's been hard to overcome them. Still, I stay (perhaps foolishly) optimistic as I watch times change and myself grow older (yikes). I find the best way to combat these dark times is with a sense of humor. It also helps me that I have a vibrant and odd imagination.
On the subject of my imagination, I can't help but wonder how things in the '90s would have been if they were made now in the '00s. Would 'New Kids on the Block' have been 'New Kids on the Blog'? Would "Apollo 13" have been "Snakes on an Apollo Shuttle"? Sadly, this decade has been remake/reboot crazy in Hollywood so a "Snakes on an Apollo Shuttle" reboot may not be far off.
With those statements alone, you should notice that I tend to be a very random and odd person. I hope you continue to view my blog and and I hope you enjoy reading my very random posts. Thank you very much for your time and have a good day! :)
Let me start you off with an example of my randomness. I started talking about the '90s a second ago. I grew up in that time period and let me tell you, I do miss it. It was a simpler time (at least for me). Turtles were huge and could talk, kick-ass, and eat pizza. Teenagers with attitudes could morph and become power rangers with cheap costumes. Chipmunks could sing and flirt with human women with no one questioning their motives. Mutants could kick ass in animated progams such as "Toxic Crusaders" and "X-Men". Batman changed his face almost every movie (see Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, and George Clooney) before Christian Bale became the new iconic Dark Knight. Last but not least, you knew that any movie starring Shaq (aka Shaquille O'Neal) was doomed to stink monkey butt. As you can tell, it was a time of moral goodness and innocence (for me that is). Sadly, that time has passed.
Theses past few years have been hard on me (and for a lot of other people as well). I've had a lot of hardships befall me and it's been hard to overcome them. Still, I stay (perhaps foolishly) optimistic as I watch times change and myself grow older (yikes). I find the best way to combat these dark times is with a sense of humor. It also helps me that I have a vibrant and odd imagination.
On the subject of my imagination, I can't help but wonder how things in the '90s would have been if they were made now in the '00s. Would 'New Kids on the Block' have been 'New Kids on the Blog'? Would "Apollo 13" have been "Snakes on an Apollo Shuttle"? Sadly, this decade has been remake/reboot crazy in Hollywood so a "Snakes on an Apollo Shuttle" reboot may not be far off.
With those statements alone, you should notice that I tend to be a very random and odd person. I hope you continue to view my blog and and I hope you enjoy reading my very random posts. Thank you very much for your time and have a good day! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
