April Fools' Day and 3D

Hello again world! I know you must have missed me. Anyway, I am back and better than ever. Sort of a Jeffrey version 2.0 if you will.

Today is April 1st 2010, or April's Fools' Day. Let me start by saying that I HATE this holiday. I don't see the purpose of a day dedicated solely to lying and it's getting to the point that even news sites want to have fake "April Fools' Day" stories. I like to read news online because it is easier and cheaper, but I always avoid news websites on April 1st each year because I don't want to read fake news articles. If I wanted to be fed news that was completely made up, I'd just flip on Fox News. Seriously folks, what is the point is this holiday? Don't people lie and joke around enough without an entire day dedicated to it! The worst part is that most of the "April Fools' Day" articles/jokes aren't even funny! Most of them are just horrible, and I know about bad jokes, that's right, I actually saw "Delta Farce" in theaters. What holiday is going to be next? National Pick Your Nose Day? (Note: I may be on to something there). I was taught as a child NOT to fib or bend the truth. Thank the Lord we have a holiday that teaches kids that it's cool if you lie to everyone, just as long as it's once a year on April 1st.

Moving along, "Clash of the Titans" opens this week in theaters and I really want to see it. Sam Worthington, Ralph Fiennes, and Liam Neeson all look great in this movie and the original had a decent story but left something to be desired due to special effects and the film's pacing. This remake doesn't seem to have that problem thankfully. The film is going to be released in 2D and 3D and I am not sure which format I will be seeing it in (although I am very much leaning towards watching the 2D version for cost reasons). I also don't love the idea that almost every movie coming out in the next few years is going to be in 3D. Sure, I enjoyed "Avatar" and I do think the fact that it was in 3D helped make the film slightly more enjoyable, but it was a good movie regardless if it was 2D or 3D and not every movie will benefit from 3D technology. I hardly see why "Yogi Bear" or "The Smurfs" need to be in 3D. Do I need to sense that Yogi is stealing MY picnic basket? I don't know about you, but that would annoy me. I don't need some computer animated, sarcastic bear stealing MY food. My ancestors didn't fight in the American Revolution for that! Also, "The Smurfs" in 3D would just seem like a kids friendly sequel to "Avatar". It's bad enough that because of digital technology, such as Blu-ray players, I can now see people's warts and moles in digital clarity, I don't need these same warts and moles attacking because of 3D technology! Plus, thanks to 3D technology, there is a good chance we may get to see Larry the Cable Guy's butt coming at us! That's a scary thought ladies and gentlemen.

Seriously, a few films in 3D are okay. I can see "Green Lantern", "Star Trek 2.0", and "Superman Returns Yet Again" all being fun films to see in 3D. I'm sure there are guys that would love to see "Baywatch" in 3D as well. (Note: Seeing at how pointless that show was, 3D might be the best route for the big screen adaption). I don't think "Being Marlon Brando's Stomach" or "Poop Goes the Weasel" (a big hit with 3 year olds) needs the 3D treatment. (Note: I made up those last two movies but I would be more than willing to write a script for either movie if any studio is interested). In all seriousness, I really hope Hollywood stops with the 3D movie trend. Not every movie is "Avatar" or "Alice in Wonderland" and I really don't want to have to start paying more to see a movie especially if I'm not even sure it's going to be good!

Well, enough of me for today. I hope you enjoyed and hopefully laughed a little bit at this blog. Take care everyone and be safe! :)

Toys

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! :)

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! :)

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

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! :)

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! :)

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. :)