Old Time Radio at OTRCat!

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Saaturday Week in Review!


A spiritual screed for Christian-types:
There are a LOT of preachers, and a lot of voices out there, vying for your attention, and perhaps your eternal destiny. Despite the smiles, the positivity, and the promises, you will do well to examine, compare and contrast what they teach, over against what the Founder and His apostles taught. Do these teachers use buzzwords and terms foreign to Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the rest? Do they introduce "spiritual" concepts not found in Scripture? Do they challenge you to be more Christlike, loving, caring, or do they say you are fine just as you are? Is their focus on your growth, or the growth of your (and their?) bank accounts?
Jesus told His apostles-in-training regarding preaching the Good News "Freely you have received, freely give.". They were free to receive food and care from those who appreciated their service, but they were not to ask for it.
How much time does your TV Preacher of Choice spend talking about money, especially, extracting money from the Faithful? Compare that to Jesus and His apostles. A word to the wise.



I'm done.
I am no end-times Israel fanboy, but the country deserves its security. The "Almighty UN" ceded the land to them in what, '48? That should be enough for these people, but NO...
Mr. Obama has just made Israel a less-safe place to be, if that were possible. His disloyalty to our ONLY ally in the Mid-East fair takes my breath away.
I wonder what secrets Israel has been keeping from respect for us....like how many Mossad agents are in Washington?


It is being amused at marketing.
It is a source of endless fascination to me that the producers of vegetarian/vegan foodstuffs and recipes feel that they must present it and make it taste as close to meat as they can.


Convention runners:
If you're not willing to put your guests in tents, don't put your dealers in one. THEY are paying YOU!



I've been following Moller Skycar stuff since the Art Bell days in the '90s. Aside from different static pictures, and different groovy new designs, including a kind of THUNDERBIRDS thing called the "Firefly", there is NOTHING to indicate they are any closer to a marketable vehicle.
Moller International: Inventors of the Perpetual Investment Machine!
That makes me sad.


Always be sure you're tall enough for the ride.
--Ancient carny proverb




(The Clarkson debacle)

The BBC is government subsidised television. They do not have to worry about turning a profit, and without the profit motive, you can make egregiously stupid decisions with little consequence.

A fellow huckster at cons sells posters. When Matt Smith became the 11th Doctor, all the posters BBC would allow for production were Smith-related. My friend still had a market for all the other Doctors' posters as well. He contacted the BBC merchandising department, and was told "We are interested in pushing the Matt Smith brand.". He could not make them understand that, yes, they would make money from the then-hot 11th Doctor, but they could ALSO profit from the others AS WELL!

Despite Clarkson's punching out his producer, despite his behavior, some other decision likely could have been reached. This is like firing Kirk for being a jerk, with no clear replacement in the wings, and Bones and Spock saying they'll quit if Kirk goes.

(A clueless commenter sez: "The show had 13 years far more than most would have given it if it was over in the states.")
OK. It was still good. It could go on for 13 more easily, because it reviews new cars. There are always new models. The thing was, they did car reviews (to me, a deadly dull idea) in entertaining ways. That's the amazing bit about the show, and I'm not even a devotee...I watch it when the kids turn it on.

The ONLY point of this is: If a TV network has profit as a motive, their decision-making will be affected by that motive. If you have no money-making aim, you do not have to listen to your audience. The BBC did not listen to their audience.

That's it.


This is just a Robot Spy full of NOPE.

I've been reading comments elsewhere. "Best Jonny has looked since the '80s!'

Did you SEE him in the '80s? And when did he become Irish? That leprechaun nose...
Evil SWATCATS it looks like, although it's not, 'cos that would have been cooler.


It will do...

All the Star Trek franchises post-Roddenberry lacked...something. Call it soul, or spark. The vision of the creator of a thing is all-important, and in this case, without a vision, the cartoon perishes. Hanna and Barbera created Tom and
Jerry, and with them AT THE HELM, the duo were piloted into the ocean of entertainment. When mere deckhands took the wheel (and yes, I include Chuck Jones in that!) the vision, the course, was lost. Same with Jonny Quest's later incarnations. H-B were figureheads, not show-runners, and the vision was lost. The sextant was tied to Hard Rock, and he was tossed into the deeps.

That is the stuff that gives us "Questkateers".

Riatsila got into the act (I have put his comments as one post):

How much "no" can you fit into one movie?

How sad is it that so the ribbing in Venture Brothers is a better homage to classic Jonny Quest than this?

The question is begged however: In this, have they actually made something worse than Real Adventures?
I personally fear so.

Overall, not a huge fan of Tom and Jerry anyway, but all these new ones completely lack something the originals had. It can be summed up in "creativity", but that fails to describe just how bad they really are.

...was that post long enough, dad?

Yeah, Chuck Jones did terribly at Tom and Jerry.

Oh, also, it's the Dragonfly, not Questjet.

Having thought about it, aside from lacking the vision from the creators, as a whole, they lack the understanding of the theory behind the gags themselves. It's all going through the motions. As you know well, think Ren and Stimpy, post John K. They knew that people liked the gross humor, but didn't understand what made the jokes actually leave an impact.

And then there's trying to update the humor with technology. Again, Chuck Jones tried that on a few occasions and it was always just dreadful. It was a sci fi angle, but still didn't work on Tom and Jerry.
The wacky adventures of Tom and Jerry on the internet will never be funny, no matter how many zany exploits they have involving cell phones.


Michael W said...

It's "Saturday Week in Review!". Starring Aardvark and the Not Ready for Men's Wearhouse Players.

Word to the wise received and taken. I have had numerous problems with the Secular Church at large, and I have absolutely no "TV Preacher of Choice". I don't necessarily require that a church exist in poverty, but a minister should truly have at least one foot (and a good portion of the other) in the genuinely spiritual realm rather than the physical one.

The good news is that it's usually easy to spot these charlatans. The bad news is that they're currently fashionable in some quarters (e.g. the reality series "Preachers of L.A." which, of what little I've seen, makes my gorge rise).

"All the Star Trek franchises post-Roddenberry lacked...something. Call it soul, or spark."

Yes! In a word, it lacks Roddenberry. Or the purity of Roddenberry's vision. Even the worst "Trek" episodes during Gene's watch still had the touch of Roddenberry's idea. Since then, well . . . the fans can tell the difference between a genuine Rodin, and a knock-off created by one of Rodin's students.

Michael W said...

The Moller Skycar:

I used to be 150% behind this concept. But years of quiet contemplation has brought me to the point where I ask if I really want the sky filled with idiots? It's nerve-wracking enough dealing with people on the ground; I don't need them plummeting down on me.

The good news is that vehicles such as the Moller Skycar would weed out the gene pool pretty quick. The bad news is that these airborne morons would probably take at least two other people with them. At least.