|
Post by Boozin' Susan on Jan 10, 2019 20:38:03 GMT
An old SC.tv thread with the same name ended up being a very long one due to Vidiot’s obsession of being the smartest and most-connected person in the room. Kicking off this continuation of that thread, let’s start here: I worked on the show for the last couple of seasons, and the Paramount exec and I watched a lot of episodes with our hands half-covering our eyes. I'd mutter whenever Scott Baio had a scene where he had 1980s hair in a show set in the mid-1960s, which made absolutely no sense. The producers did try to convince him to conform, but it never happened. I interviewed Anson Williams a few years later for a series of articles I wrote on Steven Spielberg (because Williams was in an early 1970s Spielberg TV show), and he was one of the nicest, most gracious actors I've ever met. He told me several times, "I'm the luckiest guy in Hollywood, because I got pretty far with only a very modest amount of talent." I think he held on to Happy Days out of loyalty to Garry Marshall and because it was a pretty easy gig by that point (for a good chunk of cash). The Laverne & Shirley set was a lot more chaotic and hostile, just rotten people. Those were terrible, terrible shows, but there was worse stuff to watch in the 1980s. (Take Small Wonder, please.) Vidiot seems to be as delusional as the Dear Host. I mean, what’s his job? A color corrector? So how does he get to watch sitcoms with nameless execs, interview actors, and opine on stuff he has absolutely no first-hand knowledge of? While not as personally loathsome as MYKE, jh901, Strat-mangler, and the rest of that type of SHite, Vidiot has earned honors as an exemplary SHite via poats like this.
|
|
|
Post by audiobile on Jan 10, 2019 21:02:47 GMT
He's a guy on the periphery of showbiz who milks that (tries to) for all it's worth. Kinda like Hoofy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2019 22:43:33 GMT
Vidiot is only there in Hoofyville because he fills in the “visual” portion of what STeVE claims to do with “audio.” Like Hoofy the SHiTEs drool over every word and, in some cases, Vidiot’s name dropping is more disgusting than that of STeVe’s. As much as I don’t like STeVE I can read his posts and laugh at him because his actions have made him like that. I almost see Vidiot as a jealous child seeing the attention that Hoofy gets and he needs a piece of the action. They do have a lot in common in that they have never created an original product of their own and only try to “fix” (used loosely) something back to the supposed vision of the original creator.
And just once I would like to see Vidiot have something - anything - positive to say about anything. Even if it is about M&Ms, but he would probably bitch about the colors not being right on those.
|
|
|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Jan 29, 2019 18:05:14 GMT
I know of cases where 2nd assistant directors (who are not that high up on the ladder, but deal with crowd control and scheduling and things like that) have gotten laid simply because they worked with a huge A-list director and a would-be actor wanted to ingratiate themselves with them. It's kind of like girls who have sex with the band's road crew in the hopes of getting an autograph or perhaps something more. It's all showbiz, glamor, and seduction. And, sadly, not a little desperation.
|
|
|
Post by essayceedee on Jan 29, 2019 18:12:10 GMT
Sadly, no one ever wants to fuck the colorist.
|
|
|
Post by hoffa_nagila on Jan 29, 2019 21:07:05 GMT
I know of cases where guys with no connection to the industry whatsoever get laid because people like to fuck.
But if you got stories about Lucille Ball, it does help your chances...
|
|
|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Feb 12, 2019 18:58:52 GMT
The book Tales from the Script (recommended earlier in this thread) goes over this stuff in great detail. And it also provides many anecdotes by major writers who wound up working on bad films: how they started off, why they became bad in the script, or how they became bad during filming and editing. There's some really sad stories in there -- even the greats, like William Goldman, have written turkeys from time to time. (And remember, this is the guy who famously said, "no one knows anything" about making movies in Hollywood.) I think it's fair to say that they get made because, as great screenwriter William Goldman once said about Hollywood filmmaking: "Nobody knows anything." As noted screenwriter William Goldman has famously said: "In Hollywood, nobody knows anything." As Oscar-winning writer William Goldman famously said: "Nobody knows anything," at least in terms of making a hit film. Remember, as Oscar-winning screenwriter William Goldman famously said: nobody in Hollywood knows anything. That especially applies to predicting hits and misses. I believe I also quoted William Goldman's famous line about Hollywood movies: "nobody knows anything," which is never more true than predicting hits or misses. It's a quote from Goldman's excellent book Adventures in the Screen Trade, which is required reading for any would-be Hollywood writer. Goldman is a very wise man, though even he's had his share of bombs on occasion (and has some hilarious reasons as to why that happened). More than 30 years ago (as William Goldman famously said), the axiom was "nobody in Hollywood knows anything." Today, I think they know even less -- and I suspect they have not learned from the mistakes of the past. If nothing else, this just shows that nobody in Hollywood knows anything (as William Goldman famously said). There's a famous quote from award-winning screenwriter William Goldman in his book Acdventures in the Screen Trade: "Nobody knows anything." It just proves that nobody knows anything in Hollywood (to quote William Goldman). I think the most realistic assessment was from noted Hollywood writer William Goldman, who famously said, "nobody knows anything" (about whether a movie about to be made is good or bad). More than one person has observed that making movies in Hollywood is like gambling in Vegas or playing the stock market: there's always risk involved, there are no sure things, and a degree of luck and good timing is involved. And as noted screenwriter William Goldman (who passed away in 2018) said: “Nobody knows anything...... Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what's going to work. Every time out it's a guess and, if you're lucky, an educated one.”
|
|
|
Post by mintyjackhole on Feb 12, 2019 19:45:20 GMT
Well what do you know? 😉
|
|
|
Post by Sanjay Gupton on Feb 12, 2019 21:13:43 GMT
Vidiot doesn't know shit...
-William Goldman
|
|
|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Mar 3, 2019 18:50:11 GMT
Luke Perry (Beverly Hills 90210 and Riverdale) suffers strokeI'm going to refrain from saying anything except that this is a very sad story. I hope Mr. Perry recovers and does well. I will say that many people who got famous in the 1980s and early 1990s had bad habits. I worked on a TV movie with him some years ago, and he was a total pro and very nice on the days I saw him.
|
|
Felonious Spunk
Grant
Digitals downstairs to push the anal logs upstairs
Posts: 1,192
|
Post by Felonious Spunk on Mar 3, 2019 21:05:41 GMT
I’m going to refrain from saying anything, except I’m going to say enough for anyone with two brain cells to know what I’m not saying. Also, I’m an insider and I know famous people.
|
|
|
Post by magictrousers on Mar 4, 2019 19:45:46 GMT
Vidiot is saying that some b-grade celeb that was completely forgotten until he suffered a stroke used to snort coke in the eighties which is something completely out of the blue and very hard to imagine. Therefore Vidiot is an insider with full knowledge of the dark corners of the television world.
|
|
|
Post by Boozin' Susan on Mar 4, 2019 21:25:49 GMT
Howard Stern has had noted film critic Richard Roeper on his radio show occasionally, and he admitted that once Roger Ebert got seriously ill and was unable to do his syndicated TV film review show anymore, that whole area kind of collapsed. The internet killed a lot of similar businesses and shows, but unfortunately opened up YouTube and other venues to a lot of loudmouths with very uninformed, obnoxious opinions. For every one decent person with a sensible point of view, there's a thousand crazy fans who just want to nitpick and slam everything they see as a self-aggrandizing thing. I often said in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, "I don't always agree with Roger Ebert, but he's so articulate and passionate with his opinions, and he clearly knows and loves the history of movies so well, it's fascinating to listen to what he has to say and consider his side of it." I once got to go out to lunch with Ebert and his former associate Russ Meyer, and I had about a 15-minute heated discussion with Ebert on the viability of enjoying movies on home video (since even in the early 1980s, home video was a big part of my livelihood). Ebert insisted that he hated reviewing movies on video and that he and Siskel insisted they had to see the film in a real theater before they would review it on TV. My argument was that the home video release was basically the "affordable paperback edition," while the theatrical version was the "deluxe hardback edition." About 10 years later, I was glad to see that Ebert reluctantly embraced my opinion a little bit and actually used that same analogy in an article he wrote about Criterion laserdiscs. (Ebert also quoted me in one of his books in an entry on visual effects, which immortalized me forever.) I was a huge, huge fan of Siskel & Ebert and very sad at the fate of both critics.Howard Stern always liked to say that he enjoyed their show best when they would have loud arguments with each other, each passionately insisting that their opinion was right and the other guy was full o' beans. I have to admit, that was fun to watch... and while I preferred Roger as a person (and as a writer), I tended to agree more with Siskel. (My favorite was when the argument got really heated and Roger would say, "well, Gene, that Pulitzer Prize sitting over there on my desk tells me my opinions apparently have some merit," which would make me roar with laughter.) Uh-oh... It looks like STeVE ain’t the only self-important blowhard who enjoys a good lunch...
|
|
|
Post by respiratoryproblems on Mar 4, 2019 22:08:45 GMT
If I had the opportunity to dine with Ebert and the man responsible for Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls, Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, Cherry Harry & Raquel, and Supervixens, I know who’d be the more interesting person to talk with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2019 22:17:52 GMT
Howard Stern has had noted film critic Richard Roeper on his radio show occasionally, and he admitted that once Roger Ebert got seriously ill and was unable to do his syndicated TV film review show anymore, that whole area kind of collapsed. The internet killed a lot of similar businesses and shows, but unfortunately opened up YouTube and other venues to a lot of loudmouths with very uninformed, obnoxious opinions. For every one decent person with a sensible point of view, there's a thousand crazy fans who just want to nitpick and slam everything they see as a self-aggrandizing thing. I often said in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, "I don't always agree with Roger Ebert, but he's so articulate and passionate with his opinions, and he clearly knows and loves the history of movies so well, it's fascinating to listen to what he has to say and consider his side of it." I once got to go out to lunch with Ebert and his former associate Russ Meyer, and I had about a 15-minute heated discussion with Ebert on the viability of enjoying movies on home video (since even in the early 1980s, home video was a big part of my livelihood). Ebert insisted that he hated reviewing movies on video and that he and Siskel insisted they had to see the film in a real theater before they would review it on TV. My argument was that the home video release was basically the "affordable paperback edition," while the theatrical version was the "deluxe hardback edition." About 10 years later, I was glad to see that Ebert reluctantly embraced my opinion a little bit and actually used that same analogy in an article he wrote about Criterion laserdiscs. (Ebert also quoted me in one of his books in an entry on visual effects, which immortalized me forever.) I was a huge, huge fan of Siskel & Ebert and very sad at the fate of both critics.Howard Stern always liked to say that he enjoyed their show best when they would have loud arguments with each other, each passionately insisting that their opinion was right and the other guy was full o' beans. I have to admit, that was fun to watch... and while I preferred Roger as a person (and as a writer), I tended to agree more with Siskel. (My favorite was when the argument got really heated and Roger would say, "well, Gene, that Pulitzer Prize sitting over there on my desk tells me my opinions apparently have some merit," which would make me roar with laughter.) Uh-oh... It looks like STeVE ain’t the only self-important blowhard who enjoys a good lunch... Considering that neither has been involved in the creation of something original and only “correcting” (used loosely) works of others I sometimes wonder if they aren’t one in the same. At times I think Vidiot is even more annoying than STeVE. The one with the larger self-inflated ego is open for debate.
|
|