Jump to content

DramatistDreamer

Members
  • Posts

    18,549
  • Joined

Posts posted by DramatistDreamer

  1. 10 hours ago, Mitch said:

    Is that Lyla...she looks freaking great!  I truly think the ATWT vets made a pact with the forces of dark to age better and more naturally then any other soap cast.

     

    That is Anne Sward who played Lyla.  I do agree that pretty much every 50+ actress from ATWT has aged like fine wine.

     

    10 hours ago, Mitch said:

    I wonder why they didn't have Bob and Lyla marry. They were engaged and broke it off due to the revelation of John being Margo's dad but the impact would have been greater with Lyla and he being married. I don't remember them having that much chemistry but they both are such pleasant actors I cant imagine they didnt have an easy chemistry. It made more sense then Bob and the drug lord Miranda.

     

    I think the actors had a nice chemistry even after it was clear that they were never going to be a couple (like when Bob and Kim were engaged). Bob and Lyla seemed more like friendly colleagues by then but they still had a kind of chemistry, albeit mostly platonic by then.

    2 hours ago, Scrapple said:

    Was Miranda ever mentioned again after she left?

     

    The only time I can remember is at Bob's bachelor party, he was roasted by a fellow doctor who made fun of all Bob's failed relationships before Kim.  Miranda and her infamous profession was mentioned.

  2. I'm still in the process of reading but the race to catch up with Netflix is clearly for the big outfits that compete on that level. 

    It's not so much the streaming platform itself that is very expensive, it's the content that will cost a lot of money.  All those platforms that want to stream original content that can compete with the big budget Hollywood fare on the big screen. 

    When Netflix was distributing independent films by indie filmmakers and streaming mostly classic films and second run TV series, the costs were very modest.

     

    Once Netflix made the push for original programming, not even so much for TV (although that has changed with the likes of Ryan Murphy, Shonda Rhimes and Kenya Barris, not to mention Dave Chappelle, Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock), things got a LOT more expensive. 

    Although you can make the case that once the U.S. version of House of Cards became a hit, it drove Netflix into a much higher cost echelon and began the drive for original content in earnest.

     

    The smaller outfits are in no position to compete and so they don't.

     

    Acorn streaming service does very well streaming British based series that are produced by other outfits like the BBC, Channel 4, Thames, etc.  It is subscriber based and charges a monthly fee at $4.99 per month, which is relatively modest by today's standards.

     

    Bounce TV is an interesting case study.  It has a terrestrial TV channel that is antenna based yet they also have a website that streams their original programming.  It is not subscriber based, so I assume that advertising plays a big role in their monetization.  You can only stream their original programming, which is still not bad considering it's free.  With a decent antenna, you can watch everything else.

     

    If an enterprising soap production company wanted to stream their classic series, The Bounce TV model seems like the most sensible one.

  3. 1 hour ago, Soapsuds said:

    Christian Harrison and Sebastian Korda advance in qualifying.......Tomic is beating Kokokinakis in qualifying....surprised by that...

    :rolleyes: I hope he loses early again. I am so over Sasha......

     

    Kokkinakis won that match in three sets.  If Tomic doesn't win in straight sets, it's a pretty good guess that he'll tap out before the match is over.

  4. 11 minutes ago, Juliajms said:

    Please let the 8 counts be guilty, please.

    Now. They are coming back right now. Please let justice be served.

     

    Partial verdict so far.  The jury has agreed on 8 of 18 charges so far.

     

    EDT: And those 8 counts have all been guilty so far.

  5. The music video goes by an altogether different model than it once did which is probably healthier and a bit more democratic than what it had become under MTV.  I suspect that MTV was likely finding it more difficult to monetize music as easily as they once did.

    It happened sooner rather than later, when I suspect a 'Napster for music videos' type service was likely to show itself and eat from MTV's bowl.  It was inevitable.

  6. 5 minutes ago, BetterForgotten said:

    Even BET ended up mostly walking away from music (which comprised a huge part of its schedule until the mid-00's). It used to be an alternative option for black artists, but it no longer serves that purpose. Was it Viacom ownership, or was it that music programming was no longer financially beneficial? 

     

    The rise and fall of music television is interesting. No one can deny the impact it had in the 80's through early 00's, but since then....? I guess we can blame it on the internet, but still...

     

    Music video is still very much alive on the Internet through the likes of Vevo, Noisey, Vimeo, BBC, WorldStar and those are just the mainstream sites.

  7. 4 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

    MTV is in crisis, even though it’s had ratings growth recently. They’ve had some success with the revival of Jersey Shore, and they announced a revival of The Hills last night. But it’s 10-15 years since MTV meant anything at all. This year’s ceremony is the earliest they’ve ever done the VMAs, and it’s because nothing else is on right now. It’s just not that relevant in today’s world.

     

    I just wonder how the Grammys will handle Aretha.

     

    Clive Davis holds some sway and if he has anything to do with it (which I can't see him not being involved), it's going to be a sure sight better than anything MTV can think of. 

     

    I only saw clips of last night's VMA this morning.  I lost interest in MTV a very long time ago.  When I was a child in the 80s, I ranked MTV and BET about even.  For awhile, BET had more diverse programming, in the fact that they didn't just do videos, they also had cooking shows and game shows and so I probably watch BET more than MTV earlier on.  MTV was known for playing the same small number of music videos in heavy rotation early on. 

    It was known that if you watched for 90 minutes, you saw pretty much what they had to offer for the rest of the day. 

    When the Thriller album videos started airing, around '84 (MTV was late), MTV actually started to become appointment viewing TV. 

    Still, if you wanted to see groups that did less known musical genres like freestyle, that was very popular in the NYC metro area, you couldn't get that on MTV, you were more like to see that on a local show like Video Music Box or even BET, if it was a black artist like Shannon.  There was just so much in music that MTV didn't cover that you had to supplement by watching other channels, networks.  That was just the way it was.

     

  8. 2 minutes ago, Khan said:

     

    I've said the same about MTV's attitude toward rap and hip-hop in general.  The network did not want to acknowledge those burgeoning musical genres until it had to; and even when it did, it did so in the most sanitized, "user-friendly" way possible with crap like "Yo! MTV Raps!".

     

    Yeah, that's why I referenced that interview that Bowie did with MTV.  Everyone knew that MTV systematically devalued Black music until that system was losing them money.

     

    I do think that Fab5 Freddy did a very different show than Ed Lover & Dre.  Freddy didn't want to be in a studio every day like other VJs at MTV, so he turned them down when they suggested a daily 'in studio' show. 

    He felt it was best to go out and talk to people, which is why you saw him on location with his interviews. 

    Ed Lover & Dre were not music or art connoiseurs like Freddy, they were comedians-- they had a totally different approach that dealt more in shallow comedy and silliness, which seemed to suit MTV's purposes just fine.

  9. Maybe now that a conservative website has been hacked, enough GOP will take the matter seriously.  I doubt it though.

    Speaking of the Hudson Institute, it just reminds me that while conservatives whine about how liberals are supposedly embedded in college and university campuses to indoctrinate students, they do just as much to try to indoctrinate students, the only difference is that conservatives have been less successful at it.

    As a grad student/alumni, I can remember getting spammed by the Hudson Institute and my university was in the heart of liberal NYC.

    I was offered an associate membership in the organization and I allowed my e-mail to be on the mailing list because they not only was I curious about what this organization was about but they were offering freebies, LOL.  

    They had some celebrity speakers basically giving lectures, mainly about achieving success in business and/or in certain fields/industries as well as free subscriptions to certain magazines like Forbes (a conservative leaning financial publication).  

    Well, I was only ever tempted to attend one of the lectures and I never made it there because by then I had moved out of NYC and I didn't want to bother taking a train and subways just for one lecture.  I also got bored of the same old self-aggrandizing white men on the covers of the magazines, which had no appealing or useful advice for me.

    Even when they offered to extend my membership, I canceled.  They had nothing of value or interest for me and I no longer wanted to deal with the clutter their mailings had been causing my mail and e-mail.  Also, Republican politicians began to send me mail about their campaigns and they seemed way too familiar with referring to me as a fellow Republican :blink: which was the final straw as I didn't want to hear from anyone from the GOP and I definitely didn't want anyone thinking that I was a Republican!  (Had they seen me in person, surely they would balk, :lol:)

     

    Reading about the GRU hacking the Hudson Institute and other conservative sites that had been critical of Russian interference just reminded me of my very brief time as a member of the Hudson Institute.

  10. MTV systematically ignored Black artists for the first few years of its existence as a network.

     

    There is a, by now, (in)famous interview with David Bowie where he questions VJ Adam Goodman on why MTV is ignoring Black artists and Goodman replies with some bullsh*t response about the possibilityof kids in middle America being scared off.:rolleyes: 

    The reaction of David Bowie as he guffaws and shakes his head is priceless.

     

    The Grammys has their own history with Black musicians that I won't get into but yeah, MTV definitely has a history too.

  11. 6 hours ago, BetterForgotten said:

    Madonna wasn't even there to give a tribute, she was there to present Video of the Year, she and MTV just tacked on a long ass speech that referenced Aretha and an in memoriam graphic/tag. It was oddly produced and slapped together and I wonder why they even tried - they shouldn't have bothered.

     

    MTV is also not the proper venue to pay tribute to Aretha, not like she was ever much of a video artist nor does MTV even care about music to begin with. 

     

    MTV does this by design.  Madonna did the exact same thing with her "tribute" to Prince.  This was no accident.

     

    There is a generation of Black people who grew up in the 1980s who remember seeing Aretha singing in music videos.  

    Songs like

    "Freeway of Love" (which got a LOT of play on BET, Video Music Box, Friday Night Videos)

    "Who's Zooming Who?"

    "Jump To It" (which, I admit was far more popular on the radio than video)

    "Jumping Jack Flash" where Whoopi Goldberg made a very memorable cameo 

    "The Sisters Are Doing It (For Themselves)" with Annie Lennox

    "(I) Knew You Were Waiting For Me" with George Michael.

     

    Just because MTV didn't acknowledge or play most of these videos doesn't mean they didn't exist. Nor does it diminish their importance.

    MTV was the same network that tried to keep Michael Jackson's videos and only started playing his videos under duress.  Soon after they practically tied their network to Jackson once they saw how many were flocking his music.

     

    I do agree that MTV is not the proper venue to pay tribute to Aretha.  Madonna is not the right artist to do so either.

  12. Ms. Argento was sexually assaulted by Harvey Weinstein.  Years later, Ms. Argento sexually assaulted Jimmy Bennett.  Both things are true.

     

    Since there are other women who HW assaulted, I don't think his case hinges on Ms. Argento and Ms. McGowan.  In fact, none of the charges against HW include those made my Ms. Argento.  There are quite a few other women who HW assaulted and none of this invalidates their claims.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy