Phil has one based on an earlier post about Jessica Harper:
Funny story Ken. Now how about the reverse? Have you anytime turned down anyone not famous, only for them to recount the story later?
Not to where they ever mentioned it on a talk show. But we’ve turned down terrific actors who just weren’t right for the roles. William H. Macy, Christine Baranski, Jane Lynch, Martin Short – any number of them. Only one still bugs me because we should have gone with him and that’s Jerry Orbach.
There are also a number of great writers we stupidly rejected like Alexa Junge. Sometimes you miss one. But on the other hand, your takeaway should be that just because you’re rejected doesn’t mean they’re right.
From Cat:
I'm listening to a podcast detailing each episode of Cheers and it's just dreadful. The two podcasters just seem to feel "eh" about the show. They did Any Friend of Diane's today and thought it was just okay. Why would you do a podcast dedicated to the show and then not really enjoy the show?
I know. That makes no sense. And based on what you say, why would I possibly want to listen to it?
Also, and this is an issue with podcasts, anyone can just gas off about anything. As a listener it's better to do due diligence and find podcasters who have some authority over the subjects they’re discussing. (Get ready for a shameless plug) In terms of CHEERS – like me for example.
A few years ago a couple of young critics from a media website analyzed the first season of CHEERS. In most cases they were way off base because they had no idea what was going through the writers’ heads, what their objectives were, what productions problems affected the final product, etc. So again, why should I bother reading a long essay expressing the opinions of uninformed sources?
I will not be doing a second weekly podcast where I give stock tips.
Bill in Toronto asks:
I've stocked up on protein shakes and Gatorade and now am 2/3 through Powerhouse (the CAA book). Did you post a review?
I did. You can find it here.
From Peter:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c4443/c4443de6f09d8ca1ac160c5d7c6c49c0d6f55001" alt=""
Sure. It might be expensive, but it’s certainly doable. A big issue might be that it’s a period piece (1962) and I don’t know if there’s any appetite for that among desired Millennials. But a good way to test the waters is do a crossover with TIMELESS. Let them go back to Thailand in 1962 and meet the lovable Peace Corps gang from VOLUNTEERS. Or perhaps Mr. Peabody and Sherman could get in the Way-back Machine and take us there. I’m open to anything.
And finally, from another Pete -- Pete Grossman:
It used to be the Best Picture winner greatly increased millions in revenue - making people and the distributor of the movie a lot more money. In this age of digital deluge where we tell ourselves, Ah, I'll wait until I can get it on cable, online or while I'm slingshotting around the moon in Elon Musk's latest hobby, in your opinion, does the Best Picture win mean as much financially as it used to?
Believe me, studios wouldn’t spend so much money campaigning for Oscars if there weren’t financial rewards at the end of the rainbow.
But I don’t think a Best Picture win is the bonanza it used to be. For one thing, today’s Best Pictures are generally small art films that most people haven’t seen. The Oscar win certainly results in a spike but no longer lines around the block. How many people who didn’t see “the Picture of the Year” when it was released because they didn’t spark to the subject matter still have no interest? I’m guessing a large percentage. And how many others just wait for it to come to cable? They can survive six months without seeing MOONLIGHT or THE KING'S SPEECH.
What’s your Friday Question?