Borat: Cultural Learnings of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan is tipped to become the highest grossing comedy of all time.
What? No.
Mike-El
13th November 2006 - 08:04 PM
QUOTE (Rex Dart+Nov 13 2006, 10:14 PM) | QUOTE | Borat: Cultural Learnings of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan is tipped to become the highest grossing comedy of all time.
What? No.
Of all time? It won't even catch Talladega Nights for highest-grossing comedy this year.
buffyvol
14th November 2006 - 03:37 AM
Isn't that movie mostly "Borat" going around, acting an ass, making people uncomfortable and they end up saying or doing something embarrassing? Doesn't sound like a good time to me.
Flahdagal
14th November 2006 - 10:32 AM
Hey Bill Maher -- ripping off South Park is lame. Ripping off South Park but doing it badly is pathetic.
ladybug
14th November 2006 - 10:41 AM
Bill Maher is not funny anymore he's getting desperate.
TVJunkie
14th November 2006 - 02:19 PM
How funny is it that frikkin' Hugh Laurie (House, MD) had to save that Borat asshat from a genuine NYC beatdown?
Joe Don Faker
14th November 2006 - 02:26 PM
That's a power-ful story... to the max. 15/15 TVJ! Naughty! 
TVJunkie
14th November 2006 - 02:32 PM
QUOTE (Joe Don Faker+Nov 14 2006, 02:26 PM) That's a power-ful story... to the max. 15/15 TVJ! Naughty! whoops. my bad.
xii
14th November 2006 - 02:48 PM
| QUOTE | Isn't that movie mostly "Borat" going around, acting an ass, making people uncomfortable and they end up saying or doing something embarrassing? Doesn't sound like a good time to me.
<br>It worked for Andy Kaufman. There's something to be said for that kind of subversive comedy.
I went to the movie worried that (the wealthy, privileged) Cohen would do nothing more than go to the rodeo and make fun of people with unironic mullets. But he didn't do that, and the directorial style didn't do that. I think the mistaken impression is that everyone in the movie is made to look like an idiot. Everyone (who had signed release forms) put in some kind of embarrassing situation, but their reactions were their own. Some came off as idiots and some didn't.
woodstove
16th November 2006 - 07:36 AM
I cannot believe that OJ Simpson is actually promoting his disugsting book, "If I Did It."
It makes me sick that that murdering bastard now wants to profit, using bloody descriptions of two people's deaths.
The poor Goldmans! The kids! Nicoles family!
Damn, I don't "hate" many things, certainly not people, although that troll on Truck's site reached the hate status with me, and, if I didn't "hate" OJ before, I certainly do now.
Ugh.
buffyvol
16th November 2006 - 08:27 AM
Who are the people that will actually buy that swill? I wouldn't even borrow it at the library, which is what I normally do if I don't want to give someone my money.
Little Bear
16th November 2006 - 08:34 AM
I don't even want to hear about what it says. If I had a bookstore, I damn sure wouldn't even stock it. I thought Judith Regan was just completely amoral, to say nothing of Fox, but this whole thing crosses the line into evil. Just really sick stuff. That OJ wants to continue to profit is no surprise, but wanting to ride that bandwagon? Cripes.
buffyvol
16th November 2006 - 08:41 AM
Plus, doesn't he still owe some money to people for that pesky lawsuit he lost? Wouldn't the proceeds go to the families? And did he do this to stick it to them? You know, they get their money because he wrote a book saying HOW he would have killed their loved ones?
TeslaNewton
16th November 2006 - 08:42 AM
QUOTE (buffyvol+Nov 16 2006, 11:41 AM) Plus, doesn't he still owe some money to people for that pesky lawsuit he lost? Wouldn't the proceeds go to the families? And did he do this to stick it to them? You know, they get their money because he wrote a book saying HOW he would have killed their loved ones? Take this with a grain of salt, but I heard on the radio the money he got for the interview went into an offshore account. ETA I don't hate easy, but I hate this man. He is a despicable human being, and I wish all the media would let him rot in his own hell. I'm very tempted to stop watching Fox after this. Unfortunately, I like House and Bones (although we've only recorded Bones).
fofanna1
16th November 2006 - 10:59 AM
Let's say, for a minute, that he didn't do it (if you can imagine that without choking on it) wouldn't this still be the most horrendously insensitive thing he could possibly do? Who on earth agreed to publish this garbage?
OJ obviously thinks that he is this loveable, charming ex-football player/actor and now he apparently thinks he can get away with virtually anything.
His lawyer, Yale Galanter, was on Court TV yesterday and he said he didn't know anything about the book until it was a fait accompli. I presume he would have tried to talk him out of it.
DodgerGirl
16th November 2006 - 11:26 AM
The local FOX affliliate news anchors were pretty disgusted with their own network this morning for running the interview.
Eris Rising
16th November 2006 - 11:29 AM
QUOTE (DodgerGirl+Nov 16 2006, 11:26 AM) The local FOX affliliate news anchors were pretty disgusted with their own network this morning for running the interview. Was that the morning show, or the actual morning news? I missed them, sadly enough.
Little Bear
16th November 2006 - 11:32 AM
O'Reilly's talking smack about Fox for it, too, apparently. Which suggests to me the possibility that even Satan is a little outraged.
Gladly
16th November 2006 - 11:38 AM
QUOTE (buffyvol+Nov 16 2006, 11:41 AM) Plus, doesn't he still owe some money to people for that pesky lawsuit he lost? Wouldn't the proceeds go to the families? This was discussed on another board, and there were lots of interesting theories. The one that sounds feasible is that O.J. has some entity set up so his earnings aren't coming straight to him, and one that might be protected from judgments, like his pension. And, it's not like the Goldmans aren't trying to force him to pay the damages. A judge just just ruled against Goldman when he tried to sue for rights to O.J.'s name, image, and likeness (which may not have worked but was pretty inventive). It must be so galling to see the person you are positive murdered your child remain free and suffering no ill effects from his crime.
DodgerGirl
16th November 2006 - 11:45 AM
QUOTE (Eris Rising+Nov 16 2006, 11:29 AM) Was that the morning show, or the actual morning news? It was the morning news crew for the FOX channel 5 here in D.C. They have a segment called "Let It Rip" where four of them all weigh in on a controversial topic of the day. Adding: If you're really interested in the OJ case, I highly recommend this book, by Daniel Petroccelli, who was the Goldman family lawyer in the civil case.
Eris Rising
16th November 2006 - 11:50 AM
I can't help but think that someone's going to be fired before the dust settles on this one.
roseland
16th November 2006 - 12:37 PM
| QUOTE | Take this with a grain of salt, but I heard on the radio the money he got for the interview went into an offshore account.
I don't think it can be as blatant as that because I don't think the publishing company can knowingly commit fraud, which is what this would be, wouldn't it? Trying to deny handing over funds legally owed to a third party.
Also, I mean, I know the man's a murderer, but he has obviously put no thought into the fact that you are trying to make a profit over discussing how you would kill the mother of your children. Yes, the mother is dead but the children aren't. How must this make them feel? He is just the most despicable human being. He's starting to make Ted Bundy look good.
Joe Don Faker
16th November 2006 - 12:47 PM
Here's an explanation of his ability to protect certain finances after the successful civil suit against him: QUOTE (Crime Library Article+) On February 4th, 1997, the jury awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages to Fred Goldman and his ex-wife Sharon Rufo for the loss of their son's love, companionship and moral support. A few days later, they brought in punitive damages of $25 million to be shared between Nicole's children and Fred Goldman.
The money of course, was never paid out. Simpson's lawyer, Robert Baker, told the jury that Simpson was broke, with a negative net worth of $856,157, down from a net positive worth of $10 million. He owed lawyer fees, back taxes of $685,248.00 to the IRS, and mortgage repayments, and in effect was without assets. It appears unlikely that anyone will ever get anything of any consequence.
Simpson would go about living out his life on the income from a $4 million pension fund established when he was playing football. This would bring him in more than $20,000 dollars every month, and could not be touched by the courts. Not a bad life-style for most people, but way below the heady days of his wine and roses period.
Simpson moved to a $1.5 million house in Kendall, Florida with his son and daughter. (After the civil trial, Nicole's parents launched a bitter custody battle, which they lost in 2000.) His move was a shrewd one. Under the laws of California, any money he acquired can be seized to pay the damages awarded against him in the civil trial. In Florida the law is different. Simpson recently told a journalist, Caroline Graham, "They can't touch my earnings here. And it will be a cold day in hell before I pay a penny." |
TeslaNewton
16th November 2006 - 01:08 PM
QUOTE (roseland+Nov 16 2006, 03:37 PM) | QUOTE | Take this with a grain of salt, but I heard on the radio the money he got for the interview went into an offshore account.
I don't think it can be as blatant as that because I don't think the publishing company can knowingly commit fraud, which is what this would be, wouldn't it? Trying to deny handing over funds legally owed to a third party.
Also, I mean, I know the man's a murderer, but he has obviously put no thought into the fact that you are trying to make a profit over discussing how you would kill the mother of your children. Yes, the mother is dead but the children aren't. How must this make them feel? He is just the most despicable human being. He's starting to make Ted Bundy look good. I meant the Fox money. That's what I heard on the radio, so I don't know whether to believe it ro not.
I hope someone's fired over this. Guilty or not, he's still despicable for even suggesting such a thing.
buffyvol
16th November 2006 - 01:29 PM
Oh this man makes me mad! He's is broke, but he lives on 20 thousand a month and moves into a 1.5 mil mansion? And if he owes back taxes, how in the hell can the IRS not touch his pension? I've heard horror stories of "regular" folks, living on tiny SS checks having to come up with back taxes.
indigoblue
16th November 2006 - 02:55 PM
When I first heard this, I thought it had to be a really sick joke. Not that I thought even OJ wouldn't stoop that low (OK, maybe I did*), but I couldn't believe any publisher would touch this. And now Fox is getting into the act with an interview with OJ? The FOX Network really does embrace their scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel rep, don't they?
*Only because he's been so careful to keep up the fiction of protesting his innocence, e.g. "dedicating my life to finding the real killer." I thought he did this as much to fool himself that people would believe him as much as to avoid causing his children further pain. Because, let's face it, if he was worried about causing his children pain, he wouldn't have butchered their mother! With them asleep inside. What if one of them had woken up and gone wandering outside looking for their mother? Did you even think of that, OJ?
Eris Rising
16th November 2006 - 02:59 PM
Remember, this is the same man who tried to sell the "Punk'd" knockoff "Juiced," one scene of which showed him pretending to try to sell his infamous white Bronco.
indigoblue
16th November 2006 - 03:13 PM
I just keep thinking that certain people can't sink any lower. And then they do.
Eris Rising
16th November 2006 - 03:14 PM
At this point, nothing nasty or tasteless done by O.J. would surprise me.
woodstove
16th November 2006 - 03:21 PM
The only thing I wonder is, will the maniac actually give any clues about how he managed the blood, who got rid of the evidence, the complicity in covering up by any of his lawyers. I think enough people will wonder that the book will sell.
It will be in the Dollar store, as were the Goldman's, Marcia's, the racist cop, and all the other players in this horrific murder & farce of a trial. I wonder how long it will take to fall to the dollar bin. I think most people interested will buy in the first week, after that, sales will plummet. Unfortunately, he is still a hero to some, for beating the system. Yes he is. I know some of those people, and they were thrilled when he got away with it. I don't think a single one thought he was innocent, and yet, they partied when he got off.
I sat stunned for hours, then I cried, mourning for the victims, their families, but more, for the complete loss of any faith in justice.
ETA
I have to give Barbara Walters credit for turning down this interview. She seems so desperate lately, but at least she know that this one was beyond the pale.
indigoblue
16th November 2006 - 03:56 PM
Wow! Babs has a figurative line in the sand? Who knew?
woodstove
18th November 2006 - 03:20 PM
His publisher and interviewer for FOX saying that she did it because she believes in his guilt, and to her, this is his "confession" bugs me. You did it for the money lady.
That said, I will read this book. I will not buy this book, unless it's in the dollar store and I happen across it before I read it elsewhere. I want to know how that bastard killed them. I want the trial questions cleared up in my head. I want to see what they prosecuters might have done differently, or how close they were to the truth.
I don't expect full, honest disclosure, (implicating his lawyer(s) for example,) but I do think much of it will be what really happened. I do want to know. I just don't want that murderer to get any of my money.
Mike-El
20th November 2006 - 07:18 AM
Kramer loses his fucking mind onstage, drops a dozen "N-words," and the crowd walks out on him.Michael Richards has a lot of explaining to do. That's one of the freakiest public displays by a celebrity ever.
Joe Don Faker
20th November 2006 - 07:28 AM
| QUOTE | Kramer loses his fucking mind onstage, drops a dozen "N-words," and the crowd walks out on him.
Michael Richards has a lot of explaining to do. That's one of the freakiest public displays by a celebrity ever.
<br>The cat is ouuuuuuuuttt of the bag, Jerry.
Weird. Sad. The guys he was talking to seemed to have a reasonable and restrained response: "That was unf*cking called for."
Mike-El
20th November 2006 - 07:45 AM
I guess Kramer ended up going to that Donald O'Brien speech and rally at the Paramount.
Flahdagal
20th November 2006 - 09:04 AM
That was waaay creepy. Like lost-his-mind, down the rabbit hole crazy.
woodstove
20th November 2006 - 09:14 AM
Clay Aitkin was apparently enough of an asshole as co-host on Live last Friday that Kelly Ripa actually commented on it today. She is very easy going, so it must have been pretty awful. She said Howard Stern and his girlfriend called her right after the show and made her laugh. (I get the feeling he riffed on Clay's "inappropriate behavior."
I don't watch or listen to or whatever Stern's show is, but did he comment about the Clay/Kelly stuff publicly? Anyone know?
ETA, and there is now an organized boycott of OJ's appearance and book, including a "boycott for life" of any sponsers of the show. The Goldman's started it, but the nasty Fox pundit has joined it. Sorry, I can't think of his name, the one who was on Oprah recently and is frequently on the View. Loud mouth conservative car-salesman/preacher type.
a.j.
20th November 2006 - 09:16 AM
Wait...there's Clay/Kelly stuff? Tell me bad things about Clay Aiken!
woodstove
20th November 2006 - 09:23 AM
I saw part of it, but I was wrapping presents and apparently didn't pay enough attention. Today she (very nicely, when pushed by Reeege) said that she expected a gentleman or manners (after Reege said he was a southern boy) but didn't get either, and basically implied that he was a complete asshole that she hopes to never see again.
Again, this is KR here, so none of this was said all that "willingly" and she seemed to try to take the high road while acknowledging that she was uncomfortable and disappointed (and mad as hell but not going to say that) about his co-hosting. At one point, apparently, he put his hand over her face while she was trying to conduct an interview. She shuddered and said she doesn't want anyone's clammy hand on her face. Reege tried to say it was probably nervousness, and Kelly nicely said, "maybe so" or the like, while clearly meaning, "No, you didn't see it, it sucked, he sucked, and it will be a cold day in hell that I am ever in the same room with that freaky bore again."
I am sure he will send flowers or something, and she will pretend to accept the apology, because she doesn't want to be bogged down or invest enough energy in a feud.
Gracie
20th November 2006 - 09:23 AM
woodstove
20th November 2006 - 09:33 AM
The only part I noticed was that he was very rude to her from the start, throwing out insulting "jokes" and implications, and Kelly seemed a bit thrown, then pretty stunned by it all. Ripa has a very quick wit, and could have decimated him, but she did not. She has said before that when Reeege is gone it's harder for her since she feels an bigger obligation to keep the show on track, and without her team-mate, she must be more controlled and eye-on-the-ball than when he is there and knows the ropes and keeps things smooth.
I think that stopped her from nailing Clay. Live is a pretty "friendly" show, and she wasn't going to help it turn into something else, even if that meant taking Clay's crap without fighting back.
a.j.
20th November 2006 - 10:12 AM
I went to the Clay thread at TWoP, because all these years later, I still love it when the Claymates freak out. Friday's posts were a nice mix of "he seemed pretty rude" and "rude?!? LOL I thought he did great! Kelly obviously loves him! They'll definitely have him back!!!1" with a side helping of "Kelly Ripa is a bitch, so I'm glad he was rude to her." Someone just posted a transcript of Kelly's comments today (it didn't look like she really let him off the hook at all), so I feel like we're on the verge of a nice little Claymate freakout. I love it when I think someone is a jackass, and they really prove me right.
ActonBell
20th November 2006 - 10:32 AM
Clay has always struck me as a bitchy diva, I'm not surprised he was such a rude jackass. Not a great point in his career to start burning bridges like that, either.
woodstove
20th November 2006 - 10:34 AM
On the Live TWoP thread, even some of the constantly bashing Ripa mean girls are taking her side on this. Now FOX news is getting in on the story.
ladybug
20th November 2006 - 10:56 AM
That makes Ted Danson's roast of Whoopi Goldberg seem harmless.
Michael Richards just killed his career.
max power
20th November 2006 - 11:15 AM
I don't think he had a career at this point. Wow, that's just...wow. The other Seinfelders must be calling press conferences left and right, saying, "Um, we never said stuff like that on the set. In fact, we never knew a 'Kramer.' Who is this 'Kramer' you refer to?"
What the hell is up with Clay's hair? It's getting to the point where it's like Tobias in Season 3 of Arrested Development, and his hair is leeching life out of his body. My suspicion is that Clay planned all of this to get his grandma army out in force to buy more albums this Christmas season. That'll show Kelly! Look at the album sales! How many albums have you sold, Kelly...um, let's see...NONE?!
ActonBell
20th November 2006 - 11:57 AM
| QUOTE | It's getting to the point where it's like Tobias in Season 3 of Arrested Development, and his hair is leeching life out of his body.
<br>He's a lot like Tobias in many other ways, too! Except not as funny.
skittlebrau
20th November 2006 - 12:50 PM
| QUOTE | What the hell is up with Clay's hair?
<br>I was just thinking that, too. Honey, your hairline is receding. Don't grow it out and feather it. It only accentuates the receding.
Little Bear
20th November 2006 - 01:07 PM
THANK YOU. QUOTE NEW YORK (AP) -- After a firestorm of criticism, News. Corp. said Monday that it has canceled the O.J. Simpson book and television special "If I Did It."
"I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project," said Rupert Murdoch, News Corp. chairman. "We are sorry for any pain that his has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson."
ladybug
20th November 2006 - 01:10 PM
Right on! About fucking time!
buffyvol
20th November 2006 - 01:12 PM
What? He just heard about this? No one ran it by him before they gave it the go ahead?
Rex Dart
20th November 2006 - 01:32 PM
That does seem likely, honestly. I can't imagine Rupert Murdoch personally approves every book/movie/TV show/front page newspaper headline/etc. that his absolutely humongoid empire puts out.
That said, did whoever does normally make this decision think the mass public was going to be thrilled? You'd think they knew that and wouldn't be worried about people who weren't interested in the book, hoping there would be enough rubberneckers who would be interested for the venture to be profitable. But I guess maybe it was a more universally negative reaction than they thought, or maybe Rupert has a personal objection himself.
buffyvol
20th November 2006 - 01:48 PM
Oh, I realise Rupert doesn't personally approve everything, but this is Oj and he is shilling a book called, "If I Did It". I guess I just thought that some things automatically rate a "Hey Boss, what do you think about this?"
Finger Food
20th November 2006 - 03:29 PM
That crappiest part of cancelling OJ's book is that OJ, I suspect, still comes out ahead because he doesn't have to return the millions he was paid to write it. So, basically OJ dodges more scorn from the public AND walks away even richer.
He always seems to come out a winner in the worst circumstances, doesn't he? Asshole.
Color me surprised that Michael Richards even has a job these days. And after today, he hopefully won't have any more. Asshole.
woodstove
20th November 2006 - 05:12 PM
I have tried googling this several different ways and can't find anything on it. Does anyone have a link? My googling must really suck to find nothing on this cancellation comment.
Also, are they cancelling both the book and the televised interview, or just the tv promotion / interview?
Yay either way though.
Little Bear
20th November 2006 - 05:17 PM
ladybug
20th November 2006 - 05:20 PM
The book and interview are both cancelled.
Did you try Little Bear's article woodstove?
woodstove
20th November 2006 - 05:26 PM
Thanks~! I even googled the exact sentence and came up with old commentary on how wrong it was, but nothing about the actual cancelling.
strange.
This is very cool. Enough news people have read the book, that any actual new "evidence" that is in there will probably be disclosed, but at least he won't be on TV, and displays of that book won't be set up in malls.
I do wonder about him being paid though.
Finger Food
20th November 2006 - 06:04 PM
| QUOTE | I do wonder about him being paid though.
<i>National Enquirer (who has been writing about this crappy book for weeks before the national media picked up on it) said he was paid $3.5 million. They excerpted some of the claims in his book in the 10/30/06 issue.
Basically, he says he was with an accomplice and that the accomplice brought the knife, but at some point grabbed it from the accomplice's hand and ... then doesn't remember what happened next. Conveniently, he next recalls being covered in blood and the accomplice, "Charlie," saying "Jesus Christ, OJ - what have you done?"
There's more, but that's the gist of it.
skittlebrau
20th November 2006 - 06:19 PM
Thrilling. Next you'll be telling me they both reached for the gun.
ladybug
20th November 2006 - 06:41 PM
Jerry Seinfeld has been booked to be on Letterman toinght for a while. Just saw a promo and now they are having Michael Richards giving his first interview about his "N word meltdown".
I smell some serious damage control if Jerry Seinfeld is willing to step in on his behalf. Would Jerry be so forgiving if Michael Richards pulled a Mel Gibson?
This makes me mad at Letterman for the first time in 24 years for having this on his show. That is not the right forum, audience, or place to discuss Michael Richards.
Finger Food
20th November 2006 - 06:57 PM
QUOTE (skittlebrau+Nov 20 2006, 10:19 PM) Thrilling. Next you'll be telling me they both reached for the gun. I'm dense (as evidenced by my love for supermarket tabloids). Not sure what you mean. | QUOTE | Just saw a promo and now they are having Michael Richards giving his first interview about his "N word meltdown".
Ah. I remember the good old days (of last month) when celebrities and politicians who did and said shitty, awful things just raced off to rehab and then made amends weeks or months later on teary, tv interviews. Guess Kramer just cut out the middleman.
woodstove
20th November 2006 - 06:58 PM
So how can an "IF I did it, here's how" book have the narrator black out at the critical moment?
Maybe the publisher was right, and the book was confession only, not even disguised as "fiction?" Nah.
No hints as to the "accomplice?"
Rex Dart
20th November 2006 - 07:20 PM
QUOTE (Finger Food+) Ah. I remember the good old days (of last month) when celebrities and politicians who did and said shitty, awful things just raced off to rehab and then made amends weeks or months later on teary, tv interviews. Guess Kramer just cut out the middleman. Hell, Judith Regan pulled out her own Carnation Instant Excuse Mix over publishing the OJ book. In between that, Richards, and Mel Gibson and Mark Foley's suddenly discovering their lifetime of alcohol abuse, the cynicism has really gotten amazing. The new rule of public relations seems to be to respond as quickly as possible with the story that disclaims the most responsibility. Whatever happened to something like this: "I totally lost it and was just trying to say whatever would make these guys the most angry. There's never any excuse for saying those things; I was completely out of line. I'm very sorry." Not only is that in all probability the truth, it also IMO is the most sympathetic and understandable thing you can say. Gimme a damn break with the drinking, drug abuse, anger management, and/or childhood trauma. Even if they're true, they're explanations... not excuses.
skittlebrau
20th November 2006 - 08:15 PM
I saw most of the Letterman/Seinfeld/Richards interview already and it basically came down to "I'm not a racist, I was trying to do my act at the comedy club and two guys kept heckling me, and I reacted inappropriately. I got angry. I'm not a racist, blah blah blah." It seemed very much like Jerry was the disappointed daddy making his son return the candy stolen from the supermarket and apologize to the nice grocer that he ripped off.
| QUOTE | I'm dense (as evidenced by my love for supermarket tabloids). Not sure what you mean.
<br>Sorry. In "Chicago" Velma Kelly's defense is that she blacked out and doesn't remember killing her husband and sister, but woke up with blood on her hands. And Roxie Hart's defense for shooting her lover was "we both reached for the gun!" These are the jokes. Sometimes they're not good jokes, but they're all I got.
Joe Don Faker
20th November 2006 - 10:00 PM
Well that made for some of the more odd moments ever seen on the Letterman show.
For one thing, we were seeing raw, rambling, unvarnished comments, complete with long pauses, dead air, and verbal fumbling. (Dave would probably say that happens every night on his show.)
It was interesting to watch Seinfeld and Letterman's reactions to someone who was completely out of it and not at all in 'performance' mode, as everyone else is on that show.
skittlebrau your description of Jerry as a disappointed Daddy fits pretty well... He has a polished manner in general, and I think addressed the thing better than the 'shattered' Richards.
Letterman was clearly doing Jerry a favor by having Richards on, but I wondered if maybe he wished he hadn't. When Jerry was saying goodbye he made a point to thank Dave for allowing Richards on, and Dave glossed over it in a way that might suggest regret, I dunno.
(Warning: Rant to follow)
Hadn't watched Letterman in quite some time, but his opening monologue had two jokes about O.J. -- one that suggested O.J. promoted his book "by going on Rachael Ray's show and showing how to make veal scallopini with the murder weapon." Back when the O.J. situation first came to light, Dave took the high road and said something like, "I don't find double murders very funny." Then came Leno with the dancing Itos and big ratings, and when the public seemed agreeable to some humor on the subject, Dave joined in. Not that a palatable joke about O.J. can't be made, preferably one that paints him as a horrible clown, but Dave's attempt tonite seemed lame, uninspired and tasteless.
Two Keg Peg
21st November 2006 - 03:00 AM
| QUOTE | Hadn't watched Letterman in quite some time, but his opening monologue had two jokes about O.J. -- one that suggested O.J. promoted his book "by going on Rachael Ray's show and showing how to make veal scallopini with the murder weapon."
<br>I don't know, Joe Don Faker, I can sort of see the humor in that joke. O.J.'s pretty much done everything but said, "I confess. I killed my ex-wife and her friend." Showing up on a cooking show and preparing food with the murder weapon seems totally plausible these days. But yeah, that was a pretty lame joke. Letterman should leave that sort of garbage to Leno.
Finger Food
21st November 2006 - 03:05 AM
QUOTE (woodstove+) So how can an "IF I did it, here's how" book have the narrator black out at the critical moment? Good point. Maybe they could have used a subtitle: If I Did It: Everything You Wanted to Know About How I (Might) Have Killed Ron and Nicole Except for the Actual Killing. | QUOTE | Maybe the publisher was right, and the book was confession only, not even disguised as "fiction?" Nah.
No hints as to the "accomplice?"
The Enquirer didn't say who they thought was the accomplice. OJ named him "Charlie" in the book, but theories were floated years ago that he could have gotten help from Al Cowlings or his son by his first marriage. I personally think OJ just made most of it up. Except for the part where he, you know, did it.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Maybe the publisher was right, and the book was confession only, not even disguised as "fiction?" Nah.
No hints as to the "accomplice?"
The Enquirer didn't say who they thought was the accomplice. OJ named him "Charlie" in the book, but theories were floated years ago that he could have gotten help from Al Cowlings or his son by his first marriage. I personally think OJ just made most of it up. Except for the part where he, you know, did it.
"I totally lost it and was just trying to say whatever would make these guys the most angry. There's never any excuse for saying those things; I was completely out of line. I'm very sorry."
That is EXACTLY what I would love to hear from a celebrity or politician who said/did the wrong thing. I think it's far more noble to just cop to your shit and move on instead of hauling out an OJ-like disclaimer such as "Yes, I said it but..."
QUOTE (skittlebrau+) Sorry. In "Chicago" Velma Kelly's defense is that she blacked out and doesn't remember killing her husband and sister, but woke up with blood on her hands. And Roxie Hart's defense for shooting her lover was "we both reached for the gun!" These are the jokes. Sometimes they're not good jokes, but they're all I got.
Thanks, skittlebrau! It's not your jokes, it's my lifelong (and inexplicable) aversion to Broadway shows (and movies based on them) that leaves me out of the loop.
Thanks for the Letterman recap, JDF. Hope Michael Richards saved the show on his DVR to commemorate the last appearance he ever makes on network TV.
Joe Don Faker
21st November 2006 - 04:38 AM
QUOTE (maygeen+Nov 21 2006, 06:00 AM) | QUOTE | Hadn't watched Letterman in quite some time, but his opening monologue had two jokes about O.J. -- one that suggested O.J. promoted his book "by going on Rachael Ray's show and showing how to make veal scallopini with the murder weapon."
<br>I don't know, Joe Don Faker, I can sort of see the humor in that joke. O.J.'s pretty much done everything but said, "I confess. I killed my ex-wife and her friend." Showing up on a cooking show and preparing food with the murder weapon seems totally plausible these days. But yeah, that was a pretty lame joke. Letterman should leave that sort of garbage to Leno.
Yeah, I'm probably reacting a little strongly, there. I guess in the wake of the woefully misguided OJ book deal and attempted tv show, my mind has been busy being offended on behalf of the families of the victims, and also just out of common decency. So I'm more ready to find offense in what's probably more of an "eh, whatever" joke. Also, as you say, Dave was meant for better things.
"And this offends you as a Jewish person?"
"No, it offends me as a comedian." - Seinfeld
ETA: Another of the weirder moments was the initial reaction to Richard's introduction and remarks. Some of the audience -- out of perhaps nervousness, or not knowing what to make of it, or not having knowledge of what had happened, or just at the sheer oddness of it all -- was laughing as Richards stumbled through his first couple of remarks. Seinfeld admonished the audience, "Stop laughing; it's not funny." And while I think that was certainly appropriate in this case, the Vegas odds on Seinfeld uttering that line in a talkshow appearance must be huge.
BeatrixK
21st November 2006 - 05:49 AM
| QUOTE | Seinfeld admonished the audience, "Stop laughing; it's not funny."
<br>What he meant to add was 'It's not funny, I have a 7th edition DVD set getting released tomorrow and I don't want this to ding my sales any more than it already is going to.'
Seinfeld looked uncustomarily uncomfortable, that's for sure!
Rex Dart
21st November 2006 - 06:16 AM
QUOTE (Joe Don Faker+) Hadn't watched Letterman in quite some time, but his opening monologue had two jokes about O.J. -- one that suggested O.J. promoted his book "by going on Rachael Ray's show and showing how to make veal scallopini with the murder weapon." Back when the O.J. situation first came to light, Dave took the high road and said something like, "I don't find double murders very funny." Then came Leno with the dancing Itos and big ratings, and when the public seemed agreeable to some humor on the subject, Dave joined in. Not that a palatable joke about O.J. can't be made, preferably one that paints him as a horrible clown, but Dave's attempt tonite seemed lame, uninspired and tasteless. What I'm getting out of this is that you're crushing on Rachael Ray, bigtime. If you feel the need to defend her, maybe this isn't the site for you. God.
buffyvol
21st November 2006 - 07:24 AM
Don't be such a Mean Girl. God.
Joe Don Faker
21st November 2006 - 08:13 AM
He's a Meeeean Girl
Doesn't like his mama
Hates horses ... and America too
Richard's Letterman appearance reminded me of a couple of other rants: Harvey Pekar's loud complaints on Letterman's show, and rants against tv in general from the late comedian Bill Hicks. Pekar felt frustrated that Letterman wouldn't discuss a serious (network-related) issue on his show, and Hicks felt you never see geniuine emotion on tv -- that it's all sort of performed and canned. In a way the raw awkwardness of last night was an answer to both criticisms. But it was just so weird watching Richard's grim reality play itself out in the glossy world of Uncle Dave's Funtime Hour.
Joe Don Faker
21st November 2006 - 08:47 AM
Check out this prescient post about Michael Richards' comedy made in October on the IMDb: QUOTE funnyman99
(Sun Oct 15 2006 02:46:56 )
UPDATED Sun Oct 15 2006 17:46:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me first say that Michael Richard's Kramer is one of the best performances in the history of television. He was an integral part of making Seinfeld one of the greatest shows ever. Wow. A couple friends of mine were hanging out at the bar of the Improv in L.A. Someone told us that Michael Richards was performing there at that time. So we snuck in to watch a few minutes of what he was doing. Let me tell you...it was sad. Really sad. He wasn't even telling any jokes. He was just going on and on about politics. His rambling didn't even make any sense, and he was getting NO laughs. There wasn't much of an audience (as if he didn't look pathetic enough), but you could tell people were really shocked to see such an indelible comedy icon reduced to a washed up old guy muttering unintelligible comments on prostitutes and the bible or something. Whatever he was talking about didn't make any sesne and sure as hell wasn't getting any laughs. The drunken comedian that went on after him spent the first five minutes of his set just talking about how terrible Michael Richards was (that comedian wasn't much better, but at least he had some attempt of jokes) Sure he doesn't have to work another day in his life, but still...wow. Sad.
fofanna1
21st November 2006 - 10:36 AM
Back to Aiken/Ripa - check this out - Rosie's in the house - the best part about it? Rosie apparently just outed Clay Aiken.
woodstove
21st November 2006 - 10:44 AM
And on to another celebrity keflukkle.
Today on The View Rosie called Kelly Rips's comment "I don't know where that hand has been" (to Clay Aitkin) a homophobic comment to the poor widdle Clay who is going through a difficult time in his life and blah blah blah, I love Kelly, but that was disturbing and homophobic and wrong blah blah."
the other co-hosts defended Kelly, Rosie dug in and then Kelly Ripa was on the phone. (No idea who called whom.)
Kelly called Rosie on it and said it was offensive to imply such a hateful thing, and Rosie wouldn't back down and tried to say that was "her view" (in other words, "whatever, homophobe, I still think you are very talented" and Kelly was like, oh no you didn't, and you don't, and "not everything is homophobic Rosie, get a grip, and the Sherri Shepard diffused it by grabbing Rosie's boob.
Wow.
Rosie was completely out of line, IMO, and then Spader showed up and was thrown by the whole thing and implied that no one in the green room wanted to come out on stage.
Ooos, posted at the same time.
Rosie did have the excuse of no sleep, red eye frrom Barbra's LA concert. I was glad Kelly stuck up for herself though. Rosie was completely out of line.
a.j.
21st November 2006 - 10:47 AM
I'm sure Clay is just over the moon that Rosie decided to help out by telling everyone that Kelly doesn't like GAY PEOPLE LIKE CLAY AIKEN touching her.
fofanna1
21st November 2006 - 10:54 AM
Whatever will the Claymates do now?
TeslaNewton
21st November 2006 - 10:56 AM
What I don't get is how Rosie could think that is homophobic. I mean, for all we know Clay just used the bathroom and didn't wash his hands. And as far as I know, that is not something confined to gay men. I like Rosie, but this just pisses me off. What, anything negative against anyone who may be gay is immediately homophobic? Dude put is hand on her mouth. His hand. Which could've been touching his dick. And all men have dicks. If a man (other than my husband) tried to do that to me, gay or not, something's being said!
fofanna1
21st November 2006 - 10:59 AM
Are you absolutely sure Clay has a dick?
Gracie
21st November 2006 - 11:02 AM
QUOTE (fofanna1+Nov 21 2006, 12:59 PM) Are you absolutely sure Clay has a dick? YOMANK, fofanna1.
Joe Don Faker
21st November 2006 - 11:03 AM
Ha, let's see how many more additional rings can be added to the outward progression of righteous indignation that started on the actual "show about nothing," Live with Regis and Kelly.
Rosie may or may not be correct that Kelly's comment was made in part as a dig on Clay's sexual activity -- in fact, I think that probably was the implication, whether in regard to touching others or himself. But given that's it's inconclusive (not to mention that a reference to his sexual activity is not at all necessarily a slam on being gay, not to mention Clay isn't even technically 'out') Rosie should choose her battles more discerningly, I think.
In any case I sincerely doubt that nice girl Kelly is much of a homophobe; she has spent her life in the entertainment industry.
a.j.
21st November 2006 - 11:10 AM
I don't necessarily think I had anything to do with germs, as Kelly claims. I think it's a matter of this punkass showing up on her TV show, treating her like crap for the entire show, and then trying to shut her up by covering her mouth. They'd just met, they didn't like each other, and then he touched her mouth. I think "Honey, that's a no no" is a remarkably nice, considering. Kelly and Joy are right: he never would have done that to Regis or Larry King or Barbara, for that matter. It's a respect issue, and he didn't show any. I do have to wonder how many more examples of Clay being an asshole the Claymates will need before they consider the possibility that maybe the problem isn't everyone else. Then again, if they did that, we wouldn't be able to watch them freak out every time someone says something bad about him. QUOTE (fofanna+) Are you absolutely sure Clay has a dick? <br>I wish I was making this up (frankly, I wish I didn't know this), but they used to play "find the trouser snake" with his pictures. They even...dear God...named it.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here. dizayn.de © 2003 - 2009 - "lo-fi" for InvisionPower Board v1.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
