MY QUICK TAKE

      This is my 'quick take' on the Will Smith and Chris Rock event at the Oscars a few weeks ago.  I find it very interesting that in America, where the event took place, the violent act was shown over and over again but the so-called bad language was bleeped out while the words were aired uncensored in most other countries.  How is that for priorities...or freedom?

HORTICULTURAL APPROPRIATION

     

        The history of Alternative Medicine has many twists and turns as what we now call Traditional Medicine.  I wouldn't exactly call Penicillin a 'traditional' medication, but I would definitely use that term when describing how it was originally used to treat our servicemen back in the early days of its availability.  Different types of treatments have seen their popularity wax and wane, others have exploded in popularity (Opioids), while still others have disappeared entirely (using Lysol as a form of Birth Control).                         My state has recently legalized recreational marijuana and I learned that the state earned over $12 million in taxes from its sale.  Talk about an all-time high.  The 'dispensaries' are scattered all over the edges of my city as not to embarrass model citizens who are just trying to get drunk in peace throughout the city limits.                                                              Let's do some comparison 'shopping' when it comes to some pain relievers.  First, there are opioids; specifically, oxycontin.  This drug was developed by the fine folks at Purdue Pharma.  Purdue knew that these little beauties were game changers, and they had enough clout to get the FDA to put this drug on the market even though a very similar drug called oxycodone was withdrawn less than a decade earlier.  Was this done to help people who were struggling with pain issues?  It depends on who you ask but Purdue did this because they knew the drug was more powerful than even oxycodone and 1.  They could make a 'kill'...er, a healthy...er, a strong profit which would put smiles on the faces (my second example would do this much easier) of shareholders and fatten their wallets and 2.  They could market this medication as an effective pain reliver as they knew it was very addictive and repeat business is the whole point of the game.  Since doctors have pulled back from prescribing these drugs, users have had to turn to other forms of relief such as cocaine or heroin.                                                                                        Secondly, there is marijuana. Since this is a harvested crop like corn or wheat and not a compounded drug invented in a lab, capitalist society has long been very wary of its positive effects and extremely worried what it could do for reputable businessmen's bottom lines. This sort of natural remedy can help people with pain issues due to cancer treatments and other maladies when used in measured doses.  Historically, it's been treated poorly by the motion picture industry.  The people who used it became crazed maniacs ("Reefer Madness") or totally irresponsible stoners (Cheech and Chong in any film they ever made).  It's been called a gateway drug by people who are convinced that people who use it will automatically 'graduate' on to 'harder' stuff like cocaine, heroin or Netflix.  These are many of the same people who will get drunk and make fools of themselves at weddings of your friends or relatives.                                      Of course, the key to one's usage of any 'stimulant' is moderation which can be a little bit difficult and thus many people avoid this key entirely because its uncool to 'check yourself before you wreck yourself'.  I'm not a doctor and I've never even played one on TV, but I do know that the phrase 'I can stop anytime I want' is never good sign.  Should you avoid these chemicals entirely?  If you are someone who can summon the power of whatever can lead you directly to your happy place without a pitstop to your local 'pick me up hut', then I would recommend you do just that.  Maybe you're one of the chosen people who are high on life.  That's not such a bad place to be, is it?

MY REVIEW: BOGGLE(1987) PILOT

     

            I'll start off by saying that this version of Boggle is not related to the 1994 Family Channel version hosted by Wink Martindale which utilized an interactive phone game during certain parts of that show which, in my opinion, immediately makes it feel dated.  The Winker did a great job of hosting, but that version of the show was more like the 1980s TV version of Chuck Woolery's Scrabble which was virtually nothing like the board game it was based upon.  It's a bit confusing, but that's showbiz, folks!     The version I'm reviewing is the 1987 pilot hosted by Bill Rafferty, who got his big break doing goofy interviews for NBC's Real People in the early 1980s.  After hosting the syndicated game "Every Second Counts" from 1984 to 1985 (which ran in the UK for 7 years), the syndicated version of "Card Sharks" from 1986 to 1987 (he was offered the daytime version which then went to Bob Eubanks, but passed) and then the short 1987 daytime revival of "Blockbusters" (which ran off and on for nearly 15 years in the UK) and then he flew to Netherlands to film this pilot where a current version of the game was a big hit over there and he even got to use their set which was pretty decent.                                            The show used the regular 4 by 4 (16 random letter) board and two pairs of contestants would have to the first couple to come up with a large word scrambled among the 16 letters. In the second round, called Pressure Boggle, the couples would have to come up with as many words (against the clock) as they could (for $10 a letter) as long as the letters were somehow linked together.  After two rounds, the winning couple would advance to the bonus round.  This is where things changed a bit.  Now the couple was given a chance to play through 3 boards (the first for $5,000, the second for $12,000 and the third for the big prize of $25,000) and after two letters would be revealed the players would have to pick numbers corresponding to the letters on the board hopefully finding enough letters.  Apparently, there would be three 'bombs' hidden and if a players chose a number with a bomb behind it, they would have to roll a die with the letters BOGGLE on each side and hopefully not spell out that entire word before winning the grand prize.  They could also stop at any time if things got a little too risky and come back the next day and try again as this would not be a self-contained type of a show.  Rafferty was an energetic and unique host with his pronounced Queens, New York accent and a little wit to boot but the show failed to sell (It was a Ralph Andrews Production, and he was always last among the big players in the game show market).  However, the Netherlands version ran until 1996 so who knows what could have been if it had brought to series as that same year of 1987 another Andrews Production based on calling letters called "Lingo", taped in Canada on the cheap, and hosted for a time by President Reagan's adopted son Michael, spent a single season in syndication.  However, game show wizard Bob Boden brought it back to life on GSN in 2002 when he became Programming Chief and tapped Chuck Woolery (ah, the sweet circle of life) to host, and that version lasted six seasons.  I would welcome a revival of this version of Boggle if it were done correctly and had a host who did try to turn the show into a chucklefest (see: Harvey, Steve) but that's illegal now or something, ain't it? 

    

THE BOXING DAY MIRACLE?

   

I decided to turn on my television this evening.  I was flipping through the precious few channels I receive as I'm an over-the-air kinda guy.  I then found myself looking at CBS.  I swear that eye still looks at me like it hasn't already seen me enough over that past 50 years.  I was look at an episode of the TV series reboot of "The Equalizer."  I believe there were a few big screen adaptations also made.  Anyway, I see the actor Adam Goldberg and I'm thinking 'I really miss The Jim Gaffigan Show' but I digress.  One of the next scenes shows the star Queen Latifah talking to Chris Noth.  Is she telling him to lay low until all of the sexual predator stuff blows over?  No, this is an actual episode, albeit a repeat.  How can he still be in a network's prime time lineup?  

    Hmmmm. I changed the channel as the show isn't for me (most aren't) and now I'm ABC and there showing a repeat episode of "Celebrity Wheel of Fortune."  I'm a game show geek and the episode they were airing again was the episode featuring Jeff Garlin.  Really?  He got sacked from "The Goldbergs" for reasons that may or not become much clearer over time.  How can he be still 'over-the-air?'

    Do these networks think we don't care what's on now because it's the day after Christmas and Mom is tired from having to kiss Santa in exchange for gifts to give the kiddos?  Or is it because Dad is snuggled up on the couch and petting his nearly empty bottle of Vodka?  Is it because there is absolutely nothing else to show on Sunday evenings?  Those networks could burn off those unsold pilots like they used to do during my childhood.  Or run a pre-taped special looking back at the life of Archbishop Desmond Tutu?  All of the networks have those stored away somewhere.

    Or is it a day after Christmas miracle?  I'm sure it all depends on who you ask.

MISSION INFLAMMABLE: THE YEAR IN REVIEW

     Gee, fellas, it's difficult to sum up the year 2021 in one word but I'm gonna give it a go......EX-HAUST-ING.  Sensory Overload.  Sensory Overreaction.  Sensory Pantload.  All are apt descriptions for the past 12 months.  Everything someone said or did or thought was blown up to illogical and mostly absurd proportions.  Some with good reason.  Some with no reason at all other than to make money.  I read a recent Pitchfork interview with Devo founder and current TV and Film music composer Mark Mothersbaugh who said:    

      After the shootings at Kent State, we realized that rebellion wasn’t the way to change things anymore. Once the government gets irritated enough, they just lock you up or kill you. There’s no such thing as democracy—it’s all just corporations and the ebb and flow of capitalism. We were thinking, “God, the way it’s going, we could have a movie star or a sports guy as president. People are getting stupider.”                      

         

   The freedoms we have as Americans are vast and wide and that's why people from other countries want to come here.  If we narrow these freedoms, many which have certainly been proposed by certain politicians, the number of people wanting to come to America will likely decrease much to these lawmakers' eternal contentment.  When people say that 'freedom isn't free', this is true but not just for fighting in wars when our government says so but also for stepping up and doing the right thing in times of domestic crises such as when certain people are not paying their fair share of taxes or when there are medical emergencies and certain citizens decide to opt out of their civic duty to help save other citizens lives.     Yes, it is our right as Americans to protest or debate as long as it is done in a responsible manner.  Also, in my personal view, it also has to be done in a non-volent way; regardless of what end of the political spectrum you find yourself drawn towards.  The trend towards 'cancelling' each other is a very dangerous game to play because it may look and feel that it's being handled by the right side (or whoever's side you think you're on) right now but where does it all go from here?  I'm not sure anyone will want to stick around for the conclusion as the entire spectacle has a 'mob full of pitchforks and torches' type of vibe to it.  At the end of the day, it all comes down to this:  Can we resist the outside forces that are doing their best to divide us, or can we overcome this charlatan's ruse and find a way to work together despite all of our differences?   Please turn off whatever device on which you're reading this (I know that this lovely blog and cat videos are your only sanctuary right now but still......) and really think about it.

    

COMMENTS.....AND THE OVERABUNDANCE THEREOF.

 

        Obviously, the title of the post does not refer to the number of replies I received from my previous posts. No, I'm alluding to the number of comments that seem to have piled up on the information superhighway causing enlightenment, entertainment, and even an occasional sense of 'meh' but also irreversible damage to the heart, mind and soul.  Does our desire to harm outweigh our desire to help?                                                             I seem to remember a time before social media (does anyone else?) when it was common and decent to say "no comment" whenever someone asked someone else something that they didn't want to answer because they had no opinion (imagine the unmitigated gall of someone like that), because they didn't want to offend anyone, because they hadn't yet come to a place where they felt their opinion was fully formed, wanted or needed, or just simply didn't want to waste their time on something so trivial or inane.                                                                                                                                        Once social media started this trend of leaving those dreaded comment sections, traditional media wasted no time jumping on the bandwagon with millions of actually unwanted cries of "Let Us Know What You Think About (???) by calling, emailing, etc."  Imagine if at the end of War and Peace, Tolstoy had said "okie dokie...story over.  Whaddya think now dudes and dudettes?  Strap your thoughts to Josef the Carrier Pigeon and tell him to drop it off at the second yellow colored shack on the right."?    Personally, I have never wanted to know what someone else thought about the series of snowballs that displayed a vague resemblance to the twelve disciples because there are only so many hours in a day.  I know I possess a vulgar lack of curiosity and or voyeurism which is why something like The Jerry Springer and its offspring was the visual version of a flaming bag of feces on the doorstep of television for me. But if you prick me, do I not bleed out enough to satisfy your need for the taste for the good stuff? Or is that not sufficient for you?  What then will it take for your morbid cups of crap to runneth over?  I'm just asking for a friend.

HOW THINGS WORK (GAME SHOW HOST EDITION)

     

        Game shows have been around forever, either on radio or television, and they will not be going away soon.  Some things have changed, and some things have remained basically the same.  The competition for ratings is much more dire and desperate these days with hundreds of TV channels, streaming and other things vying for viewers shorter and shorter attention spans.                                                                                                            If you look at a brief history of TV game shows (they're all on YouTube so go look now.....I'll wait............................................................glad you're back!), you will see that the pacing has incrementally become faster over the decades because every second of dead air is a second of a network's earnings wasted.                                                                            Also, if you haven't noticed, what is being allowed on TV in regard to language and content has also changed quite a bit, especially when it comes to the major networks who traditionally were the last ones to 'work blue', as opposed to HBO who surprises me whenever it does the exact opposite.                                                                         Finally, the traditional game show host has taken a giant flying leap out the window in the 21st Century and it comes down to ratings.  Networks and studios have supposedly whittled this process down to an exact science.  Focus groups, Q Scores, sex appeal, knowledge of the game you're hosting (just kidding-that's what cue cards are for, you dummy!):  all of these are taken into consideration in some shape or form.                              When Regis Philbin was picked to host the U.S. version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" in 1999, many people were shocked for several reasons.  First, many people assumed he had never hosted a game show before.  It had been over 25 years but, yes, he had hosted a game show before.  Secondly, other people thought he might be too old for the job.  That might be somewhat debatable as he was 68 at the time but, hey, if Bob Barker was still going strong, why not Reeg?     

  In the case of Jeopardy, when the syndicated version started in 1984, my best guess is that Merv Griffin auditioned several veteran game show hosts and a couple wild cards and then went with his gut on who should get the job.  Things were so much different 40 years ago.  Remember, Merv Griffin WAS Merv Griffin Productions.  To whom did he have to answer?  No one, except maybe his conscience and even that has never been scientifically proven.  No network, just a pretty solid and proven concept and very a new syndication company eager to make some cash (King World at the time).                                               Today it's all different.  Almost no one wants veteran game show hosts.  They want proven entertainers.  Except Sony, I guess.