Good morning, gentle readers!
You really didn't think you were going to get out of January 16th without some genre trivia citations, did you? For shame, for shame!
Nah, I'm here. I had a few items I had to take care of this morning, and that's the reason why it's mid-morning, and I'm just getting to the blog. I had a correction to the day I had to make -- perish the thought! -- and I was performing a bit of extra research to make absolutely certain that my original posting was in error. It was. It's now corrected. Let's not make a big deal about it. I can't be perfect all of the time, but I do -- like so many -- strive for perfection. That's about as noble a goal as anyone in the modern age can have, so it's what I'm happy to do.
What's on tap for the day, you wonder?
Well, I have a flick I need to watch this morning, and I very well might try to squeeze another one in this afternoon. Fortunately, that afternoon choice is a bit slim -- it's an older film, and they tend to not run as long as today's blowhards -- but we'll see. I have some items I might actually add to the Daily Citation Page for January 16th as well; I did some more searching last night and discovered a few Horror features missing from it. My graphics are all prepared. I just have to -- as always -- find the time.
But on to today's wonderful highlights ...
You really didn't think you were going to get out of January 16th without some genre trivia citations, did you? For shame, for shame!
Nah, I'm here. I had a few items I had to take care of this morning, and that's the reason why it's mid-morning, and I'm just getting to the blog. I had a correction to the day I had to make -- perish the thought! -- and I was performing a bit of extra research to make absolutely certain that my original posting was in error. It was. It's now corrected. Let's not make a big deal about it. I can't be perfect all of the time, but I do -- like so many -- strive for perfection. That's about as noble a goal as anyone in the modern age can have, so it's what I'm happy to do.
What's on tap for the day, you wonder?
Well, I have a flick I need to watch this morning, and I very well might try to squeeze another one in this afternoon. Fortunately, that afternoon choice is a bit slim -- it's an older film, and they tend to not run as long as today's blowhards -- but we'll see. I have some items I might actually add to the Daily Citation Page for January 16th as well; I did some more searching last night and discovered a few Horror features missing from it. My graphics are all prepared. I just have to -- as always -- find the time.
But on to today's wonderful highlights ...
Unquestionably, genre entertainment includes a bunch of names, big and small, but one of the biggest across his entire storied career in none other than the master himself, John Carpenter.
Over the years, I've taken an awful lot of flack for saying -- buckle up -- that 1981's Escape From New York is Carpenter's single greatest theatrical accomplishment. (I know, I know, I know ... and shut up.) This is why I don't often argue for choices and/or lists when writing posts on the MainPage and/or debating the merits of a particular director's or screenwriter's or writer's catalogue: at some point, it all boils down to matters of one's particular tastes. It's easy to compare the technical merits of picture to picture, but there's always that influence of which film just downright tickled a critic's fancy ... and, for me, that'll always be Escape. (Sorry, I hated the follow-up for reasons far too numerous to mention.) It's just one of those rare perfect features, and I'll always see it as such ... even with the blemishes that get pointed out to me.
Fans gotta give Carpenter a helluva lot of credit because -- since his earliest days up until his latest projects (which have been a bit slim) -- he's always dabbled in the realms of the Fantastic. While not of all his pictures have flirted with the biggest ideas, he's rather consistently etched out a path that enthusiasts have been happy to follow, no matter if it takes the shape of Halloween, The Thing, or They Live. He's pushed the entertainment envelope, and I've got nothing but respect for his entire library of projects.
Happy birthday, Mr. Carpenter! You're a true original!
Over the years, I've taken an awful lot of flack for saying -- buckle up -- that 1981's Escape From New York is Carpenter's single greatest theatrical accomplishment. (I know, I know, I know ... and shut up.) This is why I don't often argue for choices and/or lists when writing posts on the MainPage and/or debating the merits of a particular director's or screenwriter's or writer's catalogue: at some point, it all boils down to matters of one's particular tastes. It's easy to compare the technical merits of picture to picture, but there's always that influence of which film just downright tickled a critic's fancy ... and, for me, that'll always be Escape. (Sorry, I hated the follow-up for reasons far too numerous to mention.) It's just one of those rare perfect features, and I'll always see it as such ... even with the blemishes that get pointed out to me.
Fans gotta give Carpenter a helluva lot of credit because -- since his earliest days up until his latest projects (which have been a bit slim) -- he's always dabbled in the realms of the Fantastic. While not of all his pictures have flirted with the biggest ideas, he's rather consistently etched out a path that enthusiasts have been happy to follow, no matter if it takes the shape of Halloween, The Thing, or They Live. He's pushed the entertainment envelope, and I've got nothing but respect for his entire library of projects.
Happy birthday, Mr. Carpenter! You're a true original!
I forget exactly where I'd read this little factoid, but I remember it very specifically. This film historian went on-the-record stating that one of the literary classics most adapted in the history of pictures and television remains Robert Louis Stevenson's "Strange Case Of Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde." And that seemingly insignificant blurb forced me to do a quick search of my own (back at the time that I read it). Well, lo and behold, it certainly looked as if it might be true. (I'd previously suspected that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein has to be up there, but a final accounting between the two probably needs to be conducted.)
Entirely from a dramatic standpoint, why wouldn't it be?
There are very few works of this kind that affords a talented actor with the opportunity to embody not one but two distinctly different personaes. Thespians being what they are, I'd imagine the whole gaggle of them would be champing at the bit to give the dual identity their respective attempts at justice. And, yes, for the record, it's been gender-swapped a bit here and there for posterity's sake, giving the ladies the chance to show -- on screen -- that they can be just as evil as men can. How's that for equality?
At some point in the future of SciFiHistory.Net, maybe I'll craft a daily column regarding how many times on a certain date that there are references to the work. Like so many ideas I have in the hopper, I just have to have the time to execute them effectively or I rarely try.
In any event, the whole reason I bring all of this up is because one of the very first adaptations of record for Jekyll/Hyde was first screened on this day all the way back in 1912.
Entirely from a dramatic standpoint, why wouldn't it be?
There are very few works of this kind that affords a talented actor with the opportunity to embody not one but two distinctly different personaes. Thespians being what they are, I'd imagine the whole gaggle of them would be champing at the bit to give the dual identity their respective attempts at justice. And, yes, for the record, it's been gender-swapped a bit here and there for posterity's sake, giving the ladies the chance to show -- on screen -- that they can be just as evil as men can. How's that for equality?
At some point in the future of SciFiHistory.Net, maybe I'll craft a daily column regarding how many times on a certain date that there are references to the work. Like so many ideas I have in the hopper, I just have to have the time to execute them effectively or I rarely try.
In any event, the whole reason I bring all of this up is because one of the very first adaptations of record for Jekyll/Hyde was first screened on this day all the way back in 1912.
Check your history, fellow geeks and nerds, and you'll know that Paramount had for a long, long time wanted to launch their very own channel. In fact, the whole idea of crafting a Paramount Network really took off way back in the 1970's; and -- believe it or not -- the studio suits intended to do it around the return of the original Star Trek to the TV dial.
You see, Trek was famously cancelled back in 1969. Not all that long after, man landed on the moon; and -- all of a sudden -- the adventures of Captain James T. Kirk and his gallant crew were the most popular thing ever in television syndication broadcast. It was the most sought after show ever, and Paramount -- realizing that they had a good thing -- decided Kirk and company would make their return to the weekly line-up with an all-new channel. (If you don't believe it, then Google that crud.)
Alas, that was too expensive an endeavor. Star Trek: Phase II morphed into Star Trek: The Motion Picture; and that whole business of their own network was tabled for about a decade and one-half ... until Star Trek: Voyager blasted into parts unknown on this day in 1995. The UPN -- the United Paramount Network -- was born, giving Captain Janeway her own spot on Boob Tube to preach Starfleet ethics to a previously uncharted quadrant of outer space. It lasted a fun-filled seven seasons -- the last original Trek show to do that, thank you very much -- and history was made.
You see, Trek was famously cancelled back in 1969. Not all that long after, man landed on the moon; and -- all of a sudden -- the adventures of Captain James T. Kirk and his gallant crew were the most popular thing ever in television syndication broadcast. It was the most sought after show ever, and Paramount -- realizing that they had a good thing -- decided Kirk and company would make their return to the weekly line-up with an all-new channel. (If you don't believe it, then Google that crud.)
Alas, that was too expensive an endeavor. Star Trek: Phase II morphed into Star Trek: The Motion Picture; and that whole business of their own network was tabled for about a decade and one-half ... until Star Trek: Voyager blasted into parts unknown on this day in 1995. The UPN -- the United Paramount Network -- was born, giving Captain Janeway her own spot on Boob Tube to preach Starfleet ethics to a previously uncharted quadrant of outer space. It lasted a fun-filled seven seasons -- the last original Trek show to do that, thank you very much -- and history was made.
Of course, there's more waiting for you to discover On This Day In Science Fiction History, so I encourage each and every one of you to wander over to my little corner of the Information Superhighway and see for yourself.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
RSS Feed