Wow, poor Harry Benshoff if the problem is that "Wayne State University Press" (sounds tiny and probably indigent) failed to secure the needed clearances for him to use the DS brand name and photographs, etc. in his book.  (I was wondering whether objection #1 may have been the title; it might have been OK if it had been marketed under some variant such as "Shadows in the Afternoon: blah blah blah.")  Of course, as the author he needed to be aware of getting this stuff taken care of, and the press may have reassured him right down the tubes if they didn't fill out the paperwork and pay up. 

As someone all too keenly aware of how much work is involved in getting a book out into the world, I genuinely do feel for the man.  As a previously published author, however, I'm startled that he didn't make extra sure all the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed.

This is starting to seem like Ten Little Indians.  Who will be the next victim of that most feared among legal sub-creatures--the infamous Jim Pierson?  Bwa ha ha ha.  Do you tremble when your cell phone rings?

shuddering, G.

For those interested in the rumor mill, an IMDB reader posted this snippet yesterday--with the strict proviso that it not be quoted, but I cite it anyway in case there's anything substantive behind the rumor:


...I heard from a fairly reliable inside source that Chloe Moretz (Kick Ass, Let Me In) is going to play Carolyn (which surprised me a bit), and that Thomas McDonell (Disney's upcoming Prom) is going to play "young Barnabas," which makes sense as he does definitely resemble Johnny Depp...  (end quote)

No further comment from me about this. 

As for DC's reactions to what we have been told to date, I have a fairly good idea but will keep my thoughts to myself...  It's not hard to figure out though if you read up on DC's strategy in the 1991 DS and his input in the 2004 pilot...

G.

I thought it was hysterical the last time I saw the film Rosemary's Baby and realized that in the movie, 1966 was going to be proclaimed the year 1 of Satan.  I guess the baby was supposed to be born in June of '66 because of the whole 666 thing.  What a riot.

G.

Interesting... Eva Green's comment about the script being the weirdest thing she's ever read reminds me of an interview Nancy Barrett did about 20 years ago where she recalled arriving at the studio to "read what seemed to me a very peculiar script..." or words to that effect.

Let's cue Dame Shirley Bassey with a chorus of "History Repeating," shall we?

Nicholas Blair and Count Petofi were two other masters of the dry, sly, witty comment.  I would love to see this kind of writing in the new film.

G.

Damn, Midnite, but you're good!  I think I read a review of this one a long time ago.  Sounds like a fun frolic...

Of course it does not appear to be available in any format... sigh.

G.

Cool article!  Thanks for the link.  I think I might have read something by him, somewhere, around the time of Iguana... maybe some of his coverage.

I know it's been posted around, but last night I was recalling Matt Hall's recollection of the time Grayson and Elizabeth were both backstage, I think at one of Burton's Hamlet performances, and it was six or nine months since they had both been in Vallarta, and Elizabeth asked Grayson, "Did you get these weird brown spots on your legs that won't go away?"  And the two ladies were lifting skirts to compare, and some clever pressman flashed a photo.  Elizabeth promptly stalked up to him, seized the camera, and removed the film, saying something like "You DON'T take my picture without asking permission."

The two actresses remained friends... and Liza Todd's wedding was held at Grayson's country home in the 1980s.

G.

Absolutely--Staab's makeup works fine WITH the filtering.  Without, it just looks like neon goop. 

Has anyone ever commented on DC's use of filters generally on the series, and use of what seems to be a lot of ambient mist, or maybe screens in front of the camera lenses--so much of this looks so misty, foggy, or like the result of the old-school vaseline filters used for close-ups of aging divas.

I find the often lurid use of color often works against the general fog in ways that I find very jarring.  Particularly in Ben Cross's 18th century vampire makeup, with that lurid lipstick they gave him and that bad hairpiece... it's very comic-book like.  But perhaps this was intentional?  It seems almost like a tribute to some of the more lurid Italian giallo directors.

Just my totally uninformed thoughts... feel free to delete as needed...

I wonder whether Michael Weiss ever did a Playgirl spread?? *bats eyelashes innocently* Inquiring minds want to know...

G.

Several of us were upset when MPI was originally editing out the bloopers from the DS DVDs.  The reason for this is that the bloopers *are* a part of the series history.  I at least prefer to have my DS as it was meant to be seen at the time of the original broadcast.

Now we have Star Trek and Dr Who classic episodes being re-upholstered with glitzy new CGI FX.  I wonder how long it will be before the cute Bil Baird bat puppets get replaced by CGI bats in the next upgrade/release of DS on whatever format proves to catch a major consumer wave in, say, 2020. 

To deliberately introduce bloopers into a glossy, big budget feature film as some kind of weird tribute to the original series--that would take a really perverted kind of brain to see the point in such an exercise.

G.