Search This Blog

Sunday, April 07, 2013

Rico Suave


I'm going to share something with you all. It's a secret in regards to the Sunday Jukebox entries that I have done for nearly two years now.

For the most part, the artists that I have featured in the Sunday Jukebox are artists who I highly respect in the music industry. Any time that I have done an album spotlight on an artist (Huey Lewis and the News, Simply Red, Janet Jackson), I've done this because I have a hard time selecting just ONE song to spotlight because I admire the artist a lot. Any other Sunday Jukebox entry has featured a hit that I have in my own personal music collection, or it happens to be linked to a personal event that I have experienced.

I am really trying to find an instance in my blog where I have actually featured a song in my blog that I have absolutely despised. Not even the entry that I did on Rebecca Black's “Friday” was that scathing. Sure, “Friday” is far from being my favourite song, but at the same time, I know that Black was only in her early teens, so I didn't want to be too hard on her.

Well, I'm gonna change things up for a week. Today's blog subject will be on a song that I wouldn't go out of my way to listen to. I'm surprised that the song even became a hit! It wasn't a number one hit by any means...it only peaked within the Top 10. And, as far as I'm concerned, that was generous.

It's also a song that seems to have divided opinions. On one hand, the song was ranked at #9 on VH1's list of “100 Greatest One-Hit Wonders”. On the flipside, the song was also placed on Blender's list of the 50 Worst Songs ever, ranking in the thirty-seventh position.

To be fair though, the song did have its innovations that helped it stand out. It had a rather catchy beat (which was borrowed from the 1984 Daiquiri single “Chamo Candela”), and it was one of the few songs released that contained lyrics in both English and Spanish. In all honestly, I can't really think of anyone else who had hit songs with both English and Spanish lyrics other than Enrique Iglesias and Ricky Martin.

Unfortunately, the lyrics are the main reason why I cannot stand listening to the song. I'm not skilled in Spanish at all, and can't understand the Spanish portion of the song. Any Spanish I learned, I learned from watching the American version of “Sesame Street” (the Canadian one taught us French instead). I attempted to enter the Spanish lyrics into a language translator that I found via Google, but the translations ended up making me more confused. It's just as well though. I have plenty of ammunition with the English lyrics, which are cheesy at best, and mildly offensive at worst...depending on how offended one gets.

So, who performed the song in question? Well, it happens to be this guy.



Um...wait a minute...that's not who I mean. That's GERALDO. I wanted GERARDO.



That's better. This is Gerardo Mejia, the Ecuadorian-born singer whose family relocated to California when he was just twelve. Before he broke into the music business, he had a couple of minor roles in the films “Can't Buy Me Love” and “Colors”. At some point, he signed a recording contract with Interscope Records in 1990, and at the tail end of the year, he released his debut single...the single that we'll be discussing today.

So, why don't I post the video right now, let you watch it, and then we'll have a discussion over why I'm not a fan of the song.



ARTIST: Gerardo
SONG: Rico Suave
ALBUM: Mo' Ritmo
DATE RELEASED: December 5, 1990
PEAK POSITION ON THE BILLBOARD CHARTS: #7

Okay, so here's your first Spanish lesson of the day, courtesy of the translation site that I located on Google. When you translate the title of the song into English, “Rico” becomes “Rich”, and “Suave” becomes “Smooth”. So, loosely translated, the song title is “Rich and Smooth”, which if you listen closely to the English lyrics could be two adjectives that Gerardo uses to describe himself!

And, apparently if that is the case, that must mean that Gerardo has a rather high opinion of himself! But, that's only my interpretation of the lyrics...I could be wrong.



But let's go with this train of thought as we examine the lyrics...well...the English ones anyway.

Just listening to the song, and watching the music video which shows a scantily clad Gerardo dancing alongside even more scantily clad women, it's become clear that the song is all about how Gerardo believes that he is God's gift to women. Take a look...

I don't drink or smoke ain't into dope
Won't try no coke, ask me how I do it, I cope
My only addiction has to do with the female species
I eat 'em raw like sushi.

Okay, so let's recap. It's commendable that he's not one of those guys who is into heavy drinking, smoking cigarettes, or popping pills. He's very much sober and clear-headed in this song...which is why the part about him eating women raw like sushi is so freakin' disturbing!!! Not in my wildest dreams would I even compare a woman to a piece of cold, raw, fish. Not exactly the most romantic visual, huh?

Anyway, if you thought that was bad...just keep reading. It gets much worse.

There's not a woman that can handle a man like me
That's why I juggle two or three
I ain't one to commit, you can omit that bit
You pop the question, that's it.

Commitment phobic is apparently Rico Suave's middle name. I mean, why would he settle down with just one woman when he can string a whole bunch of them along and keep them from knowing that others exist? Believe me, I know the type, and have known a couple of “players” in my lifetime. You know the guys I mean? The ones who are so preoccupied with feeding their egos by dating a string of beautiful, gorgeous women at the same time just so they can boast of their conquests? Yeah, that's the image that I get when I read those lyrics. I'm certainly not suggesting that Gerardo is that kind of person today or even back when his career was just starting out. The song could have very well been an exercise in irony, like Madonna's “Material Girl” video. Whatever the case, the song's message is not a very good one.

Just based on my own experiences, I could never be one who would try to see two women at once. Heck, I'll be brutally honest...I have trouble even getting a date with ONE woman! And, yet Rico Suave can get however many he wants. Sometimes, life just ain't fair. What's even more infuriating is that he seems to treat them as if they're nothing more than prizes. No love, no affection...and definitely no ring. And, it would take a decade and a half before Beyonce came along and boasted that if he liked her then he should put a ring on it.

And, as if that last set of lyrics didn't confirm your stance that the song is sleazy, you haven't seen anything yet! Take a look at the last set of English lyrics that we'll be focusing on today.

So again don't let my lyrics mislead you
I don't love you but I need you
Would you rather have me lie
Take a piece of your pie and say bye
Or be honest and rub your thighs?

Oy vey...where to start with this one?

He doesn't love her, but he needs her? Wow...what a classy guy, huh? I suppose that in the world of cheaters and players, this dude is mui bueno, but in my eyes, he's a real perro.

(And, yes, I did have to look up the spelling for the Spanish words. In English, I'm wonderful with spelling. In Spanish, I'd fail a spelling test.)

Perhaps what's even more disturbing are the last three lines of this verse. Either way, he doesn't really come off all that great. In one option, he's basically point blank telling this woman that he doesn't love her, and he won't want to have anything more to do with her after their rendezvous together, but yes, she can rub his thighs to her heart's desire because that's how he rolls, and she's just going to have to learn how to accept it.

Okay, we get it dude. You're god's gift to women. Your skin-tight jeans and 90's style mullet makes you absolutely irresistible.

Oh, but wait. He could lie to them all in his quest to get lucky. He could take what he wants giving her false pretenses that he really does love her, and he really wants to be with her forever and ever and ever. And, once he gets what he came looking for, he'll scurry off into the night looking for his next conquest, leaving the girl he was just with all confused wondering what just happened.

Because that's SO much better...

Wow, you know something...this song upon closer inspection is actually a lot worse than I thought it was. I'm almost afraid to try and translate the Spanish lyrics and try to make sense of them!!!

Can you tell I'm absolutely shocked that this song was a #7 hit? Though, I suppose songs with worse messages than that have hit the top of the charts since then.



At any rate, “Rico Suave” ended up being Gerardo's only big hit. He did have another Top 20 smash with “We Want The Funk” (which was a partial remake of “Tear the Roof Off the Sucker” by Parliament) in 1991, but when his second and third albums flopped on the charts, Gerardo decided to put his focus on working behind the scenes of the music industry. He became an A&R executive for the very record company he joined as an artist, and he was responsible for signing another artist who used both English and Spanish in his lyrics.



Enrique Iglesias would have only been known as the son of Julio had Gerardo not taken a chance on him back in the late 1990s. Since signing on to Interscope, Enrique has had several hits charting including “Bailamos”, “Rhythm Divide”, and “Hero”.



But, then again, Gerardo also signed Bubba Sparxxx...so I'll leave it to you as to how well he's done as a scout for new talent.

And, that's our look at “Rico Suave”...which admittedly is a song that I'm not a fan of.



Now, Weird Al's “Taco Grande”? That's good stuff!

Saturday, April 06, 2013

Siskel & Ebert - A Tribute


The entry that I am going to be making today is one that is bittersweet.  On one hand, it details one of my favourite Saturday traditions, but on the other hand, it is very sad because both of the men who hosted this program are now deceased, and I’ve come to the conclusion that another part of my childhood is forever gone.

For a lot of kids, Saturday mornings meant that you could watch as many cartoons as you could stomach.  And, I’ll be the first to admit that I myself was one of those kids.

What about Saturday afternoons and Saturday evenings?  What did we do then?

Well, most of us probably went outside for the rest of the day.  And, certainly I was also one of those kids who played outside in the backyard.  But there was also one particular show that aired on Saturdays that the whole family enjoyed watching, and it had to do with the subject of movies.

Let’s face it.  At some point during our day, we’re going to be exposed to dozens of film trailers for upcoming features.  Some of them are animated cartoons, some are action films, some are erotic thrillers, and some of them are creepy, scary, horror movies.  Whatever the genre, there are always a boatload of film critics that will get invited to advance screenings of the movies, and they are paid good money to give the films an honest review.  Sometimes the film absolutely wows them.  Sometimes the film garners a mediocre response.  Sometimes, the film is completely torn apart, ripped to shreds, and are given reviews so scathing, winning a Golden Raspberry Award would actually be less painful!

Of course, film reviews are rather subjective.  Depending on the critics, sometimes they get it absolutely right, and other times, you find them to be complete hacks.  But, that’s part of the joy of being a movie critic.  You’re essentially sharing your own opinions about a certain film with a wide audience, essentially telling them what movies to watch, and simultaneously, which films to avoid like influenza.

Believe me...I know how hard it is to review a film.  When I was in college, I reviewed a few films for my school newspaper, and I found it an incredibly difficult job to do.  I wanted to keep an open mind, but also be somewhat respectful in any criticism that I gave out to avoid looking like a complete jerk.  Try it sometime.  You’ll quickly discover that giving a fair, but honest review to a film is harder than it looks.

In my opinion, the best film critics are the ones who don’t just simply offer their opinions about a film.  They also have the facts or knowledge to back up their claims.  They might do research on other roles that the actors and actresses in the film have done and compare it to the new piece to see if they have fine-tuned their craft.  They might watch the film more than once to make sure that they know it inside and out.  They might even be so passionate about their own opinions that they might get into heated arguments with another critic to prove their point.  And, if they were lucky, their arguments might be convincing enough to sway the opposing critic onto their side!

In the case of these two former film critics, this was certainly the case.  When they agreed with each other, they happily chatted about it, explaining why they felt this way.  But if they had a disagreement, it could get quite heated.  What was interesting was that even though they often battled each other verbally on screen, when the cameras were shut off, the two men had each other’s permanent respect.  When that partnership came to a sudden end in 1999, it was a sad day in the film industry.  And, just a couple of days ago, the other half of that partnership breathed his last breath.


This is the story of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert.


Although both men were born and raised in the state of Illinois, both had their own distinct career trajectories before they first crossed paths in the 1970s.  Eugene Kal Siskel (b. January 26, 1946) grew up in the Chicago area, having to live with his aunt and uncle after his parents died when he was just ten.  He graduated with a degree in philosophy from Yale University in 1967, and studied writing under the tutelage of John Hersey, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author.  It was through Hersey that Siskel landed a job writing film reviews at the Chicago Tribune.


Roger Joseph Ebert (b. June 18, 1942) was born and raised in Urbana, Illinois, and his love for journalism began as a sportswriter for The News-Gazette in Champaign, Illinois.  He was also very interested in writing science fiction fandom, and claimed that he learned everything he needed to know about being a film critic from MAD Magazine!  Maybe that’s why his reviews tended to be a smidgen on the acerbic and sarcastic side at times.

Ebert was a very bright student, taking university level courses at the University of Illinois while finishing up the necessary high school courses needed to earn his diploma.  After graduating from high school in 1960, he continued his studies at the University of Illinois while continuing to work for the News-Gazette as a reporter.  Upon his graduation from Illinois in 1964, he attended the University of Cape Town in South Africa for a year, and had planned to attend the University of Chicago to earn his PhD.  He even took on a job at the Chicago Sun-Times as a writer to support himself while he was taking classes.  But when the newspaper’s film critic left the publication, an opportunity presented itself to Ebert.  It made such an impression that when Ebert was forced to choose between earning a PhD and continuing with the newspaper as its film critic, he decided that being a film critic was more rewarding.

So, how did Siskel and Ebert end up crossing paths?


It all began in 1975, when a television show began airing on PBS, entitled “Opening Soon at a Theater Near You”.  The premise of the show was simple.  Two critics from opposing newspapers would sit down, watch some short movie clips from the newest releases that week, and hash it out.

So, naturally, because the show was taped in Chicago, it made sense to have the hosts of the program be from two rival newspapers.  So, who better to host the show than Siskel of the Tribune, and Ebert from the Sun-Times? 


It was here on this show that the long-associated trademark of Siskel and Ebert was born.  Whenever either critic loved the movie, they would give their approval by holding their thumb in an up position.  When the critic disliked the film, they would stick their thumbs downward.  In a lot of cases, the decisions were split, allowing people to make up their own minds as to whether the film was worth watching.  But in most cases, the thumbs showed the way.  If a movie was excellent, it would get TWO THUMBS UP!

And, well...if a film completely sucked, then it would be TWO THUMBS DOWN!

Of course, the show would have been incredibly dull had both men agreed/disagreed on everything and held hands at the end of every episode singing Kumbaya.  Roger Ebert wrote about his professional relationship with Siskel in a column that he wrote back in 1999, and as you’ll see, it wasn’t exactly sunshine and roses at first.

“We both thought of ourselves as full-service, one-stop film critics. We didn't see why the other one was quite necessary. We had been linked in a Faustian television format that brought us success at the price of autonomy. No sooner had I expressed a verdict on a movie, my verdict, than here came Siskel with the arrogance to say I was wrong, or, for that matter, the condescension to agree with me. It really felt like that. It was not an act. When we disagreed, there was incredulity; when we agreed, there was a kind of relief. In the television biz, they talk about "chemistry." Not a thought was given to our chemistry. We just had it, because from the day the Chicago Tribune made Gene its film critic, we were professional enemies. We never had a single meaningful conversation before we started to work on our TV program. Alone together in an elevator, we would study the numbers changing above the door.”

As time passed, the animosities and personality conflicts between the two men began to transform into a deep and profound friendship.  Sure, Siskel and Ebert maintained their professional rivalry, but their personal relationship together was filled with chemistry and respect.  And, Ebert would later make the following statement in the same 1999 column.

“...no one else could possibly understand how meaningless was the hate, how deep was the love".

The two men hosted the program for seven years, and in those seven years, the series changed its name to “Sneak Previews”.  The two men left the program in 1982 following contractual differences with the network that produced the series, and while “Sneak Previews” lasted an additional fourteen years before its cancellation in 1996, it didn’t quite rank as high in the ratings as it once did with Siskel and Ebert at the helm.  The very year that Siskel and Ebert left “Sneak Previews”, they began hosting “At the Movies with Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert”, produced by Tribune Entertainment.  They stayed on with the program until 1986, when both of them left following a dispute with Tribune.  Later that year, the duo began their longest-running series yet, with “Siskel & Ebert”, which debuted in syndication on September 13, 1986.


And, it was on “Siskel & Ebert” that some of the duo’s most heated arguments took place.  There was no physical violence of course...it was “Siskel & Ebert”, not Jerry Springer.  But their verbal barbs and raised voices certainly helped keep the show on the air for a dozen years.  Again, when they disagreed, they certainly let everyone know it.  


Just have a look at their 1987 review for “Full Metal Jacket”, in which Siskel loved it, but Ebert hated it.


And, even when they DID agree, they still found a need to argue about it!  Have a look at their review for 1997’s “Boogie Nights” if you like.


But, one thing that they were both was stubborn.  In the twelve years that “Siskel & Ebert ran, there was not a single instance in which Roger Ebert backed down on his opinions.  He might nod and give Siskel a little bit of credit for a point in which he didn’t consider, but he never once changed his mind.

As for Gene Siskel?  Well, there was that one incident back in 1996 when “Broken Arrow” came out in which Roger Ebert’s opinion apparently was strong enough to make Siskel CHANGE HIS MIND!   Don’t believe me?  Have a look for yourself by clicking HERE!  It is definitely something to be seen!

Throughout it all, the partnership of Siskel and Ebert endured, and millions of people counted on hearing their opinions on various films in deciding whether it was worth paying full price for, or waiting until Tuesdays when tickets were only half price.  I’ll even be the first to admit that I’ve made decisions on what movies to watch based on what Siskel & Ebert have said about them.  For the record, I always saw Ebert’s reviews as being slightly more useful than Siskel’s, but I will also say that Siskel did know what he was talking about as well in a lot of cases.

I imagine that a lot of people took Siskel and Ebert’s reviews for granted, expecting that they would be around forever to critique movies well into the twenty-first century.  So, when Gene Siskel was admitted into the hospital in late 1998, we all believed that he would be just fine.  Unfortunately, that was not to be the case.  Gene Siskel was diagnosed with having a brain tumour, and required surgery to have it removed.  He survived that surgery, and for a while, he would host the show with Ebert via telephone.  He did return to the program for a bit, but was forced to leave the show once more to undergo another round of surgery in hopes of getting rid of the tumour for good.  The last show that he and Ebert would host together aired on January 23, 1999, and Siskel had high hopes of returning to the program in the fall, joking that there was no way that he would let Roger have more screen time than he.


Tragically, Siskel never did get to come back.  Less than a month after his final appearance on Siskel & Ebert, Gene Siskel died of complications from a second surgery on February 20, 1999.  He was just 53 years old.

Roger Ebert dedicated the next scheduled show in Gene’s memory, playing old clips and interviews of Gene at his prime.  But even though Gene had passed away, Roger Ebert kept the show running, searching for a new co-host to take over Gene’s spot.  In 2000, film critic Richard Roeper was named as Ebert’s permanent new co-host, and on September 10, 2000, the show was renamed “Ebert & Roeper and the Movies”.  The show’s name was shortened to “Ebert & Roeper” in 2002, and the partnership lasted until 2006.  I will say this.  I remember watching Ebert & Roeper when it first came on, and I’ll definitely say that Ebert and Roeper worked well together.  And, I’m also giving Roeper a lot of credit and praise for taking over Siskel’s spot near flawlessly and giving it his all in his reviews.  But, Ebert & Roeper was no Siskel & Ebert.  The partnership was good...but it was incomparable to Ebert’s previous working relationship with Siskel.

But right around the time that Ebert & Roeper began airing, Ebert was experiencing health issues of his own.  In 2002, he was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, and underwent radiation treatments in order to get rid of the tumours that were developing.  However, complications from these treatments would lead to emergency surgery in 2006, which prevented Ebert from being able to speak properly.  Efforts to reconstruct his jaw bone lead to permanent facial disfigurement, and Ebert was forced to leave the show in 2007.  Roeper remained until the summer of 2008, and following a series of guest co-hosts, the show was permanently canned in 2010.


Although Ebert was unable to give verbal reviews, he continued to do online reviews, and continued writing his column.  And he continued to write until his death two days ago on April 4, 2013, at the age of 70.

With the passing of Roger Ebert, it truly marks the end of an era in the world of film reviews.  There were simply no two reviewers who had as much chemistry and knowledge of the movie industry as Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert.  With both of them now deceased, future generations will never really know just how influential they were to the film industry.

But you know, I’d like to picture them now the same way that an Internet image that has been floating around cyberspace the last couple of days has done beautifully...an image that is poignant and wonderful at the same time...a real touching tribute to both Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert if ever I saw one.


And, to close off this look on Siskel & Ebert, I have one final piece of trivia on both men.

SISKEL TRIVIA:  Gene Siskel loved the 1977 film “Saturday Night Fever” so much that he actually bought the white suit that John Travolta wore in the film at a charity auction!

EBERT TRIVIA:  Though Ebert had stated that 1941’s “Citizen Kane” was his all-time favourite film, he later admitted that his REAL favourite film was 1960’s “La Dolce Vita”, and that his favourite actor and actress were Robert Mitchum and Ingrid Bergman respectively.

Friday, April 05, 2013

Magnum P.I.


In the world of Hollywood, it can be considered a success if you even land a bit part as an extra, or have one of your script ideas turned into a sitcom episode. I don't know much about the acting/screenwriting industry myself, but having a couple of friends who live in the Los Angeles area, I know that everything they tell me about making it big in the film industry is the truth. The film and television industry is one of the harshest and most fickle ones to break into. And, sometimes real talent can be hard to spot amidst the sea of stretch limos, sparkly evening gowns, and golden stars placed into sidewalks honouring the legends of Hollywood both living and deceased.

Yet, some people seem to find a way to get their talent and skill out there for public consumption. A good producer will have at least one success story...perhaps having a sitcom picked up for a couple of years, or having a dramatic series last more than thirteen episodes. But for someone to have a name in the industry, they'll have to have several success stories. They'll have to have their name attached to some of the longest running series in history, and the more credits they have attached to their resume, the better the chance they have of being offered more projects.

(Of course, that's not unique to the film industry...it's like this no matter what your job is.)



Certainly, one of the biggest producers to come out of Hollywood over the last three decades is Donald P. Bellisario. The 77-year-old producer/screenwriter from Pennsylvania has made a huge name for himself since beginning his career in the film and television industry in the mid-1970s. His name has been attached to some of the longest running, critically acclaimed, and most talked about dramatic series ever created. As of 2013, his most recent creation, “NCIS”, has been at the top of the Nielsen ratings for several years, and with the show currently in its tenth season, it shows no sign of slowing down. “NCIS” could also be considered Bellisario's longest running series, easily surpassing the other shows that he had a hand in creating and producing.

That's not to say that his other projects were failures, of course. Some people might not know this, but “NCIS” is a spin-off from another Bellisario project, “JAG”, which ran from 1995-2005. He was also the creator of “Quantum Leap”, “Airwolf”, and the lesser-known series “First Monday”.

But what about the project that got Donald P. Bellisario noticed in Hollywood? What was the one show that helped get his reputation of a successful producer/screenwriter started?

Well, that show happens to be the subject of today's blog.

The year was 1980, and Bellisario (along with his writing partner Glen A. Larson), went to work creating a crime drama that was set in the beautiful state of Hawaii. It certainly wasn't the first time that a series shot entirely in Hawaii. The long running original series of “Hawaii Five-0” ran for twelve seasons, ending its run in 1980.

But, this series would be quite a bit different.



The main character of this new series would be a private investigator who resides in the guest cottage of wealthy novelist Robin Masters. It is suggested that the arrangement between Masters and the investigator is one of quid pro quo. Many people speculated as the show aired that the investigator once did Masters a favour, and to repay him, he let him live on his estate while providing his expertise in security. Of course, he has to deal with the fact that the majordomo of the estate happens to be the one person who is the complete opposite of him personality wise. The clashes between the two are legendary, and probably aided in the success of the show.

But, what can you expect from Jonathan Quayle Higgins III and Thomas Magnum IV, the two main characters in the long running television series “Magnum P.I.”?



Magnum P.I.” was Bellisario's first creation, and considering that it aired from December 11, 1980 until May 8, 1988, I would say that he struck gold. The star of the show was Tom Selleck, who played the title character, and not only did the program make Bellisario a respected producer, but it aided Tom Selleck in becoming a well-known actor (as well as one of the biggest male sex symbols of the 1980s). Texas-born John Hillerman put on his best British accent to assume the role of Jonathan Quincy Higgins III, the majordomo of the “Robin's Nest” estate in which he and Magnum reside. The rest of the cast was rounded out by Roger E. Mosley (who played the owner of “Island Hoppers” helicopter chartering service, Theodore “TC” Calvin), and Larry Manetti (who played Orville Wilbur Richard “Rick” Wright, the owner of the Kamehameha Club).



What was very interesting about the series was that all four of the show's main characters had been involved in serving in the military at some point during their lives (a common Bellisario trademark). Magnum, Rick, and TC all served during the Vietnam War (Magnum was in the U.S. Navy, while Rick and TC were former Marines), and Higgins served in the British Army as a Sergeant Major. The show was actually praised by former servicemen, who were happy to see Vietnam veterans portrayed as human beings and not just “shell-shocked killers”.

What was also interesting about the show was the fact that the viewer never really did find out who Robin Masters really was, as his identity was concealed. Many viewers actually had the hypothesis that Higgins was really Robin Masters, as Higgins was always opening up Robin's mail, and how he calls Robin's Ferrari (that Magnum always drives in every episode) “his car”. Higgins even tells Magnum in the series finale that he is actually Robin Masters, but he ends up admitting before the episode airs that he made up the whole story.



The real truth was that there was a plan to actually introduce Robin Masters into the series at the very end...but the actor who was intended to portray him died just before the plan could come to fruition. Astute ears might recall hearing Robin Masters speaking over the speakerphone (similar to that of Charlie on “Charlie's Angels”), and believing that he sounded an awful lot like film legend Orson Welles. Truth be told, Orson Welles did provide the voice of Robin Masters throughout the show's run, and plans were made to bring him into the show for a cameo appearance. Unfortunately, his death in October 1985 prevented that from happening. His voice was heard one final time after Welles died, this time being provided by Reid Crandell.

It's interesting the trivia that you find out about television, isn't it?



Actually, Orson Welles wasn't the only famous name to be associated with the series. Until it was dethroned by NBC's “The Cosby Show” in the mid-1980s, “Magnum P.I.” was once the top-rated television series to air on Thursday nights at 8:00pm. This meant that the show attracted some huge names, as well as a couple of crossovers.

For instance, “Magnum P.I.” had a crossover episode with the CBS series “Simon & Simon”, which starred Jameson Parker and Gerald McRaney. Magnum also appeared in an episode of “Murder...She Wrote” alongside Angela Lansbury.



And, while we're on the subject of famous faces, did you know that the late Frank Sinatra made an appearance during the penultimate season of “Magnum P.I.”? He not only had a guest-starring role, but he got to choose the script of the episode that he could appear in. I remember seeing that episode years ago, but cannot remember what the plot of the episode was. I do remember that this song was playing in the first few minutes of the show though. Maybe that'll narrow it down.



(Heh...I can't remember plot details, but can remember the music playing in the episodes. I'm so weird!!!)

For what it's worth, other celebrities who have made appearances on “Magnum P.I.” while the show was in its prime (and who in some cases were up and coming actors and actresses themselves) were Carol Channing, Ted Danson, Dana Delaney, Shannen Doherty, Ernest Borgnine, Morgan Fairchild, Norman Fell, Phil Hartman, Pat Morita, John Ratzenberger, Mimi Rogers, and Sharon Stone.

There's just one more thing that I need to discuss before I close the chapter on “Magnum P.I.”, and that thing is how the show could have ended.

Initially, the episode that aired on April 15, 1987, “Limbo”, was supposed to be the final episode of the entire series. After seven seasons, the show was beginning to dip even lower in the ratings, and the decision was made to end the series after season seven. But the way that the show was initially planned to end outraged fans so much that Bellisario and his writing staff were forced to extend the series an additional season, and thirteen more episodes were produced, stretching the life of the series until May 1988.

But why would the original ending of the series cause such backlash and nasty comments from fans?



Well, if you knew that the main character of the series was going to be shot to death, I would imagine some of you would likely be perfecting your best “Comic Book Guy” voice and declaring the show to have the “worst series finale ever”. Well, that's exactly what happened. In the last episode of season seven, Magnum is critically injured in a gunfight at a warehouse, and becomes comatose. In the episode, he's caught in the place between life and death, and Magnum makes peace with the fact that he won't be coming back alive. He says his goodbyes, and heads off towards the light as a John Denver song plays.



Well, needless to say, killing off Magnum was not the way that fans wanted him to go, and they were very vocal with their displeasure of what had happened...which lead to the creation of one more season. In the season eight opener, “Infinity and Jelly Donuts”, which aired on October 7, 1987, Magnum awakes from his coma following the near-death experience he dreamed of while comatose.

I don't know...what do you all think? Do you think the show should have ended with “Limbo”, or were they right to go on with one more season? I leave the ball in your court!

Thursday, April 04, 2013

Handwritten Thoughts by a Man Around Town


I have decided to make this week's edition of the Thursday Diaries a little bit different than I've done in previous weeks. Because unlike other entries in which I have really thought about what I have wanted to say and worded it accordingly, this time around will be a little more...raw.

Confused? Keep reading. You'll see what I mean.

April 4, 2013

Hey, everyone! I know that last Thursday, I was going to talk about an appendix to the post that I wrote about the “Nucleus of Negativity”, but I've decided to hold off on that for one week.

I got inspired to do something this week, and I thought that I would share my inspiration with all of you out there reading this.

I have gotten the feeling that maybe I haven't been exposing myself to all of you as much as I wanted to in this space. After all, a diary is supposed to hold all of one's most confidential and secret truths about oneself.



(Though, admittedly, I'm kind of making those truths an “open” secret, defeating the whole definition of the word diary. But, I digress.)

Anyway, I thought that I'd use today to really showcase just what kind of crazy things go through my mind, and what inspires me to write about almost anything. So yesterday afternoon, I decided to walk downtown, bought a notebook and a four-colour pen at the local dollar store, a drink to sip on during the whole escapade, and jotted down everything that went through my mind as I walked through the city of Brockville, Ontario.

And, rather than type it all out neatly and spell checked and edited and wrapped with a nice red bow, I've instead decided to scan every page that I wrote on to post within this space in my own unfiltered words...in my own handwriting.

I'm a little nervous doing this, because I worry about how it will be received. But, you'll never have a better opportunity to witness who I really am by me posting my words on my blog. It's kind of like walking down a busy city street in nothing but my underwear. It's a little bit scary to have people looking at you when you're at your most vulnerable, but sometimes it's necessary for you to feel better about yourself, letting it all hang out.

Though, I will offer up a disclaimer. I will never be seen strolling through town in my boxer briefs. I would not only get arrested, but frostbite as well. Canada is still freakin' cold in April.

As always, I'll be providing pictures with the hand-written notes...and because I like to wear my iPod when I go out on walks, you'll even hear the songs that I was listening to while I was writing down my thoughts! So, feel free to give me either a thumbs up or a mocking laugh at my musical tastes. I can take it!




Okay, so the first destination that I went to was beautiful Block House Island. First, the song that I was listening to at the time.



And, now, my thoughts in ball-point pen. I warn you that because I used a four-colour pen, I experimented with colours, and not all of them might scan as well as I thought. If I do this again, I'll just stick with blue or black ink (though clicking on the images will blow them up to make them easier to read).







(Okay, just a little pause in between. I'm not kidding about the flock of Canada geese. There were literally a dozen of them hanging around Block House Island at the time I was writing this note. And, when I wrote that paragraph that contained the word “eek” in it, that was the precise moment in which I turned my head and saw a Canada goose literally parked right beside the bench I was sitting at staring at me. Right then, I knew it was time to take off.)



So, after the geese freaked me out, I took off to nearby Hardy Park, which took just a few minutes to get to. But, if you thought my experiences with the birds had ended...think again. To get in the mood, the song that was playing as I wrote part two of my journey.



(Again, you're gonna have to blow it up to read it with my promise that I will NEVER use green ink again.)




And, finally, we reach a part of my journey that takes place indoors. And, it is here that I come to a rather interesting conclusion about what I need to do. What's funny is that when I listen to my iPod, I always set it to “shuffle mode”, so you never know what songs you'll get. It's only fitting that as I jotted the last part of my journey down, this song came on.



And, with that, we go live from the 1000 Islands Mall (though that is an old picture, the Christmas decorations are long gone now...).




So, what do you think? Would you like to see more of the man around town feature? I'm thinking of trying this out once a month. Maybe I'll even go somewhere in town that I've never been before, and just write about it. But, of course, I would need some input from all of you first. Good idea? Bad idea? Please let me know!

And, I promise that next time, I'll solely use dark coloured ink. :)

Wednesday, April 03, 2013

Ode To Sidewalk Chalk


Hey, guys! I hope you're enjoying your April so far, because I have got a lot of special and fun blog topics on the docket for the next thirty days.

And, since 2013 has been a year of great experimentation with the Pop Culture Addict's Guide To Life, I thought that I would do what I have done over the last few months and select a common link between each of the entries within a theme day.

And, this month, I have chosen Wednesdays as the day in which all of the topics will be linked together in some manner.

So, what have I chosen to talk about on this and every Wednesday this month? Well, I'm glad you asked! And even if you didn't ask, I'm gonna tell you anyway because that's how I roll!

Depending on what part of the world you live in, you're either transitioning from summer to autumn, or you're leaving winter in the dust to move ahead to spring. Well, I'll be completely honest with you. Spring is coming extremely late to Ontario, Canada this year, as evidenced by the temperature of -5 Celsius that I was greeted with yesterday morning on my way to work. I'm seriously wondering if we actually set out clocks ahead all the way to next November, because it is way too cold to believe that the season of spring is two weeks old.

But, whatever the case is, I'm sure that spring will be arriving whenever it feels like it. When it finally does, I bet that a lot of you will be thinking about making outdoor plans, as the weather eventually warms up. I can see some of you breaking out the grills for the very first barbecue of the year, tuning up the lawn mowers to prepare for the growing grass, planting tulips, marigolds, and rhododendrons in the garden, and using bicycles and roller blades to get around town.

That's why I've decided to devote this month's Wednesday topics to items, toys, and activities that to me symbolize Springtime. Spring Break might be over for a lot of you, but this month, I'm going to be spreading the Spring Fever around for just a little bit longer, hoping that the more I talk about Spring, the quicker that it will actually get here!!!

Can you tell that I am thinking a little too much about Spring here?

And, I can't think of a better topic to kick off our Spring Activity feature than a toy that I used to play with all the time as a young boy. I suppose that you could say that I became quite the mini-Picasso when it came to these crafty art supplies. All I needed to have for a canvas was a driveway...or a sidewalk...or a brick wall...or even that one time that I drew all over my neighbour's fence and got in so much trouble for it. Whoops.



Yes, for this entry, I'm going to talk about my memories of sidewalk chalk. I'm sure that almost everyone here has used sidewalk chalk at least once in their lives. The number of ways in which sidewalk chalk can be used is endless.



I imagine that most of you have probably used sidewalk chalk to design your own custom made hopscotch courses and 4-square courts. I remember one time when I was in elementary school, I brought some sidewalk chalk with me to play with at recess, and I attempted to make the world's largest hopscotch course. I had intended to cover the entire paved surface of the playground with a hand-drawn hopscotch court...but by the time I got to square number fifty-six, the recess bell rang before I even had the chance to use it. I had fully intended on finishing it during the second recess, but a freak rainstorm washed away my hopes and dreams forever.

Oh, well...maybe I'll try to break that record again.

I also remember using sidewalk chalk to play a game that I actually invented when I was eight years old. When I was in elementary school, the playground was designed in such a way that all of the playground equipment was embedded in a pit that was covered with little white pebbles.

OFF-TOPIC NOTE: I wouldn't recommend sliding down a slide and landing on your knees. I still have the scars on my right knee from an incident in fifth grade where I had stones embedded in it.

Anyway, back on topic. Those stones were the inspiration behind the game that I invented all the way back in 1989 known as “Mini-Curling”. All you had to do was draw a bulls-eye target with sidewalk chalk on the pavement, and take a few of the pebbles and colour them in different colours using the chalk (I almost always used blue and pink, but any colour would do). Then you'd roll the pebbles as close to the bulls-eye as possible while the opponent would try to knock the pebbles of the opposing colour away from the center. It worked out quite well, and the best part about it is that when you were finished playing, the rain would wash it away.

Come to think of it, I always thought it would be cool to draw a board game on the pavement using sidewalk chalk, and by having ourselves as the playing pieces. It would not only be innovative, but also guaranteed to be an original game every time you played it, as you'd have to redraw it every time. It would take quite a lot of work, but the endless fun that one would have would be almost worth it.

And, of course, you can't forget the art of using sidewalk chalk to make chalk drawings.



You remember that television series for children known as “Simon in the Land of Chalk Drawings”? If you enter that name in the search box above, it should take you to the entry that I did on this show nearly two years ago. Well, in my youth, I watched that show so much that I often pretended that I was Simon, and I was visiting the land of chalk drawings to have fun and forget all of my worries and cares.

(Though to be fair, my worries and cares as a child involved not being able to go swimming in the rain or being forced to miss my favourite television show due to it being pre-empted by a presidential speech.)

I loved to draw lots of pictures with my collection of sidewalk chalk. I would draw houses, buildings, people, rainbows (and unfortunately for me, my rainbows would always be incomplete as back in my day it was near impossible to find red chalk), and lots of other designs and doodles. Of course, my drawing style at the age of eight wasn't exactly elaborate, and at best, my people were stick figures, and my houses looked as if they should have belonged in the community of Bedrock. But, some people take sidewalk chalk art very seriously, and they end up creating absolutely gorgeous – albeit temporary – designs.

Just have a look at some images of brilliant sidewalk chalk art that I found online through Google. You won't believe your eyes.



Love the bright colours!



The attention to detail is phenomenal!



The use of shading is quite incredible!



HOLY @#%&!!! That was made with just CHALK?!? It looks like it should be hanging up in the Louvre! Unbelievable!

The wonders that people can come up with using an item as ordinary as chalk are fantastic. Is it any wonder that I loved working with sidewalk chalk as a kid?

Of course, the one problem with sidewalk chalk is that it doesn't last forever. You almost have to grab a camera and snap a picture of your creation before it fades away.

And, take it from me. You do not want to leave an entire collection of sidewalk chalk outside all night...especially when you get a summer storm that lasts the whole night. I went outside to play with my sidewalk chalk the next morning, and it had disintegrated into a colourful mess. I was so upset!



Fortunately, the good people of Crayola have found a way to preserve sidewalk chalk by not only encasing it inside a plastic, waterproof tub, but making the chalk at least four times the size of ordinary chalk, so it would last longer.

Now kids and adults of all ages can enjoy playing with sidewalk chalk at their leisure. Isn't innovation great?