MONSTER DAD

Review of Bobcat Goldthwait's "Willow Creek"

2013-04-30T23:57:00.000-04:00

Bobcat Goldthwait may still be best known as "that crazy comic" from the 1980s, but he has carved out a pretty decent new career as a director over the past few years. Last night (April 29, 2013) I was lucky enough to be in attendance at the world premiere of his latest film, "Willow Creek" (2013). It was showing at the Somerville Theatre in Somerville, MA. The screening was part of the 2013 Independent Film Festival of Boston. While getting chance to see a film's world premiere is reason enough to get excited, what made this night extremely interesting for me was that "Willow Creek" just happens to be a horror movie about...Bigfoot! It was a good night and a very good movie. Bobcat Goldthwait himself introduced the movie before it started, and then did a Q&A session with the stars of the film after it ended.

I had listened to a podcast interview from The Bigfoot Report with Bobcat Goldthwait about the movie which gave me a lot of information going into the film. It seems that Bobcat is actually a pretty big Bigfoot enthusiast himself. That certainly bodes well for the film. His knowledge of and respect for the subject could only be a plus.

Here's the podcast from The Bigfoot Report:

Over the past decade or so there has been a huge explosion of new Bigfoot and Abominable Snowman movies. With the popularity of the show "Finding Bigfoot" this trend will probably continue. When I first started noticing that new Bigfoot movies were appearing I was excited to see the genre return to the big (and small) screen. But when I sat down and watched these movies I realized that they were almost exclusively simply trashy horror/slasher movies that just happened to feature (a generally crappy-looking) Bigfoot as the murderous "monster" doing all the gruesome killing. To make things worse, it was obvious that the accessibility of computers and cheap, easily made CGI effects made most of these creatures possible. A terrible gorilla suit is bad enough, but really crappy CGI Bigfoot monsters and gore effects make for practically unwatchable crap. This will all tie in with the review of the movie, trust me.

Back to "Willow Creek". The most important things I learned from the podcast were that Bobcat was an actual fan (if that's the right word) of Bigfoot, and that this movie wasn't meant to be "snarky" about Bigfoot or the people who believe in the creature. Not really knowing much more about the movie, I was excited to see it. I guess the only other important thing to know is that this is a "Found Footage" movie (a la "The Blair Witch Project" (1999) and "Cloverfield" (2008). I know a lot of people are tired of this format and automatically hate anything done in the style without even having to watch it. While I agree that the unexpected popularity of "Blair Witch" was responsible for the gimmick being overused, I still think it's possible to do good things with it.

When we got to the Somerville Theatre about an hour before the 9:30 showtime there were already a handful of people lining up to get in. Apparently they wanted to get the best seats and were willing to wait an hour to do so. We went for a drink and returned around 9:20 to see very long line snaking around to the back of the theater building.

It was nice to see such a large and enthusiastic turnout for a Bigfoot movie--even if 95% of the people were actually there mainly to see Bobcat Goldthwait. We got our seats and enjoyed an introduction to the movie from Bobcat himself. He had recently had spinal surgery and was all hopped up on painkillers, so it was impressive that he made the effort to be there at all in the first place. He managed to be funny and talk coherently about the movie and why he made it.

After the film ended Bobcat returned to the stage to talk some more about "Willow Creek", introduce the stars of the movie and answer some questions from the audience. I had never been to a world premiere of a movie (small-time independent or major studio release). Having the chance to attend one at a wonderful place like the Somerville Theatre, and getting to see the director talk about his movie was very cool. Bobcat and the stars answered quite a few questions and gave the audience a good idea of what the making of "Willow Creek" was like.

But what about the movie itself?

"Willow Creek" tells the story--through found film footage--of Jim and Kelly, a couple who are trying to make a documentary about Bigfoot by traveling to the Pacific Northwest, visiting some of the tourist traps of Bigfoot Country and camping out at the site of the most famous Bigfoot sighting of all-time, Bluff Creek. This was where, in 1967, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin took the famous footage of a large bipedal creature walking off into the woods that yielded the most well-known image of Bigfoot ever taken--an iconic image familiar with both Bigfoot enthusiasts and people who don't even know anything about the subject.

Still from the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film

The trip starts out with the couple driving toward their destination. We get to know them through their personal moments "unwittingly" caught on film as they record the first somewhat awkward scenes of their film. Jim is a believer in the subject and very excited to be making the pilgrimage to Bigfoot Country. His girlfriend Kelly doesn't believe there is anything to the Bigfoot myth, but is happy to accompany Jim on the adventure and help him out with his film. The first thing I liked about the movie was that this section showed the couple visiting a number of actual Bigfoot tourism sites and a number of real Bigfoot "personalities" are featured. It's a pretty fun look at an area that I've always wanted to visit myself, but probably never will. While this is definitely not a comedy, there are quite a few nice bits of humor in this "introductory" segment of the film. All the while the couple is preparing for the ultimate voyage to the Patterson-Gimlin film site. To set up some conflict there are local people who warn the couple that they shouldn't take the trip. From telling them that it isn't something to joke about, to warning them that it could be dangerous, to actually threatening them, people seem to think that the excursion isn't a great idea.

When they finally do take off for the film site we get an idea of just how remote the area is. Paved roads lead to dirt roads of increasingly poor quality. This is where they meet a creepy hillbilly who gives them a very clear and direct threat that they should turn back. Of course they don't listen. They finally have to hike in the last few miles when the road eventually ends altogether. As it gets close to nightfall they decide to make camp before finishing the journey in the morning. This is where the main action of the film happens. They wander away from their tent to check out the scenery (and take a dip in a stream) and return to find the campsite trashed. Trashed by what or whom we don't know. Was it a bear? Was it the hillbillies messing with them? Was it Bigfoot?

The next scenes are in and around the tent at night. After an awkward marriage proposal from Bob we see the couple wakened from sleep by strange sounds in the woods. This is the part of a movie that provides the greatest challenge for a "Found Footage" film. Suspense and mood need to be established and maintained without using many cuts and/or edits in the film. It's also necessary to make it believable that the characters would be filming what we're seeing. I thought Bobcat did a fine job on all fronts during this stretch. The centerpiece is an approximately nineteen-minute shot of Jim and Kelly in the tent listening to the sounds around them and becoming increasingly creeped out as they try to figure out what they are hearing. The camera is on a tripod (or something that keeps it steady) and doesn't move during this whole scene. At first Bob hears "knocking", which is an actual method of knocking pieces of wood together that is supposedly used by Bigfoot creatures to communicate in some way. The sounds are coming from far off and aren't frequent. It could certainly just be natural sounds of the forest--as Kelly tries to convince herself. Later they start hearing strange whooping sounds that Jim refers to as "vocalization", another noted Bigfoot communication method. The yelps don't sound particularly threatening, but are unnerving. And the noises seem to be moving around the campsite and getting closer. Next come deeper moaning sounds that are much more creepy, and what sounds like a child or a woman crying. They start to hear something walking around the campsite, rocks are thrown at the tent, and finally something or someone pushes down on the tent before retreating when Kelly screams. Throughout this long scene Kelly is transformed from a skeptic into a true believer (even if she's most likely not sure exactly what it is that she now believes in). This whole scene is the centerpiece, and the most effective part, of the whole movie.

We next see the couple at dawn as they break camp and announce that they are abandoning the project, heading out of the woods and going home. But first they have to find their way back to their car. Along the way Jim finds and collects a hair sample and they get the feeling (with increasing certainty) they are being followed. Naturally they don't find their way back to the car. As nightfall nears they realize they had been spending hours walking in circles. The film closes out with the couple's ultimate journey into fear as they finally encounter what has been following them and messing with them since they entered the deep forest. Without giving away the ending I will say that we find out in a few quick and loud minutes just why the story is being told solely through some "found footage".

I thought "Willow Creek" was an excellent movie. At least excellent in terms of a Bigfoot film anyway. I grew up in the 1970s and saw movies like "Creature from Black Lake" (1976), "Sasquatch: The Legend of Bigfoot" (1977) and the documentary "The Mysterious Monsters" (1975). To this day these remain my favorite Bigfoot films of all time. They probably wouldn't be considered of very high quality today, but because of what they meant to me as a terrified kid they remain the best of the best. "Harry and the Hendersons" (1987) was a fine bigger-budget Hollywood film, and probably the "best" Bigfoot movie ever made, quality-wise, but I don't really think of it a true Bigfoot film so much as a nice family movie that just happens to be about Bigfoot. I have also seen most of the slew of newer Bigfoot horror movies I mentioned at the beginning of this piece, and pretty much dislike the vast majority of them. I think "Willow Creek" is (to me at least) one of the best Bigfoot movies ever made, and probably the best since the heyday of the 1970s. It gave me genuine chills during the inside-the-tent scenes, and I can honestly say that, for me, it was genuinely scary in places (something that most modern horror films can't say). To be honest, I was a bit disappointed with the ending. It had to have an ending, and this one certainly finished things up in a major (but still mysterious) way and let you know just what or who was responsible for the action outside the tent the night before. It even included a big surprise element that was foreshadowed earlier in the movie. It gets you thinking and wondering, but in the end it was just a touch too much for me. In fact, it felt almost like a shot-for-shot re-creation of the ending of "The Blair Witch Project", with Bigfoot inserted in place of a witch. I can't say exactly what was wrong with it, or how I'd recommend improving it, but it just felt a bit forced. Otherwise (and even with this issue) I really did think that it was a very good movie. It's certainly something that Bigfoot buffs should enjoy.

SPOILER ALERT

If you plan on watching the movie and want to be surprised going into it,

please don't read any further...

What might be the best thing about "Willow Creek" is the fact that it's pretty obvious that there is indeed a Bigfoot creature (many of them in fact), but we never see it onscreen. The worst part of most of the new wave of Bigfoot horror films is the onscreen appearances of the Bigfoot creatures themselves. Whether it's a guy in a suit or a CGI creature (and especially when it's a CGI creature) the monsters always seem to disappoint big time. Some of the filmmakers seem to put a decent amount of effort into the costumes, but the low-budget nature of the direct-to-video market limits what they can do. The easy alternative is to go the increasingly accessible CGI route. These monsters always end up being overblown and movie too quickly and unrealistically to be believed. Bobcat saved the money of creating a creature and left that part to the imagination of the viewer. We all have a pretty good idea of what Bigfoot is supposed to look like and using our imaginations ends up being a much cheaper and more effective special effect. Bobcat did a great job of building the suspense, and by the time it all ends you don't really feel you need to actually see the thing that's doing all this stuff to feel satisfied.

As I mentioned, the ending was very derivative of "The Blair Witch Project". The whole movie was of a similar framework, but that's to be expected in a "Found Footage" movie. I wasn't bothered by the similarity until the end. The surprise element, mentioned above, concerns what can only be described as a "forest bride", who was alluded to earlier in the film while the couple were touring Bigfoot Country. It's adds a disturbing element to what was already a disturbing ending as our main characters meet their horrifying demise. Since this is a horror movie there's nothing wrong with it having a gruesome and disturbing ending (and the gore, like the creature, is never explicitly shown). I'm not even sure exactly why I was put off by the ending. Maybe Bobcat just did too good of a job making me like these people and I simply didn't want it to end the way I knew it had to end.

Happy Birthday Newbury Comics!

2013-04-06T23:55:00.001-04:00

Newbury Comics is the name of a chain of retail stores in New England. The chain currently has 28 stores in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Maine. They do indeed sell lots of comic books and graphic novels and the like, but they offer a LOT more too: books, magazines, CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays, video games, t-shirts, posters and lots of toys, action figures and other goodies from all corners of pop culture: superheroes, Star Wars, Doctor Who (old and new), The Walking Dead, Star Trek, and all your favorite bands (just to name a few).

I just found out a couple days ago that Newbury Comics was celebrating its 35th anniversary on April 6, 2013. To commemorate the occasion they had a giant one-day sale where nearly everything in the stores was 35% off (even sale items)! I was never a very dedicated comic book reader, but always loved taking a trip to Newbury Comics to check out my favorite movies, music and other neat stuff. A giant 35% off sale was a great excuse to make a trip to Newbury Street in Boston (the flagship store for the chain).

It seems hard to believe that Newbury Comics has been around for thirty-five years. The store's not as old as me (I was eight when it opened, and didn't start patronizing it until my teenage years), but it's still hard to imagine. In 1978 vinyl records weren't a neat and hip option for music--they were the main format for music. When I first started going to the store the big format was cassette tapes. Later on CDs came along. Now the CDs (and the vinyl selection for that matter) have to duel with virtual adversaries like mp3s and iTunes. Newbury Comics has also weathered the home entertainment revolution spurred by the video cassette recorder (VCR). VHS (and Beta) tapes were eventually replaced by DVDs and Blu-ray (which have their own virtual adversaries online).

Despite being such a New England institution for so long and having 28 outlets, Newbury Comics still manages to feel like an independent local store rather than some giant cookie-cutter chain store. Speaking of the big chains, when my friends and I used to travel into Boston to cruise Newbury street--and Newbury Comics--back in the 1980s this now-vacant building used to house a gigantic multi-floor Tower Records store.

Back to the sale. I got to the store a few minutes before the doors opened at 10:00 AM. There was a modest line of people waiting to get in. Obviously word of the big sale had gotten around. It was kind of funny watching the other Newbury Street shoppers walking by and trying to figure out why people were lined up in front of the store.

Waiting for the doors to open

Time to spend (and save) some money!

When the store opened the crowd moved inside. It was relatively quiet at first, but in the approximately hour-and-a-half that I spent there, the store filled up with bargain hunters pretty quickly. People congregated around their areas of interest (comic books, jazz CDs, t-shirts and other clothing, DVDs and Blu-rays...). The most interesting group (to me at least) was the crowd of eager vinyl fans pouring over the record section.

Vinyl collectors (right), with posters and Doctor Who merchandise nearby

T-shirts and racks of CDs

Some of the comic books for sale in the store

a selection of superhero banks

It was hard to resist these Han Solo in carbonite ice cube molds!

While I spent most of my time browsing, I did manage to find a few things (four to be exact) that I just couldn't resist. It felt odd not buying any music (or even a few comic books), but I still think I ended up with a pretty good representation of what Newbury Comics is about. The first thing was a Ghostbusters t-shirt (that glows in the dark!), which I've been planning on buying since last October to replace an old one I have that has a hole in it. I'm always looking for a bargain and find it hard to shell out $19.99 for a t-shirt. With the 35% discount the Ghostbusters shirt only cost $12.99! Guess it was worth the wait.

I also got a wind-up Doctor Who Dalek toy for The Little Monsters (and, yes, for me too I suppose). This one had a price on it of $9.99, but with the 35% off deal it only cost me $6.49.

The last two items I bought were movies sets on DVD. As it turns out they were both very appropriate choices for the day. It just so happens that both of them were originally released in 1978--the same year that Newbury Comics opened! First up is the four disc Special Edition set of "Superman: The Movie" (1978). I have a bare-bones set of all four of the Christopher Reeve "Superman" movies, but couldn't resist what was probably the bargain of the day. The price tag on this one was a more-than-reasonable $6.99. But it was already on sale for only $3.99. With the anniversary discount added it only cost $2.59! That's well under a dollar per disc!

And finally, I also got the Ultimate Edition four disc set of "Dawn of the Dead" (1978). This is a movie I already have on a single DVD, but to get this set for a ridiculously low price was a no-brainer (no zombie pun intended).In addition to the U.S. theatrical release (that I have on my older DVD) this set also includes the Extended Version and the European Version of the film along with a bunch of extras.

The funny thing about this set was that the store had two copies of it on the shelf. One was a used copy that had a price of $14.99. Right below that one was a brand new copy for...$13.99. Yes, I paid a buck less for a new copy! Actually I paid quite a bit less, because with the discount added in it only cost $9.09.

Hmmm. $14.99 used or $13.99 new? Tough choice!

These four items would have cost me a total of $50.96 (without Massachusetts tax added) according to the price tags (and not counting the sale on the "Superman" set. With the 35% anniversary discount it really felt a bit like time was rolled back and I was paying 1978 prices. The whole mess, including tax cost only $32.30!

Here's a video I made about the Newbury Comics haul:

Happy Anniversary Newbury Comics!

And here's to the next thirty-five years!

Separated at Birth 6: Frank Asaro and The Bearded Who

2012-12-25T14:47:00.001-05:00

Another in the continuing series dedicated to the Separated at Birth phenomenon.

So a few days back I was watching an old episode of the show "In Search of..." called "The End of the World" for a blog I was writing on the subject. The episode came from the fifth season of the show, way back in 1981.

One of the experts consulted on the subject of various possibilities for the end of the world in this episode was a scientist from Berkeley named Frank Asaro. Now, I can't say that I'd ever heard of Mr. Asaro before watching this old show, but for whatever reason there was something about him that seemed very familiar to me.

Frank Asaro: Scientist

I couldn't quite place it at first, but this familiarity seemed to have something to do with the epic beard he was sporting. The first thought was that he resembled former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. A case could probably be made that Frank Asaro and C. Everett Koop were indeed separated at birth. They were supposedly born eleven years apart, but are certainly contemporaries of each other.

C. Everett Koop

Frank Asaro

But, as you've probably noticed, the title of this edition of Separated at Birth doesn't mention C. Everett Koop. No, there seemed to be something else nagging at my mind when I saw Mr. Asaro. I saw the "In Search of..." episode less than a week before Christmas and it felt like Frank Asaro's long-lost "relative" must have had something to do with the season at hand. The answer was found in the old animated Christmas special "How The Grinch Stole Christmas"(1966). This Boris Karloff-narrated show was alway a favorite of mine as a kid (and still is, as a matter of fact).

In the show, when the Whos of Whoville started singing the song "Welcome Christmas" there's a moment when a bearded Whovillian appears alongside some of his fellow citizens. This particular Who had a very distinctive beard. A beard not unlike...Frank Asaro's (and C. Everett Koop's too for that matter).

Now, note the resemblance between the bearded Who and Frank Asaro. Similar Beard. Similar hairline. Throw some glasses and a tie on the Who and it's almost uncanny, right?

The Bearded Who

Frank Asaro

I can't say for sure that Frank Asaro and the bearded Whovillian were indeed separated at birth. The fact that one is a human being and one is an animated character would seem to make it rather unlikely. But then again, we have seen some rather odd pairings in earlier Separated at Birth installments: like Tim Tebow and Bigfoot, and Reese Witherspoon and Sister Bear (from The Berenstain Bears). I suppose a less dramatic explanation could be that Mr. Asaro was simply inspired (consciously or unconsciously) by a viewing of "How The Grinch Stole Christmas". Either that or (probably more likely) he was a fan of Abe Lincoln's style.

Abraham Lincoln

Frank Asaro

I don't know what ever became of the bearded Whoville resident in the years since he helped usher in Christmas by singing "Welcome Christmas" back in 1966. Does anyone happen to know what the average life span is for a Who? HIs bald head and white beard would seem to indicate that he was already an elder of the town, but I really couldn't say how old he would have been back when the special first aired, or if he'd be likely to still be alive today.

However, thanks to the internet we do have a better idea of what happened to Frank Asaro in the three-plus decades since his appearance on "In Search of...". According to his Wikipedia page he's still "an Emeritus Senior Scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory associated with the University of California at Berkeley." And according to Berkeley's Environmental Energy Technologies Division website he's part of the Sustainable Energy Systems Group. Here's a more recent photo of Mr. Asaro from that site:

Note that after all these years he's still rockin' his trademark beard!

...Even if it is cropped a little closer these days.

See more instances of people (and other things) that seemed to have been "Separated at Birth" below:

Separated at Birth: Kiefer Sutherland and Julia Stiles

Separated at Birth 2: Tim Tebow and Bigfoot

Separated at Birth 3: Reese Witherspoon and Sister Bear

Separated at Birth 4: Luis Guzman and Trog

Separated at Birth 5: Lindsay Wagner and Julia Stiles

It's The End of the World ...Again

2012-12-21T01:37:00.000-05:00

I'm writing this at a little after midnight, and December 21, 2012 is just getting under way. Of course, December 21 started many hours ago on the other side of the earth, but that's beside the point. Despite what many believe the ancient Mayans predicted, I have a feeling that December 21, 2012 will be a lot like December 20, 2012--and December 22, 2012 for that matter. True, there are still twenty-four hours to go before I can safely say that nothing bad or "earth-shattering" happened on this date, but I feel pretty comfortable believing that the world is not going to end today.

The End of the World, Doomsday, The Apocalypse, Judgment Day, Armageddon and many other ideas about how and when our planet will end have been predicted for centuries. It seems like every couple of years we are presented with a new date for the end of the world. Heck, it was only about a year-and-a-half ago that we were hearing all about Judgment Day and The Rapture (which passed very quietly). Sometimes these dates are based on translations of writings/predictions from centuries ago. Sometimes they come from some mystical cult leader who will somehow manage to convince a dedicated following that he/she knows what they are talking about. With any luck these predictions will simply pass, the leader will be discredited and those poor souls under the cult's spell can try to get back to their lives. Unfortunately, in some instances the leader's personality and magnetism are so strong that his/her followers might be led to believe that they must kill themselves to satisfy some need of the Gods or aliens or whatever crazy story the leader dreams up.

Predictions about the end of the world can come from biblical passages, from oracles and prognosticators of the future (like Nostradamus), from self-styled messengers of God (see cult leaders above) or many other sources. While most of these predictions seem mystical and religious in nature there was also a very real threat of global destruction which for decades had the world teetering on the brink of disaster. This was the threat of atomic and/or nuclear disaster known as the Cold War. It's probably hard for someone growing up today to imagine how real this threat felt at the time. From the late 1940s right up until 1989 there was a general sense of potential doom as the United States and Russia held a dangerous stalemate between them. One bad decision or one small mishap or miscommunication could have ushered in a man-made disaster the likes of which had never been seen. Over the years the two main combatants of the Cold War were joined by other countries which managed to develop their own nuclear arsenal.

Even though the Cold War is now over, there is still a very real possibility of all-out nuclear war. While stockpiles of weapons have been lessened, I'm sure there are still plenty of them left to devastate large swaths of the planet if they were to be detonated. And unstable governments like North Korea and Iran are still trying to gain access to the not-so-exclusive-anymore club of countries that possess those weapons. Whether the end comes by way of nuclear weapons, a meteor or asteroid (or rogue planet), natural disaster, biblical prophesies come true, some form of Super Flu, global warming, alien invasion or even the Zombie Apocalypse, there are many possibilities to continue to worry about if one so chooses. But at least we can say that, despite what Hollywood might have us believe (see movies like "2012" and "2012: Doomsday"), the earth should live to see the dawn of 2013 and perhaps beyond.

I'm no expert on this topic, but from what I've been reading it seems that the Mayan calendar responsible for all this December 21, 2012 stuff simply ends on that date, only to start over with a whole new cycle. I suppose it's pretty boring to say that you just go back to the beginning to start that new cycle and it's more "interesting" to say that the cycle ends with death and destruction before a new cycle can begin ("re-cycle"?).

For a look at the Mayan civilization and its "predictions"--from a 1970s point of view--here is an episode from the classic TV series "In Search of..." from 1977 titled "Mayan Mysteries".

In Search of... Mayan Mysteries

Interestingly, this episode says that the ancient Mayan calendar we hear so much about ends on December 24, 2011 instead of December 21, 2012. I believe that this discrepancy is due to the fact that the Mayans didn't have leap years. Thirty-five years after this episode we have finally reached the end of the Mayan Calendar. Hopefully December 21, 2012 will end the same way as thousands and thousands of days have ended before it and we will live to see December 22, 2012. Then perhaps we can finally feel safe again. ...But, for how long?

Resurrecting The Past: Hostess Choco Bliss (Part 1: The Past)

2012-11-28T22:58:00.004-05:00

Twinkies, the de facto face of the Hostess company

The Hostess company has been getting a lot of press lately for threatening to go out of business. It seems like every year or two we hear new reports about the demise of the maker of Twinkies, Hostess Cupcakes, Ho Ho's and many other confectionary treats. It looks like this time it might actually happen. I actually regret not buying one last box of Twinkies before they all disappeared off the shelves. It really didn't seem possible that I could walk into a store and not see Hostess products for sale, but that is the way things are at the moment. It would seem that Twinkies have become a victim of the times. People are more health conscious today. Yes, there will always be people who will buy Twinkies and other fat, sugar and cholesterol-laden treats, but nowadays there just aren't enough of them to sustain a gigantic company like Hostess. I'm as guilty as anyone for the company's downfall. I have a huge sweet tooth and admit to still loving the taste of those golden, creme-filled cakes that have been rumored to be able to outlast cockroches after the apocalypse. Yet, even though I could probably be happy eating a package of Twinkies a day I do realize that's not a good idea. Just to get a taste of them I'll buy a box or two a year. That's not going to keep Twinkie The Kid from joining the ranks of the unemployed. I have no doubt that we'll see Twinkies again one day--when another company swoops in and buys the reicipe and name from Hostess (or whatever legal title owns the rights at the time).

Hostess Choco Bliss

Anyway, I thought this would be a good time to talk about another in the long line of Hostess products: the Choco Bliss. This fabled snack was introduced back in the mid-1980s--a time when I was a youthful teenager with a taste for sweets.

Choco Bliss were billed as a "Chocolate Lover's Dream", and it was hard to argue with that description. Check out the expressions on the faces of these kids and adults from the only two commercials for Choco bliss that can be found on YouTube. They may be staged, but looking at these ecstatic expressions you can get an idea of what the experience of diving into a Choco Bliss was like for a chocolate lover in the 80s. I won't mention anything about the apparent use of vague sexual imagery used in these ads, other than to acknowledge it. Judge for yourself.

So, what made Choco Bliss a "Chocolate Lover's Dream"? Well, the cakes in a package of Choco Bliss were larger than Twinkies. From what I remember they rivaled the size of Hostess' other giant snack cake, Suzy Q's. Granted I was only a young teenager at the time and they might have seemed larger to my not-yet-fully-grown hands, but did eat Suzy Q's at the time so it should be a valid comparison.

Like Suzy Q's, a Choco Bliss consisted of two oversized devil's food cake sticks with a creamy layer in between. While the Suzy Q had (and still has) a white creme center Choco Bliss had a chocolatey middle layer.

Then, just to cement Choco Bliss' place in the heart of dreaming chocolate lovers, another layer of chocolate icing was applied to the top, making a total of four layers of chocolate (three completely different ones) in a single snack! The two non-cake layers were different from each other too: the top one was a denser, frosting-like covering or icing with lines running the length of the cake while the middle layer had a creamier consistency and a lighter color.

Unfortunately, the Choco Bliss went the way of the dinosaur a few years later. I don't know exactly when they stopped being produced, but can't recall seeing them on shelves in the early 1990s. It seems like they had a rather short heyday compared to gray-beards like Twinkies, Hostess Cupcakes and Hostess Fruit Pies. Chocolate lovers everywhere must have lamented the demise of Choco bliss while diabetics probably rejoiced.

Image from Choco Bliss ad that could just as easily be a tombstone for the long-gone snack

Back in the 1980s I was a fan of most snack treats made by Hostess and other companies like Drake's and Little Debbie. I don't recall having a favorite. Sometimes I would get Twinkies. Other times it would be an Apple or Chocolate Pie, Cupcakes or Suzy Q's. It all depended on what I felt like that day. About the only thing I wouldn't eat was Snowballs because I don't like coconut. While I might not have considered Choco Blss to be my official "favorite" I had a friend who swore by them. He frequently called them a chocolate lover's dream and I actually thought he made the line up himself until I realized it was on the packaging of the cakes. All these years later we still recall those heady days when you could buy a quick overload of chocolatey goodness at the corner store whenever the craving hit. There are plenty of chocolate-based sweets available in stores today, but nothing really seems to compare to what Choco Bliss offered a hungry, snack-seeking world. A lot of this feeling can be attributed to the fact that Choco Bliss hasn't existed for so many years. A nostalgia for the "good old days" and looking at the past through rose-colored glasses might add some extra goodness to what Choco Bliss actually was, but it does seem true that nothing has really come along in the ensuing years that really compares to them.

Here are the two commercials for Choco Bliss from the 1980s that have provided most of the photos for this installment of of Resurrecting The Past. The first one is geared toward kids. Check out this post about the ad from the site X-Entertainment for an absolutely hilarious moment-by-moment dissection of the commercial.

The second commercial shows that Choco Bliss cakes weren't simply kids' stuff. A man and a woman in this ad can't hide their excitement as they partake of the embarrassment of chocolatey riches provided by their beloved snack cakes.

Many months ago I got to thinking about Hostess Choco Bliss once again. I was trying to think if there was anything out there that was similar to them. A less-than-exhaustive search provided three contenders, but none of them could measure up (literally or figuratively) to Choco Bliss. I'm not a cook by any means, but I decided that the only choice was to make an attempt to recreate (in some small way) the magic that Hostess had captured during the short but sweet reign of the Choco Bliss. Part Two of this blog will detail that mission. Stay tuned and stay hungry...

Seven Years of Monster Dad

2012-11-14T22:18:00.002-05:00

Seven years? Really? Well, no. The blog Monster Dad has actually only been around for about two-and-a-half years. But, my Little Monster was born seven years ago today! While the term didn't exist yet, on that day I first became Monster Dad.

I didn't start inundating The Little Monster with all the old monster movies and other interests of mine that I've shared with her until she was a couple years old. At first she was simply a baby, and I was simply a new father who had no idea what to do or just how much life was about to change. Fatherhood has been a real "adventure" and a true life-changer (naturally). Of course a few years later we just had to do it all over again and now have two of these Little Creatures underfoot. The whole experience has at times been much scarier than some of the monster movies I love, but it has also been rewarding too. And it definitely helped that The Little Monster was willing to indulge some of my interests--and even seemed to enjoy many of them herself.

Watching "Star Wars: Episode IV" together at my 40th birthday backyard drive-in party

Preparing to watch "Ghostbusters" on the big screen last month

Preparing to watch "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" at the local library

Now that she is seven we are starting to really see evidence of her "growing up", and I don't like it one bit. The Little Monster recently lost the second of her two front teeth. The Wife informed me told me that she asked her if the Tooth Fairy was real after she found her tooth replaced by a five dollar bill (inflation is a real killer!). While certainly a valid question and concern, it was the first time The Little Monster has questioned the reality of something that most little kids simply accept as the truth. I wonder if Santa is next? Yikes! Luckily, she still has some of that innocent side in her. She still asks me "Daddy, is this real?" pretty much whenever we see anything even slightly scary in a movie or TV show that we watch. She's growing up, but I still love to see that childish (not in a negative) sense of imagination that allows her to be frightened by stuff that in reality isn't all that scary!

I know that as The Little Monster gets older and older we'll have less and less in common as far as my geeky interest in all the old and childish things that have captivated me since I was a kid myself. But I'll always cherish the time we've spent together and all the things we've watched, read and experienced as Monster Dad and Little Monster! How many kids of the 2010's have an appreciation for not only Barbie, Disney Princesses and Spongebob Squarepants, but also old Godzilla movies, Mystery Science Theater 3000, Abbott & Costello, The Three Stooges, Bigfoot, The Abominable Snowman, The Loch Ness Monster, Tom Baker-era "Doctor Who", Styx's song "Mr. Roboto", old (1960s-70s) cartoons like Spiderman and Scooby-Doo, and even classic old-time-radio shows like "The Dark" and "The Chicken Heart"?

Here's "The Dark" and "The Chicken Heart"

in case you are interested in hearing them

Here are a few more of the many special moments from the past seven years:

The Monsters watching "A&C Meet Frankenstein" last year

The Monsters watching "The Berenstain Bears Meet Bigpaw"

Godzilla preparing to go for a stroll with Finz

Hanging with Penny Dreadful and Garou of the show "Shilling Shockers"
(Note Witch Barbie)

Passing an old Abominable Snowman children's book of mine on to a new generation

Watching "The Incredible Shrinking Man" for the first time last year

The climatic tarantula scene from "The Incredible Shrinking Man"

While I wouldn't try to say that these things will serve her well as an adult in her pursuit of an education and a successful career, I can't help but think that she'll be just that much more well-rounded as an individual (even if it's only in some small, weird way) with all these odd things enjoyed in her childhood. I could be wrong, but I'd like to think that I'm not. Only time will tell...

Which reminds me... A long time ago I wrote about the problems I have with Time and the passage of Time (in Monster Dad vs. Time). Looking at my Little Monster as a seven-year-old and seeing how much she's grown up has only reminded me of just how cruel and uncaring Time really is. What happened to that little baby who would fall asleep in my arms as I read books to her at bedtime? Where is the little girl who fit into that tiny dragon costume she wore at Halloween a few years back? How can it be that she is now in first grade, learning so much and growing so much every day? Before I know it she's going to be older than I was when I first discovered all the wonderful things of my youth that I've been sharing with her. I was about to suggest that maybe someday she will be sharing some of those same interests with her own children, but THAT thought would be the ULTIMATE terror for this particular Monster Dad!

HAPPY 7th BIRTHDAY LITTLE MONSTER!

Who Ya Gonna Call?

2012-10-27T17:29:00.003-04:00

Monday, October 22, 2012 was a pretty special day for Monster Dad. I went to see "Ghostbusters" (1984) at the Coolidge Corner Theatre in Brookline, MA. What makes this such a special event? Well, please allow me to explain...

I was fourteen years old when "Ghostbusters" was first released. For someone very much into movies in general, and horror/sci-fi movies in particular, "Ghostbusters" was pretty close to a perfect movie for me at that age. It had a ton of supernatural elements that were superbly balanced with some of the best comedy I had (or have) ever seen in a film. I was already a big fan of Bill Murray and Ivan Reitman's brand of comedy from watching and enjoying "Stripes" (1981) on TV. "Ghostbusters" was very much the same sort of movie--with a different plotline, setting and cast (besides Murray and Harold Ramis of course). The fact that the main difference was a supernatural one was...well...perfect.

I saw "Ghostbusters" four or five times in the theaters. That might not sound like all that much for a supposed "favorite" movie, but keep in mind that I was only fourteen and needed to get someone to take me to see it. If I had my license at the time I'm sure that number would have been a lot higher. I loved listening to Ray Parker Jr.'s song "Ghostbusters", regardless of how overplayed it was on the radio. I'd tape it on my portable tape recorder over and over again, despite the fact that I also had the soundtrack on cassette tape. I even joined the Ghostbusters Fan Club. In the days before the internet there were only so many ways to keep up with and feel involved with interests like "Ghostbusters". I did my best to read everything I could about the movie in the magazines like Starlog, and watch anything I could about the movie on TV (reviews on shows like "Sneak Previews" and "At the Movies", and coverage of the movie and its stars on shows like "Entertainment Tonight").

The years past and my love for "Ghostbusters" remained with me. While I never picked it up on VHS, I was very happy to finally get my hands on my own copy of the movie in the little boxset that included the flawed and far inferior (in my opinion) "Ghostbusters II". A couple years ago I introduced The Little Monster to "Ghostbusters". At about four she was obviously a lot younger than I had been when I first saw the movie, but I felt like she was ready for it. In my attempt to share my interests with her and transform her into a Monster Kid I had shown her many of the movies I had enjoyed as a kid. She liked most of them and "Ghostbusters" seemed like it would be a good choice as well. Other than a couple mild PG-13 sort of "adult situations" and a few swears it is pretty tame. As it turned out, she did indeed love the movie and wanted to watch it over and over again (as she's known to do with a current favorite). The added bonus was that she found a few of the "scary" scenes actually scary. It was nothing that would traumatize her or anything, but it was really fun to be able to watch it through her young and imaginative eyes.

The gigantic Stay Puft Marshmallow Man is hilarious,
but understandably a bit scary for a little kid

We recently moved to Brookline, MA and I was very excited to be able to go to the Coolidge Corner Theatre on a regular basis. We live so close in fact that I can actually walk there! Last month I saw a flyer at the theater announcing that they would be screening "Ghostbusters" on October 22nd. Other than really wanting to see it and take along The Little Monster I didn't give it a whole heck of a lot of thought. What hadn't occurred to me was the fact that, despite having seen the movie dozens of times over the past couple of decades, this would be my first time seeing it on the big screen (and on film too) since its original release! Of course that meant it would be The Little Monster's first time seeing it on the big screen too. Suddenly our little father/daughter pre-Halloween date night took on a greater importance.

The Coolidge's flyer for the Big Screen Classics screening of "Ghostbusters"

The Coolidge corner Theater's marquee,
with "Ghostbusters" advertised on it

Ticket to the show!

I ended up totally geeking out and picking up one of those adult Ghostbuster costumes (complete with inflatable proton pack) at Newbury Comics. It also seemed like a good time to finally buy The Little Monster the plastic Stay Puft Marshmallow Man bank that I'd wanted to get her for a couple of years. I'll admit that I felt a bit odd going to see the movie with a six-year-old and being the one dressed up as a Ghostbuster. I alleviated that feeling by letting The Little Monster wear the proton pack as well as bringing along her new Stay Puft bank.

Apparently a lot of people besides us were looking forward to this night too. While the crowd was predominantly adult, quite a few other people also brought their kids along to share the experience with them. There were even three other people in Ghostbusters costumes that were a LOT more realistic than my store-bought version. I believe that at least a couple of them were part of a group called Bay State Ghostbusters. The show was sold out and the theater was packed (I should have gotten a photo of the crowd before the movie started). We got our seats and had to wait to get popcorn until the movie was under way because of long lines and a shortage of popcorn (the machine couldn't keep up with the demand). The Coolidge crew had a little pre-show entertainment where they brought people who claimed they had seen ghosts up to the stage to tell their stories for prizes. This was probably the scariest part of the night for The Little Monster--as well as the most disappointing, since she was hoping to get some of the prizes. Of course she already had a Stay Puft Marshmallow Man toy and a Hot Wheels Ectomobile, but that didn't stop her from wanting more. The only one of the prizes she didn't already have was a Lego set of some sort. Oh well, there's always Christmas, right?

The Little Monster's Ectomobile

Showtime!

The movie itself was wonderful to see again. I always forget how much better it can be watching a film in a theater than on DVD on your own TV. The capacity crowd was very much into it and laughed in all the right places. No matter how many times I see it I still find myself laughing out loud many times. The kids in the audience (and there were a pretty good number of them too) were obviously a tad nervous during a few scenes. As much as I don't want my Little Monster to be terrified by anything I show her, it was just so rewarding turning and seeing her with her fingers stuck in her ears a few times during these scenes. It had been a while since she'd seen the movie and I think she kind of forgot that it really wasn't all that scary. I think my favorite moment of the night might just have been when I looked at her during one of the "scarier" moments and she nervously said "Daddy, cover my eyes...while I block my ears. Teamwork!" The movie is chock full of awesome quotes too numerous to list, but with that line The Little Monster managed to add yet another one to my personal favorites! Honorable Mention: when Stay Puft explodes and everything gets covered in marshmallow she asked, in all seriousness, "Can they eat it now?" Aah, the mind of a child and the magic of a child's imagination. Priceless!

A Halloween Wish List for 2012

2012-10-12T12:21:00.002-04:00

It's October 2012. Autumn is in the air and the leaves are turning red, orange, yellow and ultimately brown before falling from the trees. The sun and heat of summer is being replaced by shorter days accompanied by a chill in the air. In other words, Halloween is well on it's way. Because of the nature of the fall season the entire month of October kind of feels like one big build-up to Halloween--the last day (night) of the month.

My Little Monsters are now six and three years old. This promises to be an exciting Halloween for all of us. Over the past two Octobers I embarked on October Horror Challenges, where I attempted to watch an average of at least one horror-related movie or TV show a day throughout the month. Both of those challenges were successful. Click these links to see the results of the past two editions.

2010 October Horror Challenge Recap

2011 October Horror Challenge Recap

I was hoping to do another challenge for 2012, but a number of factors have convinced me that it's unfortunately not going to be realistic this time around. We just moved to a new city last month and are still settling in. The Little Monster started first grade in a brand new school. And, possibly most important, The Tiny Creature has decided to stop taking afternoon naps. Last year (and the one before) I was able to do a lot of not-kid-friendly movie watching while the Little Monster was in preschool or Kindergarten and The Tiny Creature was asleep. That option has gone the way of the dinosaurs. I could certainly use this as an additional factor in making the challenge more "challenging", but it just seems like a bit too much. Maybe next year I'll be able to embark on a third edition of the challenge...

Meanwhile, it's still October and I still want to watch as much cool stuff as possible--whether with The Little Monsters or by myself (or with The Wife, if she happens to feel like watching something she generally wouldn't feel like watching). In that vein, here is a "wish list" of sorts of some of the stuff I'd like to see before All Hallow's Eve.

IT'S THE GREAT PUMPKIN, CHARLIE BROWN

No, It's The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown (from 1966) isn't really "horror", but it's been an integral part of Halloween for me as long as I can remember. It's something I've watched since CBS used to run it once a year as a "Special Presentation" that would interrupt regular programming when I was a kid. It seems to be on TV more often nowadays (making it a wee bit less "special"), and has also been available on home video (first on VHS and now on DVD and Blu-ray) for a long time. While I miss the urgency of having to watch it the one time it aired each October I certainly appreciate the convenience of being able to see it whenever I (or my Monsters) want to. The Little Monster has been into this show for the past few years and now The Tiny Creature is old enough to really start appreciating it. We haven't seen it yet this fall, but I'm sure it won't be long before we do (I finally broke down and picked up the DVD last year).

ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN

"Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948) is another long-time favorite of mine, and also a favorite of The Little Monster. It was a great way to introduce her to the world of classic Universal movie monsters (Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, The Wolf Man) without it being a terribly scary experience. While the real Universal monster movies are old (from the 1930s and 40s), they can still be a pretty intense experience for a young child with an active sense of imagination. I always loved Abbott & Costello as a kid. Channel 27 out of Worcester, MA would run A&C movies at 6:00 on Saturday evenings back then. While I generally enjoyed them all, it was always a bit more special when one of their monster or sci-fi movies were on ("A&C meet Frankenstein", "A&C Meet The Mummy", "A&C Meet The Invisible Man", "A&C Go to Mars"...). I've tried to instill an appreciation of Abbott & Costello into The Little Monster over the past few years and, not too surprisingly, "A&C Meet Frankenstein" is one of her favorites.

Here's the Little Monsters watching A&C Meet Frankenstein last year

YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN

Another classic movie to watch around Halloween that has also become a favorite of The Little Monsters' is "Young Frankenstein" (1974). I remember going to see this with my sister (possibly during a re-release a couple years later?) and being terrified that something was going to grab me from under my theater seat. I was young enough that I didn't quite grasp the fact that it was a comedy. How can something in black & white with skeletons, fog, lightning, a spooky castle AND the Frankenstein Monster be funny? Obviously I know better now, but it was a lot of fun seeing the movie through The Little Monster's eyes when she was younger and watching her be kinda-sorta scared of it. She's now old enough and has seen the film enough times that I don't expect her to be scared of it this year. The Tiny Creature on the other hand might be a different story...

THE MUNSTERS

Yes, there's a new, dramatic (!) version of The Munsters coming out this month (called Mockingbird Lane), but this entry isn't about that mess. Quite a while back (possibly last October) I introduced The Little Monster to the old 1960s TV show The Munsters. I figured that since she enjoys comedies like "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" and "Young Frankenstein"--and the fact that she also likes 1960s-70s sitcoms like Gilligan's Island and The Brady Bunch--that she might be able to appreciate The Munsters. She did seem to like the episode or two I showed her back then, but it didn't really seem to take as a favorite. With October starting last week I decided to give The Little Monsters another shot at watching The Munsters. Surprisingly, while they both are enjoying it and wanted to see more episodes, The Tiny Creature seemed to be the one who was into it the most. One day after we dropped The Little Monster off at school she demanded to watch "The Scary Show" instead of her usual diet of PBS Kids fare. Hopefully we'll all be able to catch a number of Munsters episodes over the rest of the month. Here's The Tiny Creature enjoying the show:

EEGAH!

Back in the 1990s I saw the 1962 Arch Hall Jr. movie "Eegah" for the first time. Actually, I saw Mystery Science Theater 3000's treatment of the movie. It became my favorite MST3K episode of all time (still is to this day). The Little Monster watched "Eegah" regularly a few years ago after I introduced her to it. She was a bit scared of the caveman, Eegah, but really seemed to enjoy watching the film. We haven't seen it much lately, but I do hope to get a chance to watch it together this month. The Tiny Creature has also shown interest in "Eegah". Like "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" and "Young Frankenstein", it's great to see something which is so far from scary, yet able to be somewhat scary for a small child. It's that magic of imagination and innocence that they still have that makes it possible. Strange as it sounds, "Eegah!" has actually become one of my favorite movies (seriously) over the years. I've grown an appreciation for stars Arch Hall Jr. and Richard (Jaws) Kiel that has seen me join their fan clubs, buy their autographs and "friend" them on Facebook.

GHOSTBUSTERS

"Ghostbusters" came out in 1984 when I was 14 years old. It was one of those perfect-timing things for me. The movie was such a perfect combination of comedy and ghosts that it instantly became a favorite of mine which I managed to see four of five times in the theater (which in the days before being able to drive myself was quite an accomplishment). The Little Monster saw the movie for the first time a couple years ago and she enjoyed it a lot too. At first I wasn't sure if she might be a little too young for it--as it does have some "bad words", adult situations and even a couple scenes that are genuinely scary for a little one. But other than a bit of fear of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man she really enjoyed it. We also listened to my ancient cassette tape of the movie's soundtrack until I finally replaced it with a CD version.
One of the best things about our recent move is that we now live within walking distance to the Coolidge Corner Theater in Brookline, MA. I've only been able to get there a couple of times so far, but October promises to be full of great programming at the Coolidge that I want to be able to partake in. On October 22 they will have "Ghostbusters" on the big screen! I'm planning on taking The Little Monster that night. Yes, it's a Monday and a school night, but it's also October and "Ghostbusters"! We can't miss that opportunity!

THE EXORCIST and THE THING

Most of my wish list material for this month will be stuff watched on TV via DVD or Netflix. However, as mentioned above, I can now have the luxury of being able to walk to the Coolidge Corner Theater. "Ghostbusters" isn't the only thing I want to see there this month. The Coolidge is also having their annual Halloween Horror Marathon on Saturday October 27. Starting at midnight they will be featuring a couple of semi-recent horror classics ("recent" in comparison to classics like "Dracula", "Frankenstein" and "The Wolf Man" anyway). I've never seen either "The Exorcist" (1972) or John Carpenter's "The Thing" (1982) on the big screen. The marathon will feature BOTH of these genuinely scary films. And then, as if that weren't enough, there will be FOUR more movies running into and past the wee hours of the morning. They are keeping the identity of those films a mystery until showtime. I hope I can make it all the way through! My 2010 and 2011 experiences at the Drive-In Super Monster-Rama shows should prove a good training ground for night/morning like this one! Needless to say, unlike many of the previous titles, I will be attending the Halloween Horror Marathon solo, with no Little Monsters in tow.

Image borrowed from The Coolidge Corner Theater

LIFEFORCE

Lastly (and firstly too for that matter) I'll be attending the Coolidge's presentation of "Lifeforce" (1985) tonight (October 12) as part of their Coolidge @fter Midite series. This month they're featuring the movies of Tobe Hooper. I haven't seen "Lifeforce" in years and am looking forward to experiencing it on the big screen once again! We're already nearing the halfway mark of October, so I really need to get cracking on all this stuff. "Lifeforce" is a nice way to start I should think!

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

Be afraid...Be VERY afraid!

Gronk Flakes vs. Flutie Flakes

2012-09-30T23:54:00.002-04:00

As a kid I always loved those sugary sweet, tooth-rotting cereals that most kids would eat while watching Saturday morning cartoons. we didn't always have stuff like Cap'n Crunch, Trix, Cocoa Puffs, Fruity Pebbles, Count Chocula or Honey Combs in our house, but whenever they were present they didn't tend to last very long. I'm all "grown up" now, but I've never outgrown my sweet tooth tendencies (yes, I still have my teeth despite eating those cereals). Nowadays those kinds of breakfast treats are even more rare around our household. The Wife is a big proponent of healthy eating (see Night of the Living Bread and He Who Spelt It Dealt It for more on that). It's tough to criticize her for wanting our family to eat--and be--more healthy. But I still need to give myself an occasional treat. Sometimes that treat will be tooth-rotting cereal (see Return of the Monster (Cereals) for more on that).

Earlier in the week I was doing some shopping at our local grocery store with The Insane Beast (my younger daughter). While I sort of feel that they're a bit deprived, I have to admit that I generally avoid exposing my children to the sweet cereals I loved when I was their age. I figure, why start them on a path that is better off being avoided? Anyway, while we were cruising down the cereal aisle I was confronted by a large display that was difficult to miss. It was a case full of a brand new cereal--Gronk Flakes! Not only was this stuff tough to miss, I also found it impossible to resist purchasing a box (despite the steep $3.99 price tag).

My box of Gronk Flakes

Why stop with the cereal when you can get the T-shirt too?

It was pretty obvious that these were simply going to be yet another Frosted Flakes knock-off. They're usually not as good as the original, but the novelty of this was simply irresistible. I live in New England. Because of that fact, all the local teams (New England Patriots, Boston Red Sox, Boston Celtics and Boston Bruins) are my favorites. Tight end Rob Gronkowski (the namesake of Gronk Flakes) is one of the rising young stars of the Patriots.

Rob Gronkowski spiking the ball after another touchdown

Putting his name and image on this cereal box meant that it would almost guarantee some good sales numbers, at least in the New England area. I can only assume that this is a regional release only available around here (though I don't know that for sure).

While I'm note really supposed to be buying this kind of stuff, and while it was a bit on the pricey side for a cheapskate like myself, I was able to rationalize my purchase because some of the proceeds from it are going to the Gronk Nation Foundation. Why not buy some tasty cereal if it will help a good cause? Right? Right? It turns out that these things had just become available (September 25). Here's a story on them and the foundation from WBZ TV4 in Boston.

Information about the Foundation on the side of the box

This isn't the first time a sports figure has put their name and image on a cereal (or a multitude of other products) that's meant to help a good cause. While there must be hundreds of examples of this happening, seeing Gronk Flakes brought back a memory of something that was very similar in nature--Flutie Flakes.

The first style of Flutie Flakes box

One of my personal "Second Edition" Flutie Flakes boxes
from the late 1990s

I'm not exactly sure what was "New & Improved" about the flakes in this box--they tasted the same to me.

No T-shirts here, but you could get a Flutie Flakes hat and/or football!
And I believe that there were T-shirts available at some point

Doug Flutie was a quarterback ho was another big star in the New England area. He was actually from Natick, Massachusetts and led Boston College to a huge win over Miami University in 1984 with a Hail Mary pass that has become legendary and which was probably the key to Flutie being inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame. He played in the now-defunct United States Football (USFL) and then the NFL. He didn't have much success quarterbacking the Chicago Bears and found himself returning to home with the New England Patriots. While very popular, he still didn't have much success with the Patriots. He was always considered too short to be an effective NFL quarterback. A very long and very successful career in the Canadian Football League (CFL) followed. In the late-1990s Doug finally returned to the NFL when he was signed by the Buffalo Bills. He finally tasted some level of NFL success and then played for the San Diego Chargers before returning "home" and finishing his football career by playing a final season with the New England Patriots. There is a road in Natick near the big mall in town that is named after Doug. It's called Flutie Pass (get it?).

Doug Flutie in his Boston College days

Flutie in his first stint with the Patriots

And finishing up his long career with a second stop in New England

Flutie's son Doug Jr. was diagnosed with autism as a child and Doug spent a lot of time raising money for autism research and treatment. It was during his stint with the Buffalo Bills that Flutie Flakes first went on sale. I don't know how wide the distribution was for Flutie Flakes, but they were certainly sold in the New York and New England areas. Proceeds from the cereal went to The Doug Flutie Jr. Foundation For Autism. While researching this blog (yes, I actually did some research before writing this fluff!) I found out that Rob Gronkowski ate Flutie Flakes as a kid and this cereal was directly inspired by them.

Doug and his family--from the side of the Flutie Flakes box

Information about Flutie's foundation

The similarities between Flutie Flakes and Gronk Flakes goes beyond the fact that they're both fronted by New England sports figures and that they both raise money for charity. They also both are/were Frosted Flakes knock-offs. Which brings us to the vs. part of this story. It is time to give Gronk Flakes a taste test.

Taking a first look

They look more-or-less like Frosted Flakes

And they taste pretty much as expected--good!

The hearty flakes--protected by a thick glaze of sugar--stay crispy in milk

They look pretty much as like would expect from a generic Frosted Flakes-type cereal. And they taste very much the same way. The flakes seem a little thicker or denser than "real" Frosted Flakes, and they have a rather heavy sugary crust on them. It's been well over ten years since I've tasted Flutie Flakes, but I distinctly remember them tasting a lot like these. It's a very sweet experience that would probably seem gross to someone more accustomed to stuff like Grape Nuts or Bran Flakes or oatmeal for breakfast, but they really hit the spot for me. The Insane Beast tried them out and seemed to like them--though I was surprised she didn't go ape over them and demand more. I guess that's a good thing.

Gronk Flakes--part of a nutritious breakfast
...or something like that

Since they seem to be exactly the same thing, the result of the Gronk Flakes vs. Flutie Flakes competition ended up as a tie. If you enjoy extremely sweet breakfast cereals you'll probably like them. If you are diabetic and/or eating a very healthy diet you probably won't like them.

Now if only we could have seen Doug Flutie throwing touchdown passes--and maybe a couple Hail Marys--to Rob Gronkowski...

One final note: I found it interesting that Gronk Flakes are distributed by a company in Pittsburg, PA. Obviously the fact that they're geared mainly toward Patriots fans doesn't mean they have to be made in New England. But I can only imagine the thoughts of hardcore Steelers fans working in the place that sends out these boxes--with the picture of New England's pretty-boy superstar staring at them day after day! Oh well, you gotta earn a living, right?

Star Trek vs. Star Wars

2012-09-08T01:41:00.000-04:00

Google.com has put up a new Google Doodle that commemorates (a day early) the 46th anniversary of the television premiere of the original Star Trek series on NBC on September 8, 1966.

It's a great Doodle that actually allows you to follow along with a short interactive animated Star Trek storyline by clicking on various characters and objects in the scenes. The characters (Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, Dr. McCoy...) are each represented by a letter in the word "GOOGLE". And in this case, one of those characters just happens to be a "Red Shirt"--a nickname for the mostly nameless, red-shirt-wearing security personnel who always seem to get killed during the Enterprise's adventures.

The Google-ized Crew of the Enterprise on the ship's bridge

Kirk and a "Red Shirt" in the transporter room preparing to beam down

Encountering the Gorn from the episode "Arena"

The Gorn, as it appeared in the original episode

Final credit sequence for the Google Doodle

It's all pretty cool for a fan of the show, like myself. Stumbling onto this Google Doodle got me to thinking about something that I've been meaning to write about for some time now. What better time than the anniversary of the first episode of Star Trek to finally sit down and get this out of my head?

A while back a friend who has known me since I was much younger posted a question that seemed simple enough--but it totally stumped me. The question was: "Which do you prefer, Star Trek or Star Wars?" I should have given a quick, two-word answer, but instead it got my head spinning around the question. Let's take a look at the two contenders:

STAR TREK

I've been a fan of Star Trek ever since I was a kid in the 1970s watching re-runs of the original TV series that ran from 1966-69. I never saw it during its original run because, well, I hadn't been born yet. But I do consider myself a life-long fan of Star Trek (whether that makes me a "Trekkie", a "Trekker" or whatever...). I've never written much about Star Trek in this blog (beyond some mention in Creation Convention--25 Years Later and Creation Convention Part II: Geeks on Parade), but it's always been a part of me.

I suppose if I had to pick a favorite version of Star Trek it would still be The Original Series. I was very excited when Star Trek: The Next Generation started up in 1987. I watched it throughout its run and loved it as well. It's a close one, but I still have to go with the original. After The Next Generation I seemed to become less and less interested in each of the subsequent Star Trek series (Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise). I still have a lot of catching up to do on all those shows--even though they've all been off the air for a number of years. I also liked all the Star Trek movies that featured the original cast. "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" (1982) would probably rank my favorite of all the Trek films, but I did enjoy all of the ones with the original crew (even "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" to some extent). I liked the ones with the Next Generation crew too, but not quite as much. J.J. Abrams' recent "Star Trek" reboot (2009) was interesting. I go back and forth on whether I approve of its tampering with the Star Trek canon, but it certainly was a good movie and I'm looking forward to the sequel.

Meeting Judson Scott from "Star Trek II" at a convention in 1985

Oh yeah, I also liked the short-lived Star Trek animated series produced by Filmation back in the 1970s. This show continued the five year mission of the Enterprise that was prematurely interrupted by network cancellation. It also served to bridge the period between the original show and the first theatrical film. The animated adventures of Star Trek featured not only the voices of most of the original cast (as well as James Doohan performing many, many voices in addition to Scotty), it also had many of the writers from the original series. Unfortunately, it was just too smart and serious to be a successful Saturday morning cartoon. Luckily it's now available on DVD!

STAR WARS

The first "Star Wars" movie (or "Episode Four: A New Hope") was released in 1977 when I was seven years old. It was a perfect age at which to be introduced to that galaxy far, far away. Ever since seeing "Star Wars" for the first time I was hooked on that saga too. In fact, in The Oak Street Drive-In I detailed how we had a backyard theater screening of "Star Wars" for my 40th birthday party a couple years ago. As was the case with Star Trek, the original is still my favorite. I loved--and grew up with--the original Star Wars trilogy. All the merchandising that became a bit tiresome with the later movies was an important part of my childhood. I collected as many toys and action figures as I could.

My original 1977-era Stormtrooper action figure
The same one I played with as a kid!

It was an exciting time in the 1990s when the second trilogy of prequels began production, but I never felt they captured anything near the level of magic that the original movies had. And yes, I did have a big problem with new, annoying characters like Jar Jar Binks! Add the fact that I'm no fan of CGI special effects and you can see why I prefer the first films. I didn't get a chance to see any of The Clone Wars animated series (because I don't have cable), but do remember watching the Saturday morning cartoon Droids as a kid. George Lucas' insistence on tampering with all six of the Star Wars movies and their seemingly endless re-releases on both the big screen and home video has become extremely annoying. Still, the Star Wars universe will always be a favorite of mine. Despite that, I really haven't written much about Star Wars as a blog topic either--other than the drive-in birthday party mentioned above and Star Wars Day at Higgins Armory Museum.

Meeting an Imperial Death Star Gunner with The Little Monster in 2011

AND THE WINNER IS...

Well I guess it's obvious that I do indeed like both Star Trek and star Wars. So which one is my favorite? Well, I believe that I do have an answer, but unfortunately it's not really a satisfying one. Both Star Trek and Star Wars hold special places in my heart. But as it turns out, those places are pretty distant from each other. Both of them are space-based science fiction stories and might seem very similar at first glance, but the story lines are very different. And it would seem that they both have fed off of each other in some way over the years. While it would be a huge stretch to say that George Lucas ripped off Star Trek (which did come first) when he came up with the idea for Star Wars, it also seems likely that Star Trek did indeed have some influence on Star Wars--however small. And if it weren't for the success of Star Wars in 1977 it's very possible that Star Trek wouldn't have been re-launched as a series of films on the big screen in 1979 with "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"--ten years after the TV series was cancelled.

Unlike most of the classic "Which do you prefer?" questions like: Elvis or the Beatles, The Three Stooges or Abbott & Costello, Ginger or Mary Ann, Betty or Veronica, Betty or Wilma, The Brady Bunch or The Partridge Family--the question of Star Trek vs. Star Wars really doesn't have an answer in my case. The reason the question stumped me so much was that it had never occurred to me that one could be chosen over the other. They simply represent two different interests of mine that can't be placed in order. They're both very important to me.

LIVE LONG AND PROSPER

AND

MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU

Getting Around To It...

2012-08-26T16:33:00.000-04:00

Not that there's a great uproar across the blogosphere about my lack of writing recently, but I still feel bad about my output (or lack thereof) over the past couple of months. I still have a lot of ideas and topics for future posts floating around in my mind that I simply haven't been able to hammer out on the keyboard. Most of this has to do with a perceived lack of free time caused by our impending move. In about a week our little family unit will be packing up and moving from our little house in our little town to an even littler apartment in a big city. Along with some other distractions over this summer the move has been hanging over our heads like a dark cloud. At this time it almost feels "selfish" to take the time necessary to think out, write, edit new blog entries. And that's not even mentioning the time involved with adding photos to those posts. If all goes well I should lose this excuse in another month or so and be back to my old output of about a blog per week (on average). We will see...

Not being able to get around to writing has reminded me of a little piece of my past (a VERY little piece). Back when I was in the U.S. Army I was stationed at Fort Knox in Kentucky. Yes, there actually is an Army base by that name--it's not just a gold depository. I was only in the service for two years, but in that time I managed to not write home nearly enough. I should mention that this was way back in the "dark ages" of the late 1980s. It was a time before the internet and before cell phones. While it may seem difficult for someone growing up today, there was a time--not all that long ago--when people would actually write letters as a way to keep in touch. And I'm talking about literally writing a letter on a piece of paper and using a pen of pencil rather than sending out an e-mail or a text or tweet. We did make phone calls too (frequently from an ancient device called a "Pay Phone"), but letter writing wasn't quite the endangered art form that it is today.

This isn't to say that I never wrote, it just wasn't as often as it could have been. During the first part of my time in the service I had a girlfriend and most of my writing involved letters sent to her. After we broke up I spent a lot more time feeling sorry for myself than writing. Either way, I never wrote home to my parents nearly as often as I wish I had. It's true that we're talking about something that I did (or didn't do) nearly a quarter-of-a-century ago, but I still regret my laziness to this day.

At one time my mother sent me a package full of snacks and presents around the time of my birthday. It was a wonderful little slice of HOME, and a great distraction from the daily grind of living in the barracks doing "Army stuff". There was one little item in it which was probably meant mostly as a joke, but it also let me know the error of my ways (as minor as that error might have been). It was a small cardboard box that contained a little wooden token. The small circle of wood had one word imprinted on it: "TUIT". My mother wrote on the box "In case you're waiting to write until you get around to it, here it is!" Yes, she had sent me a "Round Tuit". The obverse of this little novelty had the name of my father's personal company name, GUSCO, inscribed on it.

I've always remembered that little wooden token and thought about the fact that I should have written home ore often. I actually kept that box of gifts and sent it home when my time in the Army ended. Along with some other stuff I packed into it there were still some of the original contents. Not too long ago I found that same box my mom had sent me all those years ago at my parents' house while I was visiting them. What a wonderful surprise it was to find the little "Round Tuit" in there! I am now keeping it handy to remind myself that I need to keep finding the time to get around to keeping in touch with the people in my life, as well as finding the time to write this blog. Hopefully I'll be more successful at doing that today than I was when I was a much younger man.

Worcester Movies on the Common 2012: JAWS

2012-08-10T01:01:00.002-04:00

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

Worcester Film Works' 2012 summer film series Movies on the Common continued with it's second show on Thursday July 19th. The film for the night was "Jaws" (1975). While the movie might not have been quite as family-friendly as some of the other offerings from shows past, it was very appropriate for an outdoor summer movie series. "Jaws" was, of course, one of the first of the Hollywood "Summer Blockbusters". Nowadays summer blockbusters are a dime a dozen. Every week from Early May right through August it seems like some new blockbuster opens in the theaters. They're called "Blockbusters" before they even premiere and earn a single dollar. Back in 1975 the idea of a movie that debuts during the summer and becomes a blockbuster was a relatively new concept.

This was the second of three monthly shows in the Movies on the Common series and follows the successful inaugural season in 2011. On the third Thursday of each month through the summer (June, July and August) a classic movie is projected onto a huge screen set up behind City Hall on the Worcester (MA) Common. Musical acts are now a regular part of the series and all of this year's shows actually feature two bands before each movie. There are also vendors set up selling food, drink and ice cream.

Because I didn't think The Little Monster was quite ready to see some of the more intense stuff in "Jaws" I went to this show alone. The program starts at 5:00 with the first musical act. Iza Jane was the opener for this show. Unfortunately I wasn't able to arrive until around 8:00 and missed Iza Jane altogether. By the time I got to the Common the second band, Heavy Horses, was already halfway through their set. And what a great set it was (at least if you like covers of mostly 1970s rock and roll--as I most certainly do). I'm not sure what I missed during the first half of the gig, but I did hear familiar songs from the likes of Foghat, Heart, Kansas, Bad Company, Styx, Jefferson Starship and the J. Geils Band. It was a rockin' set of oldies but goodies!

Turtle Boy welcomed me to the Common

A cloudy sky threatened, but didn't affect, the evening

Heavy Horses perform

The crowd slowly builds as showtime approaches

Another view of the Common from the Soldiers and Sailors monument

Worcester. You gotta love it.

After Heavy Horses finished up the stage was transformed into a movie screen. But there was still quite a while to wait until it got dark enough to start the movie, so it was time to check out the vendor tables. Worcester Film Works had their usual set up and were selling Polar soda (local company) and popcorn that was popped in their now-functioning popcorn machine (it never worked during last year's Movies on the Common series).

Worcester Film Works' table (and popcorn machine)

Also present were regulars Sweet Sister Ice Cream with their ice cream truck, and The Theatre Cafe with their hot dogs, pulled pork sandwiches and veggie wraps. They also offered the option of ordering anything from their regular menu, which would be prepared at their restaurant on Main Street and delivered to the Common.

Sweet Sister's ice cream truck

The Theatre Cafe's table

That's Entertainment had a table set up for the second straight show too. They were offering some free comic books as well as fun Worcester T-shirts and funky Japanese candy for sale. I picked up a comic to bring home for The Little Monster and bought a package of grape flavored candy.

That's Entertainment's table

Some free stuff, and my package of Japanese grape candy

There was also a new table at this show manned by folks from Next Step Living Inc. that offered free information and giveaways about going green and reducing your home's carbon footprint (see the magnet from them in the photo above). You could sign up to get a free home audit and free CFC bulbs to replace old incandescent ones in your house.

I should probably mention here that I'm a geek (in case anyone didn't already realize that). For this show I just HAD to bring along my November 1979 issue of TV Guide from the week that ABC had the network television premiere of "Jaws". It made for some excellent pre-movie reading!

Appropriately enough, Finz, the Worcester Sharks hockey team's mascot made an appearance and handed out freeze pops before "Jaws" started. Unfortunately, this would have been one of the highlights for The Little Monster. She missed his appearance last year too.

Finz hands out some chilly treats to the crowd

Finally it was 9:00. The sky darkened and it was time for the movie to start. I munched on my popcorn from Worcester Film Works as John Williams' famous theme played over the opening credits of "Jaws".

The skies darken

The popcorn's ready

The crowd swelled as darkness fell and movie time approached

Can't you just hear the music?

Roy Schieder feeds some chum to the big fella

All good things (and movies) must end

A happy crowd files out of the Worcester Common

It was fun watching this great movie in an outdoor setting and hearing the reactions from the crowd to both the shocking moments and the most famous lines ("This was no boat accident", "You're gonna need a bigger boat"...). A recent heat wave had just ended and the threatening-looking cloudy sky from earlier in the evening gave way to a clear and cool night that made for great movie watching. I don't know how many people turned out for this show, but it certainly seemed like a good sized crowd made up of all ages (and a few dogs too).

Two shows are down and there's only one more left in the 2012 Worcester Movies on the Common series. That one will be "The Princess Bride" (1987) and will happen on Thursday August 16th (with a rain date of August 23rd). I'm hoping to be able to make it to that one as well and will try to get a report out soon after. Until then, please keep out of the water!

Thank You Google! (And Happy Birthday Amelia Earhart)

2012-07-24T11:24:00.001-04:00

...or, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Stats Page

I woke up to a bit of a surprise this morning. First off, I had no idea that today (July 24, 2012) was Amelia Earhart's 115th birthday. Second, I had no idea that that fact would have a huge and unexpected effect on my blog. Let me explain...

Now I realize that this is going to be another blog entry about some pretty dry information, but once again I feel the need to report. Hopefully it will be of some interest to someone other than myself, but if not then so be it.

Earlier this month I wrote a blog (Amelia Earhart--75 Years Later) about Amelia Earhart commemorating the 75th anniversary of her disappearance while attempting a flight around the world in 1937. That post also talked about an upcoming expedition that was about to embark on a search for the wreckage of Amelia's plane. Unfortunately (but not surprisingly) that search came up empty--as they usually do.

Around the same time I also wrote the very bland blog entry 2012 State of the Blog Address, which chronicled some of what went on behind-the-scenes at Monster Dad during the past year. One of those things was my discovery of (and obsession with) the statistics portion of the blog. Before then I didn't realize you could see and track all kinds of stats associated with Monster Dad--things like page views and traffic sources over the past day, week, month and all-time.

Monster Dad has never been much of an internet sensation, and I can't really say that I expected it to be one when I started it. As mentioned in the State of the blog address I mostly see it as a place for me to write about things that I'm interested in. Those things may or may not be seen by others, but at least they're out there in the blogosphere.

Well, a funny thing happened recently as I started to notice the numbers in the stats gradually increasing. It seems like the longer Monster Dad's "stuff" is out there the more likely it is to show up in a Google search. Recent blogs about The Titanic, Men in Black 3, The Incredible Hulk and Friday the 13th have gotten pretty impressive (by Monster Dad standards at least) hits at times when they were likely to be looked for in search engines like Google.com. Up until now one of Monster Dad's biggest days ever occurred back on July 12th when the January blog Friday the 13th Part 2 caused a spike in page views from the normal average of around 200 to a then stunning total of 712. Of course this was caused by people doing Google searches about Friday the 13th (which fell on the next day) rather than some sudden realization by the general public that Monster Dad is required reading. I was happy to accept those numbers to make my stats look a little more respectable. I know Monster Dad will never become a real big-time blog, but it's nice to think that even a modest number of people around the world are seeing your output.

I was okay with the fact that the numbers reverted to their normal pace after that July 12th spike, just as it had done after some of the other recent flurries of viewing activity. I was also wondering if something else might become a "hit" in the future. Well, it came as a bit of a surprise to log in this morning and see an obscene (once again, by Monster Dad standards) number of page views for the day. Amelia Earhart: 75 Years Later was written on the day of the anniversary of her disappearance so I knew that it wouldn't become active on Google for at least a few days afterward. It generated a few hits here and there, but nothing impressive--not until today anyway.

Today's Google Doodle

Like I mentioned above, I didn't realize that today is Amelia Earhart's birthday. In honor of that occasion, Google has put up one of their Google Doodles which shows Amelia in front of her plane with the word "GOOGLE" written on the bottom of the wings. When you click on a Google Doodle you get search results for whatever the subject of that particular Doodle is. Apparently my Amelia Earhart blog registered somewhere in that search (though I wasn't able to find it myself while browsing the first few pages of results). As of this morning the post has received over 8,700 views! To put that in perspective, I have been averaging somewhere around 4,000-5,000 page views per month for the blog. Thanks to the Men in Black and Incredible Hulk posts May had been the most successful month ever by far with 11,812 views for the entire month. This morning's views have boosted this month's total to almost 15,000. And there's still around nine hours left before today's stat window ends. I'll update this post with the total number when it comes in.

This week's stats, including the Amelia Earhart oddity
Note the small bump in center was the previous daily all-time high of 712 views

So, to sum up, Amelia Earhart would have turned 115 today if she were still alive, the most recent search for her plane ended up not finding anything, and Amelia helped Monster Dad reach unheard of (for Monster Dad) numbers of page views. Now you can return to your regularly scheduled day. Thank you Amelia and thank you Google.

Worcester Movies on the Common 2012: Raiders of the Lost Ark

2012-07-19T01:04:00.000-04:00

The evening of June 21st marked the start of the 2012 season of Movies on the Common in Worcester, MA. This series is put on by the group Worcester Film Works. The movie featured that night was "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981) and was preceded by two musical acts, James Keyes and The Luxury. As I wrote in 2012 Worcester Movies on the Common, I was planning on going to the show, but wasn't sure when I'd get there or whether either of my Little Monsters would be joining me. It turned out that I wasn't able to arrive at the Worcester common until around 7:30, but The Little Monster did indeed accompany me for a little quality father-daughter time. Here's what night one was like...

The show started ("doors opened") at 5:00. Because we didn't arrive until 7:30 we completely missed the set by James Keyes, so I can't say anything about that one. By the time we settled in we only got to see the last half-hour or so of The Luxury's set. They are a rockin' band though and I would have liked to have heard more. It's tough to perform at a show like this and play original tunes. Cover tunes of stuff that people are familiar with tends to go over better (even if it's of less artistic integrity) with a random audience that's mainly there to watch a movie. The Luxury played bits of some covers (and sounded good in doing so), but mainly played their own material--and that sounded very good as well. I'm not familiar with the band and have never heard anything by them previously, so I went into it with fresh ears and liked what I heard.

The Luxury performs on the Worcester Common before the movie

I have to point out that the musical part of these shows is a major plus. The whole point of the show is to see a movie on the big screen outside during the summer for free (it is called Movies on the Common after all). You certainly get that, but there's so much more too. Last year the first musical act didn't appear until the second show and by the third show there were two acts. This year the schedule included two acts before each of the three shows. It really is tough to beat this program for free summer entertainment!

Back to the show. After The Luxury finished up the stage was transformed into a movie screen while the band packed up. A member of Worcester Film Works let the growing crowd know that the movie would start up once it got dark enough.

From stage...

...To screen

With a break in the action it was time to check out what else there was to see around the Common. The Little Monster was ready for some ice cream so our first stop was the Sweet Sister truck for a Pink Panther ice cream bar.

Vendors lining one of the Common's walkways

The Sweet Sister Ice Cream truck

Decisions, decisions...

A happy Little Monster!

Next we stopped at The Theatre Cafe's table and I got one of their tasty pulled pork sandwiches for myself. Both of these vendors were present at last year's shows, but because of ongoing construction were set up on the opposite side of the Common this time.

Tables for The Theatre Cafe and That's Entertainment

Worcester Film Works had their own table set up as usual of course. And probably the most exciting news of the night was that WFW's popcorn machine was actually working! Last year they had a popcorn machine at each of the three shows, but it became a bit of an unintentional running joke because it failed to work at all of them! It was a pretty big deal to see them selling popcorn that was actually popped in the machine on this night. They had small bags available for a dollar and big buckets for three dollars. Of course I HAD to get one of the buckets to celebrate the fact that the machine actually worked.

Worcester Film Works' table

Admiring the poster for the Movies on the Common series

Freshly popped popcorn! (at last!)

There was one new vendor set up at this show too--Worcester comic book store That's Entertainment (aka That's E!). Actually, calling That's Entertainment a comic store is selling them short. A better description would be the one that they use--it's a "Pop Culture Emporium". They had a selection of Worcester T-shirts for sale and also had a box of free comic books! I got a copy of The Living Dead and The Little Monster got an issue of Archie Comics. We returned to our seats to eat ice cream and pulled pork and browse through our comics while waiting for "Raiders of the Last Ark" to start.

Ice Cream!

Pulled pork and free comic books, a great combo!

The Little Monster reads Archie while waiting for the film to start

Because this show was put on during some of the longest days of the year it wasn't until about 9:00 that it got dark enough to start the movie. Film buffs might be a bit disappointed to learn that these movies are projected off of DVDs rather than being true film presentations. It's hard to complain though when you remember that you're getting this wonderful outdoor entertainment for free!

Darkness (gradually) falls on Worcester Common

Firing up the DVD projector

And it's Showtime at last!

There's actually not too much to say about "Raiders of the Lost Ark". It's obviously a great, classic film that speaks for itself. The Little Monster hadn't seen it before, so it was new to her. There are obviously a few questionable parts for a six-year-old, but she took most of it in stride. I was a bit impressed that she (mostly) stayed awake right through the movie, which didn't end until about 11:00. Interestingly enough, she tried to tell me that she fell asleep and missed the climatic Ark-opening-nazi-melting scene, but the fact that she knew what it was that she "missed" made it obvious that she had indeed seen it. Nearly a month later I feel confident that she wasn't emotionally scarred by the experience. She hasn't reported any nightmares or sleepless nights inspired by the movie. I do think she was a tad young to really get everything in "Raiders", but am glad that she was able to accompany me on what turned out to be another wonderful night on the Worcester common. The crowd was estimated at 375. That's not bad at all--especially considering that Worcester was in the midst of a heat wave at the time, and sitting outside to watch a movie wasn't as enticing an idea as it normally would be without the oppressive heat.

The second show in the Movies on the Common series is rapidly approaching. On Thursday July 19th the film shown on the Common will be "Jaws" (1975), another Steven Spielberg classic and one of the very first true "Summer Blockbusters". Starting at 5:00 the bands IzaJane and Heavy Horses will open the show. As usual, in the case of inclement weather the show will be postponed until the following Thursday, the 26th. I personally didn't see "Jaws" for the first time until it appeared on TV in the early 1980s, and even though I was almost a teenager by then I remember being terrified by the film. Because of this I'm going to go to this one alone. I'm pretty sure that The Little Monster isn't quite ready for "Jaws". We're going camping at the beach in Connecticut this weekend and I can just imagine her being petrified by the thought of going into the ocean and encountering a great white shark. It doesn't help that over the past couple of weeks there have actually been numerous shark sightings off of New England beaches--including great whites. Hopefully I'll be able to get up the nerve to step into the ocean myself after watching "Jaws" on the common. We shall see...

Just when you thought it was safe to go back to The Common!

My Humble "Contributions" to IMDb

2012-07-03T17:48:00.001-04:00

I'm of an age that I grew up before the online revolution of the past couple of decades. Kids growing up now have no idea that there was a time when they couldn't go online and find the answers to their questions (and homework problems) with a few mouse clicks. I suppose this might give me a greater appreciation for this incredible convenience that I couldn't have imagined when I was growing up in the 1970s and 80s. It really is a different world and I don't want to get too deep into whether it's a good or bad thing.

But I will say that I don't know what I'd do without a handful of websites that I have come to really depend on for information that I need for my blog writing or to simply answer a nagging question that's running around in my head. I don't really do a lot of true "surfing", but do end up at relevant websites outside of my little circle of preferred internet sites when they come up in search results.

The first and most important source of information for me on pretty much anything in the world from song lyrics to answers to those unanswerable children's questions form The Little Monster is definitely Google. When I first heard of Google I didn't know what to think of it, but now I can't imagine living without it. It's been absolutely invaluable for me. I know that Google is now an online empire that includes e-mail (G-Mail), social networking and gobbling up smaller websites and companies, but it will always be a dependable search engine first and foremost to me. I also know that there are other search engines out there that I could try out to see which one fits my needs best--but Google has always answered my questions reliably. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Wikipedia has also been an important source of information mining for me. Unlike Google I never actually go to Wikipedia for information. It just so happens that almost anytime I make an inquiry on google a Wikipedia link is always at or near the top of the results. I do know that Wikipedia is made up of content from users so I always remember to take information I find there with a grain of salt and try to do further research to confirm what I find there (take note of that students of the 21st century who get their info from Wikipedia). As a race we humans tend to believe what we hear or read. It's very easy to read something in Wikipedia and automatically take it for fact. Unlike back in the days when people actually had to open an encyclopedia (in paper format, not inline) to look up reliable, well-researched information, people really need to stifle their instinct to believe it simply because we read it (and that includes myself as well).

I also find a lot of information in video form on YouTube. YouTube is a great place to waste many hours of the day watching all kinds of meaningless "stuff" about various topics. It seems like you can find almost anything on YouTube if you look hard enough and I've been amazed to find some very specialized and unexpected things there--like old clips from the Boston-area television stations I grew up watching in the days before cable and VCRs were ubiquitous.

I use a few other sites regularly (Yahoo! Mail, eBay, Facebook, Netflix...), but there's really only one more site that I regularly consult when trying to find information for blogs (or other things). That site is the Internet Movie Database, or more simply and familiarly IMDb. All these sites have given me invaluable information that I wouldn't have had any way to find twenty years ago or so. While Wikipedia, "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", is of questionable reliability in many cases, IMDb tends to be a bit more authoritative when it comes to information about movies, television and the people who are behind both. But it is possible to submit new or revised information to the site when you think something is missing or incorrect. I can only imagine the constant flood of information they receive from people who "just know" that something found on IMDb is wrong because they remember it differently. IMDb will accept edits and then research them themselves before adding the now or revised information to the site. I don't know how their fact-checking process works, but feel pretty confident that it's reliable.

I had a friend who swore that something on IMDb was incorrect. He remembered seeing a TV movie in the early 1980s that IMDb said was aired in 1978. This was someone who was very knowledgeable about pop culture. He was determined to contact IMDb to correct the information, but died before he was able to do so. I looked up TV listings for the date IMDb said the movie aired and it did indeed appear where it should have been. Probably about a year later or so I was looking for something else in the listings and stumbled upon an early 1980s repeat of the movie. It turned out that my friend was correct about when he saw the movie--he simply didn't realize that it was a repeat and not the premiere of the film.

I can't say that I've found many instances of misleading or incorrect information in IMDb (or at least not that I was aware of anyway). Still, it would be nice to be able to submit some information to them---to sort of try to repay them just a bit for all the help they've given to me over the past few years. I did submit two very small and rather inconsequential bits of information for two IMDb entries, and they were both adopted into their respective pages. Despite how small these changes are I'm just a little proud to say that I made a contribution to the site (however small and unimportant they may be in the grand scheme of things). All in the name of accuracy I suppose.

The first one concerned the movie "Oliver's Story" (1978), which was the much less famous follow-up to the classic "Love Story" (1970) that starred Ryan O'neil. It seems like an odd film for me to have some connection to or reference to, but it just so happened that part of the movie was filmed in my teeny, tiny little hometown of Uxbridge, Massachusetts! As a matter of fact, one of my sisters was even an extra in it. I saw the movie quite a few years back on a VHS tape borrowed from the library I worked at. That ancient and not-so-in-demand tape went out of circulation a while back and now the movie it somewhat hard to find. Well, I decided one day to read about my hometown's little contribution to celluloid history at IMDb one day and was disappointed to not see it listed among the filming locations (which included Cambridge, MA and Hong Kong, China). I decided to submit the fact that Uxbridge was also a filming location, but didn't really have and corroborating evidence to offer. I never heard back from IMDb, but when you check out the page for "Oliver's Story" now you will see that Uxbridge, MA is included as a filming location!

My second, and to date only, other contribution to IMDb is in relation to the Vincent Price movie "The Last Man on Earth" (1964). This one's a bit more up my alley, so to speak. I've liked this movie for some time and was happy to see that it was going to be part of the 2011 edition of the Drive-In Super Monster-Rama show in Pennsylvania. I was lucky enough to be able to attend both the 2010 and 2011 Drive-In Super Monster-Rama shows.

The pristine print of "The Last Man on Earth" screened at the show was a great thing to see, but also a bit of a mystery. When the movie started it appeared to be pretty normal, but then the title came up and instead of reading THE LAST MAN ON EARTH it said THE DAMNED WALK AT MIDNIGHT. This came as a surprise to most of the people I talked to at the show, including the man behind it all.

I have no idea exactly where or when the movie was given the title "The Damned Walk at Midninght", but it was right up there on the screen so I knew it had happened at some point in time. The IMDb page for "The Last Man on Earth" had a number of alternate (AKA) titles listed, but no mention of "The Damned Walk at Midnight". I'm sure this title is familiar with some film fans and scholars somewhere, but it seemed to be a bit of a mystery. I submitted the alternate title to IMDB with my photograph of the movie screen as evidence.

Once again I never actually heard back from IMDb, but I just checked the page for the film again and "The Damned Walk at Midnight" is now listed as an alternate title! Check toward the bottom of the list.

This is a lot of writing about two admittedly very minor bits of information, but it's all I've got on the subject. It's one small step for mankind, but one giant leap for Monster Dad!

Amelia Earhart -- 75 Years Later

2012-07-03T01:41:00.001-04:00

April 2012 marked the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic. July 2nd 2012 marks the 75th anniversary of another of the Twentieth Century's great mysteries, the disappearance of Amelia Earhart (and her navigator Fred Noonan) on her attempt to circumnavigate the world in 1937. The Titanic claimed over 1,500 lives while Earhart's plane only carried two people. Nonetheless these two events ranked right up there with the world's greatest mysteries until the Titanic was finally discovered by Robert Ballard in 1985. It took nearly seventy-five years to find the Titanic and now it has been seventy-five years that people have wondered exactly what happened to Amelia Earhart and what her final fate was.

When I was a kid growing up in the 1970s and 80s I was very much interested in all kinds of unsolved mysteries, supernatural phenomena and other strange subjects (Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, UFOs, Ghosts, ancient astronauts, Easter Island, spontaneous human combustion...). Most of these subjects remain mysteries or myths, some taken more seriously in the scientific community and the world at large than others. It was very exciting when the Titanic was finally discovered and the first photographs of the ship made it to TV and the newspapers. Now it just seems like another underwater site of a sunken ship, and many young people growing up today have no idea just how much of a mystery it's final resting spot was for so many decades. Amelia Earhart is another ocean-based mystery that continues to persist after all these years.

Paul Mantz, Amelia Earhart, Harry Manning and Fred Noonan in 1937

In a way I'm kind of surprised that no conclusive evidence has ever been produced. Of course looking for a small airplane in the ocean is like looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack. But still, it just seems like something would have happened by now. I guess that's mostly because, like the Titanic, Amelia Earhart's disappearance was a "man-made" mystery. It's not something supernatural or otherworldly in nature. At its core it's simply a missing plane that no one has been able to find.

Since Amelia Earhart's ultimate fate is still a mystery it has been subject to many theories and much speculation--both logical and outlandish--over the years. The two most likely scenarios have Earhart's plane crashing in the middle of the ocean or crash landing on or near a small uninhabited island somewhere in the Pacific along or close to her flight path. The first possibility would mean that her Lockheed Electra is on the floor of the ocean thousands of feet below the surface, where it would most likely be out of reach of today's technology. It took seventy-five years for nautical technology to develop to the point where it was possible to pinpoint the location of the Titanic. Who knows how much longer it will take to find Amelia Earhart's plane if it's as deep underwater as it might very well be. The idea that Amelia and Fred Noonan might have survived the crash and lived for some amount of time on an island is not only possible, it's also a much more interesting and intriguing idea than the thought of them being killed on impact and sinking to the bottom of the ocean along with their plane. That's a major reason for the persistence of the theory despite lack of hard evidence.

But there have been many other theories over the years, many of which seem pretty far-fetched. Some of these theories have included Earhart being captured by the Japanese and being executed or living out the rest of her life in captivity, assuming another identity and living out the rest of her life in secrecy and even being a spy for the U.S. government. While many of these ideas may seem outlandish, the simple fact that nothing conclusive has ever been proven means that there will probably always be some support for them. Back when I was a kid it even seemed remotely possible (however unlikely it might be) that Amelia Earhart might still have been alive somewhere in the world. The simple possibility of it was probably more fuel for the various theories. You don't really seem to hear so much about such fantastical ideas today.

But since it is still a mystery it seems like every couple of years the search for Amelia Earhart and her plane re-enters the news and the public eye. Just like when I hear of UFO reports and Bigfoot sightings these days, I always sit up and take note when some new story comes out about someone claiming to have found evidence about Earhart or putting forth a new theory about the mystery. Which brings us to today...

I didn't even realize that today (July 2nd) was the anniversary of the disappearance until a few days ago when I was at a Barnes and Noble bookstore reading the current issue of The Fortean Times. The Fortean Times is a great magazine for people interested in the kinds of unexplained mysteries I have always been fascinated by. This particular issue (June 2012) had a story in it about Amelia Earhart and a new expedition that hopes to solve the mystery once and for all. Of course that's something people have been trying to do for seventy-five years, but I always hold out hope that this will be "the one".

On July 3rd (the seventy-fifth anniversary of the first search and rescue missions to look for the Earhart's plane after its disappearance) The International Group for Historical Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) will launch its ninth (I believe) expedition to try to find the plane and evidence of Earhart's and Noonan's ultimate fate.

TIGHAR believes the wreckage of the plane is located somewhere near the island of Nikumaroro, which was known as Gardner Island in 1937. Along with various items and clues found by others over the years TIGHAR has collected a number of pieces of possible evidence on previous expeditions over the years. They believe that this evidence shows that Amelia Earhart survived the crash and lived on th e island for a time after her disappearance. For full details about the current expedition and background on TIGHAR and its efforts to date please check out their website. They will also post daily updates once the expedition begins. Read those updates here.

Makeup jar (left) found on Nikumaroro Island

Coincidently, just about a month ago an old friend of mine and I got together and watched a few episodes of the old TV show "In Search of...", which we both watched as kids. The show was a big influence on me and I'm sure it had a lot to do with my interest in all kinds of strange phenomena. There is talk that "In Search of..." might finally get a legitimate DVD release soon, but in the meantime it's possible to pick up the series on DVDs put together from recordings of a re-tooled version of the show that aired on a couple different cable stations back in the 1990s or so. It's the same show I watched as a kid, but with new opening titles and other changes that try to mask the fact that the show was produced way back in the 1970s.

"In Search of..." title screen, with Amelia Earhart at upper right

Anyway, I bought one of these sets a couple years ago. My friend and I watched a few random episodes, and we just happened to see the one about Amelia Earhart (not realizing how close we were to the anniversary of the disappearance). It was interesting to see what kinds of theories were still popular (or at least still in play) forty or so years ago. There was still a belief at the time by some that Amelia Earhart might still be alive somewhere in the world.

While it's a foregone conclusion that Earhart and Noonan probably died a long time ago (regardless of what may or may not have happened after the disappearance), it's still a thrilling idea to think that it's possible that the mystery might finally be solved after all these years. I'll follow the expedition and hope for something new to be discovered. It seems far more likely that it won't be solved and Amelia Earhart will continue to be a mystery for the foreseeable future, but you never know...

2012 State of the Blog Address

2012-06-28T16:45:00.000-04:00

Almost a month ago marked two years since I started blogging. I tried to begin this post a couple weeks ago, but just couldn't seem to get started. This will more or less be a look at what the blog has been up to in the past year (since Happy Anniversary Monster Dad re-capped the first year of the blog's existence), as well as an explanation for why I haven't been writing much lately. I realize this isn't a very interesting topic, but it's something I feel I should do, so here goes...

In March of 2011 I wrote what I consider to be my first "commercial" blog post, Godzilla Attacks Worcester. It was at a time when I wasn't writing much in general. In fact, that post was written on March 31st and was the ONLY post for that month. Including that one I had only posted a total of four blogs over the first three months of 2011. Godzilla Attacks Worcester generated a small spurt of interest in the blog in the Worcester (MA) area, and the fact that it was about Godzilla seemed to help it out a bit too.

Not long after this I submitted Monster Dad's url to Google and a few other search engines in an attempt to generate more traffic for the blog. I also discovered the fact that you can look at and keep track of your statistics on Blogger. Making this discovery was a good and bad thing at the same time. It was cool to be able to see the numbers (however humble they might have been) generated by my "writing". Unfortunately, I also became a bit obsessed with these stats and would check them every day--sometimes multiple times a day. I was still going to the blog regularly, but was checking numbers instead of writing. Even so, I was still able to post more blogs than I had in the past and enjoyed it when some of these pieces became modest "hits".

All-Time Post Views from March 2012

All-Time Post Views from two months later in May 2012

The latest look at the All-Time Stats for top ten posts
(Note the unreliability of these statistics in that
Anorexic Toy Soldiers actually now has FEWER page views!)

I realize that my little collection of writings generates only a small fraction of the hits and page views that popular blogs would, but I was happy to see my numbers gradually increase and watch as the all-time views for my top ten posts reached triple digits in number (Oooh, a hundred views for Anorexic Toy Soldiers? I'm hittin' the BIG TIME baby!). I was also happy with the fact that I was averaging around six or seven posts a month for the rest of the year (2011). Of course I realize that six or seven posts a month is also a pittance compared to more prolific bloggers, some of whom write (at least) one blog every single day. But for someone who's not a "writer" by any stretch of the imagination it was a pretty good output. My posts tended to become longer and longer too, especially with the addition of more and more photos (which I assigned names to that I hoped would increase my search engine hits and overall page views by the way). I've never been able to simply put up a quick photo with a witty caption or simply write a short paragraph and call it a post. There's certainly nothing wrong with doing that (there are no hard and fast "rules" for blogging that I'm aware of), it's just not my style. Speaking of which, I've also done my best to continue writing in my own "style" despite the increased interest I've developed in actually having my stuff seen by a wider audience. I didn't mind "selling out" as far as writing more blogs that were about specific events I had attended or was planning on attending (like the numerous and lengthy posts I wrote about the 2010 and 2011 Drive-in Super Monster-Rama shows), as long as I was still writing about things I was interested in and felt like writing about.

A couple months back I posted my 100th blog entry on Monster Dad (The Titanic--100 Years Later). That's not even including the modest ten or eleven posts I've added to sister blog TV Guide Time Machine over the past year. Once again, I realize that one hundred posts would seem like a drop in the bucket to those more prolific bloggers mentioned above, but to me it was a bit of a surprising and satisfying milestone.

Starting the TV Guide Time Machine in July of 2011 was one of the biggest events for Monster Dad over the past year. I have a rather large collection of Boston-area TV Guides from the 1970s and 80s that I thought I could mine for tons of writing inspiration. I still think I can do that, but unfortunately have discovered that by writing two separate blogs at the same time I am spreading my humble writing talents rather thin. There's still reason to believe the TVGTM will become more fruitful in the future, but for now it is just crawling along at its own pace. Don't give up on it just yet...

My biggest "sell out" moment with Monster Dad came around the same time as the stats and search engine stuff a little over a year ago. I applied to and was approved for Adsense, and ads that (sometimes) were related to my posts began to appear on my blog. I didn't see anything wrong with this since it was a very common thing to see on many blogs and on YouTube (where my uploaded videos also began sporting Adsense ads). The fact that these ads were possibly going to generate some cold hard cash for myself certainly seemed like a good thing. Even though the money wouldn't be much, I could actually say (with some level of truthfulness) that I was "getting paid for my writing". That's a pretty cool thought! Once again, I know that my Adsense revenue was nothing compared to the kind of money that big-time blogs generate through Adsense and other means, but it was still something...

Unfortunately Google doesn't cut you a check until you hit one hundred dollars of revenue. Last summer I was about to hit that magic number and get my first check when I got the news that so many bloggers and YouTubers have received. Due to "suspicious activity" my Adsense account was being disabled. Subsequently, my "hard-earned" almost-one-hundred-bucks went back to the advertisers (or where ever it originally came from) and I didn't see one red cent (and what is a "red cent" anyway?). You're able to dispute the cancellation of your Adsens account once, but I heard that they almost never reverse their decision so I didn't bother. A couple months ago I finally submitted a request for reinstatement (or whatever it would be called). I thought my increased traffic might be tempting to the folks at Google. Naturally it was turned down. It's easy to say that your blog is proudly "Ad Free" once this happens, but to be perfectly honest I kinda liked having the ads on my page--as long as it meant money for me! Either way, Monster Dad is once again "Ad Free" for your reading pleasure. Enjoy the short respite from internet ads that you can experience by reading Monster Dad!

Ad-Free! (though not necessarily by choice)

My one success as far as getting money or free stuff for my writing came last spring when I wrote a blog about a movie series for children that a large theater chain runs. I had taken The Little Monster to a few of these shows and thought it would be a good topic to write about (and promote). Word got to the people who put the series on and they sent me a box by FedEx that was filled with DVDs, books and toys that were mostly related to the movie series program. While there really wasn't anything it it for me specifically the Little Monsters got quite a few gifts (for birthdays and Christmas) from the loot. Oh, and they also included a little note thanking me for writing the blog too--which I thought was nice. I know that review sites and blogs receive tons of free DVDs and merchandise to be reviewed, but that's not really what Monster Dad is (at least not at this point), so I was pretty psyched to get that surprise box of goodies.

As far as my recent lack of writing activity goes, there are a few reasons behind it. For the past few months I have been suffering from a bit of writer's block--or should I say "blogger's block"? While I'm still writing at least something every month, my output has definitely decreased. Part of this I blame on the whole stats thing. For whatever reason some of my recent blogs (namely ones about the Titanic, The Incredible Hulk and Men in Black 3) have managed to generate a LOT of page views in a short period of time (a lot of page views as far as Monster Dad is concerned anyway). It's been a fun ride watching the numbers pile up over the past two or three months. Things have cooled down though and are getting back to normal (which means that seeing "normal" numbers of hits and page views now feels very disappointing). It seems that Monster Dad has finally been around long enough and provides good enough content to have risen closer to the top of Google and other search engine inquiries. In fact, last week I wrote my only post (until now) for the entire month of June 2012. It was about last week's Worcester Movies on the Common show. Obviously this is a pretty localized event, but I was still pretty stoked to hear that my nephew saw it on the first page of results in a Google search for the show. And this was on the SAME DAY that I posted the blog! I don't really know how all this stuff works, but it's apparent that Monster Dad is moving up somewhat in the world of internet search engines. and that seems to be a good thing. The one area where I really feel I'm lagging in is subscribers. A while back I was pleased to hit twenty subscribers. But now I've been stuck on twenty-two subs for a couple months. Those numbers don't seem to increase. I'm hoping that there are people following the blog, but they are simply using some of the other methods--like e-mail subscriptions and following Monster Dad's Facebook page. Yes, Monster Dad has his own page on Facebook now.

Two other factors probably have more to do with my "blogger's block" than my stat obsession though. First off, The Little Monster just recently finished up her first year of school (Kindergarten). Between all the end-of-year stuff and the fact that she's now around every day (taking up valuable blog-writing time--just kidding) has eaten into my output. Even more importantly, The Wife started a new job in Boston a few months back. We currently live in Central Massachusetts, close to Worcester. This new job was a great opportunity for The Wife, but it also necessitates a move closer to Boston. We've been spending a lot of time looking for a new place and trying to figure out exactly what we'll do with our soon-to-be-former house. We've been in that house for nine years. The Little Monsters were both born and raised in that house (well, they were actually born in the hospital, but you know what I mean). I kind of thought that it was going to be our home for a long time. Adjusting to the idea of leasing an apartment close to Boston and either renting or selling our house has been pretty stressful. I don't know how this will all affect the blog over time, but it's obviously been getting in the way of writing much lately.

The good news (for me at least) is that the reason I haven't been writing isn't due to a lack of ideas and material. There are a number of blogs floating around in my mind that I simply haven't been able to sit down and write out. In fact, there are still quite a few ideas that I have had waiting to be written since before I even started this blog a little over two years ago. One of them was something that I felt was very interesting (possibly even to the general public in addition to myself). Unfortunately I waited too long to write this piece and it has now been covered by someone else. A couple weeks ago I saw a similar story posted in Yahoo! News when I signed out of my e-mail account. I'll probably still write that post at some point (it already has a name and has been in draft form for the last year-and-a-half or so). Hopefully I'll start writing again soon. We are moving in September and The Little Monster will be starting first grade in a new school then too. With any luck I'll settle into a new routine and get back to the business of being Monster Dad. Stay tuned...

One final update... Last year I laboriously went through a process that required using a program in a PC at the Worcester Library to create a new title banner for Monster Dad that I then uploaded to the site on my Mac. It was a very complicated method to create something that someone who knows better could have easily whipped up in a few moments. I was pretty happy with the results though and decided to re-design the look of Monster Dad for the first and only time (to date). Around a month ago I received a comment on a post. The comment contained a link to a new and improved version of the header that the commenter made up for me (obviously someone who is more well-versed in technology than I am). After ensuring that I wasn't clicking on Spam or a virus launcher I saw that the header looked great and replaced my cobbled together one with it. That's really the only tweak to Monster Dad over the past year--other than the addition of a new widget (called Feedjit) that shows the past ten visitors to the site, where they are from and what they looked at. It's been pretty cool to see that people all over the world are finding (or stumbling upon) my little part of the blogosphere!

Original Monster Dad header photo, circa 2010
(found in a Google Images search for "Oscilloscope")

Old Monster Dad header logo

New and improved Monster Dad header logo

Feedjit widget
(see right side of blog)

Worcester Movies on the Common 2012!

2012-06-21T16:02:00.002-04:00

Last year I wrote about a series of movie screenings on the Worcester (MA) Common put on by the group Worcester Film Works. Over the course of the summer of 2011 they showed one movie each month: "Grease" (1978), "Back to the Future" (1985) and "Spaceballs" (1987). Starting with the second show they began to add live music before the movies. There were also some vendors set up selling food, drinks and ice cream. It was a great series and I was happy to be able to attend each show. At the conclusion of the third show in August 2011 it wasn't clear if Worcester Film Works would be bringing the series back for 2012. I talked to some of the group's members and it was obvious that they were very happy with how the series performed and were hoping to be able to do it again.

Well it's now Summer 2012 and I'm pleased to say that Worcester Movies on the Common is Back! In fact, I've been a little slow in reporting this great news. The first show is scheduled for tonight! For this show there will be TWO musical acts playing before the movie. At 5:00 James Keyes will be the first act, followed by the band The Luxury. Unfortunately I won't be able to get to the show in time for the opening, but should be there sometime before the movie starts (which is as soon as it becomes dark enough). Tonight's movie is going to be "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1985)! We're in the middle of a bit of a heat wave in New England at the moment. I was originally planning on taking my two Little Monsters with me, but because of the heat it seemed like a better idea to let them sit this one out. I will try to report back in soon to comment on the show.

And now for some general information about the series. The shows take place on the third Thursday night of each summer month (June, July, August). The festivities begin at 5:00 with the bands. After the music the stage is transformed into a movie screen and the evening's film begins when it becomes dark enough to see it on the screen (which will become earlier throughout the series as the sun begins so set earlier). Last year Sweet Sister Ice Cream brought their ice cream truck and The Theatre Cafe sold sandwiches, hot dogs and other goodies at each of the shows. The plan is to have vendors at this year's series as well. It appears from the latest post by Worcester Film Works that The Theatre Cafe is confirmed for tonight's first show.

Sweet Sister's ice cream truck set up at the show

The Theatre Cafe's table

And I should also mention that Worcester Film Works had a popcorn machine set up at their table at each of the shows last year. To what must have been incredible frustration for them the machine failed to perform at EVERY show! I read in their latest post that the popcorn machine will be set up once again (resurrected?) for tonight's show, and they were planning on testing it out this afternoon. We'll have to see what happens tonight. Either way I'll be happy. I'd certainly enjoy being able to buy bag of popcorn to munch while watching "Raiders of the Lost Ark" on the big screen under the stars of a hot New England summer night. But if it DOESN'T work it will actually feel a little like a sort of new tradition is continuing! Time will tell...

WFW's table and the "infamous" popcorn machine!

Worcester Movies on the Common is a great program that has been put together by a small group of enthusiastic people trying to do something good for Worcester. I'm very happy to see that it's back for a second year. Hopefully the crowds will be even bigger this year than they were last year. And I haven't even mentioned what is possibly the best thing about this whole thing... These shows are absolutely FREE! Just come out with your blankets and lawn chairs, relax and watch a great movie under the open sky. It's not exactly the same as a drive-in, but it's still pretty awesome! And the price can't be beat!

Here's the schedule for this year's Worcester Movies on the Common series. All shows start (with musical acts) at 5:00, and each show falls on the third Thursday of the month. In case of rain or other inclement weather shows will be postponed until the following Thursday (the fourth Thursday of the month). This year's show will feature:

Thursday June 21 - "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1985)
Thursday July 19th - "Jaws" (1975)
Thursday August 16th - "The Princess Bride" (1987)

See you at the movies!

2012 Drive-In Super Monster-Rama

2012-05-30T23:13:00.002-04:00

Well, it's finally happened. The line-up for this year's edition of the Drive-In Super Monster-Rama has been announced! What is the Drive-In Super Monster-Rama you ask? Well if you don't know then here's some background information.

2011 Drive-In Super Monster-Rama marquee

A great retro-styled teaser ad for this year's show from
Nostalgic Drive-In Theater Newspaper Ads

Now in it's 6th year, the Drive-In Super Monster-Rama is simply one of the greatest retro-drive-in shows around. Over the course of two nights (the Friday and Saturday after Labor Day in September) a total of EIGHT classic drive-in movies from the 1960s and 70s are shown on the big screen at the Riverside Drive-In in North Vandergrift, Pennsylvania. That's four movies each night! The show is put on by DVD Drive-In's George Reis--the driving force behind the show. Admission is only ten dollars per person per night (that's only $2.50 per movie if you're counting!). You can conserve even more money by taking advantage of the Riverside's offer to camp out at the drive-in for another ten bucks per night! The Riverside Drive-In has been a great host for this show throughout its run. They usually close for the season after the Labor Day weekend. By making themselves available for this mega-show they get a chance to remain open for one last weekend of nostalgic drive-in fun.

So what exactly makes this show so special? Well if the eight horror movies over two nights aren't enough there are many other reasons as well. First off, George Reis acquires only 35mm film prints for the show. It would be a LOT easier and more cost effective to simply throw a movie into a DVD player and project that onto the screen. Any real movie fan can appreciate how much better it is to know that what you are watching is not only something that would have been seen at a dusk-to-dawn drive-in shock fest back in the 1960s or 70s, but also that it is being projected on the screen in the same way that it would have back then as well.

The Riverside's projector

And some of the 35mm film ready to roll

Here's the list of movies that will be featured at this year's show:

NIGHT ONE--Friday September 7th

Theatre of Blood (1973)

Horror House (1969)

Equinox (1970)

Son of Blob (1972)

NIGHT TWO--Saturday September 8th

Twins of Evil (1971)

Countess Dracula (1971)

Raw Meat (1973)

Psychomania (1973)

As if all that weren't enough, the movies aren't the only thing that you'll see up on the Riverside's giant screen at a Drive-In Super Monster-Rama show. In addition to those eight films there are also tons of great trailers for all kinds of horror, exploitation and monster movies from around the same period. Plus there are also many classic drive-in intermission ads before and after the features. And there are always a few short subjects between the movies too (past shows have had Three Stooges shorts and cartoons like The Pink Panther and Mr. Magoo--just to name a few). It's two nights (and early mornings) chock full of all kinds of celluloid entertainment. And of course all of these elements are also projected on the screen via 35mm film stock, just like the main features!

Here are just a few of the trailers from last year's show:

And some images from the intermission ads:

And one of the shorts from last year

Being an active drive-in means that the Riverside also has an extensive snack bar menu filled with all kinds of great drive-in food choices (hot dogs, hamburgers, pizza, french fries, popcorn, candy, soda, and on and on...). Just check out their menu to see it all:

There are always a few surprise items on the menu too!

The snack bar also features a couple great old pinball machines!

Still not convinced that the Drive-In Super Monster-Rama is for you? Well, if you're a fan of drive-ins and these kinds of movies then it really is about as good as it gets. You get to enjoy all this great nostalgic drive-in fun at an actual operating drive-in and mingle with other fans who have come from all over the country to experience it. Not only that, but the good folks from Creepy Classics and Monster Bash also set up shop in the snack bar with boxes and boxes filled with hundreds of DVDs for sale. They also have t-shirts, posters, magazines, books, toys and other wares available.

Of course just being able to watch these kinds of movies in an actual drive-in setting is pretty special in itself--especially these days. Drive-ins are becoming more and more rare every year. The steady and unfortunate decline that has been occurring for decades is now about to be sped up due to Hollywood's move to replace film-based movies with digital versions. It's not a huge problem for the big megaplexes, but for small independent theaters (including drive-ins) the cost of buying one of the new digital projectors to be able to show these movies--not to mention retrofitting the projection booth to accommodate the new technology--is prohibitive. Many of these places barely get by as it is, and they will simply have to close if they can't afford to follow Hollywood's orders. There are a couple of very important reasons to make the effort to get to the Drive-In Super Monster-Rama this year if you've always wanted to go but have never been able to make it in the past. First off--and to be blunt--the Riverside Drive-In might not even be open next year. As far as I know they haven't made a decision yet as to whether they will go digital or not. If they don't then 2012 will most likely be the Riverside's last season. Even if they do manage to find a way to afford the digital upgrade, the Drive-In Super Monster-Rama could still be in its final year there. This is because of the fact that the show uses 35mm film prints for all of its movies, trailers, shorts and drive-in intermission ads. If remaining drive-ins are forced to go digital the Monster-Rama will not be able to find a home. I certainly hope to see a seventh Drive-In Super Monster-Rama in 2013, but it's far from a certainty at this point.

For more on the Drive-In Super Monster-Rama and a closer look at what it's all about, here are my previous blogs looking at the 2010 and 2011 editions of the show:

2010 Drive-In Super Monster-Rama

2010 Drive-In Super Monster-Rama: Part II

2010 Drive-In Super Monster-Rama: Part III

Drive-In Super Monster-Rama 2011

2011 Drive-In Super Monster-Rama: Night One

2011 Drive-In Super Monster-Rama: Night Two

"Men in Black 3" and Weekly World News: Best Movie Promotion Ever?

2012-05-17T18:19:00.000-04:00

In all the excitement about the much anticipated recent opening of "The Avengers" I almost forgot about another sure-fire summer 2012 blockbuster that's going to hit the screens soon. "Men in Black 3" looks like it will be pretty good from what I've seen so far. I remember really enjoying the first "Men in Black" (1997) when it came out. That was during Will Smith's reign as Summer Box Office King. Five years later "Men in Black II" (MIIB) (2002) came out. It was pretty good, but seemed to suffer from a case of sequel-itis. It's now been ten years since "MIIB". This one will hopefully be worth the wait.

I was reminded about "MIB3" when I went to see a late-night screening of "The Three Stooges" on May 3rd--the night before "The Avengers" was released. I forgot that there would be midnight screenings of it on the third though. When I got out of the practically empty theater after watching the new Stooges around 11:45 I was surprised to see hundreds of folks milling about the lobby waiting for "The Avengers". This was obviously the height of Avengers-Mania, but it was also the night that I was reminded that "Men in Black 3" would be coming out soon too. It wasn't because I saw a trailer for the movie before "The Three Stooges" (I didn't). Considering that "MIB3" will be out in just over a week I'm kind of surprised at how relatively low-key the promotion for it has been lately. In this case it was a little bit of physical promotional material (as opposed to film-, TV- or web-based) that reminded me about the movie as I left that night.

It's not unusual to find various mini movie posters for upcoming releases out on the lobby counter that you can take on your way out of the movies. I'll always grab one if it's for a film I'm interested in. The "Men in Black 3" promo wasn't a poster though. It was a copy of the tabloid magazine Weekly World News that featured articles and ads that are related to the movie. I was surprised to discover that it was more than a promotional cover containing a page or two with info about the film. Instead it is actually 32 (THIRTY-TWO) pages long! There's a black and white poster for the movie on the back cover, but that's really the only thing that is an obvious direct ad for the film.

Front cover

Back cover--with MIB3 ad

The inside of the publication is filled with a number of stories that probably relate to the movie in one way or another. There are also some ads sprinkled throughout for fictional products and companies--as well as some for Weekly World News products available online. One of the few "real" ads is actually a clever full-page "article" about "Spikey Bulba" being found at a Dunkin' Donuts. It's a pretty cool way to advertise without having to put a "real" ad in the fake magazine. I've got a feeling that reading these "articles" will actually add to the enjoyment of watching "Men in Black 3" when I recognize references to some of them in the movie.

Here's a look at some of the magazine's contents:

An actual ad for some WWN stuff

Another Weekly World News ad

Here's the Dunkin' Donuts "story" mentioned above

Here's an "Undercover Black Cocoa Creme Donut"
...What can I say? Advertising works. Yum!

I LOVE the fact that this ad includes a phone number
but NO website--just like what would have been seen
in the WWN back in the 80s!

It's obvious that a lot of time and effort (as well as a few bucks I'm sure) went into making this movie promotional material. It would have been a lot easier to simply hand out scaled down mini versions of the official movie poster. But beyond the "thinking outside of the box" aspect of this piece, it might not seem all that great. So why do I suggest in the title that it just might be the "Best Movie Promotion Ever"? Well, you might need to be a person of a "certain age" to understand. First off, I should mention that there used to be an actual Weekly World News publication that shared magazine rack space with such tabloid titles as the National Enquirer, Star and The Globe. They were all similar in some ways, but the others focused much more on celebrity gossip while the Weekly World News was all about fantastic stories in the "real" world. The magazine still has an online presence, but stopped publishing a paper edition in 2007.

Here are a few of my old issues of WWN from 1987-1989 still in my possession

According to Wikipedia, the Weekly World News started printing in 1979. I would have been nine or ten at the time. Back then there were precious few outlets for information about things strange phenomenon and unsolved mysteries. This was a time long before The Internet. The Weekly World News wasn't exactly a reputable news source, but it did feature stories on subjects like Bigfoot, UFOs, The Loch Ness Monster, Ghosts and anything else a Monster Kid might be interested in. It was a great way for me to keep informed on the latest "news" about these subjects. Because of this I had a strong affinity for it in spite of it's tabloid nature. It was my best source for offbeat "news". To see the magazine revived in such a complete way just to be used as promotional material for "Men in Black 3" was simply awesome to see for an old geek like me! And it's a perfect match to pair the two together.

Here's a comparison of the new MIB issue and an old issue from the 1980s

KEEP WATCHING THE SKIES!

Separated at Birth 5: Lindsay Wagner and Julia Stiles

2012-05-08T21:55:00.002-04:00

Okay, I REALLY did not intend for this whole Separated at Birth thing to become an ongoing series. It's just that these strange and unexpected similarities keep popping up when I least expect them. In this case we're actually going to be visiting a familiar "Separated at Birth" face. Julia Stiles--star of such movies as "10 Things I Hate About You" (1999) and the "The Bourne Identity" trilogy (2002, 2004, 2007)--was one of the subjects of the very first Separated at Birth piece back in November 2011. In that one she was linked to (of all people) Kiefer Sutherland.

This was not so much because of any real physical resemblance between the two actors, but more because of the fact that they looked strikingly similar in the posters or images from some of their best-known roles. For Kiefer it was his pose atop a taxi for one of the seasons of his show "24" (2001-2010). For Julia it was the poster for her movie "Save the Last Dance" (2001).

Other than the fact that "24" and "Save the Last Dance" both premiered in 2001 there's not a whole heck of a lot about them that's similar besides those two images. Here's what I would see in my mind every time I encountered either one of them:

Strangely enough, the same image of Julia dancing seen above is behind this brand-new Separated at Birth example. Lindsay Wagner is an actress best known for playing the role of The Bionic Woman back in the 1970s. Other than both of them being attractive actresses with blond hair there isn't a whole lot of similarity between Lindsay and Julia. But, at least in this case they're both females.

Julia Stiles

Lindsay Wagner (Then)

Lindsay Wagner (Now)

I have a collection of TV Guides from the 1970s and 80s that I use for researching stuff that I saw on TV back when I was a kid. These old issues have given me plenty of nostalgic reading, as well as fuel for a lot of blog posts both here and (especially) at my other blog, TV Guide Time Machine. One of these TV Guides, the May 8-14, 1976 issue, features a Lindsay Wagner cover that I just noticed looks very familiar for some reason.

TV Guide: May 8-14, 1976

Once again, something clicked in my warped brain. Put the two images in question together and you just may be able to see some similarity. Check it out for yourself:

Hey, who knows, maybe I've stumbled onto something huge here. Could Julia Stiles be the secret love child of Kiefer Sutherland and Lindsay Wagner? I mean, they all certainly do have the same moves! Just remember, you heard it here first!

If you just can't get enough of this Separated at Birth phenomenon, please feel free to check out the other installments in this growing series that you may have missed:

Separated at Birth (Kiefer Sutherland and Julia Stiles)

Separated at Birth 2: Tim Tebow and Bigfoot

Separated at Birth 3: Reese Witherspoon and Sister Bear

Separated at Birth 4: Luis Guzman and Trog

Until next time, keep your eyes open for strange and unexpected doppelgangers. Something tells me there will be more to come...

The Incredible Hulk (1977)

2012-05-04T23:44:00.000-04:00

So today, May 4, 2012 (the 35th anniversary of the release of "Star Wars" by the way*) is the day that "The Avengers" is finally being released. I never really read The Avengers comics as a kid (or the comics of the individual members of The Avengers for that matter), but the years-long build-up to this movie's release has certainly gotten me interested. While many anticipated movies will start releasing teaser trailers a couple years in advance, "The Avengers" actually managed to release a number of highly successful movies that sort of acted like teaser trailers themselves ("Iron Man", "Iron Man 2", "The Incredible Hulk", "Captain America", "Thor"...) leading up to this moment. Seeing all the neat little Samuel L Jackson bits at the end of these films got me pretty stoked to see what "The Avengers" would be all about. Early buzz sounds very promising. Due to the blockbuster status of the film I will most likely wait a while before seeing it. Last night I went to a 9:40 showing of "The Three Stooges"--mostly to give myself a good laugh during a stressful time. As I'm not a big fan of big crowds, I enjoy going to late-night, mid-week showings of movies that have been out for a while. It tends to be a LOT quieter and more enjoyable than going to see a popular movie during its opening weekend.

The interesting thing about going to see "The Three Stooges" last night was that many theaters (including the one I went to) were having midnight showings of "The Avengers". The one I went to advertised 12:01 and 12:05AM screenings.

I didn't think much of this (other than giving a passing thought about trying to sneak into one of the midnight "Avengers" showings after my film got out). I'm used to leaving the theater after a late night movie and finding the lobby and parking lot very quiet and deserted. That wasn't the case last night of course. The first time I saw "The Three Stooges" a couple weeks ago I left during the end credits and didn't get to see the extra stuff at the end. Last night I made a point of staying through all the credits. There were a surprising number of employees waiting for me to leave so they could clean the theater. I felt a bit rushed, but still remained in my seat until the last credits rolled. My first indication that something was really different was when I was getting up to leave and Thor (or actually an employee in a Thor costume) wished me a pleasant night as I left. Then I walked out of the theater and was confronted with a long line of people waiting to get in to the same theater for one of the midnight "Avengers" shows (at about 11:30). Many of the other theaters had similarly long lines waiting to enter. It was pretty obvious that my idea to sneak into one of these showings wasn't going to fly. On the way out I not only saw a LOT of other Avengers fans preparing to see the movie, but I also saw another employee dressed as Captain America leading a group of people toward one of the multiplex's 14 theaters.

With the opening of "The Avengers" being today it seems like a good time to reflect on the one member of the Avengers team that I spent the most time with as a kid--The Incredible Hulk. As was the case with the other members, I didn't really read Hulk comics as a kid, but I did watch the Bill Bixby/Lou Ferrigno series "The Incredible Hulk" on CBS pretty regularly (in fact, probably just short of "religiously") on Friday nights back then.

There have been a wide range of mixed reviews for the two most recent big screen "Hulk" movies (2003's Ang Lee directed one and the 2008 "re-boot" that starred Edward Norton). I pretty much hated the 2003 version, and was only slightly more impressed with the 2008 one. The big problem for me with both of these films was the computer generated character of The Hulk.

2003 Hulk CGI

2008 Hulk CGI

1970s Non-CGI Hulk played by Lou Ferrigno

Well, I think that if I had read the comics as a kid I might have been a bit more forgiving of those CGI effects and would have enjoyed the movies more. I do have to admit that a CGI Hulk would be much more able to look and act like the character in the comics than any human ever could. While I have an aversion to CGI effects in general, I think my problem with those recent movies had more to do with the fact that I grew up knowing the character of The Hulk as being played by an actual person (Lou Ferrigno). There were probably comic book fans who were hugely disappointed with the direction that the 1970s TV show took, but that was pretty much how I got to know The Hulk.

Coincidently, I just recently (within the last week or so) started watching the old "The Incredible Hulk" show again through Netflix streaming. I've only seen the pilot movie and part of the first episode so far, but am already enjoying this trip back in time. I saw a few episodes over the past couple of years on the RTV (Retro Television) network when they had them on weeknights, but they stopped showing them in my area a while ago. It was nice to be able to start at the very beginning with Netflix. I've always been familiar with the story of how Dr. David Banner was exposed to an accidental overdose of gamma radiation and turned into The Hulk when angered or outraged--by seeing the opening credit sequence for the show week after week.

But, I don't know if I ever actually ever saw the original pilot movie for the show or not. If I did, I can't say I remember it. A lot of it did feel familiar because of the fact that the regular opening of the series is made up of footage from the pilot ("Mr. McGee Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry").

I was originally going to look for the ads and listings of the pilot movie and early episodes of "The Incredible Hulk" in my TV Guide collection and post this entry in my TV Guide Time Machine blog instead of here, but it turns out that I don't have the issues from November 1977, when the show premiered, in my collection. The pilot aired on Friday, November 4, 1977 and the first regular episode was on a few weeks later on Sunday, November 27th.

I don't know exactly when I started watching "The Incredible Hulk" (I was only 8 when it first aired), but I know that once I did it was a staple of my Friday nights for what seemed like a long time. I had a nephew who slept over most Friday nights for a while and we'd always watch "Doctor Who" (the Tom Baker era) at 7:00 PM on PBS and then "The Incredible Hulk" at 8:00 and "The Dukes of Hazzard" at 9:00. Around the time of the whole "Who shot J.R.?" phenomenon we also started watching "Dallas" at 10:00 too. The TV schedules changed from year to year of course, but that's the lineup which I remember best.

I've introduced my older daughter (The Little Monster) to a lot of the stuff I lived watching and reading about as a kid. We even watched a few episodes of "The Incredible Hulk" on RTV when the show was broadcast there. But I started my recent re-watching of the show by myself. At least I intended to watch it by myself anyway. Interestingly enough, my younger daughter (The Insane Beast) started watching it with me. She's about to turn three and I was a little surprised to find her so interested in the show. She seems to understand that David Banner and The Hulk are the same person. She refers to the show as either "David" or "Scary" (meaning David Banner and The Hulk), or "David and Scary". She will say "I wanna watch Scary" or "I wanna watch David" when she wants to see the show. It's amazing that something so old and not-really-for-kids-that-young like "The Incredible Hulk" would hold her interest so well. I also started showing Tom Baker "Doctor Who" episodes to The Little Monster a few months ago and was surprised that they both really enjoy watching that show too. I guess good entertainment is good entertainment--regardless of how old it is and whether it was shown on TV 30-35 years ago or whether it was just on Nickelodeon or The Disney Channel today! Since we don't have cable, my Little Monsters seem very susceptible to the charms of old cartoons and TV shows I enjoyed when I was a tyke. Now I feel a little guilty about not having The Little Monster watch "The Incredible Hulk" with The Insane Beast and myself. But in a way it does seem appropriate for the little one to be watching the show--as she tends to be a pretty destructive creature who can get pretty danged Hulk-like at times.

*Oh, and by the way...

The Titanic--100 Years Later

2012-04-15T00:00:00.005-04:00

I am starting to write this blog entry at 11:40 PM (EST) on the night of April 14, 2012. It seems so strange to think that it was exactly one hundred years ago that the RMS Titanic struck the iceberg which would send it to the bottom of the Atlantic in a little over two hours. It also ensured that the Titanic would become a part of history which is still remembered a century later. There are many reasons that the story of the Titanic has endured for one hundred years and why it is still so powerful today. The most obvious reason is the simple fact that over 1,500 people died that night. It was one of the worst maritime disasters in history. But the Titanic's legend is also fueled by so many more elements that it's almost difficult to believe that it could all be true. It almost seems like it has to be a work of fiction (and a pretty unbelievable one at that). The Titanic (along with her lesser-known sisters the Olympic and the Britannic) were the largest ships ever built up to that time. Titanic was referred to as the largest moving object ever created by man. Today's super-sized cruise ships would dwarf the Titanic, but her 882 foot length was an incredible feat of engineering in 1912. It was a time of great and rapid advances in science and technology. Today we tend to judge technology's progression by how things can be improved dramatically while becoming smaller and smaller. In 1912 the trend was to make things bigger and bigger. "Bigger is Better" could very well have been the motto of the day. The different ocean liner companies were constantly trying to outdo each other by building bigger, faster and more luxurious ships. It would be interesting to see what would have happened to this trend if the Titanic has arrived safely in New York on its maiden voyage in 1912.

1912 was also at the tail end of the Edwardian era, a time of rich people living very ostentatious and lavish lifestyles. The difference in the classes that was such a part of the fabric of society in 1912 could be seen on the luxury liners that regularly crossed the Atlantic. First, Second and Third Class were separated as much as possible onboard these ships. People in First Class should never even have to see the people in steerage who were relegated to their own areas, mostly deep in the ship and far away from the upper class passengers. It has frequently been said that a First Class ticket on the Titanic cost more than what most Third Class passengers would make in wages in an entire year. Some of the richest men in the entire world were traveling on the maiden voyage of the Titanic along with many people of meager means who were hoping to come to America and start a better life. The Edwardian era was already coming to an close, but the Titanic disaster really made for a very distinct end point. Two years later World War I would start and the world would become a very different place than it had been when the Titanic set sail.

There was also the audacious belief that the Titanic was "unsinkable" because it was the very apex of modern technology and safety. I have a feeling that this aspect was played up after the Titanic sank and really became part of the legend, but it was certainly rooted in fact. She was certainly considered "practically unsinkable" and it was said at least once that God himself couldn't sink her. That arrogance and the fact that the Titanic sank so fast--and on her maiden voyage--seem like something from a work of fiction. It sounds like a perfect comeuppance that couldn't really be true. She was designed so that any four of her watertight compartments could be flooded and she could stay afloat. Five of those compartments were compromised and the ship was doomed. The fact that no one thought the Titanic was also a big part of the reason that she carried only enough lifeboats for about half the passengers. Maritime regulations hadn't kept up with the rapid increase in the size of the new luxury liners. Titanic had enough lifeboats to fulfill those regulations, and obviously there wasn't any reason to clutter up the decks by adding more.

the best thing to come out of the Titanic tragedy were the much stricter regulations that explicitly required every ship to carry enough lifeboats for every person onboard. This and many other changes made after the disaster have probably saved hundreds--or thousands--of lives in the century since the Titanic went down.

Of course all the individual stories of what people did that night are also a big part of the lore of the Titanic as well. The bravery and courage of many members of the crew--and passengers as well--are legendary. Many people went to their deaths in a very dignified manner. The band played on to try to keep the crowds calm as long as they could--and then they all went down with the ship. Many men said goodbye to their wives and children as they put them in the lifeboats--knowing full well that they would most likely never see them again. Some women, realizing the true danger of the situation, opted to remain on the ship with their husbands rather than take a seat in a lifeboat. These stories contrast with some other stories of cowardice. All kinds of human behavior were displayed that night, but the majority of them seemed to be honorable.

Yet another reason for the Titanic's legacy was that no one could find her final resting place at the bottom of the ocean for more than seventy years. It seems odd to think of it now, but up until Robert Ballard discovered the Titanic in 1985 she had been one of the greatest mysteries of the twentieth century. It seemed there was just as much unknown as there was known about the ship. There was something so powerful about the fact that the worst sea disaster in history was also one of the world's greatest mysteries.

It is now 1:00 AM on April 15th, and it seems very strange to think that in the time I've been writing this rambling piece (I type very slowly) was a time of so much drama exactly one hundred years ago. By this time everyone on board must have known that the "unsinkable" Titanic was in fact going to sink. Many Third Class passengers were still trapped below deck by locked doors and gates designed to keep them away from the First Class passengers. The crew and many passengers probably were aware by now that the vast majority of souls still aboard were not going to get off--and that no help would arrive in time to save them. By the time 2:20 AM rolls around I will probably be asleep. It was at this time that the Titanic finally slipped beneath the surface and the majority of her victims lost their lives by either being pulled under by the suction, drowning or freezing to death in the frigid waters of the North Atlantic.

The story of the Titanic is repeated in print and on film so often that it can be hard to remember that this really was a true event. But it remains an amazingly tragic story even after one hundred years. This anniversary gives us a chance to think about it again and to try to comprehend just how many factors went into the story that cumulatively made it just such a monumental event in the history of mankind.

Epilogue

I've decided to stay up until 2:20 AM. It just seems like such an important moment to commemorate that it is worth not getting enough sleep for. Of course, while the Titanic went down at 2:20 and was never seen again until 1985, the stories many of her passengers continued. A lot of people went in the water when the Titanic sank. Those who were still alive spent at least a few more agonizing seconds or minutes in the freezing ocean waters before passing away. The lucky passengers who managed to get into lifeboats spent the remainder of the night trying to cope with what they had just witnessed and lived through, and trying to keep warm while waiting for a ship to rescue them. The RMS Carpathia didn't get there until the morning. Most of those survivors' lives were forever changed after the Titanic. As time went on and as the numbers of survivors dwindled, those who remained found themselves gaining a sort of celebrity status. People wanted to meet them and hear their stories. I remember the 90th anniversary commemorations ten years ago. At the time there were still a few Titanic survivors left (most of whom were too young in 1912 to really remember anything that had happened on that night). The last survivor, Millivina Dean, was only a couple months old when she was placed in one of the Titanic's lifeboats. She passed away just a few years ago in May of 2009. This means that this is the first major Titanic anniversary where there is no longer anyone left who was actually onboard the Titanic when she sank.

The Three Stooges vs. Abbott & Costello

2012-04-13T15:00:00.011-04:00

Today, Friday April 13, 2012, is the day that the brand new Farrelly Brothers movie "The Three Stooges" opens in theaters. This is an event that has been a long time in coming. It was a few years back when this project was first announced. That announcement was immediately met with a lot of questions, doubts and derision from Three Stooges fans around the world. There was a general belief that this movie (if it ever even came to fruition) would suck. The Farrelly Brothers have certainly made a lot of funny movies, but how would they go about bringing the Stooges to the big screen? Would they make it a standard, cookie-cutter gross-out comedy (which seems to be the flavor of the day)? Would they try to replicate the original Stooges experience in every way possible? Would they update the characters to better fit in with today's world? Hollywood is currently very "remake" "re-imagining" and "reboot" happy. The results of these unoriginal ideas tend to be disappointing much more often than not. Whatever the approach, it seemed very unlikely that the Farrellys would be able to capture the magic that made the real Three Stooges such a time-tested classic.

Then the casting choices started to be announced. Names like Jim Carrey, Sean Penn and Benicio del Toro were supposedly attached to the project at various times. While Jim Carrey is a hilarious actor (when the script calls for it), the other two big names were real head-scratchers. It was certainly a bold move, but one that sent up big warning signs for fans of the Stooges. Unfortunately (or fortunately) those three actors were ultimately replaced. After a few more rounds of casting calls (where Paul Giamatti and Hank Azaria were supposedly in the mix at one time ot another) the new version of The Three Stooges was finally settled upon. The only one who was relatively well-known (to me at least) was Sean Hayes (from the TV show "Will & Grace") playing Larry. Chris Diamantopoulus and Will Sasso ("Mad TV") were to play Moe and Curly respectively (if not respectfully). I personally was heartened to see that they settled for lesser-known actors rather than established big stars. Total unknowns might have been even better, but who knows? Even with the three actors cast there was still much doubt that this movie would be anything worth seeing. It seemed like the whole thing could be a disaster of "Titanic" proportions (sorry I had to add that, with tomorrow being the 100th anniversary of the Titanic sinking).

Then something unforeseen and surprising happened. The first photos were released of the new Stooges. And, they actually looked very much like the old Stooges. That didn't mean that the movie would be any good of course, but it was nice to see that they were putting some effort into recreating at least the appearance of the stooges rather than doing a total "re-imagination" of them.

Not a great shot, but the first image I saw of the new Three Stooges

And, finally, a number of months ago the first official trailer for the movie was released. I can only imagine that the Farrelly brothers were nervous about what the reaction would be. They simply HAD to know what was being said about this project by Stooge-o-philes ever since it was announced. Well, the trailer was pretty hilarious (in my opinion at least). I've never been a huge Three Stooges fan (see below), but this trailer gave me quite a bit of hope that this movie might actually be worth seeing.

Over the past few months I have gradually gone from being a skeptic to being cautiously optimistic about the movie. An old friend of mine (who is a bigger Stooges fan than I) and I occasionally get a chance to see a movie together. It's a much more rare event than it was back in the carefree days of our youth. It takes a lot more work and planning to pull it off now that we both have wives, kids and homes of our own. Most of the time we try to see science-fiction and horror movies that we're been eagerly anticipating. But The Three Stooges has become a must see for us. It certainly could still suck, but we're excited about going to see it to find out for ourselves.

I am writing this on Friday afternoon. The movie has already been played hundreds of times across the country. As of this moment I still have not read or heard any reviews. It's very likely that the word will get out all over the internet very soon. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it will be deemed worthy by long-time hardcore Three Stooges fans.

And now onto the real reason for this post. I grew up in the 1970s when The Three Stooges and Abbott & Costello were still heavily featured on television. In the Boston area we had some great independent stations that regularly showed them. Other channels would show Abbott & Costello movies and Three Stooges movies and shorts pretty frequently, but there were two channels you could count on to get a regular fix of comedy from these guys. WSBK TV38 would air Stooges shorts on weekend mornings and WSMW Channel 27 (out of Worcester) would air A&C movies on Saturday evenings at 6:00. These were the main times I remember watching them. In one of the greatest links to old-school local TV programming, WSBK 38 actually STILL shows The Stooges on Sunday mornings! Not only that, but they also have had a long-standing tradition of running Stooges marathons every New Year's Eve. Channel 27 stopped its 6:00 Saturday screenings of A&C movies in the early 1980s when the pay-per-view Preview Channel debuted. For a while they still showed A&C films earlier in the day (before Preview Channel programming started in the late afternoon) until Preview expanded and took up most of WSMW's airtime. The channel is still around today, but is now part of the spanish language Univision network.

Here are a few TV Guide ads for Abbott & Costello movies on Channel 27

"Hold That Ghost"
March 20, 1976

"Who Done It?"
October 2, 1976

"Abbott & Costello go to Mars"
October 23, 1976

Here's an example of just how much A&C and the Stooges were all over Boston TV. This is an ad for Abbott & Costello's "Here Come the Coeds" on WSBK TV38 on Sunday September 23, 1979 at 10:30AM--a slot usually reserved for Stooges shorts around this time

And here's some images from channel 38's New Year's Eve Stooges 2012 Marathon

Marathon hosts The Andelman brothers (from the show The Phantom Gourmet)

Thanks to TV I was exposed to both The Three Stooges and Abbott & Costello as a kid and have an appreciation for both of them. But I definitely was (and still am) more of an Abbott & Costello fan. They were both classic comedy acts that had a basis in the vaudeville tradition, but were different from each other, and both great in their own way. There were plenty of other comedy acts to choose from (Laurel & Hardy, The Marx Brothers, Wheeler & Woolsey, Martin & Lewis among them), but I always think of the Stooges and A&C as the cream of the classic comedy crop. That's probably due more to the regularity that channels 27 and 38 aired them back in the day than any actual thought out reason on my part.

Speaking of both teams' background in vaudeville and burlesque, I also feel very lucky to have grown up at a time when they were still on TV a lot. I wasn't born until decades after vaudeville went the way of the dinosaurs, but I feel that I have some degree of appreciation for that form of entertainment--not only because I'm interested in history in general, but because of the Stooges and A&C. They both started out doing their comedy live and moved into film, television and radio years later. Much of their acts and many of their routines were straight from their days in vaudeville. Since those movies and shorts were still on the air in the 1970s when I was a kid they gave me a sort of direct (or indirect) link straight back to the days of live vaudeville. Not to sound like an old fuddy-duddy, but I'l bet most kids today have no idea what vaudeville even was.

I've exposed The Little Monster (and now her younger sister too) to both Abbott & Costello and The Three Stooges. I'll let them decide which ones they ultimately prefer (if either). The Little Monster has seen a couple Stooges movies and a few of their shorts. But I do have to admit that she's seen more of Abbott & Costello. Not only am I a bit biased toward them, but I also just happen to own the awesome "Abbott & Costello: The Complete Universal Pictures Collection" box set, which boasts all 28 movies that they made for Universal.

Image borrowed from Amazon.com

The Little Monsters watching "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" last October

I would argue that most people are either Three Stooges people or Abbott & Costello people (just like there are Elvis people and Beatles people). One can certainly have an appreciation for both, but ultimately would choose one over the other. I'm sure it could be argued that one's preference says something about them. What that might be I have no idea. Of course these days I'm sure there are a lot of kids out there who don't have any idea who these people were and have no interest in discovering them. They are relics from an ancient past that is too far in the past to be of interest, and there are simply too many other high-tech distractions to keep kids occupied today. That fact in itself might just be the best reason for the Farrelly Brothers to make a Three Stooges movie at this time. Long-time fans might have mixed feelings about the whole thing, but if it exposes a new generation to the old comedy teams of the 30s, 40s and 50s then it might not be such a bad thing. And if a few of those kids are inspired to take the time to look even further and find out more about the real Three Stooges (and maybe even some of the other acts), well then it could end up being a very good thing indeed!

UPDATE

Here are a couple images from channel 38's "Sunday With The Stooges" show on April 15, 2012--during the opening weekend of the new Stooges movie. The tradition continues!

"The Wizard of Oz", "Sanford and Son" and Lena Horne

2012-04-08T23:51:00.003-04:00

It's the end of Easter Sunday 2012. I generally don't write about religious topics...and this will be no exception. But Easter does seem like a good time to write about something that (marginally) has to do with "The Wizard of Oz" (1939) because there was a time when the movie's annual appearance on broadcast TV occurred in the Spring around the time of Easter (and even on Easter Sunday itself at least once, in 1978).

So what do "The Wizard of Oz", the show "Sanford and Son" and famous singer Lena Horne have in common? I would suspect that people who are big fans of "Sanford and Son" might have an idea about the last two, but where "The Wizard of Oz" fits in probably seems less obvious. So let me explain...

I remember looking forward to watching "The Wizard of Oz" on TV when I was a kid. This was back in the 1970s and 80s when the airing of movies like "The Wizard of Oz", "The Sound of Music" and holiday Specials like "Rudolph: The Red-Nosed Reindeer", "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" and The Peanuts' Halloween and Christmas shows were true events. They were only put on TV once a year, and if you weren't there to see them you literally had to wait a whole year to get another chance. It was truly "must-see TV". I'm sure that idea would seem strange to a younger person growing up in this age of instant viewing gratification, but keep in mind that when I was a kid there was no such thing as a VCR. Actually, there were VCRs--but they were huge, clunky and exorbitantly expensive. Unlike today you couldn't simply buy your own copy of the movie on VHS, DVD or Blu-ray. Cable TV wasn't available in my area. And there certainly were no such things as the Internet, YouTube, DVRs TiVos or any of the multitude of other ways one can see pretty much anything they want to pretty much any time they want to today.

For all these reasons it was a special occasion when "The Wizard of Oz" would come on. I have a somewhat vague and general memory of watching it a number of times growing up. Most of the recollections of those viewings kind of run together in my mind, but one has always stood out. Because of the fact that the human memory tends to be much more faulty than one would think (our minds sometimes try to group memory bits together to make something coherent out of otherwise random moments of our past, and we are also very susceptible to the influence of suggestion on our memory), I have learned to view my own personal memories with a skeptical eye. This is the reason I've done so much painstaking and seemingly pointless research on my own past. See stories like Happy New Year 1976! and Resurrecting The Past: January 21, 1983 Part One and Part Two for more examples of my insanity.

The one "clear" memory I have always had about watching "The Wizard of Oz" wasn't really all that clear, but it had a few seemingly reliable parts to it. It seemed to come from around the very end of the 1970s or the very early 1980s. It seemed as though it was a Friday night. I remember being excited about the fact that the movie would be on that night. I don't specifically recall much about actually watching the movie itself (as that memory kind of goes along with all the generalized memories of watching it as a kid). Instead, I remember watching something else that was on before the movie while waiting for it to start later on in the evening. That something was an episode of "Sanford and Son"--though I didn't know exactly which episode it was. The other thing I clearly remember about that night was that Lena Horne was involved in some way. As well-known as Lena Horne was at the time I wasn't all that familiar with her myself. I knew the name and that she was a famous singer, but didn't really know anything about her singing. The reason I recall her having something to do with the night is that hearing her name instantly made me think of cream horns.

Lena Horne

A Cream Horn

A cream horn (for anyone not familiar with them) is a delicious, decadent, tube-shaped pastry that contains a very sweet, creamy filling inside. Even back then it was one of my favorite things to eat when I'd get the chance to lay my little hands on one. Thirty-plus years later I still consider them to be one of the greatest guilty pleasures the world has to offer.

The reason I believed that all this happened on a Friday night (besides the simple fact that my memory said so) was that I remembered "Sanford and Son" being on before the movie. I know that WLVI Channel 56 out of Boston showed episodes of "Sanford and Son" in the hour or so before the networks' prime time schedule started at 8:00 PM. I always felt that the night in question was a weekend night. Since I recall feeling the excitement of still having the weekend ahead of me it had to be either a Friday or Saturday night (as a Sunday night airing before heading back to school on Monday would have a very different feeling to it). Saturday night was pretty much ruled out too--as Channel 56 only aired episodes of old sitcoms like "Sanford and Son" in that time slot Monday through Friday.

That information was pretty much the extent of my memory up until this past week. I never actually knew if any of it was really true. Could I have imagined that I saw "Sanford and Son" before "The Wizard of Oz"? Could it have been a different night than Friday? And, what the heck did Lena Horne have to do with the whole thing? Any part of this memory (or even the whole thing itself) could have been faulty. It was time to find out the truth...

I always figured that the most likely connection between "Sanford and Son" and Lena Horne was that she had probably guest starred in an episode--and that was the episode I saw on that night. Well, a little check of IMDb.com quickly revealed that this was indeed the case. Ms. Horne appeared in the episode "A Visit from Lena Horne" (pretty clever title, huh?). It was the sixteenth episode of the second season of the show and originally aired on January 12, 1973.

So now I knew that my not-so-random craving for a delicious cream horn did indeed spring forth from an appearance by Lena Horne on "Sanford and Son". But how could I confirm that WLVI 56 ever aired that specific episode before one of the annual presentations of "The Wizard of Oz"? The first part of the answer came from Wikipedia. Wiki has a whole page on The Wizard of Oz on Television. A search of that article revealed a very useful listing of the dates of every broadcast showing of "The Wizard of Oz" between 1956 and 2005. While I know that Wikipedia is not an incontrovertible source of information, and that "facts" found there must be taken with a grain of salt, I had the information I needed to (hopefully) finish my research. I had to pick a year that I felt my memory was likely to have come from. 1980 sounded about right and I decided to start with that year before branching out to earlier and later years. It turns out that it was a very good guess.

Luckily my collection of old Eastern New England editions of TV Guides included the issue that contained the 1980 showing of the movie. "The Wizard of Oz" was on CBS on Friday, March 7th of that year. That means it would be in the March 1-7, 1980 issue. A look through the issue confirmed Wikipedia's information.

Here is the "This Week's Movies" section of that issue on pages A-7 and A-11

Here is the full-page ad in TV Guide for the 1980 airing of "The Wizard of Oz" from the same issue

And here is the actual listing for the movie on March 7th

Now it was time to go back just a little to see if WLVI 56 was featuring "Sanford and Son" at the time. Benny Hill was on Channel 56 at 7:30 (as can be seen in the listings above), immediately before the 8:00 start time of "The Wizard of Oz" over on CBS. A half-hour earlier, at 7:00 Channel 56 had... "Sanford and Son". Not only that, but the listing for it actually had a short description confirmed my memory once and for all: "A dream come true: Fred finagles a visit from Lena Horne."!

It's true that this really is a small thing in the grand scheme of things, but for me personally it was wonderful to know that the memory I had of that night was pretty accurate. As a bonus, I now have an exact date to put with that memory! As a final bonus, the writing of this blog gave me an excuse to go out and buy a cream horn!

That night can now be partially recreated through the magic of modern technology. I don't know exactly which commercials I might have seen that year, but a good sampling of ads from that year can be easily found on YouTube. Also, the Lena Horne episode of "Sanford and Son" can be found there. It is also available on DVD. And, of course, "The Wizard of Oz" has been available on home video for many years now (first on Beta and VHS tapes and laser disc, then later on DVD and Blu-ray). That ready availability is exactly why an airing of "The Wizard of Oz" on TV is no longer the exciting, must-see event that it once was. I love having all this stuff at my fingertips, but also really miss the old days too...

Here are some screen shots from the "A Visit from Lena Horne" episode of Sanford and Son:

Fred finds Lena Horne's dressing room while sneaking away from an NBC studio tour

And then has his first "heart attack" of the episode when Ms. Horne walks in on him checking out her room

Later, Lena visits Fred at the junkyard--inducing a second "heart attack" from him...

...As well as Lamont's very first "heart attack"!

Here's the actual episode on YouTube (in three parts):

And, here's that actual "Special Presentation" announcement that CBS made before starting "The Wizard of Oz" on March 7, 1980 (from Indianapolis rather than Boston, but still pretty great to see)

Put these together with the movie itself and a bunch of commercials from the period sprinkled throughout and you have a pretty good approximation of my memory of that night!

There's No Place Like Home!