Harlan Ellison on youtube

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

David W. Pareis
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 10:06 pm

Harlan Ellison on youtube

Postby David W. Pareis » Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:25 pm


Ace_Arn
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:06 pm

Postby Ace_Arn » Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:17 am

Good find. I've been looking for Harlan on Youtube and kept striking out. From the The Masters of Comic Book Art; wish it was put on dvd.

My one beef with Dark Knight Returns is it made Batman friggin HUGE. Nobody that beefy can be swift and agile. (Yes, yes, it's only a comic... but still - c'mon.) Jim Lee had the same problem; he wants Batman to be rediculously muscular. It's almost homoerotic.

Besides, how many people in Gotham could be that large? Wouldn't be that hard to narrow down Batman being Bruce. (Yes, yes... it's only a comic...)

Carstonio
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:50 am

Postby Carstonio » Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:57 am

What is the copyright issue with YouTube? I saw this thread and I immediately thought of Harlan's successful lawsuit against ABC for "Future Cop."

User avatar
David Loftus
Posts: 3182
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Postby David Loftus » Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:15 am

Ace_Arn wrote:My one beef with Dark Knight Returns is it made Batman friggin HUGE. Nobody that beefy can be swift and agile. (Yes, yes, it's only a comic... but still - c'mon.) Jim Lee had the same problem; he wants Batman to be rediculously muscular. It's almost homoerotic.



Whadayamean, "almost"?

[ pant, pant . . . ]

Have the latest comics -- excuse me, graphic novels -- imported the crotch cups (the Elizabethan fashion term temporarily escapes me) from the movies?
War is, at first, the hope that one will be better off; next, the expectation that the other fellow will be worse off; then, the satisfaction that he isn't any better off; and, finally, the surprise at everyone's being worse off. - Karl Kraus

Ace_Arn
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:06 pm

Postby Ace_Arn » Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:36 am

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act basically says a service provider is not responsible for content. The users are. So Youtube can't be sued for copyrighted material; the users that upload it to the website are liable. However if the case was made that Youtube was indeed promoting this behaviour, then it could be sued.

Youtube does indeed take down any material copyright holders ask to be removed. But does not self-police itself - 1,000s of videos per day are uploaded, and they'd have to verify the identity of every uploader. They can't just assume that any copyrighteed material is there illegally; who's to say a copyright holder isn't putting material up on the site - plenty of companies/artists do.

So they operate on honoursystem and complaint system. Unlike other online companies, Youtube has a reputation of being pretty easy to get a hold of and acts quickly to meet the wishes of complainees. They actually err on the side of caution and have removed noncopyrighted material from time to time - responding to joke/fake/vindictive complaints.

They do not offer downloads. Unlike napster/grokster/etc, Youtube only allows you to view the videos; not to keep them. The site isn't offering anything, just showing you things. Like if you brought people over to your place to watch brief excerpts from movies.

They say they do not make money off of showing videos. And technically, no ads are shown on any page where videos can be seen. For the first 16 months of operation, they didn't even have ads anywhere on their site. But besides videos, what else do they offer? - why else would advertisers bother with the site? They are starting to cross a fineline on this one - they've got to watch themselves on how much revenue they generate, stress that any revenue they do bring in is meant to show homemade material, and have to stress they do not exist to purposely post copyrighted material.

Given the sheer amount of copyrighted material on youtube, it seems like most copyright holders don't care. After all, most of it is just clips. Except for rare cases, you are not going to find full episodes of anything. There aren't full length films up there. Like this Harlan/Miller thing - it comes from the Masters of Comic Book Art documentary, but nowhere on the site are the other interviews with Dave Sim, Neal Adams, Jack Kirby, etc etc. I would assume most companies/artists view youtube as free advertising - if people like what they see in those brief minutes, they'll go out and buy the full thing.

Ace_Arn
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:06 pm

Postby Ace_Arn » Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:41 am

Codpiece - why I so quickly could produce the term is my little secret.

But no - they aren't a part of superhero attire; and no nipplethingies either.

David W. Pareis
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 10:06 pm

tomorrow show 1976

Postby David W. Pareis » Tue May 29, 2007 10:52 pm

This was just recently put up on youtube. The infamous Star Trek episode of the Tomorrow Show w/ Tom Snyder. It's split into five parts,

part 1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-tZt493xHho

part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXx7Q1vh ... ed&search=

part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CGFaZUi ... ed&search=

part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSHDP1fg ... ed&search=

part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOQTfnie ... ed&search=

Harlan shows up near the end of the third part
Anybody who needs Bob Dylan to tell him which way the wind is blowing is a serious mental defective.

Sterling Morrison

Pablo picasso never got called an asshole
Not like you
jonathan richman

User avatar
Jan
Posts: 1817
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Köln

Postby Jan » Wed May 30, 2007 4:06 am

I watched this when it was announced in the Pavilion. Doohan always seems to go on about everything until interrupted, as long as it's not related to any questions. Always good to see Kelley. The two of them were the best thing about Trek. You don't need Kelley to say he's lazy. You know. :-) The convention guy is a painful carricature of the 70s Trek/Wars/SF fan type. Snyder seems a bit artificially serious. He has barely seen an episode and doesn't know what to do with all the actors (his interview with Roddenberry was much better). Harlan comes across as someone who drank too much coffee and who has a need to impress with outspokenness. He seems to be ignorant of the fact that tv at the time was done for a mass audience on a thight schedule and budget, so how can he complain Star Trek is not on the same level as Proust. Roddenberry told Snyder they were happy if they had three episodes a year that they were really proud of, which seems reasonable enough.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Wed May 30, 2007 5:59 pm

Jan, I take it you are still mad at Harlan.

But, I will agree, Harlan doesn't come off that well in this.

Look how young he is; if he saw this he would start to cry. hehe.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Wed May 30, 2007 6:02 pm

Harlan compared The Beatles to other pop culture junk. I hope he has changed since then.

User avatar
Jan
Posts: 1817
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Köln

Postby Jan » Wed May 30, 2007 9:02 pm

No one came off well on the show. The 70s must have sucked. :-)

I've been having second thoughts about the Beatles as well. Of course Harlan always thinks about the worst aspects of the things he hates - what would he do, who would he be without things to carp about - which in the case of the Beatles was Beatlemania. The outbreak preceded most of their good work. They could do a cover version of Twist and Shout, and that would go to number 1. I think even Hello Goodbye went to number 1, later on. I think that's what Harlan means. People overreacting, which arguably happend with Trek in the 70s.

User avatar
Davey C
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Iowa City
Contact:

Postby Davey C » Thu May 31, 2007 8:21 am

One of the professors I most respected in my pointlessly overextended college career pulled me aside after class one day to tell me that my writing sucked; as that conversation irised open and we moved from me to the rest of the universe, we dwelt on The Beatles, a topic for which Dr. Loflin had strong feelings.

The understanding I took from that meeting was that one really couldn't properly appreciate the Beatles without having been alive and awake during their rise to prominence. Sure, they seemed poppy and facile and bubble-gum by YOUR standards (he said to me in the mid-80s), but you really couldn't see them as anything other than fantastic, brilliant, and profoundly groundbreaking when you considered them in the context of crap and pabulm from which they emerged. And yeah, I kinda dug that point.

Now I'm wondering if ST can (or should) be considered in the same way.
aaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!! My nipples!

-Bob Goldthwait

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Thu May 31, 2007 9:11 am

Davey C wrote:One of the professors I most respected in my pointlessly overextended college career pulled me aside after class one day to tell me that my writing sucked; as that conversation irised open and we moved from me to the rest of the universe, we dwelt on The Beatles, a topic for which Dr. Loflin had strong feelings.


I'm surprised the conversation continued. He must have been extraordinarily skilled at conveying the news since the phrase "your writing sucks" usually is a pretty good conversation ender.

I'm curious -- was it a writing class? Did you continue to write after the comment? (My wife was once told she couldn't really sing well enough for a career -- that was three CDs, hundreds of gigs and several Orange County Music Awards ago.)

Hopefully you didn't let that professor stop you...

More about the Beatles below.

Davey C wrote:The understanding I took from that meeting was that one really couldn't properly appreciate the Beatles without having been alive and awake during their rise to prominence. Sure, they seemed poppy and facile and bubble-gum by YOUR standards (he said to me in the mid-80s), but you really couldn't see them as anything other than fantastic, brilliant, and profoundly groundbreaking when you considered them in the context of crap and pabulm from which they emerged. And yeah, I kinda dug that point.


Last year (as I've noted a couple of times on the Pav), my wife and I went to see the Cirque du Soleil show LOVE, which is centered on the music of the Beatles. Like your professor assumes, my feelings towards them prior to this show were that they were reasonably good perfomers, excellent writers and kind of fun and kitschy to watch.

After LOVE, my wife and I had a frame of reference on their music that hadn't existed before, and are now big fans of the Beatle's work -- to the extent my wife is recording two Beatle's songs for an upcoming release.

I'd agree with your professor, but not for the reasons he may have given you. It's not just the relation of the Beatles to pablum, it's the personal references you have when listening to them play. You may really, really like the music of a given musician/band -- but once you've seen them in concert (if they're good live) you've now got a sensory response that kicks in the next time you hear them on the radio/cd player/iPod or other.

In other words, the personal connection is what makes the difference in your reaction to a band, not just the raw music itself. Getting caught up in Beatlemania -- even if you had never seen them live -- connects the listener to the band in a way that 20/20 hindsight (hindhearing?) could never duplicate.

Davey C wrote:Now I'm wondering if ST can (or should) be considered in the same way.


That's an interesting question. I didn't really grow up with the Beatles, but I definitely grew up with ST. It was a favorite in our household, and my father and I would make it a point to watch the show together. To me the show represents something different than I would gather it does so many of the modern day fans. I don't see the cheesiness (though I readily admit it's there!), so much as I see the wonder of reaching out into the galaxy, of a future not quite as bleak as the Twilight Zone and Outer Limits episodes I'd seen. It wasn't dumb (like Lost in Space and other Irwin Allen productions). And lastly, it formed a sort of impression on me that cannot be readily described other than by personal analogy: it was my STAR WARS. That sense of wonder and energy that so many younger fans felt in the first film is a little like what I felt when Mantrap came on the tv for the first time.

So... in answer to your question, I don't know. I would guess the reboot is going to restore some of the popularity -- but I'm not sure anything can properly recreate the sense of wonder and "oh wow" that the original series had. I love TNG but for different reasons. I kind of felt that spark with the first PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN movie, that sense of watching something for the first time and feeling that rush of indrawn air and suspension of disbelief -- and the moment of sadness when it suddenly ends all too quickly.

And that's probably a lot more prose than you were counting upon.

Blame the lack of coffee and a profoudn desire to avoid getting my day started...
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Davey C
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Iowa City
Contact:

Postby Davey C » Thu May 31, 2007 11:38 am

I was kinda condensing for the sake of brevity, there; "Your writing sucks" would Transformer(TM) out to "I've seen you turn in some excellent work -- " (BTW, yes, it was a writing class), "...but the quality of your stuff has been dropping lately, and this piece here really sucks." And it did; it was something stupid about accidentally dropping a sheet of acid in a dorm kitchen soup vat, and the hilarity that ensues. I'd hammered it out half an hour before it was due without devoting the tiniest scintilla of thought to the assignment beforehand. I know, I know, the LSD would break down immediately in the hot broth, and just a single blotter sheet in a fifty-some gallon vat wouldn't make anyone twinkle even if it was iced Kool-Aid instead of hot chicken noodle, AND the premise and execution were fuckin' juvenile. He was right; it sucked.

I was just impressed, though, because that professor was the first one I'd ever had who wasn't all Nicey-Nicey & teaching from a foundation that anything a student writes is somehow inherently good, when what I'd turned in was an utter piece of shit. I was paying for a goddamn education, not a Jergens-slimed academic hand sliding up & down the short but hypersensitive shaft of my brittle self-esteem.

Sorry. What -- oh yeah, Star Trek. I didn't really tune in to ST until about 1970 or '71, and then I was only in second grade, and perhaps paying less attention than I should have to the relationships between this or that program and the SocioEconoCultural context, milieu, or zeitgeist in which it thrived or foundered. Once TNG came out, I was probably better equipped to notice, but didn't really analyze it such a critical way -- there were just so MANY notable cultural phenomena going on at the time; TNG kinda drowned in a sea of novelty. I'll go to the mat, though, with any motherfucker that says that Locutus of Borg cliffhanger wasn't one of the finest hours of television ever made.

Blame the lack of coffee and a profoudn desire to avoid getting my day started...


Never apologize for not having had coffee. If anything, you should trumpet such news with stentorian superiority.

"Look! Up in the sky!"

"It's a toothpaste model!"

"It's a relaxed and gently-smiling rose-smeller!"

"It's the anthropomorphization of fresh breath!"

"No! It's DOESN'T DRINK COFFEE MAN!!"
(then you strike a pose, arms akimbo, chin jutting with righteous forcefulness, and spotless white cape wafting gently, while the heroic twinkle from your teeth illuminates the slash-circled coffee cup on the muscle-packed chest of your skintight aubergine unitard)
aaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!! My nipples!



-Bob Goldthwait

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Thu May 31, 2007 12:55 pm

1) Good on the professor. That kind of teaching makes for a better writer. It's the ones who don't give a damn (see above reference to wife's teacher) who do a great deal more damage than good.

2) TNG:"Best of Both Worlds": excellent and exciting example, but it falls short of having the same impact of wonderment in my life. Even my other geekboy fave Babylon 5 never had that level of "wow!" -- it was simply very good television (on the whole). That kind of imaginative revelation only occurs a few times in our lives, and I was probably too caught up in "adult" activities to be open to it when TNG was around (though, as I said, the original "Pirates" movie hit me right, so I'm getting more kidlike again I guess).

Lastly, and it shouldn't need to be said, but...

3) Coffee is a food of the Gods. Nothing less. My name is Steve, and I'm a coffaholic.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests