The Signal Watch
@signalwatch.bsky.social
260 followers 440 following 1.4K posts
(aka: League of Melbotis) - Austin, TX. Film, comics and other discussion! https://signal-watch.com
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
TL;DR - Pop Culture Fade-Out: What Happens When No One Remembers Lassie? #film #moviereview #movies
TL;DR - Pop Culture Fade-Out: What Happens When No One Remembers Lassie?
Liz is also easily distracted by squirrels A while back I read the book Rin Tin Tin: The Life and The Legend by Susan Orlean (recommended).  The book is a biography/ history of how one American soldier on the front lines of World War I found a stray dog, and how that dog became, literally, the biggest movie star in the world.   There's a possibly apocryphal story that at the first Academy Awards they had to re-do nominations and/ or voting because Rin Tin Tin, a skinny German Shepherd, came up as "Best Actor" (everyone kinda thought the awards were a bit absurd at the time).  But what is true is that dog was also one of the biggest box office draws in Hollywood for a few years there before the movies learned how to talk. While the original Rin Tin Tin passed and was buried in France, various other dogs took on the name and role, and through the 1950's, Rin Tin Tin was still a major pop culture fixture - a sort of family-friendly action star, now re-imagined for television as living on the frontier and starring in his own cavalry-themed Western. Now...  I'm not sure even my peers could tell you what breed Rin Tin Tin was with any certainty. Lee Duncan and the first Rin Tin Tin It's not clear what happened to the bloodline of Rin Tin Tin, and/or who owns the name and rights.  Nor is it clear anyone outside a miniscule handful of people cares, as the last produced Rin Tin Tin media I'm aware of is a very white-washed biopic from 2007.   But for a few decades, Rin Tin Tin was a household name and common reference point.  By the 1970's, Rin Tin Tin was *maybe* something our parents would reference, but wasn't really part of the cultural conversation.  I was aware of the dog star as a precursor to Lassie, and that was about it.  In today's world - if one in 5000 kids had ever seen a picture of Rin Tin Tin or knew the name, I'd be a little surprised.   But, once upon a time, kids loved that dog.  Heck, adults loved that dog.  But time passes. Now there's this gravesite in France for a dog that was once beloved globally.  But in a decade or two, will that grave be met by American tourists giggling at what a silly name it seems to be.  And for a dog?  Utterly unaware that at one point, that dog was the biggest thing movies had to offer. Horizon Lines We're constantly living on two horizon lines.  The first one sits in front of us, and it's where the new and novel comes into view, bright and shiny.  We need that glint of discovery, fresh ideas, characters and people.  And then there's the horizon behind us where the things beloved by our parents and grandparents and their forebears disappear into some great beyond of forgotten lore.  And that had been the norm for most of human history, minus myths and legends that have carried on, or been carved into stone. Music styles come and go.  Stories featuring favorite characters appear, survive a while, and then vanish.  Whole genres and print types wind up in archives and basements.  Movie stars shine brightly for a few years and then fade into obscurity.  The sexy starlet of today becomes the granny character actor of tomorrow or forgotten within a decade of her retirement. Some things come over the horizon line and pass fast as a meteor in the night sky.  Some are a slow moving object, seemingly in geosynchronous orbit.  But one day, those things will fade, too.  A movie will always play one last time.  A curtain comes down on an opera that will never rise again.  Sometimes we'll know this is it, but most often, whatever we're thinking of will disappear, unremarked upon.   Our history of shared fan favorites surviving hundreds of years in any medium is slim.  Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was released in 1818, and Stoker's Dracula was 1897.  Dickens' A Christmas Carol was published in 1843.  Bronte's Jane Eyre was 1847.  Pride and Prejudice saw print in 1813.  Mozart's The Magic Flute was performed first in 1791.  Hamlet was first staged around 1600.  These are considered classics at this point, and part of the cultural canon.  For now.  But what about work that isn't kept alive and preserved as part of academia and a sign of cultural literacy? There's going to be fans who remember and try to keep the memory of their favorite characters and books and movies alive one way or another, but they'll be in an endless war with accountants who see no profit in the old materials, and those who refuse to look anywhere but at that first horizon line, insisting anything new is inherently of more value.  But some folks only keep their eye on what's above and watch the things heading toward that sunset. I don't think I really even knew I was following a Lassie fan page on facebook.  Lord knows when I signed up for that or why, but it can't have been very active, or rarely pushed to my feed by the algorithm.  On Monday I saw a post by the owner of the Lassie fan page stating they were closing down the account and removing their content.  The community that had gathered there was kind of in mourning.   It's not the end of Lassie or even Lassie fan pages, I'd guess.  But someone who had cared enough to curate the community decided it was no longer worth the effort. The fan page had been a promotion for a Lassie fan magazine that had run its course, and now the owner wished to move on.   Lassie, that collie who helped make Elizabeth Taylor and Roddy McDowall movie stars, who was a TV staple in the first decades of TV, who survived in endless rerun during my youth... and was in a pretty good movie co-starring Helen Slater when I was in college...  that poor dog's time seems to be running out.   So, yeah, it struck me that I was watching the sun setting just a bit more on another once enormous cultural touchstone.  And while I hadn't been a part of the generation that loved Lassie as their childhood TV pal (and Lassie ran for 19 seasons, y'all, from 1954 to 1974) I was there right after all that ended. Growing up in the 1980's, collies weren't ubiquitous, but you saw them a lot.  I suspect because the adults around had been raised on the TV show and dreamed of a Lassie of their own, now they kept collies.  But, I can't even remember the last time I saw a collie anywhere outside of a dog show on TV.  And even the Lassie jokes of my youth have been turned into generic dog jokes. But I do recall "Lassie" having enough cache still in 1997 that when the pooch visited the mall where I worked, the line of kids and their parents was long enough that my plan to pop down and meet Lassie was thwarted.   But I think the last Lassie movie was made in 2005, and I'm not sure it made it to theaters in the US.  Which is wild as the movie stars Peter O'Toole, Samantha Morton, Peter Dinklage, and even Kelly MacDonald is in it.  Heck, there's a Redgrave in the cast.   you okay there, kid?  One too many trips down the well? Resetting at the First Horizon I'm sure some of the challenge of dealing with things like Lassie or Rin Tin Tin is that the legal entanglements become a bit much as heirs and companies fight.  Who owned what becomes messy as mergers occur and years pass and heirs battle.  And it's easier to not figure it out than sort it out.   Is the world poorer for one less movie about a dog barking at people until they pluck Timmy from the well?   But this isn't just about Lassie.  What I am interested in is:  where do these things go when they're past their time? As I observed when working in archives - the best way to ensure the persistence of an object existing is not to lock it away, but to ensure its accessibility.  After all, what good is it to have the Mona Lisa if you keep it in a safe where no one can see it?  How will you know it needs care?  Does it even really exist if it's out of sight?  How long til it's forgotten in that crate? (cue the end of Raiders) For a while, shows and movies were being printed to VHS and then DVD.  If you wanted all twenty years of Lassie on VHS, you could maybe find it at Suncoast.  But now folks are streaming.  And streaming *should* be how *everything* is easily available.  But good luck finding Lassie across the 1000 streaming services out there.   And, really, that availability is for nostalgia, and you can't count on nostalgia for keeping an audience that is... not always going to be alive.  You need to keep your property evergreen.   While stories have always been handed down and books have remained in print, we live in maybe the first era in human history where there's profit to be made by returning those characters and properties to the first horizon line.  IP-driven Corporations have managed to force their IP to exist well beyond the original shelf-life-expectancy, and well past the lifetimes of the character's creators.  Those companies now work to make sure they can still squeeze a nickel out of as much as possible - and that's driven the extension of copyright, and manipulation of trademark to protect corporate assets.   Mickey Mouse made his debut in 1928, almost a century ago, and is nearly as recognizable today as when The Mickey Mouse Club hit televisions in the 1950's and as important to Disney today in a way as he was then.   James Bond keeps returning, often with a different face behind the tuxedo.  And simply to print money, a fictional world exists where no one seems to know they shouldn't keep going to Isla Nublar and not to poke dinosaurs. There's other models.  No matter their origins in novels or plays, the Universal Monsters are now more famous as icons than they are as movie characters.  Each Halloween, we know we're getting commercials, advertising art, etc... with knock-offs of Universal's indelible Bela Lugosi Dracula, their Karloff Mummy and Frankenstein, their Elsa Lanchester Bride, Lon Chaney Jr. as the Wolf Man, Claude Rains' Invisible Man...   That breakdancing swamp guy could be sue-able by Universal as a Gill-Man rip-off, but probably won't be.  Because now that familiarity helps keep the monsters in the pop culture and can sell shirts, cups, hats and tote bags, and maybe some DVDs. So successful has this been, there's a whole Universal Monsters land in a new amusement park in Florida.  That's more than 90 years since Lugosi stared down some virgins.  And I'd guess the overwhelming majority won't have ever watched a black and white monster movie from 1932. But the real case has been something like Star Wars, which seemed to be fading out in the early 1990's becoming a series of popular sci-fi novels as the movies - hard to get access to - were fading into the edges of the cultural landscape.  In the late 90's the movies were juiced up with CGI and re-released in theaters, proving the concept was still viable, and that success helped launch what's now been 25+ years of getting new Star Wars material shoved in our faces (something I long ago stopped trying to track). Star Trek, meanwhile, came back in the late 70's thanks to Star Wars making sci-fi seem cool and profitable, and has been part of the media landscape, somewhat aggressively, ever since, across countless shows and movies. My guy Superman has been rebooted as a movie three times since 2006, and had at least two TV series since 2000, and a handful of animated efforts. To bring it back to our canine stars - word has it even Air Bud is shaking off the atrocity that was the Air Buddies concept, and a dog should be booping hoops again in theaters soon.   This isn't an argument that *everything* should exist in perpetuity, or even for decades after the initial popularity crests.  That would be nuts.  Not everything is James Bond, constantly reinventing itself for the flavor of the decade. We're only 125 years into a world with motion pictures.  I can't say if Star Wars will be around in another 125, or what that would even look like.  Or how all of this will work. But, yeah, one day - for all the movies and TV shows and toys and theme parks...  one day, someone is going to see a Darth Vader mask and have no idea what that thing is.  And no way of knowing. Or Maybe Time is a Flat Circle It's hard to conceive of all the stories and characters lost to time, that didn't crawl forward with the culture, year over year.  Most of them were brief successes, fading quickly.  And how many survived a few decades before vanishing? Lassie was a novel first, released in 1940.   And 85 years later, maybe that rough collie has had her last adventure.  And for a long while, people loved the dog in many different media and forms.  In twelve years, the book will enter public domain, and maybe something will happen.  Maybe not. An ever-diminishing number of people will have knowledge about the character and the media empire once founded on a collie and a boy.  I don't know. Maybe someone out there is pitching Lassie 3000 about a dog in the future and a robot boy, and it'll breathe new life into the concept. However, while writing this post, I was looking at some information and learned Europe seems to be trying to keep Lassie alive.  Germany rebooted Lassie with Lassie, Come Home a few years ago and a whole-ass Lassie movie sequel that was released in 2024, neither of which I think made it to the states. It's funny, that most North American of heroes, Zorro, is being kept alive with a Spanish television production (on Amazon Prime, recommended).  Maybe the Lone Ranger will pop up in Norway. In 2024, someone decided what we needed was an all-new Sam Spade mystery set in France. It's possible the glut of streaming will keep these characters around in all new forms.  A touch of pre-awareness and a sprinkle of fannish nerdiness by creators wanting to play in these sandboxes could keep that second horizon line far out. Maybe it's something indelible about a kid and their dog that speaks to people, as much as the story of Luke Skywalker and pals spoke to a generation that we feel the need to keep these characters with us and pass them down.   And, yet, we watch things fade into the distance.   For many Lassie fans, they may check out the new movies, but what they really want is to remember what Lassie meant to them on afternoons when they were nine years old, watching the dog on their TV screens.  And that's great.  We invented that phrase "My ____" to describe how we fell in love with a character.  My Superman is Christopher Reeve.  My Zorro is Duncan Regehr.  My Wonder Woman is Lynda Carter.   And you can appreciate that the next generation has their own.  And maybe Lassie will just keep on coming home.  And who knows?  Maybe under the right eyes, Rin Tin Tin will be back doing stunts and having adventures.https://signal-watch.com
dlvr.it
this exactly. It was perfectly okay, with a few gigantic holes. The 78 ranking on metacritic feels very generous.
Hallo-Watch: Barbarian (2022) #film #moviereview #movies
Hallo-Watch: Barbarian (2022)
Watched:  10/17/2025Format:  HuluViewing:  FirstDirector:  Zach Cregger So, this is a movie by the guy behind the very popular 2025 film Weapons, which I do plan to watch at some point.  And when I said "yes, I will see Weapons", folks asked "but have you seen Barbarian (2022)?"  To which I would say "no".  Until NOW. So...  this movie is part of the horror genre of inbred underground/ remotely dwelling folks who are going to give our unsuspecting leads a very bad time.  Or just weirdos living in a place.  So, movies like Death Line immediately come to mind.   But also The Hills Have Eyes.  The People Under the Stairs.  CHUD, I guess.  One could even point to Psycho (and I'll circle back to that) I don't mean to say there's nothing special about this movie, but it feels like a Polly Pocket version of one of those movies.  Only, taking inspiration from some real-life cases of psychos kidnapping women and keeping them in their basement.   Our star is Georgina Campbell, who plays Tess - a woman who does research for documentaries - who is in Detroit to apply for a gig.  She stays at an AirBnB only to find it's been double-booked by Bill Skarsgard, who is an artist looking for a place for a new commune. It sure feels like Tess and Keith (Skarsgard) are hitting it off, and perhaps romance would bloom.  But something is... off.   SPOILERS Well, I wasn't really expecting the thing to be off to be that someone built a tunnel under their house and populated it with their own inbred lover/ child/ whatever.   Like Psycho, the movie kinda sorta has a pivot when the real threat comes in in the form of the "Mother" and Keith gets whacked, upending the movie you sort of thought you were watching and turning your expectations. Then we have a whole scenario where we have to introduce Justin Long.  He's an actor who just got accused of SA, and is seeing his career and life as he knows it is done.  The two stories dovetail as Long has to leave LA and come to Detroit to look into selling his AirBnB investment to raise some quick capital.   The movie seems to vacillate between being clever and showing why you don't break some conventions in writing.  I get the basic idea was that they wanted Tess and Long to not know each other and in comparison to Keith, not know what a moron/ piece of shit Long's character is.  And they have Long make mistakes, etc... that put he and/ or Tess in danger.   The police scene I guess was supposed to be some black comedy but... fudge.  It just didn't ring particularly true as Tess seems coherent and is clearly stating what occurred.  In the end, it reminded me "I am watching a movie" as the scene unspooled. I dunno.  The movie was fine.  Not particularly frightening.  I know I'm suffering a bit from being told it was the new, great thing and expecting too much.  But I also don't know how much I'm into this particular sort of thing.  It just makes me ask too many questions.   How, in 40 years, did this guy manage to breed a mutant - and for her to be that age and maturity?  How is she so strong if all she does is hang out in a tunnel?  What are they eating?   How are they pooping?  How did this house sell to Justin Long?  How did it happen to get double-booked this same day?  Was that intentional?   Like I say, the movies was fine.  I just kept getting taken out of the movie thinking about this stuff. Georgina Campbell looked super familiar, and I figured out she was on the Krypton TV show I watched for a bit a few years ago playing a relative of General Zod.*  And I think she's pretty solid here.  It would be great to see her in something else that plays in the US, because she's working all the time in UK-released stuff. But, honestly, if you like this sort of thing, I'd recommend Death Line.  But as far as being a fairly effective B-movie?  Yeah.  It's okay!  I get how it got the writer/director their next project. *this same show had Hannah Waddingham on as Jax-Ur. https://signal-watch.com
dlvr.it
and a fair one. But I was stunned at the heel turn to giving up on music and leaning into exploitation reality TV. It was so far from where they started.
somebody is out there watching this stuff. I cannot imagine who.
Yeah, on my cable a few years ago they had a channel that played videos from the 80's and 90's, but it looks like even that is old reality programming now
I did receive a correction and fixed the post accordingly. They're just killing off music in England and Europe looks to be on the chopping block. I would say the US is in trouble, but I just looked and I'm not sure of the MTV channels on my YouTubeTV that any of them play videos anymore.
You're correct. I will fix the post.
TL;DR: MTV Ends #film #moviereview #movies
TL;DR: MTV Ends
  MTV, Music Television, is shutting down music operations.   Complaining about MTV had been old since the mid-00's.  Even Gen-X, who lived off of MTV for a decade and a half, had drifted away from the music network before YouTube arrived and made MTV's music programming redundant.   Launched in 1981, MTV immediately became the default channel the latchkey kids of Gen X came home and put on instead of clicking on their radios (I am often reminded that Jamie did not have MTV, as she was raised in a town that might as well have had John Lithgow forbidding her to dance).  Whether we're discussing elder Gen X or us on the trailing side of the generation, it was a true culture shift our parents would not enjoy until VH1 ushered Whitney Houston and Phil Collins safely into our homes.   But for a while, the cable channel became like a singular radio station shared by a huge swath of America, contributing to the 1980's monoculture, and ending the ability of musicians to be non-telegenic and still make it.   For the telegenic, it could mean a young The League would find himself watching the video for Lucky Star intently in 1984, and in the 1990's maybe watch En Vogue videos with piqued interest when he was more likely to listen to Jane's Addiction on his tape deck driving around North Houston. Upon its debut, MTV was mostly rock and pop.  My memory of the pre-1985 MTV is of a lot of Human League, John Cougar Mellencamp, Styx, Billy Idol, and whatever else was going on.  Very early MTV included Joan Jett and J. Geils Band videos.  My understanding is that MTV just didn't have many videos at launch unless it was from a European act who needed videos for Top of the Pops.   Between videos, VJ's (Video Jockeys), would drop fun tidbits and make it feel like a cool hang, I guess.  Ask anyone into girls between 50 and 65 about Martha Quinn sometime and see them light up like a Christmas tree.  I liked the VJ's until I didn't.  Or when the VJ bit became the bit with things like Total Request Live (utterly unwatchable unless you were a 13 year old).   Seeing the immediate ability to get national exposure, bands rushed out to make videos, grabbing whatever they could in way of equipment and lighting.  And the crazier or wilder your look, the better.  Which became it's own thing as hair got bigger, pants got tighter, and pretty soon we had Van Halen's Hot for Teacher, after which we might as well have hung it up, because that was the zenith of early music videos.   Of course, I hadn't seen what would be the Mt. Everest of videos, Madonna's Express Yourself, which still lives rent-free in my head here in 2025.*  I'm ignoring Thriller here, and Michael Jackson's ascendency which was propelled by amazing videos for Beat It, Billie Jean and - of course, Thriller.  But the two were made for each other, in a way I don't recall ending until after Scream.   After the first years of existence, MTV was more or less a Kingmaker.  And sometimes it seemed like they were just messing with us.  I cannot otherwise explain MTV's insistence on playing The Escape Club's Wild Wild West non-stop circa 1989.   In many ways, that sort of logic became the downfall of MTV.  Rather than play a mix of music, MTV began a format in which, you could guarantee that you'd hear the same songs in what was about a 45 minute loop, interrupted with commercials.  You like November Rain by Guns N' Roses?  Great.  Here's that same 9 minute fifteen second video again, twice this hour.     I think the assumption was that kids were going to tune away if they didn't hear the song they liked immediately, rather than kids would hang out until they got a chance to see that video was a bad bet, and made a lot of people tune away instead of stick around.  But all I can report is that by 1992, I was watching far less MTV because it seemed they'd only play 5 or 6 videos in rotation during the day. And I think their only take-away was "kids are watching less MTV when we show music" instead of "maybe once every two hours is plenty for Right Said Fred". MTV introduced MTV Music News,  running for small bits between videos, which covered loosely music related news but also kind of understood that it held a certain place to inform young TV viewers about world events, if through the lens of musicians discussing those events.  But they also kept up with whatever was going on in the pop world, and that meant some interesting stuff - like the Rock the Vote campaign, which encouraged youth of age to get involved.   Also, Kurt Loder was not shy about non-stop coverage of Madonna, and it was hilarious. The MTV Video Awards were a big thing for a while - maybe still are.  But I think the only time I watched live was when Prince was on in 1991.  I saw Madonna's 1990 Vogue performance after the fact when we were supposed to be pearl clutching, but it's just a solid dance performance.  I still don't get what the big deal was. There is no scandal to be had. Rightfully taking criticism in the mid-1980's from David Bowie and others, MTV had to grapple with the fact that they just didn't feature non-white artists, which, in the US since the 1950's, was a bit insane.  America's musical roots stem from many places, but in the 20th Century, Black artists had been driving popular music from Jazz to Rock n' Roll to Rhythm and Blues to the unstoppable force of Hip-Hop.   They did take steps, and frankly I think seamlessly sorted the issue. The challenge with Hip-Hop was how to make it work vis-a-vis genres.  MTV had been for Rock and Roll and pop, but Hip-Hop was an undeniable force as the 1980's progressed.  Yo! MTV Raps, a block of hip-hop programming hosted by two wacky guys, actually debuted first on MTV Europe (which blows my mind when I think about the New York hip-hop scene of the 1970's and 80's vis-a-vis the location of MTV's studios) and would debut in the US in 1988.  It lasted until 1995, when it arguable became moot as Hip-Hop was a vital part of the everyday programming of the channel, and I'll argue that MTV played a huge part in the mainstreaming of Hip-Hop in suburban white-kid homes. By the late 80's, Hollywood was trying to make movies look like music videos instead of videos trying to look like movies (sometimes).  Pop art made its way into movies, and editing sped up to meet the beat of music.  The same audience that was appealed to through basic cable subscriptions was enticed to theaters with films meant to evoke the same totally tubular lifestyle evinced in music videos.   I know what an impact MTV had on me.  Thanks to a chance to see a video for Burning Down the House, I developed an interest in Talking Heads, which... they're still probably my favorite band.  And... After my older brother was gone from the house and no longer putting music in my hands, and I was in the wilds of Spring, Texas - not exactly the most progressive zone for music aficionados - my saving grace was 120 Minutes.  It was a Sunday night two hour block of videos that showed "underground" music, or whatever the hell we called not-pop in the US in the 1980's and 90's before marketing folks lumped everything into "Alternative".  120 Minutes was MTV throwing music nerds a bone with an absolute ghetto of a timeslot, coming on at midnight on Monday mornings, when I had first bell for school at 7:30 AM in the morning.  So, I'd stay awake and sneak out and start recording or stay up, hanging blankets over a glass door so my parents wouldn't see the light of the TV on at 1:00 AM.   While I had subscriptions to Spin and Rolling Stone, those were written recommendations and there was no ability to hear the bands in a pre-internet age.  Not unless they got rotation on MTV, and often during 120 Minutes.  It's where I first heard Lush, Curve, and even Nirvana. Not exactly obscure, but good luck hearing them elsewhere.  It was the only place you had a chance of seeing videos by, like, The Pixies unless someone got daffy and played them mid-day when no one would notice.  Even mainstream British acts like Pulp and Blur got their primary exposure there for years.  Probably the worst thing to ever happen to MTV was the 1987 arrival of Remote Control, a game show, that featured Colin Quinn not wanting to be there, Ken Ober delighted to have a job, and a rotating cast of hostesses, but I only remember Kari Wuhrer.  The show must have been a huge hit, because it spawned more game shows, including the notorious Singled Out, which gave us Jenny McCarthy, and led indirectly into me having to do some tap-dancing to get my COVID vax this year.   What it taught MTV was that their audience need not be passive.  They could create appointment viewing, just like a network.  And, even better, just show re-runs any time they wanted.   Some of it was great.  MTV brought Liquid Television to my screen and some alternative animation got an amazing platform.  The first Beavis and Butthead cartoon showed up there, and we got Aeon Flux.  They turned creator-owned comic The Maxx into an animated show unlike anything else at the time. It was kind of wild, because up to this point, the cost for MTV had been a VJ talking to the camera. You were shelling out for Adam Curry's hair spray, a studio, etc...  But it wasn't expensive to do.  The programming was mostly music videos paid for by labels.  They wanted that exposure to sell units at Sam Goody.  The arrival of original programming told them that they could make even more money not just showing videos on a loop.   I think it was summer of 1993 that MTV invented Reality TV with The Real World, a documentary show which took a handful of randos, shoved them in a loft in New York and watched them try to navigate life as young adults.   On paper, it was a pretty good concept.  In practical terms, it was a nightmare as the only real precedent was the 1970's PBS documentary An American Family, which was a harbinger of what was to come.  The Loud family was forever altered by the experience, getting divorced during the filming.  Just as the cast of the first few seasons of The Real World would feel reverberations in their own lives for years after, having no idea the real reach of television and how being yourself on camera is very different from among co-workers and family. If The Real World had noble intentions, the roaring success of Singled Out led them to the correct conclusion that exploiting dumb, horny people and pretending it was real was the way to go. I confess, one of the last years I really watched MTV was whenever the video dropped for The Beastie Boys' Sabotage.  After that, the onslaught of MTV's reality programming and whatnot really hit, and I only had cable sporadically through college.  By the time I had cable again around late 1998, I don't recall spending any time watching the channel.   Of course, Napster would arrive around this same time. Now, the music industry is basically where it was in the Pre-WWII era.  Making a career in music is, again, a ludicrous proposition unless you tour and gig 24/7.  Ticket prices are about 300%, adjusted for inflation, of what I was paying in college for acts that aren't really even that big.  And tickets to something like Lady Gaga are in the four-figure range if you want to be on the floor. Paramount, who owns MTV, was recently bought by a billionaire dipshit's idiot kid, and now we're all living in the world of  moneyed conspiracy dorks who surround themselves with Yes Men.  I mean, I am sure they didn't see *enough* profit off of playing Tone Loc videos at 2:00 AM between ads for remedies for yeast infections, so, it is what it is.  But do get ready for media to get really nutty as a single individual, not a corporation, is going to be dictating what you do and don't see. I don't care in the slightest that MTV and it's various channels are going off the air.  Trying to watch any MTV channel, including the nostalgia channels, had become painful as they averaged about 4 videos before a lengthy commercial break.  And they'd play the same handful of videos over and over.  Or this was true a decade ago when I last checked in.  I mostly stream music and videos on YouTubeMusic on my TV.  I haven't even included MTV in my personal cable line-up for a long time as I had no need to watch Ridiculousness.  And that's what this genius billionaire's kid is planning to keep on the air. Shocking that America seems so @#$%ing stupid right now. But, yeah, for a while, for good or ill, we had MTV.  And for a brief while, it did some good, maybe. *we can discuss how Blondie's Heart of Glass and Siouxsie and the Banshees' Peek-a-Boo probably imprinted on me some other dayhttps://signal-watch.com
dlvr.it
Hallo-Watch: Salem's Lot (2024) #film #moviereview #movies
Hallo-Watch: Salem's Lot (2024)
Watched:  10/15/2025Format:  HBOmaxViewing:  FirstDirector:  Gary Dauberman How does one make a movie that is supposed to be horrifying just weirdly annoying to watch? Salem's Lot (2024) is here to crack this mystery wide open.   Poor Steven King.  Probably tired of being mistaken for author Stephen King who wrote the book this movie is based on, which had a TV series or some such of it made back when I was a wee tot and missed the show.  And Stephen King has become a master of horror novels which have only been made into good movies if Stanley Kubrick takes the novel as a suggestion or its Rob Reiner making Stand By Me, which is not horror.    I do like Christine, though.  And Silver Bullet has its moments.  But neither is a patch on the books.* Writer/ Director Gary Dauberman took a beloved American novel, wrote down "vampires" on a yellow pad, jotted down the character names from the book, and as near as Wikipedia can tell me, paid little attention to anything else.  And, instead, he wrote a nonsense script where everyone is dumb as a bag of rocks to the point where I was wondering if the movie was supposed to be a satire or spoof at times.   The movie stars Lewis Pullman, who you will know as Bob/ Sentry from Thunderbolts.  And, on and off, Alfre Woodard.  Oh, and Bill Sadler for like five minutes.  Makenzie Leigh plays The Girl (who maybe had a name, but was mostly there to be girl).  Bill Camp plays a complex character who goes completely unexplored.   Anyway, I *assume* Stephen King wrote a pretty good book, but in this thing, people run around doing all the horror movie shit that drives you nuts.  They split up.  They go alone to check out what they think is the vampire's lair.  They keep going back to dangerous places just as the sun is going down.  They never think "oh, the vampires are in this old-ass Victorian, and no one knows we're here... hey, let's just burn it down, which will take away their hiding place and also expose the vampire to the sun if we start at, say, 8:30 AM".   Also, if I'm a vampire, why am I going to a small town and turning everyone else into vampires?  It's eliminating the food source and creating competition.  What am I even doing?   Anyway, after about the half-way point, I just kept asking the characters why they weren't just setting all the vampire places on fire.  It just made no sense to me.  Like, if you can avoid fighting vampires with sticks, you should.  Also, leave town every day before dark and then come back when the sun is up to keep torching vampires.   I would be an amazing vampire hunter.  Me, a box of matches and a tank of gas. But this is the kind of movie where you have to race against the actual shadow of the sun setting, which keeps changing pace for how fast that shadow is moving.   Was this movie satire?  I really don't know.  I know Alfre Woodard was really good despite it all.  But she always is.  And the best part of the movie was the 11 year-old-kid taking out our Renfield.   What's most mind-boggling is that this comes from solid source material, and the guy who wrote and directed the movie wrote the Conjuring movies, including Annabelle and Nun installments (y'all are really nuts for those movies in a way I don't quite grok).  Which I assume aren't this... dumb. And, at some point, I realized that the tension I was feeling watching it was not that I was feeling anything fear-adjacent, it was me getting antsy that everything was dragging and I wanted them to just get on with it.  I was, for lack of a better way of describing it, annoyed.  Not one thing that happens in this movie is scary, or even gory.  It is just shit happening on screen.  Telegraphed, you've-seen-this-elsewhere-done-better shit. Anyway, I kinda checked in with Jamie at some point and verified that, yes, she agreed this movie was bad, and we just sort of talked over the back half of it.  Which is maybe the best way to watch this mess. *I don't remember if the movie Cujo is good. https://signal-watch.com
dlvr.it
@howardrcarter.bsky.social - hey, I need your nickel review of "Holy Mountain"! I remember watching it, but it's like lost time at this point
I need to check here locally. I'm a Frankenstein nut, so I'm eager to see it.
I will! But probably in November as I'm making time for horror films this month. Seems like the 1923 version is *very* available, so I'll get to it soon. I haven't seen Chaney in much, so I need to see one of his signature roles
Hallo-Watch: The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) #film #moviereview #movies
Hallo-Watch: The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939)
Watched:  10/14/2025Format:  BluRayViewing:  FirstDirector:  William Dieterle Back in the 1970's and early 1980's, we were coming out of a monster movie craze aimed at kids.  I don't know how serious the craze was, but it did mean I wound up with a lot of monster movie books - but there was never a great criteria for what made a movie monster.  You might see the Wolf Man listed, which made sense - he changes shape and attacks nice folks.  And then you'd see The Phantom of the Opera, who is just a dude with an unfortunate condition and a penchant for sopranos, but did murder plenty of people.  And then, like, Jaws. So, large animals.    Even as a kid I found the inclusion of The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) odd.  He was just a guy with a physical condition, and he wasn't out slitting throats or anything.  If his condition made him a monster, I had an elementary school guidance counselor who should have been far spookier and less of a great guy. In short, this is a drama, not a horror movie.  It would be like calling Mask a horror movie because it has make-up effects to change an actor's appearance.  You live and learn. Anyway, there is this 1939 version starring Charles Laughton and a very young Maureen O'Hara  (she's like 18 here) and then there's the OG silent version starring Lon Chaney, which I've never seen, but I will take in soon.  I've seen the Disney version on a 13" TV on VHS once, didn't like it much, and moved on with my life. What struck me immediately upon this movie starting was...  holy cats, this production set RKO back some serious coin.  Costumes.  Sets and extras like it's the high Hollywood days of Intolerance.  I mean, Hunchback of Notre Dame shares a release year with Gone With the Wind, so I suppose it makes sense.  1939 was a big year in film and it seems that in the years before WWII Hollywood was feeling itself, and spectacle was to be had.   In today's terms, this looks like a movie I'd guess they spent $150 million plus. But neat sets and FX  doesn't mean it can't all go sideways, as we've seen time and time again, if the acting isn't good and your story is bunk.  Fortunately, this is Charles Laughton in his post Mutiny on the Bounty high, playing Quasimodo as a half-mad but kindly soul.   this make-up is incredible Co-stars include Maureen O'Hara, a favorite here at The Signal Watch, in her first American role (she's Irish, natch), Thomas Mitchell (It's a Wonderful Life), and a very young Edmond O'Brien. The plot maybe has echoes that remind you of where you are in history at any given time, and how it rhymes.   The King of France, King Louis XI, is interested in the enlightening ideas coming and the potential good of the printing press just brought to Paris, to share printed thought easily and cheaply with his subjects.  His Chief Justice, Frollo, is a medievalist at heart, and sees the press as witchcraft.  After all, if people have access to information, they're harder to control. The gypsies* arrive in Paris for the Feast of Fools, only to be told they need a permit to enter the city - a new rule put in place.  Esmerelda (O'Hara) slips into the city without a permit to go make some coin as a dancer.  She is spotted by Phoebus, a royal - who notices she is Maureen O'Hara, as well as Clopin, a sort of proto-beatnik poet. Also, Frollo.  Such is the power of Maureen O'Hara. The plot of the film is so complex, it would be a TL;DR post based just on a plot synopsis, and at two hours, is a very dense movie with plenty to say about why some want to keep the public ignorant and powerless, about those put in charge of justice, about how we treat immigrants and who we blame for crimes we've committed, and the sin in our own hearts.  There's probably a very good college paper to be written about Frollo's subversion of his lust for a "foreigner" until it bubbles over into jealous murder and his willingness to see Esmerelda killed rather than deal with his lust and own sin. There's also an undercurrent in the film that must have echoed loudly in 1939 if you were reading headlines.  Or, you know, now.  But I'm not sure that penning persuasive letters to leaders is quite the win that the movie wants to sell. I was shocked at Laughton's portrayal of Quasimodo and how he built that character.  Deaf, child-like, half-mad, and still sympathetic and tragic, buffeted by the wills of others, but still wanting to be his own man...  and his own love for Esmerelda which he knows can't be in sharp contrast to the other men around her.  But it's a deeply nuanced performance, just watching him in his first scenes during the Feast of Fools where he accepts the kingship - as attention or acceptance of any kind is a delight, to his decision to rescue Esmerelda... amazing.   The movie is full of stunning sequences, using the massive set to advantage.  Apparently O'Hara really was lifted over a stuntman's head for the "Sanctuary!" sequence, which means she really was several stories over the ground while hundreds of people swarmed the base of the tower set. Anyway, it's a gorgeous movie, and I'm so glad I finally watched it.   *I am aware that the term gypsy is now considered verboten, and the modern term is Romani or Traveller, but I'm sticking with the outdated term for clarity https://signal-watch.com
dlvr.it
Drew Struzan Merges With The Infinite #film #moviereview #movies
Drew Struzan Merges With The Infinite
  Artist Drew Struzan, who painted the iconic posters for a wide, wide range of favorite movies during my lifetime, has passed. I include the poster for Big Trouble in Little China above as, if Jamie would tolerate it, we'd most certainly have it up in the house.  Not only does it feature tremendous likenesses of Kurt Russell and Kim Cattrall, reason enough to have such a poster, it really captures the spirit of the film, full of action, supernatural nonsense, and two dopes caught in the middle. Struzan had the astounding ability to really capture a sense of iconography with his work, whether it was Star Wars, Goonies, Back to the Future, Blade Runner or Indiana Jones.  He blended plot highlights, often in action that was not quite in the movie, but evoking *the spirit* of the movie and told a story in a single image or two.  His montage style both pulled from poster dynamics of the past and set in motion what lesser poster artists often try to do today (and usually fail, making their posters look like PhotoShopped garbage). I always dug how Struzan almost managed to make the characters and images glow.  I mean, look at that light from the sun at the middle, and the warmth in the Dr.'s Jones there.  And the sun-beat look of Indiana on the horse? Rather than me reposting here, I recommend you go to :  Struzan's Instagram pageThe Film Art GalleryDrewStruzan.com Struzan's work will live on for decades to come, and probably well beyond whatever I'm currently imagining.  He retired a few years ago, and had health issues for a bit.  I wish he and his family well, and hope that knowing what his work meant to people is some measure of condolence.   And if you ever wonder if I won the lottery, and what the signs would be: https://signal-watch.com
dlvr.it
In addition to watching and describing movies I watched, I watched a ton of WNBA this year, and every second of the finals. A'ja Wilson, man.
The moments that live FOR3VER.

What a ride, Las Vegas. 🏆🏆🏆
interesting. whatever you posted, this is the first person I've seen block me on BlueSky
It's very light and frothy for what it says is happening
I was not in the same boat. It had some good stuff, but I kept feeling like all the parts that would make it interesting happened off-screen. Characters were making huge decisions but we never saw them make them. We just kept being told things had already happened.
Hallo-Watch: The Witches of Eastwick (1987) #film #moviereview #movies
Hallo-Watch: The Witches of Eastwick (1987)
Watched:  10/12/2025Format:  PrimeViewing:  FirstDirector:  George Miller I checked Roger Ebert's review of The Witches of Eastwick (1987).  Look, some movies are a product of their time, and this is one.  Ebert found it an edgy, sexy romp.  And that was how I remember the movie being discussed in 1987. I finally got to the movie here in 2025, and in short, all of the interesting bits are left off-screen.  We hear about them, can infer or guess other bits.  But we're still in 1980's America here, and if you want to not wind up in the midnight movie ghetto, you keep it polite so Mom and Dad have a movie they can sneak off to go see and leave you alone with a rented copy of Beastmaster.   The Witches of Eastwick is about two divorcees and a widow (Susan Sarandon, Michelle Pfeiffer and Cher) who live in a small Rhode Island town where they are hit upon by married men and saddled with lives they don't want.  The three get together on Thursdays to eat processed crap food, drink, play cards and have someone listen. During one such session, they describe what they want in a man, and, lo and behold, these three women with what X-Men comics would call latent magical abilities, seem to summon exactly that man to their town in the form of Jack Nicholson/ some light version of Satan.   Nicholson buys a massive mansion (think Newport on steroids) and proceeds to be an ass around town and impresses everyone he meets.   He swiftly seduces Cher, Sarandon and... in front of the other two, Pfeiffer.   Off-screen, it's assumed the four engage in sex in a heap, but aside from one outburst from a woman sensitive to Nicholson's evil (a terrific Veronica Cartwright) the implications are left to the prudish in the audience to imagine whatever they wish.   But it's not just the sexy times which are left off-screen.  We're told about things happening - the local store is carrying nudie mags!  And it caused a ruckus!  - but we get a description of it rather than seeing the freak out which we're told ensued.  In this visual medium, we only hear someone say it happened.  Just as we do not see Cartwright's husband (Richard Jenkins with hair!) murder her just off-screen. What's odd is that 1987 is a pretty good era for putting some pretty batshit stuff on screen.  Ken Russell is just a few years off of making studio movies.  That copy of Beastmaster was full of more T&A and debauchery than a dozen Witches of Eastwick.  But even I remember the marketing push for this movie, and it was aimed at *parents*.  This was intended to be a spectacle of movie stars and *classy* sexiness.   If there was a message here in the movie about men and women, feminism or...  anything, really...  it would be buried over and over in the movie until it feels like no commentary is happening at all, we're just hearing Nicholson perform his over-the-top misogynistic monologue and the three women enjoy themselves until they get scared. There's also minimal character for the three female leads.  We get no idea how they feel, what they're thinking, or how any of this is impacting them - or how Pfeiffer is a single mother of a herd of kids and somehow always manages to look phenomenal and isn't ever worried about her own kids as she romps about with her pals.  It's all very odd and feels edited down for a runtime that will get i more shows per day while also focusing on our attraction, Jack Nicholson auditioning for The Joker (by the by, the movie is produced by the same guys who produced Batman).   My understanding is that the movie strays from the novel quite a bit, but I've never read any Updike (and likely will not) so that's of no consequence here, but could be to you.   What's odd is that even 12 year old me kinda guessed what the movie was and that it didn't look like it would land particularly well based on the trailers.  And here we are almost 40 years later and 12 year old me was very right. Anyway, it was not my jam.  But some people love this movie, so I'd love to hear why. https://signal-watch.com
dlvr.it