Rolling Stone remembers Tom Petty

I checked in with Rolling Stone again because of its Tom Petty memorial issue. Well, that's a little misleading. In fact, I check in every issue because I'm a cheap sonuvagun who gets it from the liberry (hence me writing about this issue 6 weeks after it came out). But if I were looking at a mag rack, the Petty cover would have caught my eye.

This issue consists of two things: A Petty tribute and "The Photo Issue." Most of the regular features, even Random Notes and Reviews, are missing, though there is a back-page interview with Annie Leibovitz (who seemingly figures in about 75% of the Photo Issue portion). So if you like pictures, you might be in luck. If you like Petty, you might be in luck. Really, though, both sections were a little disappointing.

The photo collection was nice, but not spectacular, and we've seen many if not most a lot of times, and there wasn't a ton of added insight (nor much text). It's a continuation of the sort of scaled-down but drawn-out 50th anniversary celebration the mag is doing this year.

As for the Tom Petty story, well, it feels churlish to complain about a tribute story.  David Fricke knows his stuff, and he delivers a nice piece. I can't help but think he had to rush it a  bit, though. Rather than being an in-depth musical overview or the kind of cultural legacy piece that, say, a Mikail Gilmore does, this one focuses more on the fact that his peers thought he was a good dude.

And, hey, that's a cool thing and fun to read about. I just hoped for a little more depth, especially considering the lack of words in the rest of the issue. Also, Dhani Harrison is featured heavily in the Petty profile, quoted often. He has some great things to say, but is that another indication they had to crank this out quickly?

Overall, it's a fun but all-too-quick read and another reminder that while  Rolling Stone is still worth reading, it isn't often worth the cover price anymore.

My Takeaways from Entertainment Weekly's Family Matters reunion

Allegedly to celebrate Hulu's premiere of the complete run of Family Matters but probably just as an excuse to meet Reginald Vel Johnson, Entertainment Weekly brought the cast together for a photo shoot and interview session. Here are my takeaways, and bear in mind I hated the show and have little interest in watching it on Hulu except maybe to make fun of it:

1) Reginald Vel Johnson at 65 is even rounder and still looks cool.

2) The magazine has no interest in explaining what happened to Jaimee Foxworth (Google it), who was not part of the event.

3) Jo Marie-Payton and Reginald Vel Johnson talk about how they instantly hit it off when the show was casting--"The chemistry was so strong," she says--and I envision a torrid off-camera affair between the Winslow parents.

4) Somehow they manage to go a whole article without bringing up or even hinting at the rumor that the cast was irritated when it became the Urkel Show instead of the gentle family sitcom it was conceived as. How do you not get that in here?

5) EW asks if the cast would be up for a revival of the series, and 4 say yes...but Jaleel White's response is not included! What's the use of a revival without him? Were they afraid to ask him? Did he say no and they just didn't want to bum everybody out by printing it?

6) Family Matters  and ER shot on stages across from each other, and there was a basketball court that White considered his. The hoop was moved, and Goerge Clooney took over the court, and White tells a story of him figuring, "Well, I just have to kick his ass and remind him who this hoop belongs to." I don't know if I believe any of it.

7) White talks about playing Steve Urkel's cousin Myrtle and then crying and his dad telling the show he wouldn't do it again. Several years later, White reports, he walked into the writers' room and said, "If you guys want to do Myrtle again, I'll do it." He adds, "They just cheered."

I'm not sure I buy this, either, but I hope it's true because I love the image of Family Matters scribes puzzling over plotlines, then breaking into euphoric celebrations when told they could do another Myrtle story.

Let's check in on Rolling Stone

Say what you will about Rolling Stone. Say what you will about puns. To me it is undeniable that "What a Foo Believes" is a superlative headline, and I am amazed the mag never used it before.

As for the magazine itself, the story isn't quite as epic as the title suggests, but it's a pleasant look at Dave Grohl (the band, too, but, face it, mostly Dave Grohl), who still comes off as the coolest guy in rock. I just wish he wouldn't smoke as much as he does while hanging out with author Josh Eells.

The highlights are Grohl's trip to Amoeba Records to get an album for his daughter, the account of Paul McCartney recording with the band, and a sincere, spontaneous reflection on Chris Cornell that happens in a quiet moment.

Rolling Stone, like so many other print magazines, is shrinking and shrinking (and, Jann Wenner concedes, is shopping for a buyer). Unfortunately, most of the "long-form" pieces in a given issue deal with politics or global warming. The curmudgeon in me thinks this is because today's music is so terrible that there just isn't enough fodder for significant coverage.

The typical formula is profile of a musician featured on the cover--alternating between hot young artist (usually hip hop or poppy female) and dinosaur rocker (I prefer the latter) and an increasingly tiny review section consisting of several pages of capsule album evaluations and maybe a page each for movies, TV, and books. The mag uses smaller features, like the back page Q&A and various sidebars and tidbits, to work in other old-school artists.

For example, Ozzy Osbourne is the subject of this issue's "The Last Word" interview. Brandon Flowers has a "Q&A." We see Randy Newman discuss "My Life in 12 Songs." All of this is pretty quick and breezy.

I hate to say this, but when an artist dies, we still get remarkable pieces. I can't wait to see the Tom Petty article. Usually a devoted dinosaur rock fan can find at least one solid profile in an issue. Overall, though, I wish that as the magazine's page count got smaller, it didn't also devote so many of its pages to non-music and cultural issues. I know that sort of thing has always been part of the mission and so on and so forth, but for me personally, I would rather read more pieces about musicians, even if it's the same old folks cropping up every few years.

Mag Rack: Because they are still making 'em and I am still reading 'em

Some thoughts on current periodicals:

*Entertainment Weekly still ain't what it used to be, but it still surprises every now and then with an interesting piece. I have noticed that much like sister pub Sports Illustrated, it is really increasing the number of "double issues" it publishes, presumably as a way to cut costs by releasing less issues.

I'd hate to see it go away. Somehow it's comforting that even in 2017 it can irritate me by finding a way to devote 10  pages to Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

*That reminds me of the incredible shrinking Rolling Stone, the masthead of which still declares "All the News that Fits." A lot less of it fits these days. I can understand the dilemma. People like me want to read about dinosaurs like Tom Petty and don't care about the likes of The Weeknd. So the mag has to scramble to avoid being Classic Rock and runs things like a piece in a recent edition that asks a current band who its influences are. It's like another way to get Springsteen in there while claiming you are covering new music.

But I think most new music stinks and would rather read about Werner Herzog.  I saw a compelling look at the enigmatic director by veteran profiler Erik Hedgaard...that was only a few pages long.

The review section is only the equivalent of 2-3 pages for music, no regular book coverage (apparently), and one single page of movie reviews.

*ESPN the Magazine never gets any pub, not even in the recent flurry of layoffs at the company, but it is actually still producing good work. The most recent issue I've seen features an excellent look at the Raiders' move to Vegas by Don Van Natta and Seth Wickersham, plus an interesting account of the Buss family struggle for control of the Lakers written by Ramona Shelburne.

*MAD Magazine is still around, and it produces some amusing content. I don't like all of it, but I enjoy a lot of it, and it's cool that it's still around. In the run-up to the election, it made fun of both candidates, and now it's making fun of the prez, as it should in both cases. The movie parodies are done in the same style and still work, and there are less words in the features, but the graphic design is excellent in many of them. You see clever pieces with realistic-looking mock ads or movie posters that look fantastic and really sell the premise. So I make my semi-regular call to those of you who haven't seen the mag in a while: Give it a look, and you might get something out of it.

5 things you didn't know about Rick Astley (Rick reads Entertainment Weekly So You Don't Have to)

I chuckled at finding an article on 80s superstar (it wasn't all fun and games back then, kids) Rick Astley in Entertainment Weekly recently. I don't know if he really is a humble. decent guy, but he sounds like one in the article. Here are 5 things I learned:

1) Astley turned 50 in February, and that's the name of his new album. 50, that is, not February. Hey, wouldn't it be great if someone released an album called February in the fall?

OK, this item isn't all that interesting, but it IS news to me. It'll get better.

2) Astley turned to music to escape a somewhat dark childhood, including a broken home.

3) The producers who discovered Astley in England put him to work as a "tea boy," which is apparently NOT some kind of euphemism.

4) He developed a fear of flying at the height of his fame, and he now believes it was a subconscious desire to get out of the business. So he became a stay-at-home dad.

5) He slowly got back into performing when he accepted an offer to play dates in Japan, mainly so his family could tour the country. Now he tours, playing his hits alongside covers like "Highway to Hell." WHAT?

Am I a Rick Astley fan? No. Am I going to seek out this new album? No. Am I--wait, what was my point again?

Ah, yes. My point was that I actually enjoyed this article by Clark Collis, and to Rick Astley, I say, fair play, mate. Good luck to you.

Plus I was listening to 1980s light hits lately, and I heard Astley's "It Would Take a Strong Strong Man" TWICE. I can't get it out of my head! I hope this post purges it somehow.

Appalling slight to a great performer

A recent "Entertainment Weekly" featured a profile of Chris Pine, a fluffy and short piece designed to put over the idea that he is not just a franchise player, but a SERIOUS ACTOR. Indeed, his latest film is well received, and he's getting praise for it. Good for him.

What gets me is the casual reference Pine makes to his father, legendary Robert Pine, man of many roles but perhaps best known as Sgt. Getraer on "CHiPs." He says something like, "My father was an actor."

Your father was an actor? Your father was an actor? Your father is freaking Robert Pine! He was Getraer, he was in one of the best damn commercials of all time (more on that in a different project this Fall), and he was on "The Match Game," for crying out loud!

I am sure Chris Pine meant no disrespect, and I prefer to believe he gushed about his padre for several minutes. No, I blame "Entertainment Weekly," which probably doesn't recognize anything from the late 1970s/early 1980s not done by Spielberg or Lucas. Shame on you, "EW," for not providing Pine's full quote or at least some context.

Bobby Pine is not some scrub journeyman who merits only a passing mention. Would the magazine publish a story with Rumer Willis saying, "Yeah, my dad was an actor"?

Just to remind us all of the greatness of Robert Pine, here's another screencap from "Munster, Go Home!" in which Pine played a suave Englishman:

"Darling, would a mere actor emote like this?"

And just because, here's a more seasoned Pine running on the beach as Getraer:

"I'm not just an actor. I'm a real American."

One of the dumbest attempts to hype a TV series in print

The "Entertainment Weekly" issue with the big "Walking Dead" section tried to boost "The 100," a CW show which I refuse to believe is as great as the magazine (and, I will admit, several prominent critics) indicate. I don't mind talking up the stories, the cast, the craft, or things like that, but this is not a blockbuster hit.

Still, in an apparent attempt to impress readers, the "catch up on The 100" piece includes this "proof" of how the show's popularity "skyrocketed":

According to Twitter, the season 3 bow on Jan. 21 (Rick's note: I like how EW is too cool to spell out January. It's not like IT'S limited to 140 characters) racked up roughly 10 times as many tweets as the series premiere and saw #THE100 trend worldwide.

Oh, well, that's that. I gotta get on board this unstoppable juggernaut! God forbid I get left out of the water cooler talk of a show that got its title trending worldwide on Twitter once for some   unspecified amount of time!

Any sentence beginning with "According to Twitter" should be suspect, but at least we could get some kind of actual numbers rather than some sketchy comparative figure. If the first episode generated a dozen tweets, than 120 would be 10 times that. Plus do you know how difficult it is to get something "trending worldwide"?

Well, I don't, either, but I've heard that it's not actually difficult at all. It's especially plausible when you get an event that would bring people interested in the topic together at one time...like, you know, a hyped series premiere.

It sounds like "The 100" is doing quite well by CW standards and is even drawing some modest critical attention. But let's not act like it's--to pick an example totally out of the blue--"The Walking Dead." If I were involved with the production of the series, I'd be overjoyed to get this kind of coverage, but I might be a little embarrassed by the use of Twitter as an important metric. I don't think advertisers are paying rates based on relative tweet totals or times trending worldwide.

What's the matter with kids today?

They're afraid of being "old." apparently, and that fear manifests itself in a defensive preemption against anyone who dare accuse them of that on the basis of...[gasp]...liking something "old."

OK, so I shouldn't make broad generalizations based on several comments by staffers of "Entertainment Weekly." I really shouldn't. But hey, I can at least point out the comments and complain about them!

Look at the recent double issue with Cuba "Juice" Gooding on the cover and an Oscars Preview section inside. The page with the masthead features selected "staff picks" in response to "My favorite Best Picture Oscar winner is...Go!"

Current lead film critic Chris Nashawaty picks "Casablanca," and of course, this IS the correct answer. It should have ended the conversation, not started it, but it's good to see the guy prove his credentials.

Then Leah Greenblatt says, "I know I sound like an old lady with too much TCM, but: 'All About Eve'..." Since when does praising a consensus classic from the Golden Age of Hollywood render one "an old lady with too much TCM?" Is some millennial going to look at this and go, "Ewww...1950? Hey, lady, tell it to your cat. TCM isn't marvy anymore, dig?" (I really don't know how millennials talk when dissing people with too much TCM)

Come to think of it, what IS too much TCM? I, for one, don't get nearly enough TCM. I don't get it in HD, I don't get as much of it On Demand as I would like, and I am never around when it shows the stuff I really want to see. I envy these mythical ladies with "too much TCM." In fact...at the risk of sounding ungallant, how can you pick out these ladies? I'd like to meet them. Does their skin have a vaguely sepia-tinted pallor? Do their speech patterns resemble Bobby Osbo? Do they...kind of look like  Bobby Osbo? Because if they do, then actually count me out.  I think.

No, this is one of the oddest references to The Greatest Cable Channel Known to Mankind (I have to use it every so often to preserve the copyright) ever made. It's almost as strange as if someone were to, say, create a TCM Wine Club.

Oh, wait. Never mind.

Anyway, the next two staffers go with "Titanic" and "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King," selections which make me wonder if they need to siphon some TCM from their colleague Leah Greenblatt. Next up is someone who picks "The Best Years of Our Lives" from 1946 and starts her explanation with, "I am not that old."

She's not that old, folks! No worries here. Good thing she reassures us, though, because of course the natural assumption is that anyone who likes something old must themselves BE old. It's the Transitive Playground Theorem of Liking Stuff and People.

What's with all the defensiveness about loving old movies? In fairness, the way the magazine business is, not to mention "Entertainment Weekly's" apparent demographic preference, some of the staffers may well be terrified they will get the axe, "Logan's Run" style, if they out themselves as being over 29.

And yes, I know "Logan's Run" came out in 1976. Don't worry, though. I'm not that old.

Checking in with Entertainment Weekly...

"Entertainment Weekly"  made a major design change recently, and if  you guessed it involved adding more pictures and removing pesky words, you hit The Bullseye (Apologies to the mostly lame back page feature of the same name).

The mag actually has run some cool features lately, such as an oral history of M. Night Shyamalan's "Unbreakable." That one's worth checking out; it's an insightful look at an underappreciated film that offers a much different take on superheroes.

There's still a lot of junk in each issue, of course, like the repository for cheap gags that is "The Bullseye" (Hey, you're so intent on pushing Twitter, given that you're publishing all the writers' handles as part of their bylines, so why not save that material for your feed?), and the ever-annoying "Must List."

The "Must List" is a rundown of 10 things the magazine wants to promote/hype with excited blurbs, and for some reason, it's now spread out over 3 pages. The content is essentially the same, but now there are more pics, and the numbers are really big.

Here's what stands out the most to me: In the issue that offers a wrap-up of Comic Con, "EW" devotes 8 pages to pictures of castmembers of high-profile projects announced or promoted there. That's not a bad idea, as I would certainly enjoy seeing some exclusive pics from the set of "Star Wars" or "The Hateful Eight." That's not what these pictures are. They are staged shots from their "suite at the Hard Rock Hotel."  So in other words, we get a bunch of lame pics of actors and actresses standing in front of blue backdrops while pretending they're having a great time.

I'd say, "Pass," but in truth I already read the article. I'm not expecting "The New York Review of Books" here, but I think "Entertainment Weekly" can do better than that kind of ill-conceived spread.

Rolling Stone's Best of 2014 issue

Don't worry, this isn't gonna be a big rant about injustices or idiocies scattered throughout the issue. No, I just want to point out two things that amuse me in this one (the one with Seth Rogen on the cover and a decent interview with him and a really good one with Chris Rock inside).

1) You have to love that their top two albums of the year are by U2 and Bruce Springsteen. Don't give up the dream, "Rolling Stone!" Hey, I'm serious about this. As a guy whose musical taste is based largely on what he grew up listening to, I like that 'RS" still waves the banner for classic rock.

Actually, what amuses me more is not #1 and #2, but the album slotted at 19: Jackson Browne's "Standing in the Breach." Jackson Browne? They also throw him a bone and give him #33 on the list of the year's top singles.

2) A letter from a reader, reproduced here in its entirety:

Great interview with one of my favorite people ["Checking In With Jon Stewart", RS 1222]. Stewart's tiresome Springsteen worship aside, we are truly lucky to have him holding up a mirror to ourselves--even when it looks ugly.

So someone loves Jon Stewart, loves the interview with him, yet feels the need to devote about a sixth of this letter to a slam on his "Springsteen worship."

More BS in the Entertainment Weekly Best and Worst 2014 issue

I can't help myself. Consider this the last post on the topic, and just indulge me while I get some of this out of my system. Here's a sampling of the BS in this issue:

*It puts "The Comeback" in its Must List at the beginning, saying, "it took us a while to get back in sync with it," which is its half-assed way of acknowledging the revival tanked critically and commercially. It's a mystery why the mag continues its fawning coverage of this "franchise."

*It mentions Willow Smith.

*It makes 3 significant references to Viola Davis removing her wig on an episode of "How to Get Away with Murder" as if it were Who Shot J.R. In fairness, Tracee Ellis Ross ("Blackish") writes an intelligent take on it that does make a good case for its impact. Yet this magazine can't leave it at that.

Someone even says "it changed the face of TV" in listing that episode as one of the best of the year, and earlier an anonymous blurb says it "shattered narrow beauty standards." I didn't see it, but I do remember outlets like "Entertainment Weekly" making a big deal out of it. Sounds like it was a meaningful scene. Fine. But what impact did it have? How the hell did it shatter narrow beauty standards? Did I miss the issue of "Vogue" that put a wigless Viola Davis on the cover? I guess you had to be there.

*It devotes nearly two pages to tweets of ordinary people.

*It runs an inane piece trying to make a "trend" out of songs about asses, as if the fact that Jennifer Lopez made a video about her butt was some kind of revelation.

*It shrinks yet again its "Critical Mass" chart of movies of the year, which used to be one of the most useful features of the year-end issue.

*It 's snappy choice for "Worst Olympic Event" (paired with Poking Fun at Bob Costas as the Best), maybe because of the formatting of the page as much as the way it's written, makes me spend 3 minutes trying to decipher it. Nothing in this magazine should require 3 minutes to decipher.

*When listing Jack Antonoff as one of music's "breakouts," it lists his accomplishments in 2014 and tacks on "and still found the time to support his Girls-friend Lena Dunham." Supporting Lena Dunham? What the what? Even if we don't see this as the Dunham-obsessed magazine's way of giving her another shout-out, it's a clumsy bit. Better just to say, "Oh, yeah, and he's Lena Dunham's boyfriend!"

Sorting through the BS that is Entertainment Weekly's "Best and Worst 2014" issue

I know this is folly, but the whole point of this blog is to gripe about inconsequential things that bother me, and hope that maybe it makes me feel better.

Uh, and to enlighten my readers, too, of course!

As a lapsed subscriber from way back, let me tell you this magazine gets shallower every year. I have found getting it at la biblioteca is a good way to consume it. Even if I get worked up about something, it's out of my house again in a few days and out of mind.

There is an inordinate amount of BS in the December 12, edition, though, and I'm not really talking about their top 10 choices. Reasonable minds can disagree on those. It's more just scattered inanities that make their way into everything. But let's start with the cover boy Jimmy Fallon, chosen as "Entertainer of the Year."

This in itself isn't terrible. After all, Fallon has had a very successful launch to his version of the franchise. In a year with no dominant movie or TV personality, someone as inconsequential as Fallon isn't that offensive a selection for this label. Clearly they didn't want to pick, say, Taylor Swift, or she was busy, or something.

The rationale for picking Fallon is pretty funny, though. He...makes celebrities feel at ease by playing games with them! Was Jane Lynch the runner-up? He...gets good ratings relative to his competitors in late night! And best of all...he makes videos that go viral!

This "viral video" garbage is out of control. Cats and 4-year-olds, and very likely some 4-year-old cats, make viral videos. Here's the thing, though: Nobody pays for them. Someone one clicks on a Fallon bit 10 times to kill time at work, and that's a big deal?

Besides being a much bigger star by any metric, one who had a prominent year herself, Taylor Swift makes music that people actually pay money to enjoy. The magazine's own coverage of Spotify makes it clear what a big star she is. By that I mean it cares about it all. I think you could argue that Swift pulling songs from Spotify was the best thing ever in the short term for the company because millions of people suddenly learned about Spotify.

It's not that I'm passionate about Taylor Swift being Entertainer of the Year, but I just think this Fallon thing is absurd. Even worse is they don't get anything interesting out of it. They ask Fallon to give his faves of the year throughout the issue, including his pick for best movie even though he says in the profile piece he doesn't really get to go see movies anymore.

Later we see his pick for show of the year is "Knife Fight" on Esquire Network. I call BS on that. Nobody knows what's on Esquire Network. People may watch the shows, but they don't know anything about that channel. In what may or may not be relevant, Esquire Network is half owned by Fallon's employer, NBC Universal.

I'll either grow up and forget about this issue, and get back to Amazon Prime this week, or I'll keep it a few more days and complain some more about it. Stay tuned!

Vault of Coolness: Sport Magazine from 1974 (part 1)

Vault of Coolness is back with a look at the cover of this fascinating circa 1974 issue of Sport. I offer it to you as something to tide you over till I get to This Week in DVD and Instant Watching--it's gonna be a busy week, and that'll likely be the only other post--and also because another ARCTIC BLAST of cold air is coming in this week, and I'm already looking forward to warmer times.

So let's look to spring, a time when you can go out and play tennis...a time when love is in bloom...

Mag Rack #2: Shocking Secrets of America's Favorite TV Shows of the '50s and '60s

Will you lose what little respect you had for me if I told you I bought this "Globe Collector's Issue" at the bookstore? Will it help if I told you I used a gift card?

Hey, I couldn't resist. It's classic TV, it's tabloid, it's glossy, and it has a picture of Ralph and Alice Kramden (along with many other icons of the medium) on the cover. I figured I'd gamble a virtual 6 bucks and take home the thin but spiffy-looking mag.

The 80-some pages go by quickly. Each show gets maybe a few pages at most, many a page or even half a page, and the photos are so big that you don't really get a lot of substance here. I know, I know, we're talking about a publication of that mass-market tabloid "The Globe." But still, while I'm not expecting a dissertation on each show's impact on popular culture by Professor Robert J. Thompson, it would be nice to get a little more content.

Those photos are purty, but I don't think there are a lot of new or rare shots here. Many entries are illustrated with the same publicity pics we've seen for decades. There are some nice extras, though. For example, while the "Honeymooners" section offers that same shot of the 4 Classic 39 cast members poking their heads through the windows of a Gotham bus, then the standard still of the 4 in the Kramdens' apartment (you'd know it if you saw it), it also features a rarer black-and-white pic of a Lost Episode segment with Pert  Kelton as Alice, plus a behind-the-pic glimpse of Art Carney rehearsing a "Twilight Zone" appearance. And of course, this being a tabloid pub, you get a few unflattering shots of stars as they looked years later or as they look today.

Let's talk about these scandals, though: Are they really Shocking and Secret? Much of the gossip in this mag is old news to anyone who has followed the tabloids for years or who has more than a surface knowledge of TV history. Yet there is something to be said for having all of it in one place. We get stories about alcoholism, behind-the-scenes squabbles, and affairs. Sometimes the writers have to strain to come up with anything remotely scandalous, as with "My Favorite Martian," which gets a short entry that basically says Ray Walston resented being known for the role. Big whoop, right?

There are some things here that surprise me, like Jane Kean saying in her recent memoir that Ed Sullivan raped her when she was 17. If I ever heard that one before, I blocked it out. Nor did I know or particularly want to that Edd Byrnes once had a threesome that involved Roger Moore. Aw, who am I kidding? I bought this thing, didn't I? I also didn't know that Clint Walker claimed to have seen a UFO. No, he didn't claim he had sex with an alien. Not everything in here is salacious.

Some of it just sad, really. Even though this publication is a slim time-passer, I sometimes wish it went a little deeper. For example, one of the big controversies for which I don't think we have a definitive answer is the saga of "Make Room for Daddy" and why star Danny Thomas canned first-season wife Jean Hagen and replaced her with Marjorie Lord. This mag mentions the change and Hagen's struggles in her personal life, but only says that she quit the show and was killed off. Gossip I've seen over the years indicates that Thomas went so far as to try to prevent Hagen episodes from being seen again, and I've also seen interesting speculation as to why he would do that. But "The Globe" doesn't address that at all.

The focus here is more on personal lives than on those kind of creative issues, and I'd love to see some of those kinds of mysteries explored somewhere. However, for 6 bucks, this is a pretty good summary of dirt from the Golden Age of Television, and while you get a lot of the usual suspects (George Reeves, Adam West and Burt Ward, Lucy and Desi), between the regular entries and a short catch-all section of paragraphs at the end, you also see info about Steve Allen, Lawrence Welk, "Wagon Train," and "Julia." So it's a pretty good cross-section of 50's and 60's TV. I'd buy another one of these things without shame. Well, not too much shame. I might not brag about it here, but I might well buy it, read it quickly, and enjoy it.

Mag Rack #1

Welcome to the Magazine Rack, a new recurring feature in which I talk about some of the various magazines I read each month. Yes, I do read magazines, PRINT magazines--the kind that have smelly perfume samples, the kind that have cards that fall all over the place when you pick them up, the kind that you can take with you into the--er, into any room in the house.

I get most of my magazines from the library these days, but that doesn't make my opinions any less worthwhile. Hey, this blog is free, right?

A few weeks ago, "Time" featured Prince Charles' mug on the cover as part of a big feature story inside. That's interesting, but interesting in a "Does Time actually still want to sell magazines?" way more than a "Huh, I want to read about Prince Charles" way. For the record, the Prince seems like a fairly decent sort, and he's big on charity and environmental causes these days.

Elsewhere in the issue is a small picture of Christy Turlington topless. I kind of wish they had put Christy Turlington on the cover and had a small picture of Prince Charles inside.

"Entertainment Weekly" of November 8 spotlights Katy Perry on the cover with the copy: "ALL-ACCESS PASS We Spend One Wild Week With Katy Perry And She Tells Us...Everything!" Yeah, you can predict how that goes.

More interesting is a short story on "Modern Family's" Ariel Winter and how she lives with her older sister. Unfortunately, it's a bit too short, and it is (perhaps understandably) sparse on details of the sad situation that made the 15-year-old Winter petition for emancipation. It's an uneventful issue, but one more thing jumps out: "EW" loves "The Good Wife," and it wants you to love it, too.

Last month's "Vanity Fair" has Jay-Z on the cover, but I picked it up anyway. I'm willing to listen to people who try to convince us the guy is some kind of super-genius, but unfortunately this is an "all-access" article in which the author tells us about what it's like hanging out with the subject. It's not surprising, then, that the article begins with a whole lot of ink (I read print magazines, remember?) about how cool Jay-Z is. I just can't read an entire piece of that stuff.

I did read the article by Maureen Orth about Mia Farrow, updating her life now and reminding us of the sordid Woody Allen scandal. Now, this is clearly a pro-Mia piece that relies on access; Orth reported on the story originally for "Vanity Fair." Farrow does emerge as the sympathetic figure, but the bigger takeaway is this: Hey, wasn't Woody Allen a huge creep at best and something more sinister at worst? Didn't we all kind of forget about that? Reading this article made me wonder if maybe Woody needs to be lumped into that Roman Polanski category of directors you respect professionally but feel guilty about supporting.

My mom buys "Us" Magazine so you don't have to

Well, you won't be seeing any "My wife reads People..." posts here anymore because while "People" continues to crank out its glossy infotainment each week, I no longer have a wife. Fortunately I have another female family member to throw under the bus (and, no, those posts aren't the reason I no longer have a wife--at least I don't think so). My wonderful mother was helping me get situated at the new Cultureshark Tower, and she got an "Us Magazine" at the store and left it for me to read.

After a few days, I succumbed and invested the 3 minutes necessary to read it. I won't even rant about the 40 pages of stars that are "just like us" juxtaposed with 40 more pages of red carpet photos that prove they're not. But one of those red carpet pages did irritate me. It's an inane collection of 3 paired photos, each  challenging us to decide "Who Wore It Best?" Here's the kicker: All these photos are of little kids, and most are toddlers.

We don't even have to think too hard deciding which preschooler wore Nico Nico or Stella McCartney better--probably good for us--because "US asked 100 people in NY's Rockefeller Center," and we see the results. Now, I hope these 100 people, assuming they, you know, exist, didn't actually consider the question. I'm picturing someone on their way to a hot dog cart (like my vivid depiction of life in Manhattan?) pointing at one of the pictures and shaking their head as they rush on to grab a quick bite.

At least these kids are celebrities--Matthew Broderick's girls (I assume), a Jolie-Pitt kid, David Beckham's son, two other little girls (sorry, never heard of them)--but still! Even if this feature is intended to be tongue in cheek, it's still presenting little kids in some kind of fashion competition. This ridiculous feature makes the next page of content, an look at Katie Couric's "Secret Love Life," look like a piece in "Foreign Affairs."

Let's just say that until I remarry, or until my mother returns for a visit, we won't be seeing many pieces about "People" and "Us" on this site.

I don't know much about antiques, but I know brass when I see it

Krause Publications recently canceled one of the few magazines I still subscribed to, "Comics Buyer's Guide," and it did so with such abruptness that the last issue was #1699, depriving readers of a celebratory milestone 1700 issue and any kind of print farewell, for that matter. "CBG" had been a shell of itself for years, but I still enjoyed getting it each month.

The news that my subscription would be transferred to "Antiques Trader" didn't ease my disappointment. I never read an issue of "Antiques Trader." In fact, as of Friday, I had never received an issue of "Antiques Trader."

(Take special note of that last sentence, folks.)

Friday I received an envelope in the mail from "Antiques Trader." It was way too small to be an issue of the magazine, so I knew what it was going to be: A plea for money. Sure enough, I tore it open (I wish at least they used some faux parchment envelope and paper for that antique-y kind of look, but, alas, everything was plain) and saw a letter telling me, "Time is Running Out!" and that my subscription "will expire very soon!"

A few sentences of hype followed, along with a P.S. that I could "save time and trees" by renewing online. But, hey. the mag was thoughtful enough to include a "convenient" invoice at the top of the letter so I could go ahead and renew in the provided extra envelope.

I realize that much of this is automated and that once you're in the system, you're in the system, but I repeat...

I had not received an issue of "Antiques Trader!"

There are two easy ways to ensure my non-renewal of a magazine subscription: Publishing a magazine I don't want is one of them. Another? Send me a renewal notice for a magazine of which I haven't even seen a copy!

(Postscript: the next day, I got my first issue of "Antiques Trader" in the mail, which actually made me even angrier because then I knew I couldn't build this post around a declaration of "I still haven't received an issue of Antiques Trader!")

Vault of Coolness: The Plot to Smear Sophia Loren

Time to head back into the Vault of Coolness, my rather immodest name for my regular excursions into the Cultureshark archives for something interesting. Today let's go back to March 1962 and "Confidential" magazine, which rips the lid off...

THE PLOT TO SMEAR SOPHIA LOREN

Who needs Photoshop? "Confidential" was able to make these brilliant dupes 50 years ago by slapping Loren's head on stock photos like that "Hey, Marilyn's leaning over!"shot.

I hope the good citizens of 1962 appreciated the public service "Confidential" did. See, the magazine in no way exploited Sophia Loren by running these fake pictures. No, it did so--reluctantly, you can bet--for the greater good, as a warning to those of us who...uh, might come across stag footage of famous actresses and think it's real.

And it runs this mini-lesson on how to craft these fakes solely as a means to educate readers about this vile tactic. This information can in no way be used by anyone to make and peddle their own smut, and nor could the whole article encourage the fine, upstanding readers of "Confidential" to do so.

So from the ethically challenged year of 2013, I thank you, Walter Winchell, and especially "Confidential," for acting not just as a gossip rag, but as a Public Watchdog, ever vigilant in the fight against exploitation and prurience.

(My apologies for the scan, but I had to be delicate because the magazine is fragile. Also, I'm just an inept scanner.)

This is what I'm talking about: Entertainment Weekly disses Tom Wopat

Is it a good sign that yesterday I said I wouldn't be writing much about "Entertainment Weekly" and now my first post back is about "Entertainment Weekly"?

Well, remember that you can't spell "credible" without "l-i-e," and besides, I want to make an important point this morning. I am as guilty as anyone of offering snark for its own sake, but in my defense, I am not a major global print magazine with circulations in the millions, and plus I want to cut way back on that sort of thing. Here is what I don't want to do: Go out of my way to dis a celebrity just because he's not "cool" anymore. If he's a jerk or if someone else is being delusional about it, maybe, but if there is no harm, why call foul?

Case in point: The other day I looked at "EW's" Bullseye column, the regular back page feature in which it stuffs lots of pictures and smart-ass text into one infographic that purports to tell us what's HIP and what's NOT HIP at the moment. I know I shouldn't get worked up about this--it's just what "EW" does, after all--but at the bottom left of the page, and therefore on the periphery of pop culture--see, what's relevant is in the center of the page--is a picture of Tom Wopat's album cover with an accompanying wisecracking caption calling him "obsolete."

OUCH! Does the guy really deserve that? I didn't even know the album existed until they decided to rip it. It's not like we had to sit through a big Super Bowl ad hyping it right after kickoff. Really, what has Tom Wopat ever done to hurt anyone, apart from a DUI arrest and arguably a tacit endorsement of racism through driving around with the Stars and Bars plastered on his roof?

You know what? Come to think of it, IS he obsolete? He's a steady presence in stage and screen, including, you know, actual Broadway plays and stuff. He's in "Django Unchained," for crying out loud! But in spite of an ample and expanding post-"Dukes" resume--heck, post-"Cybill," for that matter--, someone thought it would be funny to take the cheapest of cheap shots and make fun of this work for existing because, hey, it's Tom Wopat, and won't that be a riot?

This is snark for its own sake. Do I, a blogger with an often sarcastic bent, want to take these kinds of potshots at hard-working celebrities?

Well, yeah, sure, of course I do!

The thing is I want to do it in conversation, maybe a private e-mail, the occasional one-and-done skywriting excursion...not on my blog. In short, absent a larger purpose of some kind, I don't want to rip Tom Wopat just for being Tom Wopat...unless he joins the staff of "Entertainment Weekly." Then he's fair game.

[SIGH] Here I am complaining about "EW" already. It's only a matter of time before I share a gripe about RTV's weekend schedule, isn't it?

Cultureshark Cares: A Public Service Announcement

Months ago, when The Greatest Cable Channel Known to Mankind released its Summer Under the Stars Schedule, I rejoiced at the sight of August 5, John Garfield Day, because Turner Classic Movies had finally scheduled "The Breaking Point." This long-awaited--by me, for sure, but
I know others have been on the hunt for it as well--film is on tonight at 10:00 P.M. I'll be clearing my DVR and hoping there's not some kind of freak storm or something.

This 1950 adaptation of "To Have and Have Not" has a distinctive pedigree even beyond its critical acclaim. It stars Garfield, is directed by Michael Curtiz, and as the second adaptation of Hemingway's novel, makes an interesting comparison piece to the Humphrey Bogart/Bacall/Hawks classic "To Have and Have Not." Or so I hear--I've never seen it.

I've wanted to see it for years, and though I figured all those factors I mentioned above, PLUS the fact it's a Warner Brothers picture, made it a likely candidate for a screening on TCM. Well, I figured wrong, and I haven't seen "Breaking Point" listed in the 10 years or so I've had the channel. I've only read about legendary screenings of the film in the wee hours on outlets like
Cinemax, screenings likely made long before I was hip enough to know just how much I should have wanted to see it.

Over the years, I've avoided reading up too much on this one, saving myself for, you know, actually watching it. I just know it's good and that it's "darker." Well, just taking Walter Brennan out of the thing probably makes it at least 50% darker, so I don't know how much that tells
me. Maybe--not a deliberate SPOILER--everyone dies in an A-bomb blast at the end, followed immediately by a Billie Holiday song playing over the credits.

I never saw a definitive reason as to what kept the movie off TCM but let "To Have and Have Not" be a mainstay. Even "The Gun Runners," the later Don Siegel version of the same source material, has made an appearance or two, I'm pretty sure. It matters not now. Catch this rare one tonight!

Since I am feeling particularly caring today, I will alert readers in the Greater Metropolitan D.C. area that Penn State football preview magazines are appearing at Wegman's. I've already snapped up 3 of them. It's nice to see that the top program in the game is well represented throughout the Mid-Atlantic region, and at the best supermarket in the area, no less. Pick up your copies and get pumped up for some college football.