9 posts tagged “san francisco”

I’ve been talking about all these remakes of late, but one I forgot to mention is a biggie: that time the Germans remade The Love Boat. There are a few differences: Das Traumschiff (it is not called Das Love Boot as The Simpsons once parodied) has been going since 1981 and it has never, unlike the original American version, been shot in a studio. Each season is short because of the lavish location filming—trust the Germans to take a formula and improve on it no end. I think they also managed to keep the cruise director off cocaine.
   The title sequence from the below 2007 special in San Francisco (found on YouTube) is awful, and set in the very un-German Arial Rounded, but even the late Aaron Spelling didn’t beat the money that has been poured in to the 50-plus episodes since the 1980s.
   The Germans’ approach to state TV is: if it works, and it pulls in viewers week after week, then don’t tinker and ruin it. Tatort has been going for God knows how long.
   I prefer my Alarm für Cobra 11, still the perfect car-chase cop show.

The Los Angeles Times believes San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom is considering exploring running for California’s governor when Arnold Schwarzenegger’s term finishes in 2010. Gov Schwarzenegger cannot run again due to his state’s term limits.
   Gavin—the fiancé of a friend of mine, and whom I had some dealings with when he was first elected (more specifically, our staffs dealt with one another)—is probably ideal from the Democratic side of things and could score a lot of votes on the coastal counties. Inland, I am less sure.
   Right now I say his profile is the highest of the likely rivals, even compared with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in Los Angeles.
   I know from many of our mutual friends that Gavin has considered running for the Governor’s office for years, though this is one of the few public articles about this ambition.
   I may not agree with all his policies but I believe he is faithful to his principles. And living in a place that has universal healthcare, I like the fact that Gavin has given that to the people of San Francisco.

With the good news of the engagement between my friend Jennifer Siebel and Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, whom I had some contact with in his first year on the job, I have to note that the usual anti-Jen bloggers have been more silent.
   Either it’s the time of year or they have moved to other targets.
   It makes me wonder about the type who has a need to target others. I know: I deal to politicians as though they were subjects of sitcoms—but I like to think I do so with some restraint. Men such as Winston Peters or John Key have not escaped my sarcasm, but I admit it is done with what I see as a failure for them to grasp their jobs. In short, other than the ridiculous hours at Parliament, I think I could do better. I believe I have the intelligence to. And if they wanted to dignify me with a response to justify their positions, I will welcome it—not that they would.
   When it comes to someone like Jen, who defended herself on a blog and through that attracted more negative comments, I question: why? Here is someone who is merely stating her opinion, and that opinion is then rubbished by people who are even further away from the subject than she is—yet those people all proclaim themselves experts.
   What we have is a generation that has to lash out because of envy. They wonder why they are not as loved as others, they dislike being corrected by the real facts, and express their disdain by pretending to be more important than the next person.
   These are the people who, with their cellphones, speak loudly to assure others of their self-importance, so that we all know what their business is. And giggle to ourselves about their optimistic view of their trivialities.
   And when it comes to a civil discourse, which one assumes one should be able to have in a medium where opinion-sharing is one of its raisons d’être, they no longer know how to have one. There used to be a thing called netiquette, which I thought extended to the blogosphere.
   I wonder if we can restore our values this year. I’d certainly like a 2008 where I didn’t have to quote John Gabriel’s Greater Internet F***wad Theory again.

[Cross-posted] Fascinating: after our post exposing the Miranda Kerr v. Paris Hilton incident at Victoria’s Secret to be false—or at least ridiculously inaccurate, with media outlets getting the year and the venue wrong—the Chronicle’s SFGate.com still reported it. It has taken the post down now, but not before Google News found it: 

   Yes, we are feeling smug, but only because the error was so great that we can’t believe how it propagated. Even the source site, Pedestrian.tv, is amazed, having A Current Affair contact it this week over two-year-old news.
   It stresses the importance for traditional media outlets to be careful. We’re not perfect ourselves, so it’s a lesson we need to take heed of, too.

This was too good to not post. Zak mentioned the old Renault Le Car, and while this is not of the North American model, it is a nice trip down memory lane. San Francisco looks almost the same.

   Un vieux pub pour la Renault 5, réalisé à San Francisco.

I read some disturbing news: Hollywood is thinking of remaking Bullitt, one of my all-time favourite films, and putting Brad Pitt into the Steve McQueen role.
   I don’t have much against remakes. I am looking forward to Life on Mars set in Los Angeles, unlike a lot of my Brit friends who have not been this aghast since the Germans bought Rolls-Royce. I even went to see 2003’s The Italian Job set in Los Angeles, and told my Brit friends, who had not been that aghast since the Germans bought Bentley.
   But Bullitt?
   I’ve nothing personal against Brad. I like the social causes the bloke is getting into. But even he must be smart enough to know that there will be a certain proportion of Earth’s male population who think that this is sacrilege. We are talking Holy Grail stuff here. And there are more reasons against this idea.

10. Most straight men (and let’s face it, most gay men) would prefer Daniel Craig in the role.
9. The bad guys will not look as menacing in a 2008 Dodge Charger.
8. You cannot re-create the scene where Jacqueline Bisset drives Steve McQueen back into the City on 101 because they would be stuck in gridlock.
7. Because of his personal interests, Brad would spend too much time filming the architects’ office scene.
6. The crew would be distracted when Angelina comes to visit on set.
5. Bullitt and Delgetti would be arrested as terror suspects at San Francisco Airport for leaving their car and running inside.
4. That annoying creaking sound heard on the soundtrack (it’s the noise of Steve McQueen turning in his grave).
3. ‘Hotel Daniels’ on Embarcadero is now the site of the HQ for the Gap, and it would be seriously bad publicity to kill the witness there.
2. The serious risk that Robert Vaughn’s character will be played by Tom Cruise as a Scientologist seeking respectability.
1. No dude who has worn a skirt (Troy) can replace Steve McQueen.

Time for our commercial break. The first is a series of UK adverts, and watch out for the second in this collection. You think it’s the old Levi’s 501 Laundrette commercial from Bartle Bogle Hegarty, but keep watching. The Brits reading this will already know the ending.

   The second is a personal favourite. I am a big Bullitt fan, and it was great seeing Steve McQueen resurrected for this 1999 Ford Puma commercial using some clever special effects—and the permission of McQueen’s heirs. The Lalo Schifrin theme contributes to the feel as do the titles, reflecting Pablo Ferro’s original work. Even I wanted a Puma after this—it was the only way you could get me driving a Ford Fiesta, which the Puma basically was, but in a party frock.

Photographed by Charles Thompson

It may be best to fight ignorance with kindness: I have arranged for Jennifer Siebel’s 2005 article on conservation to be put up at Lucire’s online edition. They may discover the real Jen through that: it’s in her words.
   She is not the only person who ran into trouble defending the one she loves through a blog. It has happened to the best of us, though I wasn’t dating a mayor. But whatever the case, I expect to speak freely. I have done in my interviews. It is 2007, something that Jennifer’s (and my) critics do not seem to realize when we talk about our love lives. Freedom of speech, holding an opinion, treating blogs as democratic media—surely San Francisco, the capital of Googleland, Liberalia and American progressiveness, understands this?
   Or does the city really prefer sinking in standing and becoming ’Frisco again?

 
[Cross-posted] I know my friend Jennifer Siebel has attracted some negative press over some comments in the San Francisco media. To my colleagues in the media: give over. So, someone can’t express an opinion any more, just because she’s dating the Mayor? Did she lie, based on what she knew? No. Is she doing the right thing by standing by her boyfriend? Yes. I know Jennifer Siebel to be a quality gal, and in the 21st century, even if the San Francisco media is surprised by this, actresses are allowed to go on to the internet and state what is on their minds.
   I don’t know the other parties to this, but for a spokesman on the other side to say that they were ‘mortified’ by Jen’s statements is just one of those bleeding-heart exaggerations that we non-Americans laugh at. If you were embroiled in an affair, then I doubt an opinion that you will have heard countless times, and have come to expect from the Mayor’s side, is even surprising.
   Sounds to me like Jen’s not the one wanting to score points here, just a publicist wanting to look like he is doing something worthwhile. What surprises me is how he has suckered some journos into covering it.