#michael keaton douglas

[scammydoesstuff]

I'll say it as many times as you want, BJ! 💚

Finally done! Drawing with an iPad is such a different, weird experience for me, but I like how this turned out. Actually got the idea for it while trying to sketch a bit in the theater before seeing Beetlejuice Beetlejuice the second time. Glad to finally have it finished.

[mrthemovieman]

[rtfics]

Michael Keaton Is Ditching His Stage Name for His Real Name.

Just don’t say his name three times.

Michael Keaton is ready to return to his roots, more specifically, his birth name.The Beetlejuice Beetlejuice star shared that after five decades in show business playing several iconic characters like Batman and Beetlejuice, he wants to use his original moniker—Michael Douglas—again.

Due to the Screen Actor’s Guild’s rules that no two members can have the same name, Keaton was forced to come up with a solution due to both Wall Street actor Michael Douglas and talk show host Mike Douglas.

“I was looking through—I can’t remember if it was a phone book,” the 72-year-old recalled to People in an interview published Sept. 4. “I must’ve gone, ‘I don’t know, let me think of something here.’ And I went, ‘Oh, that sounds reasonable.’”

Moving forward, Keaton plans to be credited professionally as Michael Keaton Douglas, a combination of his stage name and his real name.

The Oscar-nominated actor said he planned to use the new name on his 2023 film Knox Goes Away, which he directed and starred in, but noted that he simply “forgot” amid the chaos of making the film.

“I said, ‘Hey, just as a warning, my credit is going to be Michael Keaton Douglas.’ And it totally got away from me,” he shared. “And I forgot to give them enough time to put it in and create that. But that will happen.”

Keaton isn’t the first Hollywood A-lister to decide to revert back to their birth name in a professional setting. Emma Stone, who coincidentally starred alongside Keaton in 2014’s Birdman, previously announced her intentions of returning to her first name of Emily.

Via E! Online.

[secretsofthemourning]

I mean, it could happen...

So I saw Beetlejuice Beetlejuice again… 👀👀👀

[iz1331]

How many times have you watched this?

Me: Y3$

Honestly, at this point, just give them another project to work together on. Preferably a new Tim Burton directed film, or a live action Beetlejuice limited series.

Michael said he'd do Beetlejuice every year if he can, and of course as long as Tim's directing it and for sure when Winona is still Lydia.

Who can lip read? The hell are they saying?

Please, release more outtakes and bloopers of this film 🥹😭 Bring back the years when gag reels and bloopers came along with the DVD 😤

[haveyouseenthisromcom]

[dorkynerd23]

Why Green Eggs & Ham (GEAH) Is The Best Dr. Seuss Adaptation.🍳💚 (Analysis)

Hello Everyone!! Hope you're all doing good and well and everything's going well for you all. ♥️ Wanted to come here and discuss about a show, an incredible show that even after it's release and end, it's still a well-made and amazing show that still great all these years later, and the show I'm talking about and referring to is Netflix's Green Eggs & Ham, I'm gonna discuss about how it's the best Dr. seuss adaptation to date.

Now, before we discuss and talk about Green, Eggs & Ham, we need to talk about and mention the past Dr. Seuss adaptations and dive deep into them real quick. Now when it comes to adaptations to Dr. Seuss's work, most of the time it's either hit or miss, mediocre or just flat out terrible and awful. One thing I've gotta mention is that Dr. Seuss beforehand wasn't very open to adaptations to his work, with the reason being that he was worried and afraid that his characters would be used in context for things he didn't 100% and necessary didn't agree with. But that eventually changed when he came to the cartoon adaptations that we all know today and overtime would loosen up his views and allow more adaptations of his work. And the first adaptation of his work was an animated short called "Horton Hatches The Egg" (based on Seuss's book of the same name and this book came way before Horton Hears A Who, btw) which was released back in 1942 and going forward, Dr. Seuss would later begin working very closely with the adaptations to make sure they stay true to the book, to the source material and in 1966, Seuss would authorized eminent cartoon artist, Chuck Jones himself (who was a close friend of Seuss as they also served in World War II together) to make a cartoon adaptation short based on "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" which would become the Christmas classic we all know and love to this day, Chuck would also go on to eventually direct + produce adaptations of both "Horton Hears A Who" (1970) and "The Cat In The Hat." (1971)

Dr. Seuss sadly passed away and died at the age of 87 from cancer on September 24th 1991 and from that point until her own death in 2018, his widow, Audrey Seuss would have full licensing of her husband's work and eventually gave in to the temptations of hollywood adaptations of Seuss's work which would be the movie adaptations. Let's start with "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" which was released back in 2000, so to basically recap this film although I loved it as a kid and still kinda do, I see it as a guilty pleasure (now as an adult) and rewatched the movie not that long ago and I don't believe it's aged very well honestly.

There are some good things to this film such as Jim Carey as The Grinch himself, which is perfect casting and the makeup effects on him are incredible, you truly by him as The Grinch, there are some funny moments, I'll still watch it here and there around the holiday's and the set design is pretty good. But when you take off the nostalgiatic googles you can see the problems with the film, now..as I said, this film does have a good set design, but it's hidden underneath all of this murky colorless filter to the point it looks so dull to look at honestly, like there's not much life. Along with that, the movie is just incredibly meanspirited, almost everyone in Whoville is terrible (besides Cindy) and unlikeable, soulless and just care about materialism which I get is the point of the film, but it just goes against the message of the book, The Grinch shouldn't have to explain and spell out the message for the who's, HE'S the one who's supposed to learn the lesson not the other way around, but the movie just gets it totally backwards.

Now, although this film hasn't aged the best and there are so many issues with the film, there are some good elements to it, it's definitely not the worst Dr. Seuss adaptation and I'll still watch it sometimes around Christmas, but it just hasn't aged the best, but again..It's not the worst Dr. Seuss adaptation, no that goes to the next one we're about to discuss.

Alright, so in 2003 another live action Dr. Seuss adaptation was released, that being "The Cat In The Hat" starring Mike Myers. And I'll keep this short and simple as I wanna get this one out of the way, I also rewatched this film not long ago too and it still sucks years later, there is really nothing good about this film honestly. From the set design, to the acting, (especially from Myers himself) the makeup, especially the makeup and CGI. The jokes are also abysmal and this film doesn't capture anything from the source material and almost feels like a slap in the face and say what you want about The Grinch, at least SOME effort and decent stuff was added in that film, even not done the best exactly. But with this film, it's just awful and bad..you know a movie is terrible when Audrey herself said that her husband would've despised the film and prohibited any further live-action adaptations of Seuss's work because of how bad the film was. This film itself is honestly why Dr. Seuss was so hesitant and nervous to allow adaptations of his work and I still believe there is the worst Dr. Seuss adaptation to date, luckily the next few adaptations of Seuss's work (mainly when it came to the film adaptations) would be done in computer animation instead of live action.

So, after the disaster and failure of The Cat In The Hat, we ended up getting some more film adaptations of Seuss's work which would all be animated and those being "Horton Hears A Who", (2008) The Lorax" (2012) and "The Grinch" (2018) and we've got another adaptation in the works based on Cat In The Hat that'll be released in 2026 by Warner Bros. But for now, let's quickly discuss the other film adaptations and I won't dive super deep into them, I'll just quickly go over as I don't exactly have a whole lot to say about them, honestly. Alright, so "Horton Hears A Who" was the next adaptation and was released back in 2008 and it's the debatably the best Dr. Seuss movie but that's not really saying a lot, and I'll definitely say that it's definitely decent but there's not much to it, there is some charm to it but overall it's just a fine film. It's not bad or god awful, but not all that great either, the film kinda feels all over the place with its story and humor especially but mostly as a whole as it seems to be struggling to turn a short story into a full length film which that's a criticism you can say for the other Seuss movies as well. Sure the animation is nice and often pretty to look at and there are some jokes that land, but this film is just alright and is watchable. I'll definitely say that this film AT LEAST does understand the message of the book and the animation has I said is great and pretty and actually does lend itself well to the Dr. Seuss world, but overall this film is okay, it's definitely better than Cat In The Hat and it's not insulting garbage but there are better films to watch, but I'd say give this a watch if you're curious and haven't seen it.

Let's move on and discuss both The Lorax and The Grinch which were both made by Illumination, instead of giving these two their own sections I'm gonna to just to discuss them in their own paragraph here, so hopefully that's fine, lol! Alright, so when it comes to The Lorax...overtime, it seems to be kinda decisive especially over the years with some either hating, loving it, or just not caring about it. I'm more in the hating and not caring for it category, now in terms of adaptations, this isn't the worst one over what we've discussed so far, but it's still a bad and not very good film. First off, this film clearly has cooperate studio meddling written all over it, and I'm not just talking about the product placement in the film's marketing, (which btw, is counterproductive and goes against the film's message!) but I'm also referring to the big hollywood actors casting and pop songs, and just trying just so hard to hip and not understanding the source material in the slightest, this film kinda feels like it was made so make money and just never to be talked about again, and also feels dated as well too. That's not the only issues with the film, there's also other problems as well from the casting like I've mentioned, and I know star casting has become a huge problem and talkative subject over the years but the casting for this film feels off, I mean you've got Zac Efron playing a 12yr and Taylor Swift, and no offense to these two, but they were very miscasted and you can tell they only got these two to appeal and become they're famous, and not only that, there's also how they wrote The Onceler and just 100% redoing his character and just making him into this emo guitar player, Ect. This film is another Dr. Seuss movie that doesn't understand the message of the book, the book didn't try to oversimplify the environmental message by simply, "Yeahhh, man and humanity sucks, ahhh!!" It just was never that simple, it's NEVER that simple even in real life, and the book did a great job starting a conversation rather than simply pointing a finger at someone. I'll definitely say that the animation is gorgeous and it's colorful and seems to capture some spirit of the world of Dr. Seuss but it just feels wasted on such a weak story, weak characters, a genetic cooperate villain that's there for the film's message and nothing more rather than a fleshed out character, and overall a forgettable experience. Again, although this film is a mixture of bad and mediocre, it's still not as bad as Cat In The Hat.

And now we finally have The Grinch from 2018, which was greenlit by Audrey before her passing. And I'll say that I do remember watching this film in theaters with my mom and thought it was decent for what it was, but after rewatching the film for this analysis, I'll say that while the film has some flaws, it's definitely decent for what it is, the film does leave out some of the best parts of the original book and ended up changing the message of the story in general, it's not like the message they were trying to teach was bad or anything, the intension is there and this film still is fun and very colorful and I can see some heart and decent soul put into it , it's definitely a decent and alright film, and I can understand why some loved and enjoy it and think it's a fine film and think it's a lovely sendoff to the Dr. Seuss movie adaptations. (For now, at least)

ALRIGHT!! Now we finally move on to the adaptation that this whole post is all about, let's finally discuss the latest Dr. Seuss adaptation that's been released out to date, that being Netflix's 'Green, Eggs & Ham' that was released back on November 8th 2019. Now, I'll honestly say that I remember going into this show I didn't exactly have many expectations as knowing how past adaptations have been in when came to Dr. Seuss and his work, I didn't know what to expect and thought this show was be really bad or mediocre at the least, but I remember hearing positive things about the show and seeing images and clips of the show got me rather interested and curious, so I remember going onto Netflix and checking out the show and after watching all 13 episodes of the first season I was pleasantly surprised by how damn good and well made this show is/was, like everything about this show is incredible from it's talented voice cast, from it's animation, (the show looks great especially since tv shows that are based on movies don't have the same budget as the films) from the characters, the story and just everything. You can clearly see all the hard work, love and dedication that went into this show and could tell that the ones working on the show truly cared about Dr. Seuss and his work and wanted to make a show not just for kids but something for almost everyone can enjoy. Everything thing in this world when it comes to the show just looks, breaths and 100% feels like Dr. Seuss, I also love and appreciate the references to other Dr. Seuss books and while the other Seuss tv shows and even the films themselves (except for Cat In The Hat) they were also able to capture nail the look of Dr. Seuss but something about Geah feels different, it truly nails the spirit and world of Dr. Seuss and it's just a beautiful looking show on every level, the animators really poured their love and soul into animating this show.

And it only gets better from here, there's also other amazing things about the show especially when it comes to the writing, characters and the story itself. And with this show, instead of 100% focusing solely on the story of the book, this show instead decided to change the story up and intertwine the original story into this new one. So, in this show, Guy-Am-I (played by Michael Douglas) is an inventor and who's very down on his luck mostly due to his inventions and dreams always blowing up right in his face, after one of his inventions fails his chance to going to Meepville, Guy decides to quit inventing and throw away the towel. Eventually, Guy runs into Sam-I-Am (played by Adam Devine) who's this chipper, loveable ball of sunshine who stole a creature known as The Chickeraffe ("Mr. Jenkins") that intends to return it to its natural habitat and have it reunite with its mother. But after getting their suitcases mixed up and when a mysterious agent duo known as "BAD GUYS" show up and attempt to take the Chickeraffe, this results in both Guy and Sam teaming up together in order to get to Meepville to save Mr. Jenkins and get him home. Now, while this story especially with its main characters, we've seen this type of storyline a million times before as it takes two characters with different personalities and putting them together as they learn to get along and know more about one another, being another typical buddy road trip formula. But it actually works very damn well with this show, throughout the first season, we see that Sam is able to have a huge impact on Guy and his life, in the beginning, Guy starts off as a closed off, grumpy frustrated individual who's very down on his luck and doesn't like anyone. Meanwhile Sam on the other hand, is very upbeat, loves life and is sweet and kind to almost everyone he meets and likes everybody. Again, while we've seen this type of thing many times before, this show does this type especially many other tropes that are shown in this show pretty well, and throughout the first season we actually see the characters grow, we see Guy starting to be more open and confident and even becomes more happier and even starts doing more with his life and trying new things such as inventing, friendship, family, love, ect.

And I think what also makes this formula work is the believable friendship and dynamic between Guy and Sam, it's incredibly well written and you truly do believe in their friendship and their dynamic and interactions is great!! The two clearly have an impact on another one another but Guy especially and while the first season was mainly focus on Guy and his journey, the next season gives a lot of focus on Sam when it comes to him wanting to find and reunite with his mom, but we'll get slightly more on that a little later! But Sam is also another great and well developed character and he's an example of an annoying character done right which can be a very tricky task, he's a character who's annoying but not annoying to the audience. Sam has such a likeable and loveable presence and charm, with some of that coming from Adam's wonderful performance, but I was never at all annoyed with Sam one bit and loved the depth they gave in S1 EP10 and showed his connections with Green, Eggs & Ham which felt powerful and heartwarming. And the Green, Eggs and Ham aren't there just to just be mentioned here and there, and to teach the message when it comes to Guy trying them, but also represents and shows just how important and strong Guy and Sam's friendship truly is. ❤️

There's also other memorable and great characters in this show, we've got characters from the book such as the fox, the mouse, and then you have the goat, in this show they're all changed and are good in their own right. First you have the fox, named Michael, who's this an eccentric guy who's basically obsessed with green eggs and has a huge crush on a green chicken named Sandra, and it's just incredibly hilarious as hell and pathetic in a way but just funny, then you have the mouse who's basically a parody based on "Jean Valjean" from Les Misérables and the running gag with him is that whenever he talks, basically nobody especially Guy and Sam can't understand him and only hear squeaks, he also has this huge song that dives into his backstory and it's supposed to be sad but you can't help but kinda laugh at it. And then you have the goat himself, who's basically this unhinged, nonsense badass bounty hunter sent by Mr. Snerz and will pretty much stop at nothing until he gets and captures the chickenraffe. He speaks with a strong spanish accent and he's kinda like an antagonist but he's extremely memorable and fun, he also this pretty fun and great fight scene with Mr. Jenkins in S1 EP9 up on a snowy mountain and not only does the animation sand out during this scene but it's indefinitely entertainment, it's interesting that a Dr. Seuss adaptation of all things would have things along with other great things in this show.

Let's also talk about the other characters they added in this show, that being "The Bad Guys" and "Michellee and E.B." and the main villain of S1, "Mr. Snerz." These characters weren't in the original book and are entirely new characters but similar to the other characters, they're good in their own right. We've got the agents themselves, McWinkle (played by Jeffrey Wright) and Gluntz, (played by Jillian Bell) we've got Mcwinkle who's the serious guy who's on his last mission and wants to get the job done as soon as possible, while his partner, Gluntz is basically the optimistic rookie and basically the opposite from Mcwinkle. And again, while this show does use tropes that been done to death that get tiring, that's kinda the point and this show does new things and does these tropes well that it doesn't exactly bother me all that much, honestly. Mcwinkle is a good and interesting character, although he might seem cold-hearted and serious he does care about his job and also despite his gruff persona, he does care for animals and others and just wants to keep everyone safe and both he and Gluntz aren't bad people, they're just doing their jobs and are just flawed almost like all the characters. Meanwhile with Gluntz, she's just the absolute and I love the hell out of her, although she can act serious and tough, but she just so fun-loving and chaotic and she's the best girl. Really do love Gluntz though, she's plucky, sweet, and just hilarious and some of her moments of the show are my favorite!

Now we have Mr. Snerz, (played by Eddie Izzard) who's the main villain of the first season and he's basically this famous rich businessman who wants to have the chickenraffe and mount it to his wall, and he doesn't want him dead and want his head on the wall, no he just literally wants him tied to the wall so he can keep the chickenraffe there for the rest of its life so it can never escape, and Snerz did that with all the other creatures he owns. Now, I didn't have many opinions about Mr. Snerz in the beginning and thought he was fine but also thought he was gonna be this typical one dimensional bad guy who wants to steal creatures for money and all that jazz, the same type of villain we've seen before. But, he's not exactly like that, he can be just as funny as the other characters at times and has a interesting solid motive for doing what he's doing and it's shown through his backstory.

And then you finally have Michellee and her one and only daughter, E.B. Now, I'm gonna dive deep into these two the best way that I can especially with Michellee as I feel she's been hated for wayyy too long (especially by some certain shippers and fans in the Geah fanbase) and deserves so much better and I'll show that she's not as bad as some try to claim she is. Now, Michellee is very overprotective and cautious who wants her daughter to be safe and okay, while E.B. is a rebellious kid/teen who wants to explore and have fun and do things that kids around her age do. And again like before, while we've seen this done before, just like the show itself and both Sam and Guy themselves, Michellee and E.B. are great and developed characters and their relationship is very well done, they're also on their way to Meepville only for Michellee to enter a literal bean contest and they end up meeting with our main duo multiple times throughout the first season and we get a nice bond between the four main characters. Both Sam and E.B. form a sibling type dynamic/friendship meanwhile both Guy and Michellee form a relationship of their own, now..I'll definitely say that one of the flaws with this show was the ongoing misunderstanding when it came to Michellee and Guy which became frustrating and repetitive, and it doesn't help that most of Michellee's moments kinda resolve around this and I really do think it could've been handled better.

But the way I've seen some of these fans especially when it comes to GuyXSam shippers, say that Michellee is a awful and terrible person is just frustrating as hell and ridiculous. It reminds me when it came to The Owl House, some tried to claim that Camilla was a terrible mom, which is downright not true and it shows people don't get it. While yes, Michellee was overprotective and her being too clingy only caused her to push her daughter away and feel alone, but the point of the show and the story itself is to NOT judge something or someone before giving it a try, without giving it a chance and these characters DO ACTUALLY GROW AND DEVELOP!! Over the course of the show we do see Michellee slowly learning to get out of her shell and try new things, and allowing her daughter to have fun, we learn that Michellee used to be a painter years ago but when her husband unfortunately died (when E.B was very small) she gave up her dream and moved on and this is possibly why she started to become more protective of her daughter, as she didn't wanna lose her either. Michellee clearly loves and cares about her daughter with all her heart, she's not perfect and she's very flawed (just like all the other characters in the show) and we do see her starting to be more open and by the end of the season, and even through some moments of Season 2, we see she's developed and has grown. Michellee isn't a bad parent, NOT in the slightest, she's a caring and loving parent that only wants to keep her daughter safe but she doesn't realize that doing so only pushed her daughter away and made her feel alone, and I really do by the mother/daughter relationship between her and E.B. and find it believable, like all the other characters, they are very flawed and the point of the show is for them to change, grow and give new things a try! (^-^)

Meanwhile with Guy and Michellee, although the two didn't get along and hit it off at the start due to Michellee being unimpressed with Guy's inventions due to them literally exploding, as the show went on and the more times the two met up one another one they start seeing that they actually have some things in common. Both are quiet, keep themselves, along with being reserved, and despite the annoying and cliche misunderstandings and writing choices when it came to how their dynamic was done in during some points from the first season, the relationship between both Guy and Michellee is honestly rather sweet. It's nothing too deep or groundbreaking, but they definitely are cute, adorable and just wholesome together and you do genuinely believe that the two do love and care about one another, both Michellee and Guy go through the same character arc's only with slight different circumstances, with both characters starting off not trusting the world or anyone around them and wanting to be left alone but both eventually learn the importance of not being afraid to try new things! 🙂🩷

Now, I'll quickly mention the second season real quick and while this season definitely isn't as good and amazing as the first one was, it's still a decent nice watch and there are some elements of the second season that I did enjoy. Firstly the animation is still incredible and well done and there is still clearly effort and love poured into the show even if this season wasn't as good as Season 1. And I did love some of the new characters they added such as Looka and Pam (Sam's Mother) and thought they were interesting and fun enough characters and I did love what they did with Pam. Although, she does follow into a trope we've seen before, what they did with her was still well down and you can clearly tell that she does love and care about Sam and similar to all the other characters, she's flawed just as them and isn't perfect, but she's not a bad parent or a bad person either, and while with Looka, although I don't have a whole lot to say about him exactly, I still really liked him and found his relationship and romance with E.B. very cute and adorable and I really do love their dynamic with one another and ship them, but as for the other characters I do think they could've been handled a little bit better but they're still fine enough characters on their own and I do think the route they went with the story also could've been handled better and could've been a little darker especially as the story they went with for S2, was based and took inspiration from another Dr. Seuss book called, "The Butter Battle Book" which was an anti war book that was written during the Cold war and I think they really could've done something different and make it more darker, but what they went with was fine and okay for what it was, but I think it could've been handled better and now certain characters act and are underutilize was also an issue with the second season, but for what S2 was its definitely a decent effort and they could've done something so much worse, the soul and heart of this soul is still there even if it lacks in some places, it's still a good season and I like it for what it is despite its flaws and issues, I still enjoy it. 💙

Overall, Green Eggs & Ham is an incredible and wonderful show that's very underrated and should be discussed and talked about more, this is a show that truly understood the message of the book and the source material itself. This show took inspiration from a short book and expanded upon the message and fits perfectly to not just the Green, Eggs & Ham but also to the characters as well too as we see them try new things and develop over the course of the show and I think the lesson of the book can apply to all of us as well too honestly. Live life to the absolute fullest as it's filled with many opportunities and about discovering new things but in order to that, you'll have to get out there and do what you love and just give new things a try and don't giving up and keep trying, even when life is tough, difficult or feels rather pointless, keep pushing forward and trying things! You can tell everyone who worked on Geah, truly care about Dr. Seuss and this book and wanted to do the show justice and they 100% succeeded. Even after the show's conclusion, this show is still amazing, delightful and just absolutely wonderful, it's filled with so much love, passion, it's well crafted and it's just a masterpiece honestly and it's most definitely the best Dr. Seuss adaptation!

If none of you haven't seen this show before or even heard of it, I'd highly recommend this show as it's a great and fun watch and it's 100% worth your time. This show is for everyone and even if you aren't that familiar with Dr. Seuss, you'll still very much love and enjoy this show. Please everyone, give this show a try and check it out, it's worth it. 🫶🩷

[secretsofthemourning]

This scene lives rent free in my head. This is one of the most "Betelgeuse" things Betelgeuse did all movie. Ya know what I mean?

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024): Phone Popups Clip

So I uuhhh seen a post about this scene (will reblog) that looked like it could use some HD footage for, uhm, RESEARCH.

HERE'S THE GIFs OF IT AS WELL:

AND A COUPLE SCREENIES TOO WHY NOT:

乁( ◔ ౪◔)ㄏ Happy Beetlebabbing <3

[gravedust412]

Michael John Douglas

[howardduck1490]

Cable Guy vs. Beetlejuice

[mrthemovieman]

[secretsofthemourning]

Too busy thinking about maybe going to theaters to see this a second time...

“Honey, this one's from the heart.” ♡

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024)

[hotvintagepoll]

Congrats to the ultimate winner of the Hot & Vintage Movie Men Tournament, Mr. Toshiro Mifune! May he live happily and well where the sun always shines, enjoying the glories of a battle hard fought.

A loving farewell to all of our previous contestants, who are now banished to the shadow realm and all its dark joys and whispered horrors—I hear there's a picnic on the village green today. If you want to remember the fallen heroes, you can find them all beneath the cut.

What happens next? I'll be taking a break of two weeks to rest from this and prep for the Hot & Vintage Ladies Tournament. I'll still be around but only minimally, posting a few last odes to the hot men before transitioning into a little early ladies content, just like I did with this last tournament. The submission form for the Hot & Vintage Ladies tournament will remain up for one more week (closing February 21st), so get your submissions in for that asap! Once the form closes, there will be one more week of break. The first round of the Hot & Vintage Ladies Tournament will be posted on February 29th, as Leap Year Day seems like a fitting allusion to leaping into these ladies' arms.

Thanks for being here! Enjoy the two weeks off, and send me some great propaganda.

In order of the last round they survived—

ROUND ONE HOTTIES:

Richard Burton

Tony Curtis

Red Skelton

Keir Dullea

Jack Lemmon

Kirk Douglas

Marcello Mastroianni

Jean-Pierre Cassel

Robert Wagner

James Garner

James Coburn

Rex Harrison

George Chakiris

Dean Martin

Sean Connery

Tab Hunter

Howard Keel

James Mason

Steve McQueen

George Peppard

Elvis Presley

Rudolph Valentino

Joseph Schildkraut

Ray Milland

Claude Rains

John Wayne

William Holden

Douglas Fairbanks Sr.

Harold Lloyd

Charlie Chaplin

John Gilbert

Ramon Novarro

Slim Thompson

John Barrymore

Edward G. Robinson

William Powell

Leslie Howard

Peter Lawford

Mel Ferrer

Joseph Cotten

Keye Luke

Ivan Mosjoukine

Spencer Tracy

Felix Bressart

Ronald Reagan (here to be dunked on)

Peter Lorre

Bob Hope

Paul Muni

Cornel Wilde

John Garfield

Cantinflas

Henry Fonda

Robert Mitchum

Van Johnson

José Ferrer

Robert Preston

Jack Benny

Fredric March

Gene Autry

Alec Guinness

Fayard Nicholas

Ray Bolger

Orson Welles

Mickey Rooney

Glenn Ford

James Cagney

ROUND TWO SWOONERS:

Dick Van Dyke

James Edwards

Sammy Davis Jr.

Alain Delon

Peter O'Toole

Robert Redford

Charlton Heston

Cesar Romero

Noble Johnson

Lex Barker

David Niven

Robert Earl Jones

Turhan Bey

Bela Lugosi

Donald O'Connor

Carman Newsome

Oscar Micheaux

Benson Fong

Clint Eastwood

Sabu Dastagir

Rex Ingram

Burt Lancaster

Paul Newman

Montgomery Clift

Fred Astaire

Boris Karloff

Gilbert Roland

Peter Cushing

Frank Sinatra

Harold Nicholas

Guy Madison

Danny Kaye

John Carradine

Ricardo Montalbán

Bing Crosby

ROUND THREE SMOKESHOWS:

Marlon Brando

Anthony Perkins

Michael Redgrave

Gary Cooper

Conrad Veidt

Ronald Colman

Rock Hudson

Basil Rathbone

Laurence Olivier

Christopher Plummer

Johnny Weismuller

Clark Gable

Fernando Lamas

Errol Flynn

Tyrone Power

Humphrey Bogart

ROUND 4 STUNGUNS:

James Dean

Cary Grant

Gregory Peck

Sessue Hayakawa

Harry Belafonte

James Stewart

Gene Kelly

Peter Falk

QUARTERFINALIST VOLCANIC TOWERS OF LUST:

Jeremy Brett

Vincent Price

James Shigeta

Buster Keaton

SEMIFINALIST SUPERMEN:

Omar Sharif

Paul Robeson

FINALIST FANTASIES:

Sidney Poitier

Toshiro Mifune

and ok, sure, here's the shadow-bracket-style winner's portrait of Toshiro Mifune.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

It all started with a mouse

For the public domain, time stopped in 1998, when the Sonny Bono Copyright Act froze copyright expirations for 20 years. In 2019, time started again, with a massive crop of works from 1923 returning to the public domain, free for all to use and adapt:

https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2019/

No one is better at conveying the power of the public domain than Jennifer Jenkins and James Boyle, who run the Duke Center for the Study of the Public Domain. For years leading up to 2019, the pair published an annual roundup of what we would have gotten from the public domain in a universe where the 1998 Act never passed. Since 2019, they've switched to celebrating what we're actually getting each year. Last year's was a banger:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/20/free-for-2023/#oy-canada

But while there's been moderate excitement at the publicdomainification of "Yes, We Have No Bananas," AA Milne's "Now We Are Six," and Sherlock Holmes, the main event that everyone's anticipated arrives on January 1, 2024, when Mickey Mouse enters the public domain.

The first appearance of Mickey Mouse was in 1928's Steamboat Willie. Disney was critical to the lobbying efforts that extended copyright in 1976 and again in 1998, so much so that the 1998 Act is sometimes called the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Disney and its allies were so effective at securing these regulatory gifts that many people doubted that this day would ever come. Surely Disney would secure another retrospective copyright term extension before Jan 1, 2024. I had long arguments with comrades about this – people like Project Gutenberg founder Michael S Hart (RIP) were fatalistically certain the public domain would never come back.

But they were wrong. The public outrage over copyright term extensions came too late to stave off the slow-motion arson of the 1976 and 1998 Acts, but it was sufficient to keep a third extension away from the USA. Canada wasn't so lucky: Justin Trudeau let Trump bully him into taking 20 years' worth of works out of Canada's public domain in the revised NAFTA agreement, making swathes of works by living Canadian authors illegal at the stroke of a pen, in a gift to the distant descendants of long-dead foreign authors.

Now, with Mickey's liberation bare days away, there's a mounting sense of excitement and unease. Will Mickey actually be free? The answer is a resounding YES! (albeit with a few caveats). In a prelude to this year's public domain roundup, Jennifer Jenkins has published a full and delightful guide to The Mouse and IP from Jan 1 on:

https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/mickey/

Disney loves the public domain. Its best-loved works, from The Sorcerer's Apprentice to Sleeping Beauty, Pinnocchio to The Little Mermaid, are gorgeous, thoughtful, and lively reworkings of material from the public domain. Disney loves the public domain – we just wish it would share.

Disney loves copyright's other flexibilities, too, like fair use. Walt told the papers that he took his inspiration for Steamboat Willie from Charlie Chaplin and Douglas Fairbanks, making fair use of their performances to imbue Mickey with his mischief and derring do. Disney loves fair use – we just wish it would share.

Disney loves copyright's limitations. Steamboat Willie was inspired by Buster Keaton's silent film Steamboat Bill (titles aren't copyrightable). Disney loves copyright's limitations – we just wish it would share.

As Jenkins writes, Disney's relationship to copyright is wildly contradictory. It's the poster child for the public domain's power as a source of inspiration for worthy (and profitable) new works. It's also the chief villain in the impoverishment and near-extinction of the public domain. Truly, every pirate wants to be an admiral.

Disney's reliance on – and sabotage of – the public domain is ironic. Jenkins compares it to "an oil company relying on solar power to run its rigs." Come January 1, Disney will have to share.

Now, if you've heard anything about this, you've probably been told that Mickey isn't really entering the public domain. Between trademark claims and later copyrightable elements of Mickey's design, Mickey's status will be too complex to understand. That's totally wrong.

Jenkins illustrates the relationship between these three elements in (what else) a Mickey-shaped Venn diagram. Topline: you can use all the elements of Mickey that are present in Steamboat Willie, along with some elements that were added later, provided that you make it clear that your work isn't affiliated with Disney.

Let's unpack that. The copyrightable status of a character used to be vague and complex, but several high-profile cases have brought clarity to the question. The big one is Les Klinger's case against the Arthur Conan Doyle estate over Sherlock Holmes. That case established that when a character appears in both public domain and copyrighted works, the character is in the public domain, and you are "free to copy story elements from the public domain works":

https://freesherlock.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/klinger-order-on-motion-for-summary-judgment-c.pdf

This case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, who declined to hear it. It's settled law.

So, which parts of Mickey aren't going into the public domain? Elements that came later: white gloves, color. But that doesn't mean you can't add different gloves, or different colorways. The idea of a eyes with pupils is not copyrightable – only the specific eyes that Disney added.

Other later elements that don't qualify for copyright: a squeaky mouse voice, being adorable, doing jaunty dances, etc. These are all generic characteristics of cartoon mice, and they're free for you to use. Jenkins is more cautious on whether you can give your Mickey red shorts. She judges that "a single, bright, primary color for an article of clothing does not meet the copyrightability threshold" but without settled law, you might wanna change the colors.

But what about trademark? For years, Disney has included a clip from Steamboat Willie at the start of each of its films. Many observers characterized this as a bid to create a de facto perpetual copyright, by making Steamboat Willie inescapably associated with products from Disney, weaving an impassable web of trademark tripwires around it.

But trademark doesn't prevent you from using Steamboat Willie. It only prevents you from misleading consumers "into thinking your work is produced or sponsored by Disney." Trademarks don't expire so long as they're in use, but uses that don't create confusion are fair game under trademark.

Copyrights and trademarks can overlap. Mickey Mouse is a copyrighted character, but he's also an indicator that a product or service is associated with Disney. While Mickey's copyright expires in a couple weeks, his trademark doesn't. What happens to an out-of-copyright work that is still a trademark?

Luckily for us, this is also a thoroughly settled case. As in, this question was resolved in a unanimous 2000 Supreme Court ruling, Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox. A live trademark does not extend an expired copyright. As the Supremes said:

[This would] create a species of mutant copyright law that limits the public’s federal right to copy and to use expired copyrights.

This elaborates on the Ninth Circuit's 1996 Maljack Prods v Goodtimes Home Video Corp:

[Trademark][ cannot be used to circumvent copyright law. If material covered by copyright law has passed into the public domain, it cannot then be protected by the Lanham Act without rendering the Copyright Act a nullity.

Despite what you might have heard, there is no ambiguity here. Copyrights can't be extended through trademark. Period. Unanimous Supreme Court Decision. Boom. End of story. Done.

But even so, there are trademark considerations in how you use Steamboat Willie after Jan 1, but these considerations are about protecting the public, not Disney shareholders. Your uses can't be misleading. People who buy or view your Steamboat Willie media or products have to be totally clear that your work comes from you, not Disney.

Avoiding confusion will be very hard for some uses, like plush toys, or short idents at the beginning of feature films. For most uses, though, a prominent disclaimer will suffice. The copyright page for my 2003 debut novel Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom contains this disclaimer:

This novel is a work of fiction, set in an imagined future. All the characters and events portrayed in this book, including the imagined future of the Magic Kingdom, are either fictitious or are used fictitiously. The Walt Disney Company has not authorized or endorsed this novel.

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250196385/downandoutinthemagickingdom

Here's the Ninth Circuit again:

When a public domain work is copied, along with its title, there is little likelihood of confusion when even the most minimal steps are taken to distinguish the publisher of the original from that of the copy. The public is receiving just what it believes it is receiving—the work with which the title has become associated. The public is not only unharmed, it is unconfused.

Trademark has many exceptions. The First Amendment protects your right to use trademarks in expressive ways, for example, to recreate famous paintings with Barbie dolls:

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/mattel-walkingmountain-9thcir2003.pdf

And then there's "nominative use": it's not a trademark violation to use a trademark to accurately describe a trademarked thing. "We fix iPhones" is not a trademark violation. Neither is 'Works with HP printers.' This goes double for "expressive" uses of trademarks in new works of art:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

What about "dilution"? Trademark protects a small number of superbrands from uses that "impair the distinctiveness or harm the reputation of the famous mark, even when there is no consumer confusion." Jenkins says that the Mickey silhouette and the current Mickey character designs might be entitled to protection from dilution, but Steamboat Willie doesn't make the cut.

Jenkins closes with a celebration of the public domain's ability to inspire new works, like Disney's Three Musketeers, Disney's Christmas Carol, Disney's Beauty and the Beast, Disney's Around the World in 80 Days, Disney's Alice in Wonderland, Disney's Snow White, Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame, Disney's Sleeping Beauty, Disney's Cinderella, Disney's Little Mermaid, Disney's Pinocchio, Disney's Huck Finn, Disney's Robin Hood, and Disney's Aladdin. These are some of the best-loved films of the past century, and made Disney a leading example of what talented, creative people can do with the public domain.

As of January 1, Disney will start to be an example of what talented, creative people give back to the public domain, joining Dickens, Dumas, Carroll, Verne, de Villeneuve, the Brothers Grimm, Twain, Hugo, Perrault and Collodi.

Public domain day is 17 days away. Creators of all kinds: start your engines!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/15/mouse-liberation-front/#free-mickey

Image: Doo Lee (modified) https://web.law.duke.edu/sites/default/files/images/centers/cspd/pdd2024/mickey/Steamboat-WIllie-Enters-Public-Domain.jpeg

CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

[markwatnae]

Masterpost of Hot Old Man Round 1 Polls

Paul Newman v Richard Burton

Omar Sharif v Tony Curtis

Red Skelton v Burt Lancaster

Christopher Plummer v Keir Dullea

Anthony Perkins vJack Lemmon

Kirk Douglas v Alain Delon

James Dean v Marcello Mastroianni

Harry Belafonte v Jean-Pierre Cassel

Marlon Brando v Robert Wagner

Sammy Davis Jr. v James Garner

James Coburn v Rock Hudson

Peter Cushing v Rex Harrison

George Chakiris v Sidney Poitier

Dean Martin v Sean Connery v Jeremy Brett

Tab Hunter v Toshiro Mifune

Howard Keel v Peter O'Toole

Robert Redford v James Mason

Steve McQueen v Charlton Heston

Dick Van Dyke v George Peppard

Elvis Presley v Peter Falk

Oscar Micheaux v Rudolph Valentino

Joseph Schildkraut v Buster Keaton

Jimmy Stewart v Ray Milland

Cary Grant v Claude Rains

John Wayne v Errol Flynn

Clint Eastwood v William Holden

Douglas Fairbanks Sr. v Sessue Hayakawa

Carman Newsome v Harold Lloyd

Noble Johnson v Charlie Chaplin

John Gilbert v Conrad Veidt

Ramon Novarro v Robert Earl Jones

Slim Thompson v Gary Cooper

John Barrymore v Paul Robeson

Edward G. Robinson v Clark Gable

Humphrey Bogart v William Powell

Leslie Howard v Ronald Colman

Peter Lawford v Vincent Price

Harold Nicholas v Mel Ferrer

Joseph Cotten v Danny Kaye

John Carradine v Keye Luke

Ivan Mosjoukine v Gilbert Roland

Benson Fong v Spencer Tracy

Guy Madison v Felix Bressart

James Shigeta v Ronald Reagan

Montgomery Clift v Ricardo Montalbon

Peter Lorre v Frank Sinatra

Bob Hope v Gregory Peck

Fred Astaire v Paul Muni

Bela Lugosi v Cornel Wilde

Cesar Romero v John Garfield

Basil Rathbone v Cantinflas

Henry Fonda v Turhan Bey

Boris Karloff v Robert Mitchum

David Niven v Van Johnson

Gene Kelly v José Ferrer

Robert Preston v Tyrone Power

Jack Benny v Donald O'Connor

Fredric March v Lex Barker

Michael Redgrave v Gene Autry

James Edwards v Alec Guinness

Fayard Nicholas v Fernando Lamas

Ray Bolger v Johnny Weismuller

Orson Welles v Sabu Dastigir

Mickey Rooney v Laurence Olivier

Rex Ingram v Glenn Ford

Bing Crosby v James Cagney

@hotvintagepoll

[iz1331]

I. Love. This!!!!

A capitã do shipp

A winona nas entrevistas dizendo que ela queria eles juntos kkkk

Por favor coloquem essa mulher pra escrever o roteiro da possível continuação . Pelo menos no que se diz do rumo final da personagem dela pq , cara , ela já sabe o que quer kskssk