Daily Telegraph: "Martin Molloy rift far from funny"

Chat and reminisce about The Late Show, an Australian comedy series which aired on ABC from 1992- 1993.

Moderators: ShitScared, BenG, Steve

User avatar
stupidmeatball
Champagne Comedian
Posts: 3000
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:02 pm
Location: Frankston

Post by stupidmeatball » Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:34 pm

Thanks about the avatar, its a bit shoddy, being from youtube and all but it gets the point across lol. I would also love to see more Freako this year as well:)
Now a'Tweetin'.
scrivenersfancy Someone has finally loaded the 'Late Show' Commercial Crimestoppers on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/stupidmeatball

User avatar
kat-rant
Australia's Best Dressed
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:27 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by kat-rant » Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:44 pm

Mason Hell-Cat wrote:Guys, even if Mick had sacrificed Tony's entire family to a pack of wild antelopes, Tony would not make a negative comment towards him on the Bargearse commentary. What purpose would it have served? A couple of you seemed to find it quite amazing he held back from letting fly.
No, I'm not amazed by it at all. More commenting on him being a decent guy :)
I've got the paper!!!

User avatar
Bean Is A Carrot
Champagne Comedian
Posts: 4166
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: London

Post by Bean Is A Carrot » Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:51 pm

From the information to hand I think Tone has a legitimate greivance, one which he probably wouldn't have talked about publicly unless that Herald Sun journo had found out about it. Then again, as someone pointed out ages ago, the original contract (or Molloy Boy Production's understanding of the original contract) may have been that Tone was only supposed to make a short film, not one 10 minutes longer than the film it's based on. So in that sense you could understand why Molloy Boy would not therefore wish to include it on the DVD. But to actively block it when there's clearly an interest in it...well, that's not good.
I just want to pop him on a bit of toast and eat him right up.

User avatar
menagers
Champagne Comedian
Posts: 4209
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:56 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by menagers » Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:23 am

Yes, it's all about the quest for the ultimate in comedy isn't it? At least it was for Tony. Mick's reasons seem to be more business-based; copyrighted characters, film funding etc. Which are important to him and his merry band, but not to us, the fans, who just want to laugh at some great gear. But simply put, it did turn out to be a battle of the egos. Both of them could have been more compromising, but as with these types of blow-ups all over the world, understanding why exactly they should give a little is totally lost on each party. And again, I see why neither would be inclined to meet half way, their partnership had essentially ended in '99 anyway.

As for the Bargearse commentary, well that's just like Rob and Jane not ever acknowledging that they are partners, ie. that's just the way the D-Gen roll. Very private, very well schooled in keeping mum. There is also the point that I doubt Tony would want to, let's say soil the package of wonderful history that is OD/B with an unrelated personal spat which Santo had nothing to do with. Having said all that though, there is something weirdly provocative about the awkwardness of 'stepping out of the room' while Mick phones his comments in. Not that I'm suggesting there was a better way to do it, I actually thought it was kind of cool. Ah, the perils of being over-analytical!
Are you castin' aspersions on the habeebee?

User avatar
baudrillard
Champagne Comedian
Posts: 6581
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:47 pm
Location: Natural Resource

Post by baudrillard » Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:20 am

menagers wrote:Yes, it's all about the quest for the ultimate in comedy isn't it? At least it was for Tony. Mick's reasons seem to be more business-based; copyrighted characters, film funding etc. Which are important to him and his merry band, but not to us, the fans, who just want to laugh at some great gear.
It's not business-like, I really think that mischaracterises it. I just don't think Mick wanted to be out-shone by Tone and used these things as a way to prevent it from happening, those business aspects wouldn't have been his main concern.
Whatever precautions you take so the photograph will look like this or that, there comes a moment when the photograph surprises you. It is the other's gaze that wins out and decides.
- Jacques Derrida

BringBackTheLateShow
Muckraker
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Oakdale

Post by BringBackTheLateShow » Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:05 am

it has been a while since i logged in. last night was the first time in months. can i just get filled in on where the martin/molloy rift stands? are we any closer to seeing a reconciliation? or is there no hope?

User avatar
kat-rant
Australia's Best Dressed
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:27 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by kat-rant » Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:57 am

i don't think anything new has been said of it in months...
I've got the paper!!!

User avatar
13 schoolyards
Champagne Comedian
Posts: 4816
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 5:16 pm
Location: Petulant Child Championing Talentless Hacks

Post by 13 schoolyards » Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:11 pm

No, no real news for months now. I doubt we'll even hear anything about them making up (if they do make up) unless one or the other is promoting something new. I expect when Tone is doing media for his new book he'll get asked about it and'll say something like "it's died down" (to take the heat out of the story) but not much more than that.

I actually do think it was business for Mick, not a personal effort to stifle a better movie than the one he made - for one thing, Mick's always been a fairly generous performer. He might want to run his shows his way, but he seems to try to do his best to get the best possible people in. My suspicion - and that's all it is - is that Tony came in with a huge feature-length DVD extra, and when Mick went to the number-crunchers they said "sorry, we can't afford to put it on the DVD."

Remember, Boytown wasn't a smash hit, so any dreams of a two disc special edition would have died fairly early after it hit the silver screen. I just think that Tony thought Mick could have fought harder for BTC, while Mick... just didn't. And without a load of facts we don't really have, it's hard to go past that. Tony says it would have cost $5000 to finish BTC and he would have paid for it himself, but how much would it have cost to include it on the DVD, and who would have paid for that? Would having BTC on the DVD have made it a smash hit? I know I would have bought it (again), but how many others would have? Would it even have been possible to release it as a seperate DVD, considering a): all the characters belong to the tangled corporate web that owned Boytown and b): it's a spin-off from a movie that pretty much tanked at the box office?

As much as I'd love to think it's all about the comedy and personal differences, so often business problems boil down to costs and money. I really wish a way could have been found to release BTC though...
"Aww great - there goes my genitalia you slutty little monkey!"

User avatar
stupidmeatball
Champagne Comedian
Posts: 3000
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:02 pm
Location: Frankston

Post by stupidmeatball » Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:12 pm

Perhaps it has more to do with the rest of the 'Molloy Boys', maybe some sour grapes that they were never invited to be members of the D-Gen, and maybe they're even shittier because they aren't getting mentioned in all of this.
I can't recall hearing of any of them until Roo on Tough Love.
Appear's that they're havinga good time riding Mick's coattails
Now a'Tweetin'.
scrivenersfancy Someone has finally loaded the 'Late Show' Commercial Crimestoppers on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/stupidmeatball

User avatar
kat-rant
Australia's Best Dressed
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:27 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by kat-rant » Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:16 pm

Roo was on Tackle Happy....
I've got the paper!!!

Post Reply