Tuesday, April 22, 2008

President Bush on NBC's Deal or No Deal

FOXNews.com

The Biggest Little Internet Hoax on Wheels Hits Mainstream

A shot from Rick Astley's 1987 music video, "Never Gonna Give You Up," which has once again propelled him to fame.

Tuesday , April 22, 2008

FC1


It's the little Web hoax that got huge.

On April 1, thousands of Internet users clicked links to what they thought would be videos of preening supermodels or cute, tumbling puppies — only to find themselves watching a painfully awkward, decades-old music video by British pop singer Rick Astley.

They'd been "rickrolled" — fooled into watching Astley's 1987 hit "Never Gonna Give You Up." Click here and you can be, too.

On April Fool's Day, anyone who clicked onto any of YouTube's "featured videos" got rickrolled. Several other sites that day also redirected their links to the video. Over 25 million people to date have clicked onto the half-dozen YouTube copies of Astley's video.

One week later, rickrolling went beyond just the virtual world.

The New York Mets announced that "Never Gonna Give You Up" had received 5 million online votes to become the team's new eighth-inning sing-along song — thanks to wise-guy Web sites like Fark and Digg that stumbled upon the vote and urged users to pick the Astley croon.

"We've probably not gotten that many votes for anything before," Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz said in a telephone interview.

It's all just a bit of harmless geek rebellion, say Web pranksters.

"It's just one of those things we do at Fark," founder Drew Curtis said by phone. "Just something silly. The moment we saw the possibility of voting for Rick Astley, they just started going for it."

Once the Mets realized what was happening, they quickly invalidated the results of the poll and decided that on Opening Day, April 8, they'd take the vote to the people.

When Astley's song was played, it was greeted with boos. The Mets had finally overcome rickrolling.

• Click here to see and hear thousands of Mets fans boo the song.

"We're not talking about a nuclear bomb here: It's a fun thing, it's in good fun, and we're not offended," Horwitz said. "But it wasn't a true indicator of our fan base."

The origin of rickrolling goes back three years and involves an egg, a duck without feet and the video game "Grand Theft Auto."

In keeping with silly Internet humor, the director of the image-sharing Web site 4chan, who goes by the handle "moot," decided he'd play a joke and change the word "egg" to "duck" every time a user posted a message.

In time the phenomenon spread, and the word "eggroll" was replaced by "duckroll." When someone came up with the idea to redirect Internet links to an image of a duck on wheels, rickrolling's forebear, "duckrolling," was born.

Then in March 2007 came the release of the eagerly awaited first trailer for the still-upcoming video game "Grand Theft Auto IV."

So popular was the response that it immediately crashed game publisher Rockstar Games' Web site.

In what was to become a pivotal moment in Internet hoax history, someone at 4chan took the now-useless Web link for the "Grand Theft Auto IV" trailer and duckrolled it.

But instead of linking to the image of a duck on wheels, he or she linked to the Rick Astley video on YouTube.

Rickrolling was born.

When interviewed by the Los Angeles Times last month, Astley himself said he was OK with rickrolling and had no plans to capitalize on it, but he found it "bizarre."

Even 4chan's "moot" was underwhelmed at first.

"When I first saw it, I thought it was silly, stupid," he said in a telephone interview. "After hundreds of times, it got really catchy, I knew all the words. But on April 1, it really blew up. I was frankly very surprised when I saw a certain number of Web sites outside of Internet-culture sites running rickrolling as a prank."

It was April Fool's Day, and in an apparently uncoordinated move, Web sites everywhere rickrolled their readers.

Then came the Mets incident. Rickrolling had truly hit the mainstream.

"I was actually getting gas at a gas station, and the song was coming on, and I had to look around at everyone else like, 'Is this for real?' " Curtis said.

Now that rickrolling has officially entered the popular consciousness, it's doomed to go the way of other Internet phenomena like "All Your Base," the "Hamster Dance," or "Prison Thriller," both Curtis and "moot" said.

"It's gone from silly Internet prank to entering the mainstream, so a lot of people are being elitist about it, saying it's beating a dead horse, and it has kind of lost its appeal," moot said. "At the end of the day, it's just a link where you get a guy singing an '80s pop song. There's only so far you can delve into the intricacies."

Even Astley, who goes on tour in the U.K. in May with other '80s chart-toppers, seems to have wearied of his newfound Internet fame.

In response to a request for comment, a spokesman for his record label wrote back a single line:

"I'm sorry, but he's done talking about rickrolling."

Robert De Niro Has Fired CAA

EXCLUSIVE: I've confirmed what my sources told me this afternoon: that Robert De Niro has left CAA.

The word is that he was dissatisfied with how CAA had serviced his production companies in film, television, etc.

But I'm still trying to confirm the second part of what my sources told me: that De Niro is going to Endeavor.

The very idea of him leaving CAA, where he's been a client for such a long long time, is astonishing.

I remember when Bryan Lourd, Kevin Huvane and Richard Lovett made it a top priority as soon as they took over CAA in 1995 to do everything they could to keep De Niro since he was tied so closely to departing Michael Ovitz.

And let's face it, "Bobby" had a fabulous career before then and since then. (Albeit more as a comic actor than a dramatic one.)

Then again, this is the week for shit to happen to Hollywood agencies.

CAA DeNiro Defense Hits Forward Button

250pxrobert_di_nero_actor_ralph_lauAn "anonymous top agent" from CAA posted this online comment on the departure of Robert DeNiro, which is now getting emailed all over town:

1. Why did Bobby leave us?

They promised they could turn back time.

They promised they could get him 20m a picture.

They promised they could get a release for his "Something happened," a Barry Levinson show biz pic that's has no market, and Mark Cuban lost a fortune on.

They promised they could get him the $1m production fee on every picture he does, that he and his partner put their names on, and do nothing to earn.

They promised they could convince Hollywood that they should still pay that 1m vig on top of his acting fees.

They promised him they'd find a respectable release for the Pacino picture he did last summer, that basically stars two 65 year old guys as detectives - while the audience is under 35, and has no interest in seeing.

As I said, they promised him they could turn back time, and make him 50 again, and relevant, and hot, and interesting to today's movie going audience.

And they probably promised that they'd find a way to erase the memory of all of America about the number of god-awful paycheck films he did during the past ten years.

DeNiro had a choice ten or so years ago. He could either go the Nicholson route - very selective, very particular, protect the brand - or go out sending himself up in tripe like Analyze this, which made money but turned him into that "old psycho guy."

And he could of concentrated on quality stuff, but instead wanted to keep funding his little empire in New York.

A year ago, Bobby came to us complaining that he was losing a fortune underwriting the film festival every year, and wanted us to find bigger corporate sponsors.

We tried, but the stumbling block was always the same thing: The corporations all thought that the Tribeca film festival was a not-for-profit organization, sponsored by the city. But when they got under the hood, they found out that it was all for the greater glory of Bobby and Jane and her husband, and the corporate stuff shied away from it. Bobby held us responsible for his own greed, his own avarice, and his own megalomania.

And it's just like the studios now ask us: Why should we pay this guy- who doesn't open a movie - the payoff to his production company, just so he can add his name as a producer.

Sure, there's more; he thought we should have delivered an Oscar for his paint-drying slow 3 hour Good Shepherd. But we couldn't.

And finally, if really want to understand why now, why today, look at the review today in Variety for the Pacino "86 Minutes" stinker. It's directed by Jon Avnet, (a career ending review), who just happens to be the director of Bobby's next movie. (With Pacino.)

Bobby blames everybody but himself for the way he's squandered his career, and refused lots of quality pictures because they wouldn't give him producer credit.

Good luck in the Hotel Business, pal.

Comment by a top CAA Agent

Ex-Manager to Dave Chappelle: Pay Up, Bitch!

A former manager says that Dave Chappelle went all, well, Dave Chappelle on him and ditched out on a settlement deal they made.
Dave Chappelle
Mustafa Abuelhija settled a 2005 lawsuit with Chappelle after he was fired abruptly. The settlement called for Abuelhija to receive 10% of the profits from "Dave Chappelle's Block Party," 10% of the money Chappelle got from seasons 2, 3 and 4 of "Chappelle's Show" and 10% of any money he received for the comedy special "For What It's Worth." So far, he claims, he hasn't gotten anything.

According to a new suit, filed in New York, Abuelhija claims Chappelle has taken in close to $1.2 mil since they signed the settlement -- and he feels he's entitled to 10% of it. Reminder to Mustafa -- this is a guy who ran out on 50 million bucks and went to Africa.

Chappelle's lawyer didn't immediately return a call for comment.

Religious Technology Center v. Wikileaks