Scanning through the endless newsfeeds, I've noted that an online friend has posted a video by Kid Creole and The Coconuts. Hearing Kid Creole takes me back to my college days. Kid Creole's third album "Tropical Gangsters" was in regular rotation at the time, and understandably so. Probably the standout album in the band's catalog, it featured the U.K. hits "Annie, I'm Not Your Daddy" and "Stool Pigeon." 

Ol' Kid Creole was ahead of the curve, too. The record had swing before the swing craze, "gangsters" before the gangstas, and an homage to Cab Calloway (in the form of the Kid himself) years before Janet Jackson's "Alright" (to be fair, Ms. Jackson did get the genuine article for her vid.) Kid Creole's Cab Calloway inspired persona was all part of his schtick, the invention of frontman August Darnell. Darnell an eager and energetic performer from the Bronx who started his first band in the 60's, and spent time in Dr. Buzzard's Original Savannah Band during the 70's. 

Putting together a latin swing ensemble and releasing a cycle of theme albums about a mystery woman, all the while appearing in a yellow zoot suit and fedora, might not have seemed like an obvious move in 1980. But Kid Creole's catchy tunes caught a break on the U.K. charts, and the band has managed to persist in one form or another to this day. Not only that, they've had several appearances in major films, they produced stage shows, they had their own T.V. movie, and they even collaborated with Prince and Sheila E. Perhaps we'll save their six degrees of separation with the New Wave Blitz crowd for next week, but for now: 

The band's breakthrough 1982 album "Tropical Gangsters" was released in the U.S., but the American record label changed the title. Perhaps they were nervous about the notion of "gangsters" as a theme for a record (an anxiety they've clearly overcome since), but they decided to call it something else. So what was the U.S. title of Kid Creole & The Coconuts' third album?

Last week's "Message" touched on the subject of movie franchise 'reboots,' as well as movies inspired by comic books and graphic novels. One of the possible reboots, actually more of a live action remake, that could have happened was a reinterpreted version of the Manga/Anime classic "Akira." I say 'could have happened,' because even though its been on and off the table in various forms since the 90's, it appears to once again have been put on hold. 

In The my opinion, it should stay on hold. One might suspect that a Hollywood remake would be a little too likely to get it wrong, and announcements of what the movie company wanted to do with the property only underscored those suspicions. Online fan sites have long since raised a ruckus over the proposal to set the film in New York and cast a bunch of Europeans, so there's not much more to do here than to agree. But if I was going to go ahead and rant anyways, it would seem that these movie people have a poor grasp of context. There's a reason why an apocalyptic story centered around an obliterated city has a greater resonance when set in Japan. Would "Roots" tell the same story if it were redone and set in Denmark? Besides, were they going to rename all the characters? If not, how would they explain Kaneda, Tetsuo, and Kei, played by Garrett, Michael, and Kristen, hanging out with Kiyoko, Takashi, and Yamagata in Central Park? Kinda hoping we never know. Plus, the original 1988 film was already great, and it was (appropriately) Anime. 

The comic series that inspired it was even better, insofar as it offered a much better opportunity to develop the characters and the world they lived in. Like the Judge Dredd comic mentioned last week, "Akira" was originally serialized in a larger magazine publication starting back in 1982. It also got collected together and republished, both in Japan and over here in the U.S. But what was the name of the Japanese Manga magazine that originally ran episodes of "Akira?"

The Reboot. A term common to the movie industry and comic book fans, the reboot is not quite a sequel, not quite a remake. The reboot is to film as the remix is to music (not quite a cover, but not exactly an original). Judging by the recent proliferation, the reboot is on the verge of becoming its own genre. 

Modern movie reboots have some things in common: They're usually applied to franchises or series, although they don't have to be. They rely on the fan's undying affection for the original premise, irrespective of the actual people involved. But moreover, they're usually inspired by the feeling that the first attempt got it wrong somehow, set the wrong tone, or at least could be improved upon. Sometimes they're right (Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Batman, Lord of the Rings, Godzilla, earlier attempts at Captain America), sometimes they're wrong (Planet Of The Apes, Superman Returns). For some only time will tell (The Punisher, Man of Steel, Robocop), and some will have a hell of a time overcoming fan skepticism no matter how they turn out because nobody should have ever even THOUGHT about messing with the original (Akira, The Crow, Prometheus). The cynic can't avoid the conclusion that its a cash in, though. And as such, a profitable reinvention might work out nicely for the movie studios and those who own the original rights. But for those cases where the original creators are out of the loop, don't own the rights (or there are no rights to be owned), aren't consulted or even acknowledged, where its clear that the rebooters are clearly making reference to the original work in their zeal to entice an audience and are trying to capitalize off of the reputation of that work even though they had absolutely nothing to do with the building of that reputation, in those cases any true fan should refuse to support these frauds no matter how much that fan misses the original. 

The casual patron is one thing, but how can someone calling themselves a true fan take part in a shameless knock-off without at least acknowledging the affront to the original? Furthermore, it really underscores how the copycat, along with their accomplices at the venue, are collectively incapable of coming up with an original concept, let alone promoting their rehash without making clear and overt references to the original work that they're trying to rip off (all the while conveniently abstaining from acknowledging those who labored under difficult circumstances to create the work that these charlatans are only too happy to bastardize without due credit. It's all well and good to smear a person's reputation by claiming that THEY were "difficult to work with," without acknowledging the soul crushing difficulty of the circumstances imposed by the inflexible and often irrational management. Anyone can be all congenial when they haven't suffered for their creation, let's see how chipper they are after going all in with that nutjob for the long haul!!)

*ahem*

One such movie reboot which could't help but improve upon the previous attempt is last year's "Dredd." While I haven't seen "Dredd," I imagine that it would have a lower threshold of acceptance from fans to overcome than a sequel to "Supergirl." From the moment it was announced that the 1995 movie adaptation "Judge Dredd" would star Sylvester Stallone in the title role, fans of the original comic book character felt their own sense of dread. And, well, they were right. While that film can be as enjoyable as any other action adventure fantasy flick to the casual viewer, anyone with any appreciation for the Judge Dredd of U.K. comic fame had every right to be incensed. I mean, . . . Dredd takes off his helmet in the film. . . . !!! Never mind the corny life affirming ending and the love interest, can't they even get the smallest details right? As a comic character, Judge Dredd got his start way back in 1977. But like new wave music, Judge Dredd was a cultural phenomenon that really hit full speed in the 80's. The character was created for a comic magazine that featured a number of different story lines, but would later branch out to a dedicated publication. There would later be a U.S. version as well, and despite not having been created by DC or Marvel, the character of Judge Dredd eventually ranked #35 on IGN's list of 100 all time greatest comic book characters. So what was the name of the U.K. comic magazine that first serialized the character Judge Dredd?

Earlier this week we bid adieu to 2012, and I gotta say, it was a pretty good year. Not my favorite, but a good year none the less. Thirty years ago last October, MGM released a movie called "My Favorite Year." Charmingly innocent and replete with plenty of 80's era sentimentality, it basically fictionalized the youthful experiences of one of the filmmakers, the legendary Mel Brooks. 

Early in his career, Brooks had worked on Sid Caesar's "Your Show Of Shows." One of the guests on the show back then was matinee idol Erol Flynn, and although the actual appearance of Flynn on the show was uneventful, the idea of a forgotten movie star resurfacing for a TV appearance led to the concept for "My Favorite Year." 

The film embellishes the plot by having its hero reemerge as a washed up drunk, along with subplots involving the criminal underworld and a romantic interest for the narrator. But it's a Peter O'Toole film, and he is unforgettable as the aging matinee idol. O'Toole's character sits alongside Clint Eastwood's William Money and Willem Defoe's Max Schreck, although O'Toole's is a much more comedic interpretation. In deference to perhaps the greatest swashbuckler of cinema's golden age, the screenwriters gave O'Toole's character a name which sounds awful close to Erol Flynn, but not quite. What was the name of Peter O'Toole's character in "My Favorite Year?"