1950s/60s TV Shows That Were Truly Ahead Of Their Time

[James Y]

JIm I couldn't agree with you more The lineup of kid actors from the 60s thru the 80s who ended up in tradgedy is so long it literally makes me sick just to think about it. Rusty Hammer of the old Danny Thomas show, Anissa Jones ( Buffy of "Buffy & Jody fame"), Dana Plato just to name a very few of many I could list whose lives ended up in the sewer or worse ( dead). There should be some kind of regulations and strict oversight for child/teen actors. Because way too many times it seems that many of these child prodigies end up with their lives destroyed before they are ever even old enough to vote.
Even kids that they use in TV commercials or early music sensations like David Cassidy all seem to have horror stories to tell. Take Tatum O'Neal for instance>> had her own dad beat her because she won an academy award that he wanted for himself ( i.e. Paper Moon fame). It's truly criminal how kids have been treated in the acting field and you can go all the way back to Shirley Temple too.
[/quote]

That’s very true. I read Corey Feldman’s autobiography, and there were some horror stories, starting with his parents, and also at least one of his managers (or whatever the guy was). There is also a documentary that’s been out for a few years, called An Open Secret, exposing some of the dark side of Hollywood. I saw the whole thing on YouTube a few years ago, but it keeps getting removed. And it is not something anyone wants to link here, but IMO it’s essential watching for any young people in particular who are interested in pursuing a career in show business. I don’t know if it’s on YouTube anymore (probably not).

I don’t want to say it’s all gloom and doom, but the entertainment industry is fraught with all kinds of potential dangers. Aspiring actors, singers, etc., are easy marks, for obvious reasons.

Jim

[JD Spydo]

Gary Coleman is another tragic story that comes to mind. It seemed like everyone including his own family were all trying to steal his money>> even knowing in advance that because of some health problems he had from birth that he wasn't going to live to be all that old. I heard about 3 different bad stories about Emmanuel Lewis ( Webster fame) as to how he was abused and taken advantage of.

Even back in Shirley Temple's childhood days she claimed she had old men in the industry expose themselves to her and threaten her with all kinds of bad stuff to get what they wanted. And it seemed that no one would come to the rescue of these kids because at the time few people believed them.

Even the old "Our Gang" kids>> so many of them had horror stories to tell or many of them died relatively young. The entertainment industry has never been a safe place for kids even though there does seem to at least be more awareness of it now. When you think about it Ronny Howard is one of the very few success stories I know of.

[Mad Mac]

No question that many child actors were taken advantage of, but there were many who went on to have successful careers.
50 child stars who became successful adults in Hollywood

[Mad Mac]

This was not made in the 50s or 60s but it is about them and other decades before and after. The 8-part Country Music documentary that just aired on PBS is the best 16 hours of television I've ever seen, and I thought I was not a fan of country. Well I am now. If it comes on again be sure to record it.

[James Y]

No question that many child actors were taken advantage of, but there were many who went on to have successful careers.
50 child stars who became successful adults in Hollywood

I remember some time back reading about other former child actors who went on to become successful adults, but the majority of the ones I read about had left the entertainment industry completely.

Jim

[Mad Mac]

Also, it's a matter of timing, of generations. The tragic stories were spawned in an earlier decade, the depression era when life was tough for everyone. The successful actors are youngsters by comparison that came up in better circumstances and gentler social norms.

[James Y]

Well, there is certainly more awareness of it now, but listen to Corey Feldman’s (and others’) interviews on the subject, and it is still a big problem today,

Of course, there are success stories. Perhaps they had much better parental guidance and protection.

Jim

[James Y]

Even back in Shirley Temple's childhood days she claimed she had old men in the industry expose themselves to her and threaten her with all kinds of bad stuff to get what they wanted. And it seemed that no one would come to the rescue of these kids because at the time few people believed them.

Joe,
I had read somewhere that back in the ‘30s, many men were convinced that Shirley Temple was actually an adult woman with some type of growth abnormality that made her “appear” like a child, and that she was using this pretense as a temptress. Which says a heck of a lot more about those people than it did about her. Luckily, she went on to be OK as an adult.

Jim

[Ankerson]

Well, there is certainly more awareness of it now, but listen to Corey Feldman’s (and others’) interviews on the subject, and it is still a big problem today,

Of course, there are success stories. Perhaps they had much better parental guidance and protection.

Jim

Oh yeah, and given most of what is in the industry it's not really going to stop either.

They don't call it Holly Weird for nothing.

[JD Spydo]

Even back in Shirley Temple's childhood days she claimed she had old men in the industry expose themselves to her and threaten her with all kinds of bad stuff to get what they wanted. And it seemed that no one would come to the rescue of these kids because at the time few people believed them.

Joe,
I had read somewhere that back in the ‘30s, many men were convinced that Shirley Temple was actually an adult woman with some type of growth abnormality that made her “appear” like a child, and that she was using this pretense as a temptress. Which says a heck of a lot more about those people than it did about her. Luckily, she went on to be OK as an adult.

Jim I know exactly what you're talking about pertaining to someone who looks a lot younger than they really are. But Shirley Temple was born in 1928 and did her first 26 films before she was 10 years old>> I hardly call that a "woman" in a little girl's body. But I do know exactly what you are referring to because the two actors that had that problem that immediately come to mind are Gary Coleman ( Different STrokes fame) and Emmanuel Lewis ( Webster fame). Both of those guys continued to look like little boys when they were way into their teens.

Now I saw one of Shirley Temple's comeback movies when she was in her late teens. She had laid off from the film industry for a while because her "cute little curly haired girl fame" kind of waned for about 5 years or so before she attempted a couple of serious movies. But she bombed on those movies she tried in her late teens/early 20s. No I think you got her mixed up with another child actor I'm pretty sure. I saw a documentary on her about a year ago and even her mother got hit on by one of the big executives at MGM>> that was documented too. And the type of "time outs" they gave her and other kid actors at the time were truly cruel and sadistic by today's standards.

What we don't know that goes on behind the scenes in "Hollywood">> not to mention dozens of the women actors who literally slept their way to the top

[James Y]

Even back in Shirley Temple's childhood days she claimed she had old men in the industry expose themselves to her and threaten her with all kinds of bad stuff to get what they wanted. And it seemed that no one would come to the rescue of these kids because at the time few people believed them.

Joe,
I had read somewhere that back in the ‘30s, many men were convinced that Shirley Temple was actually an adult woman with some type of growth abnormality that made her “appear” like a child, and that she was using this pretense as a temptress. Which says a heck of a lot more about those people than it did about her. Luckily, she went on to be OK as an adult.

Jim I know exactly what you're talking about pertaining to someone who looks a lot younger than they really are. But Shirley Temple was born in 1928 and did her first 26 films before she was 10 years old>> I hardly call that a "woman" in a little girl's body. But I do know exactly what you are referring to because the two actors that had that problem that immediately come to mind are Gary Coleman ( Different STrokes fame) and Emmanuel Lewis ( Webster fame). Both of those guys continued to look like little boys when they were way into their teens.

Now I saw one of Shirley Temple's comeback movies when she was in her late teens. She had laid off from the film industry for a while because her "cute little curly haired girl fame" kind of waned for about 5 years or so before she attempted a couple of serious movies. But she bombed on those movies she tried in her late teens/early 20s. No I think you got her mixed up with another child actor I'm pretty sure. I saw a documentary on her about a year ago and even her mother got hit on by one of the big executives at MGM>> that was documented too. And the type of "time outs" they gave her and other kid actors at the time were truly cruel and sadistic by today's standards.

What we don't know that goes on behind the scenes in "Hollywood">> not to mention dozens of the women actors who literally slept their way to the top

Joe:
Yes, I was aware that Shirley Temple was a little girl in the 1930s. She was born two years after my mom (who’s still alive, BTW). But there were people back in the ‘30s who accused Shirley Temple of being an adult temptress in the guise of a child. Which was a really sick accusation. I only read about this a few years ago.

One of my acting coaches (the guy) once told us that it isn’t always the best actors or the best singers that make it big in Hollywood. He said there are people out there who are better actors than most of the A-listers, but for whatever reasons, they didn’t make it in Hollywood, or they’re not interested in breaking into Hollywood. He also said that there are lots of singers who never made it in the music industry who are way better singers than, say, Madonna, Katy Perry, etc., but that some people are ‘chosen’.

Jim

[Ankerson]

Even back in Shirley Temple's childhood days she claimed she had old men in the industry expose themselves to her and threaten her with all kinds of bad stuff to get what they wanted. And it seemed that no one would come to the rescue of these kids because at the time few people believed them.

Joe,
I had read somewhere that back in the ‘30s, many men were convinced that Shirley Temple was actually an adult woman with some type of growth abnormality that made her “appear” like a child, and that she was using this pretense as a temptress. Which says a heck of a lot more about those people than it did about her. Luckily, she went on to be OK as an adult.

Jim I know exactly what you're talking about pertaining to someone who looks a lot younger than they really are. But Shirley Temple was born in 1928 and did her first 26 films before she was 10 years old>> I hardly call that a "woman" in a little girl's body. But I do know exactly what you are referring to because the two actors that had that problem that immediately come to mind are Gary Coleman ( Different STrokes fame) and Emmanuel Lewis ( Webster fame). Both of those guys continued to look like little boys when they were way into their teens.

Now I saw one of Shirley Temple's comeback movies when she was in her late teens. She had laid off from the film industry for a while because her "cute little curly haired girl fame" kind of waned for about 5 years or so before she attempted a couple of serious movies. But she bombed on those movies she tried in her late teens/early 20s. No I think you got her mixed up with another child actor I'm pretty sure. I saw a documentary on her about a year ago and even her mother got hit on by one of the big executives at MGM>> that was documented too. And the type of "time outs" they gave her and other kid actors at the time were truly cruel and sadistic by today's standards.

What we don't know that goes on behind the scenes in "Hollywood">> not to mention dozens of the women actors who literally slept their way to the top

Joe:
Yes, I was aware that Shirley Temple was a little girl in the 1930s. She was born two years after my mom (who’s still alive, BTW). But there were people back in the ‘30s who accused Shirley Temple of being an adult temptress in the guise of a child. Which was a really sick accusation. I only read about this a few years ago.

One of my acting coaches (the guy) once told us that it isn’t always the best actors or the best singers that make it big in Hollywood. He said there are people out there who are better actors than most of the A-listers, but for whatever reasons, they didn’t make it in Hollywood, or they’re not interested in breaking into Hollywood. He also said that there are lots of singers who never made it in the music industry who are way better singers than, say, Madonna, Katy Perry, etc., but that some people are ‘chosen’.

Jim

A lot of those singers can't really sing live.... MORE of them that people would think.

Same with the actors, but we already talked about that one....

I think the whole industry is complete BS these days.

[JD Spydo]

Joe,
I had read somewhere that back in the ‘30s, many men were convinced that Shirley Temple was actually an adult woman with some type of growth abnormality that made her “appear” like a child, and that she was using this pretense as a temptress. Which says a heck of a lot more about those people than it did about her. Luckily, she went on to be OK as an adult.

Jim I know exactly what you're talking about pertaining to someone who looks a lot younger than they really are. But Shirley Temple was born in 1928 and did her first 26 films before she was 10 years old>> I hardly call that a "woman" in a little girl's body. But I do know exactly what you are referring to because the two actors that had that problem that immediately come to mind are Gary Coleman ( Different STrokes fame) and Emmanuel Lewis ( Webster fame). Both of those guys continued to look like little boys when they were way into their teens.

Now I saw one of Shirley Temple's comeback movies when she was in her late teens. She had laid off from the film industry for a while because her "cute little curly haired girl fame" kind of waned for about 5 years or so before she attempted a couple of serious movies. But she bombed on those movies she tried in her late teens/early 20s. No I think you got her mixed up with another child actor I'm pretty sure. I saw a documentary on her about a year ago and even her mother got hit on by one of the big executives at MGM>> that was documented too. And the type of "time outs" they gave her and other kid actors at the time were truly cruel and sadistic by today's standards.

What we don't know that goes on behind the scenes in "Hollywood">> not to mention dozens of the women actors who literally slept their way to the top

Joe:
Yes, I was aware that Shirley Temple was a little girl in the 1930s. She was born two years after my mom (who’s still alive, BTW). But there were people back in the ‘30s who accused Shirley Temple of being an adult temptress in the guise of a child. Which was a really sick accusation. I only read about this a few years ago.

One of my acting coaches (the guy) once told us that it isn’t always the best actors or the best singers that make it big in Hollywood. He said there are people out there who are better actors than most of the A-listers, but for whatever reasons, they didn’t make it in Hollywood, or they’re not interested in breaking into Hollywood. He also said that there are lots of singers who never made it in the music industry who are way better singers than, say, Madonna, Katy Perry, etc., but that some people are ‘chosen’.

Jim

A lot of those singers can't really sing live.... MORE of them that people would think.

Same with the actors, but we already talked about that one....

I think the whole industry is complete BS these days.

I couldn't agree more with that last statement. They should change the name of Hollywood to "Hellywood". It's gotten that depraved for certain. To me these older re-runs of the 60s & 70s and some of the 50s TV Shows is what I still enjoy. I rarely watch anything new out of Tinsel Town.

[James Y]

Once in a purple moon a Hollywood production will come out that is worth watching. It’s VERY rare, though. Also, movies nowadays are, as a general rule, not very memorable. The movies nowadays come and go like waves at the beach. In decades past, successful movies were remembered. Of course, there are many other distractions today, but in spite of all the new, super-duper technology, CGI, etc., the movies are not better now than they were then.

I think it’s laughable when someone comments on a classic movie on YouTube by saying, “That’s pretty good for a movie that came out in the ‘70s.” Or when discussing a classic movie, someone says, “I hope Hollywood remakes this movie, it will be even better.” No, it won’t. In nearly every case, remakes are inferior...usually vastly inferior. The same goes for Hollywood remakes of foreign movies, as in movies from Asia and Europe. Hollywood will always dumb them down by trying to outdo the originals. The only Hollywood “remake” I think was good was the original The Magnificent Seven, which was a Hollywood western remake of Seven Samurai. The director showed respect for the original film, and kept the general concept while adapting it to the western genre. Sergio Leone’s Spaghetti western A Fistful of Dollars was Akira Kurosawa’s Yojimbo remade into a western, and that was also great. But the Italian western industry was not Hollywood.

Jim

[JD Spydo]

Once in a purple moon a Hollywood production will come out that is worth watching. It’s VERY rare, though. Also, movies nowadays are, as a general rule, not very memorable.

I think it’s laughable when someone comments on a classic movie on YouTube by saying, “That’s pretty good for a movie that came out in the ‘70s.” Or when discussing a classic movie, someone says, “I hope Hollywood remakes this movie, it will be even better.” No, it won’t. In nearly every case, remakes are inferior...usually vastly inferior. The same goes for Hollywood remakes of foreign movies, as in movies from Asia and Europe.

Jim those two observations you made are 1000% true. Just this past April I went to the first theatre movie I've seen in over a year. It was the re-make of Stephen King's PET SEMATARY. All the reviews were talking about how the new one was so much more advanced and the special effects were brilliant and la ti da and so forth. Well I went on one afternoon matinee and still had to pay $10 to see a truly lousy version of this Stephen King Classic. Because I did truly like Stephen King's work back in the 70s, 80s & some of the ones of the 90s. But this re-make of PET SEMATARY was truly a sick joke compared to the original of 1989.

The picture quality was lousy, the actors were all sub-par compared to the original actors who I thought all did a great job in the first one. It was such a disappointment that I haven't been back to a movie since then. I truly get more entertainment watching older movies>> I'm even talking about the ones going back to the 30s and 40s are even better than the gutter trash they have now. There were only about 8 people there at the theatre when I seen it and I spoke to a couple sitting behind me and they both agreed that the original was 50 times better than the new one. That's just one example of how totally trashy a lot of these newer movies are. And I can't tell you how many people I've talked to that have similar stories.

Yeah Jim you and I were lucky because we were on the tail end of truly entertaining TV and Movies. Thank GOD for re-runs :rolleyes:

[Ankerson]

Once in a purple moon a Hollywood production will come out that is worth watching. It’s VERY rare, though. Also, movies nowadays are, as a general rule, not very memorable.

I think it’s laughable when someone comments on a classic movie on YouTube by saying, “That’s pretty good for a movie that came out in the ‘70s.” Or when discussing a classic movie, someone says, “I hope Hollywood remakes this movie, it will be even better.” No, it won’t. In nearly every case, remakes are inferior...usually vastly inferior. The same goes for Hollywood remakes of foreign movies, as in movies from Asia and Europe.

Jim those two observations you made are 1000% true. Just this past April I went to the first theatre movie I've seen in over a year. It was the re-make of Stephen King's PET SEMATARY. All the reviews were talking about how the new one was so much more advanced and the special effects were brilliant and la ti da and so forth. Well I went on one afternoon matinee and still had to pay $10 to see a truly lousy version of this Stephen King Classic. Because I did truly like Stephen King's work back in the 70s, 80s & some of the ones of the 90s. But this re-make of PET SEMATARY was truly a sick joke compared to the original of 1989.

The picture quality was lousy, the actors were all sub-par compared to the original actors who I thought all did a great job in the first one. It was such a disappointment that I haven't been back to a movie since then. I truly get more entertainment watching older movies>> I'm even talking about the ones going back to the 30s and 40s are even better than the gutter trash they have now. There were only about 8 people there at the theatre when I seen it and I spoke to a couple sitting behind me and they both agreed that the original was 50 times better than the new one. That's just one example of how totally trashy a lot of these newer movies are. And I can't tell you how many people I've talked to that have similar stories.

Yeah Jim you and I were lucky because we were on the tail end of truly entertaining TV and Movies. Thank GOD for re-runs :rolleyes:

I saw the re-make of PET SERMATARY and I 100% agree with you, I have the original version.

[JD Spydo]

Once in a purple moon a Hollywood production will come out that is worth watching. It’s VERY rare, though. Also, movies nowadays are, as a general rule, not very memorable.

I think it’s laughable when someone comments on a classic movie on YouTube by saying, “That’s pretty good for a movie that came out in the ‘70s.” Or when discussing a classic movie, someone says, “I hope Hollywood remakes this movie, it will be even better.” No, it won’t. In nearly every case, remakes are inferior...usually vastly inferior. The same goes for Hollywood remakes of foreign movies, as in movies from Asia and Europe.

Jim those two observations you made are 1000% true. Just this past April I went to the first theatre movie I've seen in over a year. It was the re-make of Stephen King's PET SEMATARY. All the reviews were talking about how the new one was so much more advanced and the special effects were brilliant and la ti da and so forth. Well I went on one afternoon matinee and still had to pay $10 to see a truly lousy version of this Stephen King Classic. Because I did truly like Stephen King's work back in the 70s, 80s & some of the ones of the 90s. But this re-make of PET SEMATARY was truly a sick joke compared to the original of 1989.

The picture quality was lousy, the actors were all sub-par compared to the original actors who I thought all did a great job in the first one. It was such a disappointment that I haven't been back to a movie since then. I truly get more entertainment watching older movies>> I'm even talking about the ones going back to the 30s and 40s are even better than the gutter trash they have now. There were only about 8 people there at the theatre when I seen it and I spoke to a couple sitting behind me and they both agreed that the original was 50 times better than the new one. That's just one example of how totally trashy a lot of these newer movies are. And I can't tell you how many people I've talked to that have similar stories.

Yeah Jim you and I were lucky because we were on the tail end of truly entertaining TV and Movies. Thank GOD for re-runs :rolleyes:

I saw the re-make of PET SERMATARY and I 100% agree with you, I have the original version.

Hey thanks for chiming in with that Ankerson :) Even the picture quality in the 1989 version was at least 5 times better than this newer Pet Sematary movie. The kids that played those parts in the 1989 original were both brilliant for their age>> especially Blaze Berdahl who played Ellie. Denise Crosby and Dale Midkiff both did an excellent job compared to this new joke of a cast that the new PS had. Now I will say that Jete Lawrence who played Ellie in the new one was probably the only actor in the entire cast of the new Pet Sematary movie that showed me any notable talent at all IMO. But compared to Blaze Berdahl who did the original she was fair at best>> but still better than the rest of the new cast IMO.

I've yet to talk to anyone who raved about the new Pet Sematary movie or even liked it a lot. And it didn't last long at all here at all the local theaters in the Kansas City area.
The old producers and directors were true artists like Stanley Kubrick for instance. All the new male actors are just vain, hedonistic jerks and all the new women actors are mostly tramps who probably slept their way to their so-called career in the movie industry,. Sad, Sad, Sad state of affairs in the cinema industry.

[James Y]

Joe and Ankerson:

I won’t be seeing the new Pet Sematary movie, but I did pick up a DVD of the original movie for $5; it came out when the remake came out. I had seen it when I was in Taiwan, but had remembered little of it back then. Seeing it now, the original was brilliantly acted, IMO. There was a sense of menace throughout. That little boy in particular was creepy as ****.

Jim

[Ankerson]

Once in a purple moon a Hollywood production will come out that is worth watching. It’s VERY rare, though. Also, movies nowadays are, as a general rule, not very memorable.

I think it’s laughable when someone comments on a classic movie on YouTube by saying, “That’s pretty good for a movie that came out in the ‘70s.” Or when discussing a classic movie, someone says, “I hope Hollywood remakes this movie, it will be even better.” No, it won’t. In nearly every case, remakes are inferior...usually vastly inferior. The same goes for Hollywood remakes of foreign movies, as in movies from Asia and Europe.

Jim those two observations you made are 1000% true. Just this past April I went to the first theatre movie I've seen in over a year. It was the re-make of Stephen King's PET SEMATARY. All the reviews were talking about how the new one was so much more advanced and the special effects were brilliant and la ti da and so forth. Well I went on one afternoon matinee and still had to pay $10 to see a truly lousy version of this Stephen King Classic. Because I did truly like Stephen King's work back in the 70s, 80s & some of the ones of the 90s. But this re-make of PET SEMATARY was truly a sick joke compared to the original of 1989.

The picture quality was lousy, the actors were all sub-par compared to the original actors who I thought all did a great job in the first one. It was such a disappointment that I haven't been back to a movie since then. I truly get more entertainment watching older movies>> I'm even talking about the ones going back to the 30s and 40s are even better than the gutter trash they have now. There were only about 8 people there at the theatre when I seen it and I spoke to a couple sitting behind me and they both agreed that the original was 50 times better than the new one. That's just one example of how totally trashy a lot of these newer movies are. And I can't tell you how many people I've talked to that have similar stories.

Yeah Jim you and I were lucky because we were on the tail end of truly entertaining TV and Movies. Thank GOD for re-runs :rolleyes:

I saw the re-make of PET SERMATARY and I 100% agree with you, I have the original version.

Hey thanks for chiming in with that Ankerson :) Even the picture quality in the 1989 version was at least 5 times better than this newer Pet Sematary movie. The kids that played those parts in the 1989 original were both brilliant for their age>> especially Blaze Berdahl who played Ellie. Denise Crosby and Dale Midkiff both did an excellent job compared to this new joke of a cast that the new PS had. Now I will say that Jete Lawrence who played Ellie in the new one was probably the only actor in the entire cast of the new Pet Sematary movie that showed me any notable talent at all IMO. But compared to Blaze Berdahl who did the original she was fair at best>> but still better than the rest of the new cast IMO.

I've yet to talk to anyone who raved about the new Pet Sematary movie or even liked it a lot. And it didn't last long at all here at all the local theaters in the Kansas City area.
The old producers and directors were true artists like Stanley Kubrick for instance. All the new male actors are just vain, hedonistic jerks and all the new women actors are mostly tramps who probably slept their way to their so-called career in the movie industry,. Sad, Sad, Sad state of affairs in the cinema industry.

Today I think MOST of them slept themselves into their so called careers... Same with the so called singers that almost none of which can sing...

I think the whole thing is a bad joke and getting worse as time goes on.

Look at Taylor Swift, made a career out of singing about her exes... And now will do anything to get into Holly Wood... ANYTHING... I love what Kid Rock said about her. ROFL... :D

Even snubbed her nose at the whole Country Music Industry by changing sides just to win a grammy… :rolleyes:

Pathetic.....

[JD Spydo]

Ankerson you summed it up pretty accurately. Comparing the rock and country music industries compared to what they were in the 70s, 80s and midway through the 90s is even worse than a day versus night comparison. There isn't one female singer that can hold a candle compared to Janis Joplin and there were so many great male lead singers back in the day that totally dwarf the so-called stars of our modern time. Ian Gillian of the original Deep Purple was better than any of these newer guys>> and you can put Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull at a high position.

Even among the classic black musicians>> there are no artists that can compare to the old Motown artists. I actually sort of liked a few of them. But all this rap and hip hop is truly raw sewage IMO. None of the Country & Western artists since maybe Garth Brooks have shown me any notable talent at all. There will never be another Johnny Cash or Merle Haggard>> all those guys were true artists. Case Closed