If a project has Ed Burns' name attached to it, I'll sit up and take notice. I've been a fan of his dating back to his first film, The Brothers McMullen, which he wrote, directed and produced in 1995 while working as a go-for at Entertainment Tonight. Incidentally, he was able to finagle a copy of the film into Robert Redford's hands during an appearance there, and shortly thereafter, Burns quit his job at ET. He'll write, direct and star in Bayside Boys, which is being billed as an East Coast Entourage. It's about a group of 20-something guys from the middle-class neighborhood of Bayside Queens that's being pitched to cable networks. One of the guys is employed at a hot-shot ad agency in Manhattan. Burns will play a supporting role as a mentor to the group.
With Entourage perhaps in its waning years (it was just picked up for season seven), maybe this series could fill that void. It's a project close to Burns' heart, since he was born in Queens, the second of three kids to Irish-Catholic immigrants. Also of interest is that it's under the Ish Entertainment banner, a company that's working on TV projects from other film writers, including One if by Land from Hitch writer Kevin Bisch and Gnarly from screenwriters Edward Cannistraci and Frederick Seton, the duo behind Fox's Jim Carrey film Pierre Pierre.
There seems to be less and less of a divide between film and TV, with actors, writers and filmmakers crossing back and forth between the two mediums. It's much different than back in the day when film stars were owned by the movie studios. But it's great, because it gives everyone much more flexibility on projects, doing what works for them both personally and professionally.
Mike Henry and Daryl Hall on a Cleveland Show Thanksgiving
The TV Squad Podcast: The Prisoner, '80s TV, soap news and more
Let's talk about spoilers ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-02-2009 @ 10:50PM
Jimmy said...
Remember Ed Burns' involvement in the current Entourage storyline. Drama stars in Five Towns, where Burns is the Executive Producer, and has appeared in a few episodes.
Reply
8-03-2009 @ 12:16AM
jboursaw said...
Oh yeah! I wonder if that's where he got the idea to do an Entourage-like show...
Reply
9-11-2009 @ 8:31PM
Christian said...
This is the most insipid kind of entertainment journalism:
"It's much different than back in the day when film stars were owned by the movie studios." Thanks for that tidbit, Jane. Most of us who know anything about the film biz know that the Studio System ended in 1954. To whom was this comment addressed? Your grandmother? You could have followed up by mentioning that this production will have sound: "so much better than those Silent films they made "Back in the Day". Other than expressing a crush on Ed Burns, I can't think of any reason this piece couldn't have been reduced to a couple of sentences. Unless you are paid by the word, in which case I completely understand.
Reply
9-11-2009 @ 9:12PM
Jane Boursaw said...
Christian - Thanks for the note. It really wasn't addressed to anyone in particular; just a comment that actors now cross many different platforms - film, TV, Web, commercials, etc. - whereas back in the old days the stars were owned by big studios like MGM and not allowed to work for other mediums or companies.
And, yeah, I do have a crush on Ed Burns. :-)
Reply
9-11-2009 @ 10:42PM
Christian said...
Are you being willfully obtuse? You're mentioning something that hasn't been the case for 55 years? How is this a relevant comment? Who on earth would not already know this? Yes, Jane, you are correct, Humphrey Bogart was not as fortunate as Ed Burns in that he was not able to work in Television or Web Spots, as these technologies were not yet invented. But if you want to get technical, Hollywood actors HAVE ALWAYS worked in different mediums. Ronald Reagan did promotional work for the American Medical Association and Chesterfield Cigarettes, Orson Welles had a thriving radio career and did commercials for Gallo wine at the end of his life, Cary Grant appeared in Broadway plays, Joan Collins was a film star before she was a TV star etc, etc. I know this isn't the NY Times, but can't you at least try to give the appearance that you are trying to be relevant? If this is a blog, then I apologize, you have every right to express whatever random idea pops into your head, but if this site is masquerading at entertainment journalism, then you owe it to your readers to be intellectually rigorous.
9-11-2009 @ 10:56PM
Jane Boursaw said...
Christian - As mentioned, I appreciate the comments!
Reply
9-12-2009 @ 4:59PM
Christian said...
Jane, there's no point in thanking me for my comments. If you've printed something that's factually incorrect, you should acknowledge that you were incorrect, and print a retraction. I'm sure they taught you that in journalism school - did you attend journalism school?
9-12-2009 @ 5:04PM
Jane Boursaw said...
Did I print something factually incorrect? I don't see where I have; check back in your film history. And I'm still thanking you for your comments. :-)
Reply
9-12-2009 @ 6:20PM
Christian said...
Ok - well I assume we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this. However, I will add that since television ownership did not become widespread until the 1950's, the studio system (which ended in 1954), for all practical purposes, never co-existed with the television industry. So to say that the studio system prevented stars from working in television doesn't make any sense, since the television industry didn't become viable until after the demise of the studio system. The stars of that era could fly on jet planes either, but the studios didn't prevent them - jet planes simply didn't exist - and the same can be said for television. As for your contention that "Its great" now that stars are allowed to do what they want, I suggest we all look at the quality of films that were produced after the demise of the system - any film critic in the country would argue that quality has gone down since 1954. (and yes, Jane, I know you appreciate my comments...) Have a good weekend.
9-12-2009 @ 6:48PM
Jane Boursaw said...
Well, I don't know that the quality of films has gone down since 1954. Those classic films were beautiful, but the technology has changed so much since then, it's really a whole different ballgame.
Even modern day films that don't contain a lot of special effects -- "The Lives of Others" and "Captain Abu Raed" spring to mind - feature acting and storylines that are in a class all their own.
In many ways, if you look at films outside the commercial fodder that populates mainstream theaters, filmmaking has gotten better and better in the past 50 years. That's not to take anything away from all of the excellent classic films and actors of a bygone era.
Thoughts?
Reply