There was a bit of an Internet kerfuffle over the fact that the brunette Lois Lane will be played by the redhead Amy Adams in The Man of Steel. Well, brace yourselves, another kerfuffle is coming because it appears that the redhead Jimmy Olsen will not only be a brunette, but also…a woman! Batten down the hatches, prepare for the Internet outrage.

The whole ball got rolling this morning when Digital Spy noticed something in the cast listing on the IMDB page for the film. While the film features notable minor characters from the comic book Superman mythos such as Pete Ross, Kenny Braverman, and Steve Lombard, there was no Jimmy Olsen. There was, however,buried deep in the cast list, a Jenny Olsen, played by a brown-eyed, brunette actress named Rebecca Buller (that’s her to the left).

To say that Jimmy Olsen is a popular part of the Superman mythos would be an understatement. He is one of Superman’s longest-running supporting characters (officially debuting in 1941), and was popular enough to not only get his own series, Superman’s Pal, Jimmy Olsen, but also to have it run for 163 issue over almost 20 years.  So, the idea of a Superman film without Jimmy Olsen would be almost unheard of. So, this Jenny Olsen HAS to be the female version of Jimmy right?

The website uses the trailer to further sell the idea that Jenny has been switched in for Jimmy. There is a scene in the trailer, screencapped for you at the right, where Perry White is fleeing a destroyed Daily Planet. As you can see, he is holding on to a female employee who looks remarkably like Buller. Is that an I.D. lanyard around her neck…or is it a strap for a camera? And who else would Perry take such an interest in making sure that they are safe than Jimmy…er…Jenny Olsen?

Of course, this is all conjecture based on a single IMDB listing, and IMDB isn’t exactly the most accurate website around. Numerous news sites have tried to reach Warner Brothers for a comment, but as of yet they have not spoke on the matter.  But until they do, fans will proclaim their outrage on message boards and comment pages around the Internet.

Many casual fans of Superman might ask, “What’s the big deal? Why should this bother them so much?” And, speaking as a rather involved Superman fan, the film presentation of Jimmy/Jenny Olsen shouldn’t bother us too much. What makes the comic book incarnation of Jimmy Olsen so great, and this will be a gross simplification of the character’s 72 -year history, is that he gets himself into trouble that only Superman can get him out of. That quality will never translate over into a 2-hour Superman film where Jimmy is only a supporting character. This characterization at best will only be briefly touched upon, as we saw in Richard Donner’s first Superman film. Add to that the fact that Jenny Olsen is so far down on the IMDB cast list that she is likely to be an extremely minor character to begin with, so even if she was still Jimmy, it wouldn’t be close to the comic book Jimmy anyway.

However, while every cinematic appearance of Jimmy Olsen ends up being a essentially just a nod to the character’s comic book origins, it was at least a nod. This is at least the fourth break from comic book continuity that The Man of Steel has shown us, and the one that seems most arbitrary and hardest to explain away.

Yes, the redhead Amy Adams is playing the typically brunette Lois Lane and the African-American Laurence Fishburne is playing the typically Caucasian Perry White, but both are great actors with sterling resumes–complete with award nominations–and will bring a lot to the part (but, seriously, Amy, you couldn’t pick up a bottle of Lady Clairol for just this film?). The same really can’t be said for Buller, whose only other credit on her remarkably sparse IMDB page is one episode of The Playboy Club.

And while Pa Kent’s recommendation to Clark that he should have left the school bus full of kids die is extremely out of character, the quote very well could have been taken out of context or simply been Pa thinking aloud. There’s no mistaking the break from the original characterization that is Jenny Olsen. Making the character a female changes whatever dynamic existed between the character and Superman. Instead of the goofy little brother, you have a little sister. Think about how your relationship with your male friends differs from your female friends and you’ll get the idea. Granted, as I mentioned above, the character might not be in the film long enough where this dynamic comes into play, but if it does, it will not be the dynamic comic book fans expect or want to see.

And the change is completely arbitrary. If you wanted a goofy female character to work at the Daily Planet, you could have named her Jenny Coulson, Jenny Dogin, or Jenny Hogan. It would work just as well for the filmmakers and Jimmy Olsen fans would be a lot less ticked off.

Yes, this on the surface seems like much ado about nothing. But in the larger sense it is indicative of the problems Warner Brothers has adapting its DC Comics properties to the big screen. The Marvel films all have changes from the original source material, but no change is arbitrary, no change completely contradicts what makes the original text so popular, and more often than not the changes are an improvement. Changing Jimmy Olsen to a woman just for the sake of making the character a woman is an example that Warner Brothers really doesn’t have the same respect and understanding about its comic book properties that Marvel does. And until they can overcome this mental block in this area, they are never going to have the success that Marvel has.

There are many films that screen at the Sundance that rarely get seen outside of the confines of the annual film festival. Usually, these are films that don’t seem to make an impact on critics or the numerous studio and distributor execs looking for product that they think they can sell. But this year, there is one film that is generating the type of buzz that would normally have those execs in a bidding frenzy that you probably won’t ever get a chance to see – director Randy Moore’s drama Escape From Tomorrow.

At first glance there doesn’t seem to be anything that would prohibit a distributor from releasing a film about a man’s slow descent into despair and madness after being told he is being fired from his job while on the last day of his family’s vacation. That is until you realize that the entire film was shot surreptitiously at Florida’s Walt Disney World and California’s Disneyland theme parks without permission. As such, there is much of the famous (and copyrighted) Disney iconography seen throughout the film. The studio’s costumed characters can be glimpsed walking through the background. Scenes take place on the Snow White, Winnie The Pooh and Haunted Mansion rides. So many things Disney’s phalanx of lawyers would have to give permission for these trademarked and copyrighted images to appear in a commercial release of the film. And I’m guessing that the reported scene showing the Disney princess as high-end prostitutes with Asian businessmen as clients probably won’t help convince them to sign off on the film.

So how did he manage to make the film right under the noses of park security? Well, it was apparently pretty simple. With virtually everyone at the parks owning their own video cameras and looking to document their experience there, no one really took note when Moore and just a few cast and crew members took out a Cannon 5D DSLR and started shooting. Audio was sometimes recorded on cell phones or on digital recorders taped to the actors. Scripts and production paperwork were kept on iPhones. Moore, his cast and a cameraman rode certain rides multiple times in order to capture the footage they needed without any ride operators ever raising an eyebrow.

And amazingly, the final product doesn’t look like a found footage film as one may expect but instead is a polished production, if this short clip that has been released is any indication –

But despite all the legal hurdles, I doubt that this film will stay viewed by just the audiences who saw it the past weekend for long. Disney could buy the film and distribute it themselves, though it sounds like some of the material in it could be too strong for any of their distribution arms. Alternately, another distributor could pick up the film and try to negotiate with Disney for the usage of all the trademarked imagery in the film. That would leave Disney with two options – The first would be to be a good sport about things and

But it is possible that Moore could try and release the film for free online. It has happened before in films that had copyrighted material in them without permission. Animator Nina Paley’s magnificent Sita Sings The Blues used some 1920s jazz tunes that were still under copyright. When it proved to be too expensive and too much of a hassle to untie the legal red tape surrounding the songs underlying rights, she released the film online for free download.

Underground filmmaker Damon Packard managed to do something similar to what Moore has done with his own horror film, Reflections Of Evil. Purportedly shot in part at Universal Studios theme park without permission, the movie is available for viewing free on the Fandor streaming site.

In a worst case scenario, the film will eventually find its way out into the wilds of the internet. It has happened before with the Roger Corman-produced Fantastic Four film and Todd Haynes‘s suppressed Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story. Even the documentary charting the troubled production of the Disney animated feature The Emperor’s New Groove, The Sweatbox has managed to find its way online for savvy fans to track down and watch. Given time, it will probably happen again.

Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn found out this week that things you post on the Internet last forever, and even if you try to kill them, your words can take on a life of their own.

A post Gunn made on his website back in February of 2011 has garnered him a fair bit of controversy with female members of comic book fan and professional community. When the controversy hit, Gunn removed the post from his site, but, the Internet being what it is, it still lives on in a cached form.

The post consists of the results of his second annual polling of his fans for the 50 superheroes, male and/or female, they’d most like to have sex with.

Personally, I have never been one to sexually fantasize about comic book characters. Yes, this might strike you as being hard to believe but I can’t get into that sort of thing because A) they aren’t real and B) they are usually drawn in such an exaggerated way that makes them seem even less realistic. But, hey, if other fans are into this sort of thing, more power to them.

So, if Gunn just stopped at running the list, it might have not received any attention. They’d even let slide the fact that he took pride in finding the most sexually charged images for the 35 female entries on the list.

But, unfortunately for Gunn, he had make comments on the entries to the list. And his comments start vulgar and get worse from there. Here is a sample, starting with the winner of the poll, Wonder Woman (WARNING: The language is crude and vulgar):

It gets worse from there. Men aren’t spared either. Here’s Gambit:

Zatanna (for the full effect, flip the words of the last sentence):

Invisible Woman:

Kitty Pryde:

Batwoman:

And, finally, Batgirl:

These are the most egregious entries on the list. Thankfully, Gunn appears to lose interest in including these pithy sayings after entry #25 or else there could have been a lot more.

As to why a blog entry that is almost two years old would get so much attention  comes down to two things. One, Gunn was just handed his highest profile assignment to date with Guardians of the Galaxy, a film many in the comic book fandom are eagerly anticipating and want to see done right. And, two, sexual politics are a hot-button topic in the comic book community after a tale of sexual harassment of a cosplayer at October’s NYCC  and two comic creators speaking out publicly about “fake geek girls,” attractive women who dress up as popular geek-centric characters just for attention and without any knowledge, affection or affinity for the characters or the worlds they live in. These examples are used to as an indicator of the misogyny of males in geek culture. Gunn’s post, though old, is simply another log to the still raging fire.

While Internet reaction might not have been immediate, it has been strong. Susana Polo of the The Mary Sue, a blog that looks at the world of comic from a female perspective, had this to say:

Lets be clear: there’s nothing wrong about running a poll for the most sex-able superhero on your site, especially one where you embrace the fact that Batman and Gambit come in within the top five. There isn’t anything wrong, in that context, of choosing art that sexualizes the characters in it. There isn’t even anything wrong with talking explicitly about sex in your commentary on the poll results. What’s wrong is the sheer amount of slut-shaming (on only the female characters) and anti-gay language that Gunn directs towards the majority of the male characters. These are not opinions befitting somebody who’s been given the task of bringing a major part of the Marvel Universe to the big screen (a set of characters, I might add, that includes a lesbian superhero couple, not that they’ll be appearing in Guardians).

The screenshot at the top of this post is the entirety of what he has to say about Batwoman, which is both a reference to the idea that lesbians just need a good (read: streotypically masculine) man to have sex with them and they’ll be “cured” of their homosexuality, a delusion at the heart of an innumerable number of rapes; and a dig at Nightwing, one of the few male characters in comics who has actually gotten away with being drawn for the female gaze. Apparently, having been depicted as a female sex fantasy occasionally (and still with nowhere near the frequency that any given female character is drawn for the male gaze) instead of a male power fantasy literally makes him a woman.

Rachel Edidin, who has worked in the industry as an editor at Dark Horse Comics among other companies, contributed this:

Gunn’s notes are fucked up and miogynist and homophobic.

They’re also over the top to an extent that can read as a parody of nonsense like this in comics media (not gonna name names, but we all know who we’re talking about here, right?). I’ve heard from a source I trust—someone who’s much more familiar with Gunn as a professional and person than I am, and who’s generally loathe to give quarter to assholes—that the post was likely meant to be satire, which I’m willing to believe.

Let’s run with that hypothetical for a minute. Let’s pretend Gunn’s intentions here were in fact to highlight and lampoon the rampant misogyny and objectification in comics media, where lists like this pop up with astonishing regularity (if usually marginally more work-safe official commentary).

If Gunn’s list is satire, it’s bad satire, because it skews incredibly close to material that’s not only already out there, but that comes from official media and in some cases industry professionals. There’s a significant slice of the comics community that is that misogynist and homophobic, and says so loudly and frequently. It’s telling, I think, that so many people took what Gunn wrote at face value: this is material we’ve seen before, again and again, presented seriously.

Heidi MacDonald, one of the leading names in comic book journalism and a woman who has worked as an editor at DC/Vertigo and Disney took a more cynical view:

I guess I’m jaded because what Gunn wrote is no worse than what 90% of guys have thought at some point, and probably 90% of the people who have directed superhero movies that we all loved in the past have made similar jokes. I mean, I’m not exactly sure that Sam Raimi wanted to do Kitty Pride in the butt, but I’m sure somewhere, at some time, he had a picture of the Invisible Woman taped inside his notebook. Maybe even right this very minute.

Which isn’t to say that Gunn doesn’t need to come out and say mea culpa and Gamora is his favorite Guardian and he supports Malala Yousafzai. It’s a good consciousness raising exercise, and a heckuva introduction to his future fan base. I just feel that the outrage energy is better directed at getting more opportunities for women and less at stopping men from having inappropriate sexy thoughts about imaginary women, because that will never, ever stop. Sorry.

Now, the story has gone beyond the realm of comic book fandom. The Hollywood Reporter has quoted Fred Sainz, vice president of communications and marketing for the Human Rights Campaign, who condemns Gunn’s words:

James Gunn’s blog post is offensive not just to LGBT people and women; but rather to anyone with even the slightest sense of decency. His tawdry post is not reflective of the character that someone charged with directing a film aimed at youth should exhibit. It’s unfortunate that Mr. Gunn has nothing better to do with his time than churn out graphic and homophobic dribble about imaginary superheroes.

Of course, if it was just this one post, it would still be fairly damning for Gunn. But the very next post, which was, of course, taken down by Gunn and can only be viewed in cached form, Gunn applies similar attitudes and language in listing the 15 super-heroines he personally would like to have sex with. And his most recent post, from July of this year, Gunn gloats over giving a female employee from the music department of the studio for his latest film,  Movie 43, a hard time after she tells him that the studio cannot use a the title Gunn submitted for a song he wrote for the soundtrack because it would be too offensive. The title? “That Gay Fucking Cat.” Classy. That post is still active on Gunn’s site…for now.

While most of Gunn’s critics are calling on him to explain his words and point of view (which, since his immediate reaction was to remove the offending blog posts and pretend they never happened, is unlikely to take place unless he is forced to do it), some female comic fans are calling for stronger action. There is currently a petition on change.org asking Marvel Studios to replace Gunn on Guardians of the Galaxy and replace him with a director who has more respect for women. The petition already has 4,917 signatures as of this writing.

As of this writing, there has been no comment from Gunn or Marvel Studios in regards to controversy. But, since the casting process is beginning on the film even as we speak, neither party can afford to have such a controversy go unanswered. I would personally be interested in seeing how Marvel reacts to this situation, as it is the first public dust-up the relatively new studio has had to deal with.

UPDATE:

Shortly before 10pm EST, James Gunn posted this to his Facebook account:

Last month, everyone seemed so sure that the mysterious villain of J J Abrams’ upcoming Star Trek 2 was going to be the classic Trek villain, genetically enhanced war criminal Khan with Benedict Cumberbatch stepping in for Ricardo Montalban who originally played the part in an episode of the original series and the feature Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan.

But in an interview with The Telegraph, Trek reboot cast member Simon Pegg blasted those reports not only for what he says is inaccurate reporting but for the need for sensationalism that has driven the reporting.

It’s not Khan. That’s a myth. Everyone’s saying it is, but it’s not… I think people just want to have a scoop. It annoys me – it’s beyond the point to just ferret around for spoilers all the time to try to be the first to break them. It just spoils the film. It masquerades as interest in the movie but really it’s just nosiness and impatience. You just want to say, “Oh f— off! Wait for the film!”

While I am sure that some folks will write this off as just some spin from the production to keep the film’s plotlines secret, I would suggest that in this case, if it were indeed true, it would be a case of closing the barn door after the horses had already gotten out. I think we need to take Pegg at his word that Cumberbatch is not playing the part that everyone seems to want to believe that he is.

And I am fine with that. We’ve talked about why having Khan in Star Trek 2 would be a big, stupid mistake, and I am glad to see that Abrams isn’t making it.

I haven’t really written about the Farrelley Brothers new film The Three Stooges, in which they have Chris Diamantopoulos, Sean Hayes, and Will Sasso recreate the antics of the iconic slapstick comedy trio, for a couple of reasons. First and foremost,  I am not much of a Stooges fan. So much so in fact that I actually feel guilty that I have been able to see the two shorts that the Stooges did in 3D in that format, an experience that I am sure many of their fans have not had but would love to. I also have been fairly creeped out by the idea of new actors recreating dead actors’s screen personae and building a story around them. Sure it worked in Play It Again Sam and The Man With Bogart’s Face, but those are probably the exceptions that prove the rule.

Well, The Three Stooges opened this weekend and for the most part has gotten fairly expected, by me at any rate, poor reviews. (Currently it is sitting at a 42% over on Rotten Tomatoes.) But there was one negative critique that stood out to me as particularly wrong-headed in its analysis of the film and that was from Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League.

It seems that Mr. Donohue has a problem with how the film depicts the nuns in the orphanage where the Stooges grew up, specifically with how one of the nuns is played by Larry David in drag and how in one scene in which Kate Upton is shown wearing a swimsuit that has now acquired the name of “nunkini.” In a statement released right before the movie was released in theaters this weekend Donohue complained -

The Stooges are depicted seeking to raise money for their orphanage; it is run by habit-wearing, stereotypical nuns. One of the sisters is played by swimsuit model Kate Upton; she is shown wearing a “nun bikini” with a large rosary around her neck. Another nun, Sister Mary-Mengele, named after the Nazi war criminal, is played by Seinfeld creator Larry David.

In 2009, David proved what he thinks about Catholics when he was shown going to the bathroom in a Catholic home splattering urine on a picture of Jesus (it was his own show). Last night he said to Conan O’Brien that dressing as a nun in the film makes it easy to understand why nuns are “so mean.” He explains, “You know, the outfits might have something to do with that. Forget about the fact that they never have sex. If you gave me a choice of no sex or having to wear that outfit the rest of my life, I would definitely take the no sex.”

Although a born and raised Catholic myself, I have often found myself puzzled by the stances that the League has taken on various things in the past. And once again I now find myself wondering why they are reacting with what appears to be a knee-jerk and surface reaction to the material in question rather than with commentary that demonstrates that some critical thinking went into it.

(In the interest of full disclosure I should state that I have not yet seen the film. But I also think that Donohue hasn’t seen it either, so we are at least on equal footing.)

Far more egregious than showing a nun in a swimsuit, to my mind at least, is the ethnic reassignment that the Stooges get at the hands of the Farrelleys, with their Jewish heritage being whitewashed away by the writer/director brothers in their zeal to make a version of The Blues Brothers that substitutes great music with eye pokes. (J Hoberman over at The Tablet writes about the Stooges’s ethnicity and how it was actually an important component to their act.) But does Donohue have any sense of outrage over this cinematic equivalent of Mormonism’s vicarious baptism of dead Jews? No, he does not. For shame, Mr. Donohue, for shame!

And that deracination leaves a rather disturbing implication – Are the Farrelleys implying that Moe, Larry and Curly learned their behavior from the environment that they grew up in, i.e., the orphanage that they are trying to save?  Do the Stooges beat on other as their primary form of communication because that is all they have known for their whole life growing up in the Catholic-run orphanage? Where is Donohue’s outcry over the implied continuance of the stereotype that nuns are sadists who lord over their youthful charges through the tyranny of a ruler slap to the knuckles? Is his silence here just a mute endorsement of the movie’s accusations, an endorsement of child abuse? For shame, Mr. Donohue, for shame!

Thirdly, I think Donohue really misses the boat concerning Kate Upton playing a nun in the film. By focusing on and frothing at the mouth about the scene where she is wearing a sexy swimsuit – and I’ll leave those more versed in Freudian psychology than I to further expound upon that – I think that he is failing to see the much bigger picture here. The movie is actually depicting a life of religious service as something that is a viable and attractive life for a young and beautiful woman.

It’s not like Upton is the first good looking actress to play a nun. The stunning Ingrid Bergman was one in 1945′s The Bells Of St. Mary’s. Former Playboy Playmate Stella Stevens played a nun in 1968′s Where Angels Go Trouble Follows. Is Donohue stating that only ugly women should consider a life as a nun? In a time when the Church is facing declining numbers of incoming priests and nuns, I don’t think he should be quite so limiting as to whom they would accept. Even worse, is Donohue suggesting that the less attractive should only consider a life as a nun? For shame, Mr. Donohue, for shame!

Now granted, both of my arguments have an element of facetiousness to them and they would not be able to really co-exist side-by-side. The movie can’t be simultaneously anti-nun and pro-religious life. It would be a rather scatter-shot interpretation of the film based solely on its marketing materials. But then so is Donohue’s complaint. He is mad that the movie shows that nuns are amazingly ugly (David in a dress) and breathtakingly beautiful (Upton in a swimsuit). Is he upset that there is no middle ground? Should only the most aggressively plain commit themselves to a life in the clergy?

I think by embracing both  extremes, the Farrelleys and The Three Stooges, intentionally or not, actually says something positive about the religious life. It shows that it can be made up of all sorts of people, representing a wide variety of the demographic of the Church. I would venture to state that is something that Donohue and his organization, which it should be pointed out has no official ties with the actual Roman Catholic Church, may not be able to seriously claim.

Are the reports that The Hunger Games director Gary Ross will not be back to direct the sequel Catching Fire premature?

Deadline seems to think so, as their own, unnamed sources are telling the gossip blog that the director has not resigned from the series to pursue an unnamed project he had been developing.

The Hollywood Reporter was able to dig a little further and is reporting that the director and the studio actually have a meeting today to continue their negotiations over his continuing with the franchise.

Deadline pointed to the fact that it was Ross who brought in Slumdog Millionaire screenwriter Simon Beaufoy to start working n the script for the second film last November when it became apparent that he and the writer of the original teen lit series Suzanne Collins would not be able to collaborate on it as they did for the first film. The gossip site further argued that it would be illogical for Ross to leave a successful franchise in order to work on a project with a project with an unknown chance of success. Others have argued that this would be the perfect time and reason for Ross to use his success with Hunger Games.

The Reporter meanwhile states that there is some concern on Ross’s part over the compressed pre-production schedule he would have in order to get the film in front of cameras by August. He would need to be finished with shooting by the end of the year in order for star Jennifer Lawrence to be free for Twentieth Century Fox’s X-Men: First Class sequel. As Lawrence was signed to the X-Men franchise months before Lionsgate hired her for The Hunger Games, Fox technically has first demand on her services and could force Lionsgate to wait to shoot Catching Fire until after Fox is done with production on the X-Men sequel if for some reason Lionsgate misses their planned for August start date.

Ross had been on a family vacation in Italy and unavailable to comment when the reports of his departure began circulating late last week.

It is hard to say how this will play out. With no script turned yet from Beaufoy, Lionsgate could try and negotiate with Fox to push back the production start on their X-Men film in order to buy themselves some more time. I doubt that Fox would want to do that though. The success of The Hunger Games has made Lawrence a much more of a marquee name and even though the X-Men franchise is more of an ensemble, I can see that the studio would want to strike while the name-recognition iron is hot. Also, Lionsgate would not have a legal leg to stand on with such a request and would have to offer up something pretty sweet for the much bigger Fox to consider such a request.

Alternatively, Lionsgate could choose to let Ross go if the director doesn’t think he could manage the compressed pre-production schedule and bring on another director who could. Summit Entertainment did something similar when it replaced Catherine Hardwick, who launched their Twilight franchise for them, with Chris Weitz.

How this will play out still remains anyone’s guess, but I imagine that over the next few days we will all find out together.

Heidi MacDonald over at The Beat has a fairly good rundown of rampant, joyous, near-orgasmic display of schadenfreude the film media is exhibiting over John Carter this morning. They are attacking the film like a bunch of vultures, calling it a “flop,” a “bomb,” and  even, GASP, an “Ishtar on Mars.”  She pulls quotes from Nikki Finke at Deadline, Brooks Barnes at the New York Times, Amy Kaufman at the Los Angeles Times, and others who are all doing a happy dance after being proven right in predicting that the Andrew Stanton helmed-flick would be a massive flop at the box office.

But, one problem, what if John Carter turns out not to be a flop? Granted, it ONLY made $30.6 million domestically and ONLY opened in second place this past weekend, behind The Lorax, a movie that opened the week before. But this doesn’t mean that the film will not make its $250 million budget back.

What? I’m talking crazy? How can I say that John Carter might be a success? Every other film journalist is saying the film is a failure, so that must obviously be the case, right?

Not necessarily. Allow me to present a comparison to argue my case. Let me compare John Carter with another live action film directed by a Pixar-alum, Brad Bird’s Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.

Now, John Carter has some advantages of MI:GP. It opened in 51 foreign markets to the latter’s 42 markets and opened in about 300 more theaters domestically as well. And MI:GP opened over the crowded Christmas holiday weekend, with competition from films such as The Adventures of Tintin, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, and War Horse.

However, MI:GP has more advantages than that over John Carter. It was a highly anticipated sequel to a long standing franchise. It starred one of the biggest international stars of all time, Tom Cruise, leading an international cast. And the foreign markets it did open in included Moscow, Dubai, and Mumbai, all of which were used as shooting locations in the film. MI:GP was a veritable Dagwood sandwich of built-in audience, something that John Carter never had.

Taking that into consideration, MI:GP‘s opening weekend, both here and abroad, should swamp John Carter‘s right?  Wrong. Based on Friday to Sunday weekend grosses, they were about even.

MI:GP grossed $29,556,629 from December 23 to 25th, less than JC‘s $30,603,000 this Friday to Sunday. Overseas during its opening weekend, MI:GP grossed $69.5 Million compared to JC‘s $70.6 Million. Even with the discrepancies in theater counts and foreign markets, it’s pretty safe to say that the two films are just about even. But nobody ever took joy in deeming MI:GP a flop or a failure. No one wrote that film off as another Ishtar.

And the kicker? MI:GP‘s gross-to-date is a $688,784,000 combined foreign and domestic. if JC keeps on the same pace, that will mean it more than doubled the film’s $250 million budget. That, my friends, will make it a hit. Maybe not as big a hit in a cost-to-return ratio as the $145 million budgeted MI:GP, but a hit nonetheless.

But the know-it-all’s in the press really don’t want that to happen. I believe that’s why they were so in a rush to declare the film dead on arrival after a weekend where it made 40% of its budget back. Because if they declare the film a flop, people who read their columns and blogs will believe them, figure “why bother?’ and ignore the film. Then their premature damnation will become the truth.

I don’t really know if that will work this time, because the film has been getting extraordinarily good word of mouth from people who have seen it. It garnered a B+ Cinemascore rating from theatergoers. People who believed the negative, pre-release hype are surprised by how good the film was, and people who skipped the film because of the bad press are being swayed to see it. The film doesn’t really have that far to go to make a profit. I believe this might be a case of the media’s report of the film’s demise to be greatly exaggerated.

Josh Fox, the director of the 2010 Academy Award-nominated documentary Gasland that looked at the dangers posed by the process for recovering natural gas from the ground known as fracking, was arrested yesterday in Washington DC after he and a film crew attempted to record a public meeting of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment concerning the controversial procedure.

The Huffington Post is reporting that Republican Subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris (R-Md.) ordered Capital Hill police to remove Fox and his film crew over the protests of Democratic members of the committee including Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), the ranking Democrat. Huffington Post obtained and posted this video of the arrest.

Fox was charged with unlawful entry and released. The director has released a statement, which is below.

Gasland made a powerful argument that the process of fracking, which pumps a mixture of chemicals into underground shale beds in order to crack them open to release natural gas, is much more dangerous than the companies using the process will admit. Homes in many of the communities from the northeast area of Pennsylvania from where Fox is from are unable to use their own well water due to contaminants that have leaked into them from nearby fracking rigs. This is illustrated mosteffectively in the film by a man who can set his tap water on fire due to the unnatural flammable chemicals that are now in his well.

Although anyone can come and observe a subcommittee hearing, proper press accreditation is required to photograph or record them. Fox stated that he did attempt to obtain proper accreditation through Harris’s office, but his calls were not returned.

Huffington Post goes on to point out that these rules are very seldom enforced and that there were other options available instead of removal and arrest including the issuance of temporary credentials or at most the confiscation of the cameras. The outlet also quotes Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the ACLU in Washington,as saying-

Congressional committees routinely allow professional journalists to record hearings even when they don’t have official press credentials, and excluding a journalist because he doesn’t share the political views of the committee chair is outrageous. The Supreme Court has explained many times that censorship based on viewpoint is the clearest kind of First Amendment violation, and that seems to be what happened here.

It certainly seems as if Harris went above and beyond the means at his disposal in responding to Fox’s presence at the meeting, which certainly can lead to the appearance that the congressman looks as if he is trying to hide something about the committee meeting. Given that I live less than an hour from Fox’s own home, I am one of the thousands, if not millions of those affected by the issue of how fracking can pollute the surrounding groundwater. Billions of dollars are at stake in the fracking and natural gas industry and Fox did not make many friends with his film in both the industry and in the halls of government. It is hard not  to interpret Harris’s actions today as anything but retaliation.

Here is Fox’s post-arrest statement-

I was arrested today for exercising my First Amendment rights to freedom of the press on Capitol Hill. I was not expecting to be arrested for practicing journalism. Today’s hearing in the House Energy and Environment subcommittee was called to examine EPAs findings that hydraulic fracturing fluids had contaminated groundwater in the town of Pavillion, Wyoming. I have a long history with the town of Pavillion and its residents who have maintained since 2008 that fracking has contaminated their water supply. I featured the stories of residents John Fenton, Louis Meeks and Jeff Locker in GASLAND and I have continued to document the catastrophic water contamination in Pavillion for the upcoming sequel GASLAND 2. It would seem that the Republican leadership was using this hearing to attack the three year Region 8 EPA investigation involving hundreds of samples and extensive water testing which ruled that Pavillion’s groundwater was a health hazard, contaminated by benzene at 50x the safe level and numerous other contaminants associated with gas drilling. Most importantly, EPA stated in this case that fracking was the likely cause.

As a filmmaker and journalist I have covered hundreds of public hearings, including Congressional hearings. It is my understanding that public speech is allowed to be filmed. Congress should be no exception. No one on Capitol Hill should regard themselves exempt from the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states explicitly “Congress shall make no law…that infringes on the Freedom of the Press”. Which means that no subcommittee rule or regulation should prohibit a respectful journalist or citizen from recording a public hearing.

This was an act of civil disobedience, yes done in an impromptu fashion, but at the moment when they told me to turn off the cameras, I could not. I know my rights and I felt it was imperative to exercise them.

When I was led out of the hearing room in handcuffs, John Boehner’s pledge of transparency in congress was taken out with me.

The people of Pavillion deserve better. The thousands across the US who have documented cases of water contamination in fracking areas deserve their own hearing on Capitol hill. They deserve the chance to testify in before Congress. The truth that fracking contaminates groundwater is out, and no amount of intimidation tactics –either outright challenges to science or the arrest of journalists –will put the genie back in the bottle. Such a brazen attempt to discredit and silence the EPA, the citizens of Pavillion and documentary filmmaking will ultimately fail and it is an affront to the health and integrity of Americans.

Lastly, in defense of my profession, I will state that many many Americans get their news from independent documentaries. The hill should immediately move to make hearings and meetings accessible to independent journalists and not further obstruct the truth from being reported in the vivid and in depth manner that is only achievable through long form documentary filmmaking.

I will be thinking on this event further and will post further thoughts and developments.

I have been charged with “unlawful entry” and my court date is February 15.

Josh Fox
Washington D.C.
2/1/12

There’s not many genre fans in the United States who do not know of Kinji Fukasaku’s brilliant 2000 film Battle Royale. Which is surprising since it has never had an official release here. Although some retailers have carried imported versions of the film, most notably Tartan UK’s NTSC All-Region edition, no US distributor has dared pick up the film that features a class of junior school students in a near future society who are picked at random to compete in a contest where they must kill one another to survive.

But that’s changing as Anchor Bay has announced that they will be releasing the film on DVD and Blu-Ray on March 20. You can see the trailer below.

The timing of the release shouldn’t come as a surprise, really. Just three days after the Battle Royale hits store shelves, the film adaption of Suzanne Collins’s The Hunger Games opens in theaters. Although she claims to have not heard of the Fukasaku film or the novel by Koushun Takami upon which it was based when she wrote her book, Collins has been criticized by many for the striking similarities between the two. Whether a case of coincidence or not, Anchor Bay is looking to capitalize on the similarities here.

So shocking and controversial it was denounced on the floor of the Diet (the Japanese equivalent of Congress), Battle Royale is actually a savage critique of the Japanese education system and the national drive to succeed at all costs wrapped in the disguise of an action film. The students pretty much react the way they would in any high stress, highly competitive situation (like the Japanese public education system). Although some would try to dismiss the film as crass and exploitive, it does not take away from the damning statement of condemnation that Fukasaku was making.

Unfortunately, the film’s release was only a year after the Columbine High School shootings and no US distributor was going to touch the film. Still, word filtered about the movie through the film community and many it sought it out at occasional festival screenings and through imported home video.

Personally, Battle Royale was one of the first movies I screened for friends back in 2000 at what has become our traditionally weekly movie night. I had read about the film and managedto score a copy of VCD (!) in New York’s Chinatown. It was also one of the first non-Region 1 films I bought following my purchase of an All-Region/ PAL-Converting DVD player. Although I think some of the satire and commentary may be lost on audiences who are not versed in Japanese culture, none of the film’s power and drama are.

It’s been a eventful week for Brett Ratner and, by proxy, the Oscars A week that resulted in a complete overhaul of the Oscar telecast.

It all started last Friday when Ratner’s latest film, Tower Heist was released. Ratner participated in a Q&A after a screening. When asked if he rehearsed with the cast before shooting certain scenes, Ratner replied, “Rehearsal is for fags.”

The comment was picked up by all the entertainment news outlets, and a video of Ratner saying the slur was briefly uploaded to YouTube. This led Ratner on Monday to issue an apology to film blog, The Wrap:

“I apologize for any offense my remarks caused. It was a dumb way of expressing myself. Everyone who knows me knows that I don’t have a prejudiced bone in my body. But as a storyteller I should have been much more thoughtful about the power of language and my choice of words.”

The apology was timely but wasn’t enough. GLAAD issued the following statement:

“This apology is a good start, but we’re working with Ratner’s people for more action, to clearly send a message to Hollywood that the anti-gay slurs used by bullies and bigots have no place in the world of entertainment, or anywhere else.”

Apparently, the “more action” GLAAD was working for was Ratner stepping down as Oscar telecast producer, because that was what Ratner did the very next day.  Ratner once again released a statement, explaining why he stepped down.

An Open Letter to the Entertainment Industry from Brett Ratner

Dear Colleagues,

Over the last few days, I’ve gotten a well-deserved earful from many of the people I admire most in this industry expressing their outrage and disappointment over the hurtful and stupid things I said in a number of recent media appearances. To them, and to everyone I’ve hurt and offended, I’d like to apologize publicly and unreservedly.

As difficult as the last few days have been for me, they cannot compare to the experience of any young man or woman who has been the target of offensive slurs or derogatory comments. And they pale in comparison to what any gay, lesbian, or transgender individual must deal with as they confront the many inequalities that continue to plague our world.

So many artists and craftspeople in our business are members of the LGBT community, and it pains me deeply that I may have hurt them. I should have known this all along, but at least I know it now: words do matter. Having love in your heart doesn’t count for much if what comes out of your mouth is ugly and bigoted. With this in mind, and to all those who understandably feel that apologies are not enough, please know that I will be taking real action over the coming weeks and months in an effort to do everything I can both professionally and personally to help stamp out the kind of thoughtless bigotry I’ve so foolishly perpetuated.

As a first step, I called Tom Sherak this morning and resigned as a producer of the 84th Academy Awards telecast. Being asked to help put on the Oscar show was the proudest moment of my career. But as painful as this may be for me, it would be worse if my association with the show were to be a distraction from the Academy and the high ideals it represents.

I am grateful to GLAAD for engaging me in a dialogue about what we can do together to increase awareness of the important and troubling issues this episode has raised and I look forward to working with them. I am incredibly lucky to have a career in this business that I love with all of my heart and to be able to work alongside so many of my heroes. I deeply regret my actions and I am determined to learn from this experience.

Sincerely,
Brett Ratner

I’m sure that there are many who read the slur Ratner  used and said, “What’s so wrong about that? It just a word.” It seems obvious from Ratner’s sincere statement above that he did not intend it to be as derogatory as it turned out to be. But the slur in question compared a task that Ratner found no value in to homosexuals using an insulting term. Looking at it that way, it’s easy to see how Ratner’s words could hurt people.

Anyway, from there, it became a question as to whether or not Eddie Murphy would stay on as Oscar host. The conventional wisdom was that he would, but, as the Academy would find out the next day,  it turns out that Murphy and Ratner was a package deal:

“First and foremost I want to say that I completely  understand and support each party’s decision with regard to a change of  producers for this year’s Academy Awards ceremony. I was truly looking  forward to being a part of the show that  our production team and writers were just starting to develop, but I’m  sure that the new production team and host will do an equally great  job.”

The search for a new host would begin just as the search for a new producer was ending, as it was announced later that same day that Academy Award winning producer Brian Grazer would step into fill Ratner’s shoes.

The search for a replacement host last just over 24-hours as well as it was announced today by the Academy (and confirmed by Crystal himself via Twitter, just to prove he’s hip enough for the job) that eight-time host Billy Crystal will be returning for a ninth time hosting. The last time he hosted was in 2004.

While most of the message board posters have been a bit snarky about Crystal’s return (general consensus–he’s too old/not trendy enough), as a long time Oscar watcher and fan, I can tell you I am ecstatic about this.

Billy Crystal simply works well as Oscar host. Yes, he’s a comedian from the old school, but in this case, that’s not a bad thing. He’s one or two generations removed from the era of comedy where being a good master of ceremonies was an essential attribute. He knows how to keep a show moving, how to keep the viewers entertained, and how to keep the broadcast sharp. And he’s done job before! Eight times! He could probably do the show in his sleep! And, really, if you say you don’t think he’d be better than the Hathaway/Franco debacle of last year, I’ll say you’re lying.

In replacing the team of Ratner and Murphy with the team of Glazer and Crystal, the Oscars might have lost an element of hipness and danger. But it gained competence and skill in return. In my opinion, Ratner’s week of speaking without thinking is the best thing that could have happened to this year’s telecast. I’d be watching either way, but now I can actually look forward to the show instead of being cautiously optimistic.