Now I Am Getting Excited About ‘Avatar 2’

Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:57 pm

I just read something that made me very excited about James Cameron’s upcoming sequel to “Avatar.”  The first one was a leap forward in technology of 3D and motion capture (now often called “performance capture” to emphasize the contribution of the actors).  And now Cameron is making what I think of as an even bigger technological leap forward with the announcement that he is going to increase the frames-per-second (fps) rate.  Ever since the movies went from silent to sound, the standard has been 24 fps.  Interestingly, “The Artist,” this year’s silent, black-and-white release, was shot at a 22 fps rate, prevalent in the pre-sound era.  The only reason film-making has been stuck at 24 fps is that all the cameras and projectors are set up that way.  But increasing the fps makes the film images stunningly sharper, deeper, and richer.  Cameron has said he will shot “Avatar 2” at 48 and possibly even 60 fps, and Peter Jackson is shooting “The Hobbit” at 48 fps.  This is a much more significant improvement than 3D, especially post-production 3D, which has just been announced for “The Avengers.”

As home technology improves, with HD, bigger screens, and better sound, it is increasingly important for movie theaters to find ways to stay competitive.  If these films, certain to be blockbusters, can inspire more theaters to install projectors capable of giving ticket-buyers the 48- and 60-fps experience, they will raise the standard for all movies going forward.

Related Tags:

 

Trailers, Previews, and Clips Understanding Media and Pop Culture
Spoiler Alert: What This Week’s Two Big Action Blockbusters Have In Common

Spoiler Alert: What This Week’s Two Big Action Blockbusters Have In Common

Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:37 pm

Just in time for the holidays, two huge Hollywood action films are arriving in theaters.  One is set in Victorian times and one in present-day.  But they have more in common than mysteries, chases, explosions, trains, and meaningless after-the-colon titles.  They both star actors from the superb Swedish “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” series, just as the American remake with Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara is about to open next week.  In “Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol” Michael Nyqvist plays a brilliant scientist after some nuclear launch codes.  In “Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows,” Noomi Rapace plays a gypsy looking for her missing brother.

The movies have something else in common — a remarkable similarity in the aspirations of the villains.  They may be a century apart but their outlook and their dastardly plans are very similar.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence but I don’t think there was any copying involved.  I think both are a reflection of current concerns about world affairs while general enough to be fun-scary, not scary-scary.  When you see them, let me know what you think!

 

 

Related Tags:

 

Spoiler Alert Understanding Media and Pop Culture

Lowe’s Public Relations Mess over “All-American Muslim”

Posted on December 12, 2011 at 11:31 am

All-American Muslim” is a TLC reality show about five Muslim families in Dearborn, Michigan.  According to TLC, “Each episode offers an intimate look at the customs and celebrations, misconceptions and conflicts these families face outside and within their own community.”  The hardware and home improvement chain Lowe’s, one of the advertisers originally supporting the show, has cancelled its commercials because after the Florida Family Association complained, saying the program is “propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values.”  They are urging all advertisers to drop their affiliation with the series.

My friend Christian Toto thoughtfully reviewed “All-American Muslim” for the conservative website Big Hollywood and did not find what the FFA charged:

At times, the show feels like an extended public relations video for hardworking Muslims to show their fellow citizens they have nothing to fear. But “All-American Muslim” is honest enough about some less flattering components of the Islamic faith to keep our respect. And watching an Irish-Catholic family merge peacefully with a Muslim clan reminds us our differences truly can make us stronger – no more how treacly that might sound.

What’s more, “Muslim” makes the case that American culture can have a positive effect on a religion which has festered in some repressive societies. The families of “All-American Muslim” have incorporated the best of their own religion with their American roots.

In responding to the shrill attack from a small group  of activists to try to avoid controversy, Lowe’s has only made it worse.  A state senator from California has called for them to apologize for what he calls “naked religious bigotry.”  Music executive, social activist, founder of a center for inter-racial and interfaith harmony (and brother of a pastor) Russell Simmons has said, “this is the kind of hate that tears this country apart.”

Lowe’s response: “Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lightning rod for many of those views,” the statement said. “As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance.”

As a Muslim poster wrote on Facebook, even Muslims who did not care for the show will watch it now.  In attempting to silence the program, the FFA has only generated more interest and support for it.  In attempting to appease one group of extremists, Lowe’s has infuriated a broader group and found itself better known at this moment for the controversy than for its products and services.  A shame that all of this was generated from a television program intended to promote tolerance and understanding.

 

Related Tags:

 

Advertising Television Understanding Media and Pop Culture
The TV Preferences of Republicans and Democrats

The TV Preferences of Republicans and Democrats

Posted on December 11, 2011 at 3:43 pm

Entertainment Weekly commissioned a study showing political differences in television-watching and they are so pronounced it provides some explanation of the increasing polarization and partisanship of our political conversations.  In the early days of television, Marshall McLuhan famously called it the “Global Village.”  With so few choices available to watch, we all saw the same programs and that created a common framework and vocabulary, whether it was “The Ed Sullivan Show” or “I Love Lucy.  But the range of choices has led to such disparity in our sources of information and entertainment that television now separates us more than it brings us together.  EW asked people who described themselves as “liberal Democrats” or “conservative Republicans” to list the television programs they liked and didn’t like, so the results are intentionally focused on the extremes, and the survey excluded news, sports, and music.

Are you surprised by any of these?

Liberal Democrats like “The Daily Show” and “Masterpiece” and generally picked comedies,  highly verbal shows like “30 Rock,” “The Office,” “Modern Family” and “Saturday Night Live” more than the conservative Republicans.  They don’t like “Dog the Bounty Hunter” and “Cops.”

Conservative Republicans like “Castle,” Jay Leno, and cable reality shows like “Swamp Loggers” (one of the liberal Democrats’ least favorites).  They don’t like anti-hero shows like “Weeds” and “Dexter” and left-leaning political comedy shows like “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report.”

Encouragingly, if a little predictably, both sides like “The Middle.”

Less encouragingly, this data will be used to determine where political advertising dollars are spent, which promotes even less overlap in world view and understanding between the extremes on both sides.

 

Related Tags:

 

Television Understanding Media and Pop Culture

Why Fox is Wrong About the Muppets

Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:00 am

Fox news caused a stir when Eric Bolling accused the new Muppet movie of promoting a left-wing agenda because the villain in the movie, played by Chris Cooper, is in the oil business.

Nonsense. There’s no agenda here.  This charge shows a stunning ignorance (or intentional disregard) of the basic facts of film-making — and of capitalism.  The budget for this movie was around $50 million, which could only be undertaken as a matter of pure business.  The movie was made by Disney, one of the biggest corporations in the world.  They made the film for the most capitalistic of reasons: to sell tickets, DVDs, MP3s, and Muppet toys, lunchboxes, toothbrushes, and anything else they can associate with Kermit, Miss Piggy, and their friends.  They don’t want to offend anyone.

But it’s true that a lot of movie bad guys are corporate.  As I wrote earlier, corporations are convenient bad guys for movies because they are big, faceless, institutional, and offend no cultural sensibilities.  I explained on the Ebert show that is not because of any political agenda, however.  Most movies are made by corporations.  Corporations want to make money, and if that means making a corporation the bad guy, that is what they will put in movies.  It’s been going on since the silent movie days through films like “The Apartment” and “Resident Evil.”  That same capitalistic zeal just might just be why Fox, a part of News Corp., decided to try to make Muppets the villains, too; taking on the universally beloved Jim Henson creations attracts attention.  But it’s worth noting that another portion of News Corp., is in the movie business.  Bolling might want to check out the portrayal of the corporate world in films like “Shame,” “I (Heart) Huckabees,” “Fast Food Nation,” and “Rise of Planet of the Apes.”

Be sure to check out the Twitterverse response on this issue, with the hashtag #GOPMuppethearings.  I like this one from dvnix:

“Mr. Grover, can you tell me WHICH one of these things is not like the other and why? Please remember you’re under oath.” #GOPMuppetHearings

 

 

Related Tags:

 

Understanding Media and Pop Culture
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2026, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik