Posted on August 19, 2011 at 3:59 pm
MSNBC has come up with a handy comparison chart showing the differences between the 1982 version of Conan the Barbarian (the character) and the updated version with “Game of Thrones'” Jason Momoa. One big difference — Momoa does not say this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PQ6335puOc
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 3:55 pm
2011 has more sequels and remakes than any year in movie history but it looks like the record will be broken soon. This year’s Smurf and Pirates of the Caribbean movies already have sequels underway. Mike Meyers has announced that he will make a fourth Austin Powers film, ten years after “Goldmember.” And now Ridley Scott has agreed to make a sequel (or possibly a prequel) to his own masterwork, “Blade Runner.” There’s a remake of “Wargames” in the works, too. On the other hand, tentative plans for sequels to “Sex and the City,” “I am Number Four,” and “Anchorman” are shelved. For now.
Posted on August 18, 2011 at 10:52 am
I have consistently criticized the MPAA for allowing the F-word in a PG-13 movie. It used to be limited to one non-sexual use of the term but now they allow it more than once in some PG-13s. It makes no sense at all. Either the word is acceptable for young children or it is not. Movie studios are cynical in manipulating the MPAA to get the rating they think will sell the most tickets. So they will throw a bad word into an otherwise-acceptable film so it won’t get a “babyish” PG rating.
Today I am quoted in a new piece in the Huffington Post by Glenn Whipp of AP about the use of the F-word in PG-13 movies.
“Allowing it once or twice just doesn’t make sense to me,” Minow says. “The word is something you’re OK with a child hearing or you’re not. And, still, in 2011, I’d argue that it’s outside the safety zone for children.”
The MPAA’s Joan Graves responded that she is open to revising the rules to prohibit the F-word if she hears from parents who object. If the language in PG-13 movies bothers you, get in touch with her at:
Joan Graves
MPAA Ratings Board
15301 Ventura Blvd., Building E
Sherman Oaks, California 91403
(818) 995-6600
filmratings@mpaa.org
Posted on August 17, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Dirty Dancing
She is speaking of cultural Judaism rather than theological or spiritual Judaism. Butnick says:
A week ago, I told Eleanor Bergstein, the writer and co-producer of the incredibly popular film Dirty Dancing, that when I first saw the film years ago, I hadn’t realized how heavily influenced it was by Jewish culture. She beamed, as she had the entire evening, and assured me it was a seriously Jewish movie. So Jewish, in fact, that none of the characters ever need to explicitly mention their Jewishness—they’re spending the summer at Kellerman’s resort in the Catskills, after all, and, Bergstein pointed out proudly, milk and meat are never served in the same scene. It’s a Jewish film, she explained, “if you know what you’re looking at.”
…
Calling Dirty Dancing “a very American film,” Bergstein described it as the story of a young girl who took her life in her hands and ran with it, no matter what it cost her. (As Carmon helpfully contextualized long before the screening, “The daughter of the first generation of American Jews to read widespread upper-middle class prosperity, if not elite cultural acceptance, she is swathed in a pre-Kennedy assassination liberalism.”)
Posted on August 15, 2011 at 3:55 pm
USA Today has an important article on new technologies for marketing to kids.
With the use of new, kid-enchanting technologies, are savvy marketers gaining the upper hand on parents? Are toy marketers such as Ganz, food marketers such as McDonald’s and kid-coddling apparel retailers such as 77kids by American Eagle too eager to target kids?
At stake: $1.12 trillion. That’s the amount that kids influenced last year in overall family spending, says James McNeal, a kid marketing consultant and author of Kids as Consumers: A Handbook of Marketing to Children. “Up to age 16, kids are determining most expenditures in the household,” he says. “This is very attractive to marketers.”
Children who play on websites like Webkinz are bombarded by ads. The article follows one girl who repeatedly clicks on an ad for Judy Moody and the NOT Bummer Summer, not because she has any interest in the film but because clicking on the link is the way she earns accessories for her virtual characters.
“We occasionally introduce limited-time promotions so that our Webkinz World members can enjoy fun, unique activities and events,” says Susan McVeigh, a Ganz spokeswoman.
That corporate doublespeak is appalling. The purpose of these “limited-time promotions” is so that children can be targeted for ads, and this is all within the context of a site that is itself an enormous interactive ad for Ganz. Parents should be aware of the new avenues for trying to sell to kids and should have continuing conversations with children and tweens about the way that marketing is designed to make them think they want things that are not really important. Or, in the case of the “Judy Moody” movie, to see movies that ARE a bummer.
