Thursday, October 25, 2012

To the Left

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/25/pro-obama-movie-to-get-anti-obama-ads/

Anti-Barack Obama ads will be played during a pro-Obama movie airing on National Geographic. The movie, which is a Weinstein production, is an overexaggeration of Obama's role in the murder of Osama bin Laden. The movie team was forced to cut part of the movie that showed Mitt Romney against the murder of this heinous criminal.

This caught my attention because it is more political lies on the left-wing side. Many are aware of what goes on on the right, but the same people are nearly oblivious to the fact that all the same things that happen on the right also happen on the left. It fascinates me how much politicians skewer the truth.

As a student, this helps me understand that neither political party is very satisfactory, and that I should be aware of corruption on both sides of the spectrum. As a filmmaker, this article tells me that biased work can still be made even if I personally disagree with it. As a consumer, it alerts me to the fact that I have to be wary of all the lies flung at me from both political parties.

A disconcerting question this article raises for me are how much integrity the movie business has. Are all films slightly biased, whether political, social, or otherwise? Another question I have is how involved Obama was in the creation of this film. Was it his intention to exaggerate the truth? Hopefully this last one gets answered soon.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Carrie Remake?

First Teaser Trailer for Carrie Remake: Watch Now

The teaser trailer for the remake of the infamous Stephen King based movie Carrie has been released. In the trailer, burning buildings are shown along with a blood-covered Chloe Grace Moretz, the star of the remake. The film is about a troubled young teen who realizes she has telekinetic powers. A series of events leads to inevitable bloodshed and destruction. The movie is set to premiere in 2013.

This is big news because the original book and the first film, which premiered in 1976, were both highly successful. This resurgence of a classic horror film will draw people young and old to witness the reinvention of the movie. It also shows the tendency for production companies to lean toward remakes of films.

I am thrilled as a filmmaker to see how director Kimberly Peirce recreates this epic horror film. Will she keep faithful to the old, or will she go out of her way to make it unique and different? As a consumer, I am also ecstatic to see a remake of one of my favorite horror movies of all time (and no, it's not just because they filmed a lot of it at my elementary/middle school). I want to see Chloe Grace Moretz shine once again. As a student, I look for things that enable me to do more things with new people, and going to see Carrie with some friends is a perfect way to socialize.

This article makes me wonder if it can live up to the standards of the first movie. Is it a mistake to make a remake of such an iconic horror movie? Are remakes in general mistakes? Just some things to ponder.

Even though I have some doubts, nothing will stop me from seeing this reinvention of Carrie!

Monday, October 8, 2012

"'The Dog Ate My Homework' Just Doesn't Cut It When You're Running For President"

Mitt Romney Declines to Participate in Nickelodeon's 'Kids Pick the President' Special

Is this really happening? Mitt Romney has once again offended the younger generation of Americans by declining the invitation to participate in the traditional Nickelodeon "Kids Pick the President" special. This is the second time a candidate has refused to answer the questions that were written by the kids of America, with the other candidate being John Kerry in 2004. This announcement came just mere days after Romney's pledge to cut PBS spending at the 1st Presidential Debate on Thursday, October 4th. On the other hand, the Obama campaign eagerly invited the Nickelodeon crew to the White House in order to have President Obama to answer the kid-written questions. When asked about their opinion on Romney's decision to skip over the special, the Obama campaign said, "It’s no surprise Romney decided to play hookey. Kids demand details, and I’m sure they want some answers on why Romney could increase their class sizes, eliminate their teacher’s jobs, raise taxes on their families and slash funding for Big Bird. Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, ‘The dog ate my homework’ just doesn't cut it when you’re running for president."

This is significant because it influences the way the American public perceives Mitt Romney. If he had taken half an hour to answer these questions, he would not have gotten more criticism for his campaign. However, he did skip it, and now he is taking more heat for his poor choices in judgment despite his obvious win at the debate.

As a student and fellow kid invested in politics, I do not see why this was such a big deal for Romney to do, and I find it disappointing that he declined to do such a standard part of the presidential campaign. I look forward to the Nickelodeon special, and it's going to be hard for him to get the kids' usually spot on vote when he doesn't even participate in the special. As a filmmaker, I would want every part of each member's campaign on screen so I can see the facts for myself instead of hearing them from other people. As a consumer, I want to see as much as I can of each candidate's standpoint, even through something as simple as a Nickelodeon TV kids special. This was an important opportunity missed by former Governor Romney, and I think that it is something he will truly regret when he looks back on his campaign whether he wins or not.

This makes me ask the question of whether Romney takes the kids of America seriously. Does he believe that this TV special was not as important as other parts of his campaign? If so, why does he feel this way? I do not understand why he would skip something as simple as this. Hopefully, we will hear a statement from the Romney campaign soon about the reasoning behind this.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Politicans Making Contradictory Statements? Yawn.

Mitt Romney Says 'I Love Big Bird,' But Threatens PBS Funding Cuts in Debate

Mitt Romney declared that he wants to cut back government funding for the popular Public Broadcasting Service, or PBS, at the Presidential Debate on Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012. Whether it was intentional or on accident, this was a direct insult toward the moderator of the night, Jim Lehrer. Lehrer is most well-known for his former role as an anchor on PBS's NewsHour, a program that would be directly affected if Romney is serious about cutting the network's funding. After the blunder, Romney corrected himself by saying, "I like PBS. I like Big Bird. I like you too." This blunder was one of the few in the debate that went unfavorably for the Governor. On the contrary, most consider him to have won the debate against acting president Barack Obama, something that was unexpected and pleasing to some.

If Romney becomes President of the United States, this will have a profound effect on the PBS network. The lack of millions of dollars of funding for the channel will lead to its possible failure in the television world. The network has been around since 1970, and change to this standard channel will completely shift the television world. This news is extremely important for the future of network television.

As a former broadcast journalism student, I look towards NewsHour and other PBS shows as an example to better my journalism skills. Without these programs, part of my continued education will be ripped from me. As a filmmaker looking into television as a career, this could affect the options available to me when I enter the industry. I do not want to lose these opportunities, so the government cuts could have a significant effect on me if television is where I decide to go. Also, as a consumer, I do not look forward to losing shows like the NewsHour for me and Sesame Street for my 5-year-old sister.

This makes me wonder how much influence the government has on the film and television industry. Can they snap their fingers and make networks or production companies disappear? What would this mean for the future of some certain companies that depend on the government for money like PBS? My only hope is that PBS can continue despite this potential setback in funding for them.