Remakes of old movies are a staple of cinema, whether they be reimaginations of source material for the original (as in Tim Burton’s “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”), shot-by-shot translations of a foreign film (such as last year’s “Funny Games”) or a modern reimagining of the original (see last year’s “The Day the Earth Stood Still”).
Both films have significant barriers to overcome before achieving critical success...Now, two more classics are slated for remakes, Reuters reports. First up could be a new “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” movie from Fran Rubel Kuzui, director of the 1992 original. The problem with a new “Buffy” is that, while the original movie may not have stood the test of time, the character lived on in Joss Whedon’s “Buffy” TV series. That series went on to spin off another series (“Angel”) and spawned countless comics, novels and video games. According to Reuters, however, Whedon is not currently involved with the project, as Kuzui and her production company still hold the rights to the character, and the new movie would not involve the characters from the TV show. I can’t imagine fans of the series being pleased with further adulteration of the character who has become a cult legend.
This leaves many to wonder why filmmakers bother with them.Next up is a remake of Disney’s classic, “Flight of the Navigator.” In the 1986 original, a boy ends up 8 years in the future due to one of the most awesome alien ships of all time, then actually gets to drive the thing around for the better part of an hour, making him the envy of every boy who saw the movie. I wonder, however, if the charm of the original – a story about a young boy dealing with technological wonders beyond the imagination – would be lost on the technologically savvy youth of today. In the original, we were wowed by talking computers and unique interaction with electronics; less than two decades later, talking to machines (think automated phone systems) isn’t just common, it’s a mundane task seen as more of an annoyance than an exciting feat of modern technology.
Both films have significant barriers to overcome before achieving critical success, the most important being this: Most remakes never quite capture the success or capitalize on the redeeming qualities of the original. This leaves many to wonder why filmmakers bother with them. The answer is, of course, that they often do bring in money, and nothing is more important in Hollywood than cold, hard cash. [Reuters1, Reuters2]Branden Hart, TheSequitur.com's managing editor, works as an editor in San Antonio.
Of the four major broadcasting networks, three now own a stake in Hulu, the rapidly growing video streaming Web site. ABC (owned by Disney) announced Thursday that it is purchasing a 28 percent stake in the Fox (NewsCorp) and NBC Universal (General Electric) joint venture, according to the New York Times. ABC will be giving Hulu an exclusive license to air its shows on the Internet, such as "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives," as well as a perfunctory $25 million credit towards advertising on ABC broadcasts.
By some measures, Hulu is the second-most watched video streaming site, after YouTube. Whereas YouTube promulgates user-generated clips, Hulu offers copyrighted content that consumers would otherwise only encounter on their televisions. And now, Hulu has the right to offer even more.
Disney CEO Robert Iger claims that this move will not divert revenue away from ABC’s existing business, the Wall Street Journal reports. The idea is to take advantage of Hulu’s rising popularity and expand the audience for ABC and its cable channel affiliates (such as ESPN and The Disney Channel).
We used to just have to flip on the TV to see shows. Now, with the ability to fast-forward through commercials or download content off P2P sites, consumers are not behaving the way networks prefer. ABC’s move to further conglomerate Hulu reveals how networks are hoping to re-regulate consumer behavior. If they can make Hulu the new TV, consumers become predictable again, and networks stop hemorrhaging money to the Internet.
But no one seems to have told them the Internet and “predictable” just do not go together.
[NY Times, WSJ]
Jeff Dubbinis a TheSequitur.com senior editor.
Bono is a rock star, a humanitarian and a contributing columnist for the New York Times. His most recent column suggests, if I read it right, that our souls are redeemed through the ways we help “the many, not the lucky few.” He states that, “In the roughest of times, people show who they are. Your soul.”
People are my soul? Eww, get them off.
Especially if Bono is one of them. I don’t want that echo chamber of poetic license anywhere near my soul – and not because I do not like his music (I don’t). It’s because every time I peer into those signature Armani glasses, something deep inside me shudders. Maybe it’s my soul. And I’m not the only one who smells something funny underneath.
Being all ‘Bono’ about it cannot help any cause other than Bono...
I am in no way suggesting Bono does not do enough for the world. I even tend to agree with his stances on issues that plague the less fortunate and beset liberal sensibilities. Rather, I think he does too much, up to and including crafting a persona that oozes, “I am Bono and I am an important humanitarian.” Wouldn’t each minute he spent in Africa be even more amazing if he did not make such a big deal about being there?
Instead, he seems to believe that because some people like his music, everyone should assume his opinions are automatically well-conceived or important. I do not know why else he should try to pass off mere slogans as rational thought. Consider this line about foreign aid: “It’s not charity, it’s justice,” followed by absolutely no discussion of what the difference is, if indeed there is one, which is supposed to be better and why.
I admit he seems to have done much for others. But I cannot say he has done it with appropriate humility or glasses choice. Being all ‘Bono’ about it cannot help any cause other than Bono.
[NY Times, South Park]
Jeff Dubbinis a TheSequitur.com senior editor.
Last week, Susan Boyle became a worldwide sensation after displaying her gorgeous voice on the TV show “Britain’s Got Talent.” What are the odds of someone as sensational as her coming out of the show this week?
Pretty big, it seems. In the show's latest episode, 12-year-old Shaheen Jafargholi blew away the judges with his rendition of "Who's Loving You." But it wasn't smooth sailing for Shaheen – he was stopped by Simon Cowell in the middle of the first song he tried to sing, "Valerie," because, in Cowell's words, "You've got this really wrong."
Was the kid any good? Judge for yourself. I was floored. For a child of 12, Saheen has a brilliantly strong voice, and can carry a tune to boot.
It would be great to have a show here in the states focused on finding truly talented singers who just haven't caught a break yet. Until we get that show, I guess we're stuck with "American Idol."
When a group of conservatives recently tried to cobble together a Republican Party message – sending tea bags to Washington to remind them of the Boston Tea Party's rejection of unfair taxing practices, the message got a little gargled – I mean garbled. They called it “tea-bagging Obama.”
The idea was to inundate congressmen, White House officials, and really any liberal democrats on Tax Day with anti-liberal sentiment, in the form of tea bags. But all they succeeded in was demonstrating how out of touch they are.
“Tea-bagging,” anyone reading this on the Internet will know, has a very specific and sexual primary definition (no conventional dictionary even has the term as a verb). And yet, intrepid conservatives even tried to use Internet mediums such as Twitter to mobilize their campaign. Needless to say, that strategy backfired.
As an even greater irony, Boston patriots threw tea overboard rather than pay a tax on it; conservative protesters purchased already-made tea and paid a sales tax on it. These guys just can’t win.
It clearly demonstrates the disarray of the Republican Party and their lack of any coherent, unified voice. Anderson Cooper, discussing the matter with CNN Senior Political Analyst David Gergen (below), said it best: “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea-bagging.”
[Urban Dictionary, Twitter, Huffington Post]
Jeff Dubbinis a TheSequitur.com senior editor.
Who will portray Barack Obama in the announced HBO movie about the 2008 election? According to Variety, HBO has only optioned the script, which is an adaptation of a soon-to-be-released book by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. So the movie might not even come to pass. Also, the story is told from the perspectives of the various candidates, Entertainment Weekly reports – that way, even if all the behind-the-scenes footage will be made-up, at least it will seem real.
The movie will also portray Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John McCain and Sarah Palin. But before we ask if this movie should be made, a few other questions – and answers – have to be raised:
Q: Is TV really the appropriate venue to replay an event that consumed 90 percent of total TV capacity for the better part of six months?
A: It’s not TV, it’s HBO.
Q: Has enough time passed between the actual events and the writing of this movie to allow for appropriate journalistic perspective?
A: Sorry, I was watching Oliver Stone’s “W” when all of a sudden “Fahrenheit 9/11” came on…could you repeat the question?
Q: Which actor will play Barack Obama?
A: You ask as if there is a single person in Hollywood willing to stand between this role and an enraged Denzel Washington.
Q: Does the actor really have to be black?
A: Does the actor have to be male? Does he have to be a human being? Give me a break.
Q: Might the movie be a comedy?
A: Seeing as CNN milked all the drama out of the election already, and it can hardly be a mystery, it’s either going to be a comedy or action/thriller…and I am not sure the world is ready to see Hillary Clinton in a combat fatigues tank top.
Q: Will they manage to work in a way to have Bo the First Dog in it?
A: Enough about Bo Obama already! (This is Hollywood; that dog will be there, and it will probably talk as well.) [Variety, Entertainment Weekly] Jeff Dubbinis a TheSequitur.com senior editor.
A jury on Monday convicted music producer Phil Spector of second-degree murder in the death of actress Lana Clarkson, CNN reports.
Spector was accused of killing Clarkson at his Alhambra, California, mansion in February 2003. The actress was found dead of a gunshot wound through the roof of her mouth, according to CNN.
Was he really guilty?Spector, known for his “Wall of Sound” recording technique, may soon be staring at another wall: namely, that of his prison cell. His sentence, to be handed down May 29 of this year, could put him behind bars for 18 years to life.
Was he really guilty? While the jury has spoken, the evidence is there, according to CNN: the prosecution brought out five women who testified that Spector had pulled firearms on them, as well as a driver who “testified that he heard a loud noise and saw the producer leave the home, pistol in hand, saying, ‘I think I killed somebody.’ “
Seems like no glove is too tight to acquit Mr. Spector. [CNN]Branden Hart, TheSequitur.com's managing editor, works as an editor in San Antonio.
Fresh off the set of the upcoming movie “Zombieland,” in which he plays a scared survivor of an apparent zombie outbreak, actor Woody Harrelson was walking through La Guardia Airport with his daughter in tow when a TMZ photographer approached the pair. The photographer claims that Harrelson damaged one of his cameras and pushed him in the face, CNN reports (watch a video of the incident at TMZ).
Instead of claiming that the stress of being pursued by the paparazzi merely pushed him over the edge, Harrelson released a statement through his publicist according to CNN, saying, “I wrapped a movie called 'Zombieland,' in which I was constantly under assault by zombies, then flew to New York, still very much in character. With my daughter at the airport I was startled by a paparazzo, who I quite understandably mistook for a zombie.”
Since Woody has trouble telling the difference, here are some tips to identify whether you’re being followed by a zombie or a paparazzo.
Zombies do not carry cameras, which make it much harder to eat people.
Zombies tend to have a slow, shuffling gait not conducive to chasing around celebrities.
Zombies will not tell you to “chill out” and accuse you of “assault,” as the photographer does in the video.
Zombies tend to care about one thing: shamelessly feeding on people to satisfy their own selfish needs. The paparazzi, on the other hand…well, maybe this last one is more of a similarity than a difference.
[IMDb, CNN, TMZ]Branden Hart, TheSequitur.com's managing editor, works as an editor in San Antonio.
The Jewish holiday of Passover begins tonight. Passover is the week in which Jews do not eat bread, or anything with leavening in it, to remember that their ancestors were once slaves in the land of Egypt but escaped by such a hair's breadth that their bread did not have time to rise. Instead they ate matzo, which is a flat, bland, cracker-like wheat product dubbed "the Bread of Affliction."
What’s so bad about it? For one thing, everyone with a Jewish friend infuriatingly feels compelled to volunteer how much they enjoy matzo’s crunchy taste. And of course, there is also the way it grinds your digestive tract to a halt.
But most of all, there is the reminder of the Exodus from Egypt, recounted in the Hebrew Bible. Every firstborn Egyptian was slain by God, as the Bible describes, so that Egypt would end its enslavement of the children of Israel. After the escape, when these ancestors found themselves wandering the desert, there was a rebellion against Moses' authority; God opened the earth and swallowed the dissidents. The message rings clear – freedom is precious; if it were an omelet, crack as many eggs as necessary to make it perfect. That is, at least if you are all-knowing and all-powerful.
[Passover] seems to offer a relevant lesson to current global politics. That is why Jews celebrate Passover with a ritualistic meal called the Seder, in which participants symbolically lessen their cups of wine, dip foods in salt water, and eat painful amounts of matzo. (There is even a symbolic egg.) It is a reminder of the price of freedom. And it seems to offer a relevant lesson in current global politics.
That idea – that freedom comes with a hefty price tag – has reached political popularity with the rise of the neoconservative movement in America. These neoconservatives have even allied with Israel, a nation whose everyday freedom and very existence is threatened by surrounding enemies.
So is God a neoconservative? Or is the connection the other way around, that those who would have us stomach the high cost of freedom – for the sake of safety and for spreading freedom to others – are merely playing at godhood?
There is a difference: Jews lessen their own cups and defend their nation for the sake of their own freedom. That is the tradition and the triumph commemorated on this holiday. Forcing freedom on others, at costs they (or their God) do not decide for themselves, is hardly comparable. Given recent political realignments, perhaps many are currently learning this lesson on their own. But it is nevertheless a lesson others have already suffered to learn for us.
So to Jew and non-Jew alike: have a joyous and meaningful Passover.
[The Bible] Jeff Dubbinis a TheSequitur.com senior editor.
Has it really been three years since comedy entrepreneur Sacha Baron Cohen brought us "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan"? Sure enough, 2006 gave America (at least, the parts who weren't familiar with Cohen’s TV shows) the chance to meet his second of three characters, a culturally insensitive Kazakh whose unrepentant ethnic prejudice helps elicit the normally hidden intolerance of others. As for what "Bruno," the third of Cohen's character trilogy, will be like – well, we could speculate, but that's what previews are for.
His first character, Ali G, already got his film in "Ali G Indahouse," a scripted comedy (starring Cohen, Martin Freeman and Michael Gambon), which was released in the UK in 2002 but never made it to American theaters. His second character’s movie took the track of his TV shows, offering real interactions where only a costumed Cohen is in on the joke alongside scripted revelry. If the trailer (below) is any indication, the style of "Bruno" will be more like the blockbuster latter than the fledgling former. (And style is so important to Bruno, a fashion critic for fictional Austrian Gay TV, whose homosexuality is worn on his sleeveless mesh tank-top.)
Many are concerned, rightfully, about whether Cohen’s latest character-based post-absurd hijinks have anything to add to Hollywood’s marketplace of ideas that "Borat" hasn’t already thrust into our faces. Where Ali G’s ignorance would find quarter in unsuspecting dupes the way Borat’s prejuidice did, it is less clear what new insight Bruno can bring to bare.
But Cohen has shocked audiences before, and he may well do so again. With a preliminary NC-17 rating from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), as Entertainment Weekly confirmed, "Bruno" will not disappoint filmgoers in at least one respect: the amount of content not suitable for children.
Check out the new trailer below (but enter your birthdate first – it's not for those new to this world). The film is slated for release on Jul. 10, 2009.
[IMDb, Entertainment Weekly]Jeff Dubbinis a TheSequitur.com senior editor.
Morning Coffee is a collection of top-fold news, oddities, observations and wisecracks, peppered with financial advice, movie reviews and more, gathered by TheSequitur.com contributors and the editors of the magazine's Nation, World, Culture and Progress sections.
Culture 
.jpg)
