Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, DIY/Filmmaking

Near the end of the closing credits for Clint Eastwood's new Gran Torino is a disclaimer that caught my attention. It reads as follows:

"No person or entity associated with this film received payment or anything of value, or entered into any agreement, in connection with the depiction of tobacco products."

In other words: Some of the characters smoke in this movie, but that was our choice. The tobacco industry didn't pay us off.

According to the site Smoke Free Movies, which makes some excellent points but tends to go overboard (they think any film with smoking should automatically be rated R), the disclaimer is a recent addition to Warner Bros. products. It started appearing on Warner DVDs of movies that contain smoking at the beginning of 2008, and was added to smoky theatrical releases this fall. Gran Torino was the first time I'd noticed it, but I don't always stay for the credits.

The site also reports that Universal Pictures (at the behest of its parent company, General Electric) has started including a somewhat weaker disclaimer on its movies that contain smoking: "The depictions of tobacco smoking contained in this film are based solely on artistic consideration and are not intended to promote tobacco consumption." Note that they don't say they weren't paid off by the tobacco industry, only that they didn't intend for it to encourage people to smoke.

Continue reading Just FYI: The Smoking in 'Gran Torino' Was Done for Free

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Action, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Deals, Warner Brothers, Celebrities and Controversy, 20th Century Fox, Newsstand, Comic/Superhero/Geek

Watchmen is not going to end 2008 on a high note. According to The Hollywood Reporter, a lawyer for 20th Century Fox has said that the studio will seek an order delaying the release of the film. Ever since Fox first filed its suit, Watchmen fans have been panicked that the film's legal woes would delay its March 6 release. Seriously, Fox, don't you just want some money? A nice chunk of money? Don't kick the Watchmen when they're down.

Though the judge ruled in favor of Fox on Christmas, agreeing that Fox retained copyright on the film, he now plans to hold the trial as planned on January 20th. Warner Bros finally spoke out about the messy situation, via their lawyer, and said that he didn't know if the studio would appeal, but that trial was necessary, and a settlement was "unlikely."

So, despite that the scales of justice are tipped in Fox's favor, Warner Bros refuses to blink and agree to a payoff. Considering that Paramount already has the international distribution rights, they don't want to lose any more of the box office pie than they have to. Cue the theme to The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and we'll keep you updated as this case drags into 2009.

Question: At what point do nerdy fanboys begin bombarding 20th Century Fox with nasty hate mail?

Permalink | Email this | Comments

The BBCs adaptation of the classic Charlotte Bronte novel Jane Eyre was such good television that I just had to purchase the DVD and watch it again and again. I have not been that absorbed in a programme since the BBC’s adaptation of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice in the mid 90s. Jane Eyre is set in Victorian times and tells the story of a young woman named Jane (Ruth Wilson). Jane has not been treated kindly by life. Her parents died when she was a child and she was sent to live with her cruel aunt, Mrs Reed (Tara Fitzgerald), who possessed no kind feelings for her and sent her to live at Lowood school for girls. (more…)

Filed under: Action, Comedy, Independent, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Family Films, Cinematical Seven, Comic/Superhero/Geek

The Motion Picture Association of America does a few other things too, but its most visible impact on movie-going is its ratings system. G, PG, PG-13, R, or NC-17, you gotta have a rating for your movie if you want most theater chains to show it, and the MPAA's secretive clan of breast-counters and violence-ignorers decides which label its gets.

An overwhelming majority of films get the rating they deserve -- or, at the very least, a rating that's consistent with how the MPAA has rated other films with similar content. But some MPAA decisions are baffling, illogical, or just plain outrageous. Here are the ones that perplexed us the most this year.

The Worst MPAA Ratings of 2008

1. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (rated PG for "epic battle action and violence"). The MPAA says, "The ratings are intended to provide parents with advance information so they can decide for themselves which films are appropriate for viewing by their own children." It's all about parents looking out for their kids. So how in the name of C.S. Lewis did this film -- rife with stabbing, throat-slitting, decapitating, and large-scale slaughter, much of it perpetrated by teenage characters -- get a PG? Does the fact that most of the violence is bloodless (and therefore not realistic) somehow make it family-friendly? Had there been even one sexual reference, it would have gotten a PG-13. Thank goodness Disney only packed the film with killing instead!

Continue reading Cinematical Seven: The Worst MPAA Ratings of 2008

Permalink | Email this | Comments