Slideshow Critique

I recently found a slideshow depicting the week of March 10th-17th 2011.  I enjoyed this slideshow because it depicts the events of the week very well, and in a way that expresses emotion, despite not having audio.  The saying “a picture is worth a thousand words”, while cliche, is also very true, especially when used in these circumstances.

The media elements included in this slideshow are still photos.  While the photos aren’t supplemented by audio, they are however supported by a variety of different links.  Depending on the photo, one can choose to follow msnbc pictures on Twitter, view video of the tsunami disaster in Japan, or view more photos regarding the conflict in Libya.

The reason why I like these elements is that they are effective in telling the story.  The information is available to users, should they want it, and the information available is relevant to that particular photo/news story.  I like that the choices aren’t all the same.  One choice links to an msnbc photoblog completely devoted to capturing the stories coming out of Japan.  A picture of Thai soldiers carrying children out of a violent area links to a photoblog on the site devoted to Thailand.  One powerful picture is hidden behind a wall that users must click in order to see; an editor’s note warns that the image contains graphic content (a man who has lost his life in Japan).

All in all, I thought the slideshow was done well.  It was simple but to the point, and captured the chaos that has been going on in our world this week.  I like the short, 10 photo format, and the fact that this is just one installment in msnbc’s photo series (there seems to be a slideshow for every week).  If I could make it better I might choose to include one of the videos in the slideshow instead of in the sidebar, as a way to shake up the format and keep viewer’s interest. The images were well chosen though, and held my attention, and I appreciated the fact that instead of bombarding me with pictures relating to one subject, there was a separate part of the site devoted to that topic, should I choose to continue.

Here’s a link to the photo blog for the week of March 10-17, 2011
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42136073/ns/news/displaymode/1247/?beginSlide=1

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Podcast

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nerd Project

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Slideshow Practice JMC 460

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The “Ice Man’s” Chilling Story Heads Toward Theatres

According to an article at screenrant, Mickey Rourke will play the notoriously violent mafia contract killer Richard Kuklinski, or, “The Ice Man”, based on the book of the same name.

The book, written by Philip Carlo, details how Richard Kuklinski rose up through the mafia ranks, and became one of the most notorious contract killers of our time, while at the same time living a seemingly normal, yet violently dysfunctional family life.

A NYPost article cites that producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura owned the rights to make a movie out of the book, but that these rights expired in August.  Carlo declined extending the rights to Bonaventura after their expiration because of his casting choice for the role, Channing Tatum.  And my keyboard applauds him for this decision.

This movie is still a little ways in the making, but I’m already excited for it.  For one, I own the book, and unless you have, it’s hard to understand just what kind of psychopathic killer this man really was.  It’s one of those things where, as you’re reading it, half of your thoughts are “Wow, this guy was just disgusting”, and the other half are “Wow, this would make a great movie”.  Luckily, when many books are signed for a publishing deal, the rights to a potential movie being made down the line are also sold.  Sometimes these deals can be a bad thing (Twilight).

But in this case…I think that a movie done about the life of “The Ice Man” would be a great movie to see in theatres.  Yes, it’s gruesome, (the book tells about his first murder, of a childhood bully using a closet pole), and at the same time fascinating as to how a human being can end up being so violent and cold.

I’m interested to see how the movie works out, and I think that Mickey Rourke is SUCH an amazing choice for the role.  Too bad for Channing Tatum, but there’s no reason that the star of Step Up, Step Up 2:The Streets, Fighting, G.I. Joe, and other “macho guys dancing” movies needs to play a guy who used to watch cartoons to get new ideas to kill people, including having them eaten alive by rats.  Thumbs up to Philip Carlo for standing by his book, and the true evil essence of “The Ice Man” in deciding who gets the rights to this movie. This movie will be dark, and hopefully, it will be good. My hopes are high.

Here’s a part of the HBO interviews Kuklinksi completed before his death, to give you an idea just what this man was about:

What do you think?  Have you heard anything about the “Ice Man?”, and do you think Mickey Rourke has what it takes to bring one of the most violent mafia contract-killers of our history to the big screen?

Posted in Studio News | Tagged , | 6 Comments

“Creation” movie unable to find US distributor

According to a statement released by The Telegraph, the movie Creation, will not appear in theatres in the U.S., since it was deemed “too controversial” for American audiences by the film’s producer, and was unable to find a distributor in the U.S.

The article released by The Telegraph cites a Gallup poll in which the findings show that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution, and details the debate started by Christian groups against the film’s release.

The Creation website describes the movie as “the powerful and true-life tale of Charles Darwin and the most explosive idea in history”, and details the story of how Darwin’s “On The Origin of Species” came to fruition, and how he dealt with the death of his young daughter and a dissolving marriage.

The film’s producer, Jeremy Thomas, is shocked that in 2009, over 150 years after Darwin’s original work was published, people are still against such a film due to its content.  He describes the film as being done in an “even-handed” manner, and says that Darwin “wasn’t saying kill all religion”.

I looked for a review of the movie on the Christian-based movie site, Movieguide.org, and was unable to find one.  Instead, I found a book review for a book titled, “Darwin’s Racists-Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow”.  Interesting.

The film will not be released in the U.S. but will, however, play in Canada, The UK, Greece, Belgium, Australia, The Netherlands, and New Zealand, starting September 25th in the UK.  The film was met with praise at this year’s Toronto Film Festival in Canada.

My question is this.  How can we have so many films in this country that show gratuitous violence, sex, and murder, but yet, we as a society cannot handle seeing a movie about a man’s story, and his life’s work, simply because religious groups deem it abhorrent and vile?  In my opinion, to think that seeing one movie is going to change everyone’s worldview and ideas about the nature of creation is just asinine.  If a person believes in their faith, in their God, and in their idea of how life started with enough certainty, a film about a man’s idea which contradicts popular religious thought shouldn’t be seen as so threatening.

This does, however, go to show the power that controversy in film carries.  With enough upheaval, groups can keep a film from being shown to the masses, even though they never intended on seeing the movie themselves.  Distributors, whatever their religious beliefs, can’t touch a project that is as hot as this one because of the backlash from those in the public who would rather nobody see a film which goes against their beliefs.  It goes to show how much influence these groups truly have on our society, and I’m reminded of the reaction towards Mel Gibson’s The Passion of The Christ, and how Christian groups petitioned and worked so hard to get that film seen everywhere that it could.  It’s funny how something as simple as a movie can spark such an anger in people, but if movies weren’t making us think or feel something, what would be the point of having them in the first place?

To what extent should religion and societal beliefs hinder controversial works of art, be it film, music, television, or any other medium?  What are your opinions on controversial films such as these, and would you see this film if it were to be released in the U.S. at some point?

Here’s a trailer for Creation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 41 Comments

“The Appearance of a Man” screening in Tempe

On March 13, 1997, what some have called the largest UFO sighting caught on tape took place over the Phoenix skies, in what is now known as the Phoenix Lights phenomenon.

Hundreds to thousands of people called in reported seeing a series of lights in the sky, flying in a V-shaped formation across the state.  The true cause of this phenomenon is still widely disputed to this day, from military explanations of training exercises, to devout eyewitnesses who continue to believe they witnessed an alien spacecraft.

This Friday, September 11, 2009 at the Tempe Valley Art Theatre, independent film director/producer Daniel Pace will investigate the nature of this phenomena, and the nature of ourselves with one of the limited screenings of his new film The Appearance of a Man.

The Appearance of a Man is a suspense/thriller flick that tells the tale of a man who appeared in Phoenix during the Phoenix Lights Mystery, and the series of mysterious events that follow his arrival.

I’m excited to see this film, because of it’s connections to Phoenix, and also because of my curiosity to see how Pace mixes elements of science, religion, and unexplained UFO phenomena into a cohesive and entertaining story.  I’m also a fan of the tagline of the film, which reads on the film’s website, “2000 years ago they called them angels, today they call them aliens”.

What about you? What do you think about the Phoenix Lights Mystery? How do you feel about films based around unexplained phenomena? And don’t forget to check out the trailer below:

Posted in Independent Film news | Tagged , | 10 Comments

Warner Bros. announces formation of DC Entertainment

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (WBEI) announced today the creation of a brand new entity in the entertainment industry, DC Entertainment.

The announcement states that the DC Comics publishing business will still be the foundation of DC Entertainment, but plans are in the works to further extend and build the DC franchise via feature films, television programs, interactive entertainment, and consumer goods.

The creation of DC Entertainment will mean that more DC characters will have the opportunity to make their way to the big screen without having to compete with other Warner Bros. projects.  Marvel Entertainment (which was recently bought by Disney), formed it’s own production company, Marvel Studios, in order to avoid such delays, which is why over the years we’ve been bombarded with so many movies inspired by Marvel characters (Spider-man, The Fantastic Four, Iron Man, X-Men, The Incredible Hulk, etc.) Let’s be honest, they weren’t always pretty.

As a fan of both movies and comic books, I’m interested to see the direction that WB decides to take with it’s new projects, and I hope they are done well, and with respect to the characters’ original creators, and the (almost) 75 years DC comics has been in the business.

The next major DC character set to make their way to the big screen is The Green Lantern, set to be played by Ryan Reynolds.

In the summer of 2008, both myself and the world was blown away by The Dark Knight, a Warner Bros. production.  In March of 2009, the “unfilmable” graphic novel Watchmen was brought to life by Warner Bros. on the silver screen. Both were DC-inspired films, and both were met with critical praise.

My hopes are high that the creation of DC Entertainment will bring even more quality movies to the big screen, and I honestly think that it was a smart business move on both Warner Bros. and DC’s part.  My only reservation or worry about the formation of DC Entertainment is that theatres will become even more over-saturated with campy, childish, or mis-represented comic book heroes by movies that are being made just for the sake of being made now that un-precedented access to 75 years of DC source material has been made available to Warner Bros.  I feel like this happened with some of the Marvel Studios projects.

What do you think? Does the formation of DC Entertainment mean that quantity will take precedence over quality? And which characters would you like to be brought to the big screen?

Posted in Studio News | Tagged , , | 41 Comments