Fortune 500 Companies Liberals and Conservatives hate…

I enjoy lists.  Some say they’re a lazy way of filling up space or creating conversation (I guess they are guilty of that) but building lists has always fascinated me…so long as one realizes that it involves opinions and, like all opinions, there is no absolute “right” or “wrong”.

Having said that, this is one of the more fascinating lists I’ve run into in a while.  The headline above gives it away.  From Fortune magazine, we have…

Fortune 500 Companies Liberals and Conservatives Hate the Most

Going into the article and while trying not to give everything away (you should read it!), I could guess certain companies which might be on liberal hate lists.  Primarily, Walmart (due to their minimum wage/anti-union policies) and probably several oil companies (there were), and probably Wall Street/Banking related companies.  As for companies on conservative “hate” lists, Target was on it (perhaps due to their bathroom policies?!) as well as Freddie Mac and Fannie May (both of which have been derided plenty of times by conservative talking heads).

But forget about all that.

The main reason I pointed out this article is because of this:

Conservatives listed a dislike for Pepsi-Cola while Liberals expressed a hatred for Coca-Cola.

Really?!

While their dislike for either company isn’t “high” on their lists, it was most curious to see what conservatives and liberals felt regarding soda companies.  The big question is: Why would that be?  The article concludes with this:

Perhaps (the respective dislike for soda companies) has to do with their corporate colors. (Coke is red. Pepsi is blue.) Or maybe it has to do with the general political leanings of where the companies have been based. Coke is in the South. And Pepsi’s headquarters is in the Northeast. But for whatever reason, the Coke-Pepsi political divide is just another sign that when it comes to politics, commerce is less immune than ever.

Very weird.

I’m a liberal but I have to admit to finding it hard to build up any “hate” toward a soda company.

Then again, that’s just me.

Is Star Wars: Rogue One in trouble?

I’ll say this up front: I’m not a big Star Wars fan.  I’ve written many times before of how, as an 11 year old boy, I watched the original film in a full-to-the-brim theater in 1977 and perhaps a week or so after it was originally released…and while everyone around me went nuts while I just couldn’t get into the film (you can read more about that here).

I mention this only because I want to quickly add the following: Presenting this below information is in no ways meant to be me “gloating” regarding potentially bad news regarding Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (ROSW from now on).  As I’ve tried to make it painfully clear many times before, I have no problems with people having diverse opinions about works of art, be they books, movies, TV shows, etc. etc. etc.  Just because I like/don’t like something doesn’t mean I expect the entire world to follow my opinion and vice versa.

Having said that, let’s dive into the “controversy” surrounding ROSW.

Page 6 published the following article regarding ROSW on the May 30th:

Disney Execs In A Panic Over Upcoming Star Wars Film

The upshot of the article, written by Emily Smith, was that Disney Executives were “not fully satisfied with the first cut (of ROSW) from director Gareth Edwards” and that the film would have to “go back (for) four weeks of expensive reshoots in July“.

After a few days of rumors, Germain Lussier over at io9 provided an interesting summary of the information regarding the film and its potential reshoots up to that point:

More Details Have Been Revealed About Those Rogue One Reshoots

Then came this article which presented even worse news regarding ROSW.  Found on makingstarwars.com and written by Jason Ward, the article stated the ROSW reshoots might add up to as much as a whopping 40% of the film…

How Extensive Will the Rogue One Reshoots Be?

Amid rumors of new writers coming in to help work over the material (even that J. J. Abrams was going to have a more active role in overseeing the “fixing up”), there came this article from The Hollywood Reporter and written by Alex Ritman and Borys Kit which noted…

Star Wars: Rogue One enlists renowned stunt coordinator Simon Crane for reshoots

So, what are we to make of all this?

Again, I don’t for a second wish to be snarky or put down Star Wars fans.  While the franchise didn’t do much for me, I’m always curious about movie news such as this and I find the conclusions one can make regarding these bits of news fascinating.

This first conclusions one can make regarding these stories are the easiest: After Gareth Edwards finished his principle photography for ROSW and presented a rough cut of the same to Disney studio executives, they were clearly not happy with what he did.  Whether the executives are right or not, and I suspect Mr. Edward’s “cut” of the film will eventually make its way to home video, is irrelevant: The executives are paying the bills and if they feel the product is not “up to snuff” they have every right in the world to demand re-shoots, whether they involve 10% of the film or 40% or even 100%.  It’s their money and time and if they have each, they can do with it what they will.

There is, however, one other interesting conclusion one can draw from this and, I would hasten to say, it is my own conclusion and could very well be wrong: It appears there are several “loose lips” in this particular production and they’re not bothered at all with throwing Gareth Edwards under the bus.

The fact of the matter is that all these bits of information can’t help but make him, and his initial cut of the film, look bad.  With each new name floated out there being brought in to “fix” the movie, we’re left to think executives at Disney have lost faith in Mr. Edwards based on that original cut and, further, feel the need to not only bring in others but announce to the world they’ve brought in others to make things right.

The ultimate conclusions regarding ROSW will be made after it is released to theaters, of course, but think about this: If the film is a HUGE success and winds up beloved, those studio executives get to pat themselves on the back and say they saved a flawed/bad Gareth Edwards film from failure by bringing in all these others to help make the film “good”.  On the other hand, if the film “fails” both critically and commercially, these same executives, thanks to the rash of news released to this point, can point their fingers at Mr. Edwards and say “Well, we tried our best to save the film but there was just no way to save Gareth Edwards’ flawed work.”

Either way, it appears people out there are setting themselves up to create a win-win scenario for Disney and her executives and a lose-lose scenario for Mr. Edwards.

Woodstock, then and now…

One of the more iconic music events of the 1960’s was Woodstock.  The music festival was captured on film and a very popular album was released which featured many of the famous musicians and their acts.

This is the album’s well-known cover:

Music from the Original Soundtrack and More: Woodstock

Now check this out, a photograph of that same couple years later.  Yes, they’re still a couple!

If you’re curious, here’s an article by Bobbi Ercoline, the woman in the picture, stating how she came to find they were the source of that image:

That’s me in the picture: Bobbi Ercoline, 20, at Woodstock, 17 August 1969

Fun and fascinating stuff!

 

So this happened yesterday…

They dropped a new trailer for the “Ultimate Edition” of Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, and its chock full of new scenes:

I don’t want to once again get into my defense of the movie (as anyone who has come here regularly knows, I thought the film was terrific even as I acknowledged it seemed hacked up/disjointed at points, something I suspect this “ultimate” edition will resolve), but there was one comment on YouTube with this trailer by “fero player” which, if you’ll pardon me for doing so, I’ll reproduce here in its entirety:

Batman’s entire character arc in this film is about him becoming a hero again. He’s introduced here as the monster, the devil in the shadows. Taking down criminals not to save these women, but for a lead on Kryptonite so he can destroy Superman. The murder of Robin by The Joker and watching Superman’s battle with Zod destroy Metropolis has broken him. He feels powerless against a cruel world he can’t control any longer, and that rage has turned a good man cruel. He now kills to defend himself and other people, and brands the most heinous criminals to condemn them. Cold-blooded murder will be his final step. When he hears Superman use (what he thinks is) his dying breath to beg him to save his mother, he finally sees that he has become the villain. It’s not about their mothers having the same name. It’s about Batman realizing that he is no different than the monster who killed his parents and created him. In throwing down the spear and saving Superman’s mother, he also saves himself. Anyone who looks at that entire scene and sees nothing but a shitty Step Brothers meme, they wrote BvS off before it was even filmed. They already hated it because they didn’t like Man of Steel, or they don’t like Zack Snyder, or they don’t like the idea of DC having their own Cinematic Universe. God forbid that a film actually have subtext instead of lame quips and long-winded explanations.

I present the above because at its heart this is why I found BvS such a compelling movie.  In my original review, I stated the following:

…the Batman we see here is in a fever state.  He’s off his game and very flawed, locked in on the goal of ridding the world of the danger he feels Superman represents.  The more rational Batman we are accustomed to would have realized certain things were occurring and manipulations were being made but because of his rage, this Batman misses them…until it’s almost too late.

In my “second look” at the film, I wrote this:

…it was a surprise and delight the way the filmmakers dealt with the character of Batman/Bruce Wayne.  This was an original take on the character even as it used -and did not ignore- his previous history.  Here we have someone whose world-view has radically changed.  His anger and sense of outrage were inflamed by the events of Man of Steel (we witness that film’s conclusion through the eyes of Bruce Wayne in one of the film’s standout sequences) and this has changed him for the worse.  Batman is singularly focused on destroying Superman, who he views as a danger to mankind, and this singularity in focus makes him fall prey to being used by others…

As presented in the theatrical cut, our primary focus is indeed the story of Batman’s “fall” (his second origin, the conclusion of Man of Steel) and subsequent redemption.  As was mentioned in the first quote, Batman has taken a dark road and was in danger of becoming just like his parents’ murderer (this is why it was important to present, despite the fact that it has been shown so often before, the deaths of Bruce Wayne’s parents).

But what also intrigues me about this new trailer is that it appears Batman’s story was given more emphasis while Superman/Lois Lane’s was whittled down.  Look at the trailer again and you’ll notice many, perhaps most of the new sequences revolve around either Superman/Clark Kent and/or Lois Lane, including a larger African scene, what appears to be Clark Kent investigating Batman a little more, as well as Lois Lane doing the same regarding the African situation.

Was the focus on Batman’s story arc at the expense of a similar arc for Superman?

I wonder.

On 6/28 the Digital version of the film will be released and on 7/19 the BluRay appears.

I’ll be most curious to see it then.

21 Movie Sequels that took far too long…

…to make:

21 Movie Sequels that took far too long to make

Have to admit, I’m fascinated with the list.  For your convenience the list is presented in order and, therefore, the last movie on the list was the sequel that took the longest to make vis a vis the original.

I won’t spoil which film it is, but I’ll offer a couple of hints: That particular film’s sequel appeared a whopping 28 years after the original was released in 1982 and, even more interesting, actually featured the lead actors from the original film, though their roles were smaller in the sequel (gotta have young faces as the leads, I suppose).

I reviewed the sequel a while back and didn’t like it very much but, let’s face it, other than the original’s then-magnificent effects, the first movie wasn’t all that great to begin with either.

By the way, I agree with the inclusion of Superman Returns on this list.  It appeared 26 years after the last, Christopher Reeve starring feature, essentially ignored the events of Superman III and IV, and had a new actor (Brandon Routh) play the role of Superman.  This last bit, of course and very sadly, had to be done.

Thinking about Superman Returns fills me with frustration.  I really loved Christopher Reeve/Richard Donner’s take on Superman and still feel, despite its age and now dated effects, the first Superman film is the best superhero movie ever made.  Clearly director Bryan Singer (X-Men, Usual Suspects) also felt a great deal of love for that film and the proof of this fact is that Superman Returns is essentially a remake of the original Superman.

Unfortunately, it is a pale, dull, though admittedly reverent echo and could never be much more than that.  The question I had after seeing it was: Why see Superman Returns when I can see the far better Superman?  Talk about unnecessary!

In the end, Superman Returns could -and should!- have been a great “new” film and instead, because director Bryan Singer decided to make “his” version of the original Superman, it turned out to be a plodding remake.

What a missed opportunity!