J. Edgar

Clint Eastwood is attached to direct a feature about famed FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover. Leonardo DiCaprio is currently attached to play Hoover. Armie Hammer, of Social Network fame, has been cast to play Clyde Tolson – Hoover’s right-hand man and secret lover. The script was penned by Oscar-winning writer Dustin Lance Black.

Black, who is gay himself, did a phenomenal job portraying a controversial, homosexual government official in Milk. He wrote about Harvey Milk’s political insurgence and courage in advocating gay rights during the 70s. Hoover’s story gives him an opportunity to construct a narrative about gay rights during the 40s, 50s and 60s which were much more restrictive times for homosexual officials.

The difference between the two stories though is that Milk was openly gay, whereas Hoover never came out of the closet. He is, however, popularly regarded as being at least bisexual. There are numerous rumors of him being a cross-dresser and also sexually involved with his partner, Tolson.

It’ll be interesting to see how Black portrays Hoover. Imagine will be producing along with Warner Brothers. The movie’s due for a 2012 release. 

Texting, Social Media, and other way to avoid actually hearing people’s voices

 

It’s almost 2011 and a lot has changed in this short decade. But I think the most prolific changes to our lifestyles have come in the form of technological advances; advances that have made communicating with each other quicker and easier. However, progress often comes at a cost. And in this situation, the cost is personal interaction. No doubt, texting and Facebook have made staying in touch with your social sphere only a finger’s length away, but at this rate, we’ll be breeding socially inept children that lack the ability to make real emotional connections.

If you can remember all the way back to 2000, people were still calling each other when they wanted to talk. But now, it’s almost become a social faux pas to pick up the phone and actually dial somebody. Texting is the new preferred method of communication, at least among younger generations. Even older crowds have superficially tried to embrace the trend. I often get texts from my dad, and they usually make no sense. Dad, if you’re reading this “? r u” can mean “where are you?” or “how are you?” Just type it out, its only two more keystrokes.

But the real menace of texting is what it’s done to the way we communicate. It has caused us to reconsider what constitutes the most socially desirable means of communication. These days, texting your friends has become almost like a passive-aggressive contest. A text communicates just enough of what you want to say, without appearing over-zealous. The mentality is: why try harder than you have to? No one wants to be friends with people that try too hard. This, unfortunately, has become the new norm.

Beyond the texting world lays the final frontier of communication media: social networking. Facebook has perfected what Myspace started in 2003. And with the added Facebook Chat feature, users can instantly chat with their friends on the world’s largest social network. It’s gotten so big that they even made a movie (The Social Network) about the little geniuses behind the master scheme. So why are people obsessed with Facebook? I think the reason is because they’re able to construct their identities as they want others to perceive them. You can pick and choose the photos you’re tagged in, post your favorite music to the news feed, and write about what you’re doing. The new “check-in” feature also makes it possible for you to let everyone know where you are. Also, people just love talking about themselves, and Facebook makes it possible to tell your network almost every single thing about you: interests, activities, favorite music/movies/TV shows, education, work information, etc. It’s scary how much I know about people I’ve barely talked to.  

Another thing Facebook has done has made it almost impossible to tell an original story in a face-to-face conversation. When your whole life’s floating around on the interwebs, your friends generally know of any recent developments in your life. When I see my friends, I try not to, but often find myself starting sentences with “I saw on Facebook that…” or “Remember on Facebook Chat you told me…” It’s like every real conversation young people have these days is just a supplement of something happening in cyberspace. Sites like Facebook have empowered the masses to have social lives without ever having to actually socialize.

The definition for the term “socialize” has also evolved over the past decade. To socialize used to mean you would go out to meet and talk to people. But with the development of different technologies, the definition has also evolved. Socializing with people these days includes everything from face-to-face interaction to the ultimate form of impersonal communication: the tweet.

I will, however, concede that these technological advances do have upsides. Texting is quick and easy. The textor doesn’t have to worry about the textee being in class or at work, where he/she wouldn’t be able to answer the phone. Also, a text skips the conversational foreplay and gets straight to the point – I can respect that. Facebook makes our lives easier too. It’s like having an email center, instant messaging service, event-planner, and birthday rememberer all in one package. It also gives people who are shy or socially awkward a chance at forming (somewhat) real connections with other people. Ideally, Facebook should not replace your social sphere, but supplement it in a beneficial way. At our core, humans are social animals. In order to lead a fulfilling life and avoid becoming a sociopath, you need to be able to create and maintain real relationships.

The problem arises when these media are over-used – which is especially common in younger generations. The growing concern is that the endless distractions of texting, Facebook, and other media are diverting kids away from their studies. When I was a kid, the only options I had when I got home were TV and homework. It’s pretty easy to regulate what your children are doing when those are their only choices. However, today’s parents have to worry about kids wasting time not doing their homework by watching television, constantly texting each other, and surfing the web. And since a lot of their work is done on the computer these days, making sure they’re actually doing anything has never been harder.  The endless distractions on the internet cause these kids to lose focus on their work as they try to juggle their social lives and schoolwork every day. Some people call this multitasking, I call it ADHD.

What we really need to find is that delicate balance between verbal and nonverbal communication. Tomorrow’s workplace needs savvy employees that are good communicators on both a technological and a personal level. The most successful Gen Y-ers will be the ones that can effectively strike this balance.

No matter the drawbacks, technology is not slowing down anytime soon. But I think we should take a lesson from Hollywood’s new 3-D craze and promote 3-D communication, in the form of more face-to-face time – before 3-D Facebook comes around and no one goes outside anymore. So get away from that screen and go meet someone for coffee.

The Next Big Action Star

Two years ago, Jeremy Renner was best known as “that guy from S.W.A.T.” After earning an Oscar’s Best Actor nomination and starring in this year’s Best Picture, The Hurt Locker, his career has taken off.

The 39 year-old starred in the Ben Affleck thriller, The Town (which is getting considerable Oscar buzz) and is currently filming Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol in Dubai. Renner will be starring opposite Tom Cruise in the J.J. Abrams-produced, Brad Bird-directed thriller. In fact, several pundits have started calling Jeremy Renner the “next Tom Cruise.”

Renner will also star in The Avengers alongside Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Downey Jr. and Scarlett Johansson. Renner will play Hawkeye, a bow-and-arrow wielding superhero. The Avengers is set for a 2012 release. The actor looks and plays much younger than 39, not that it should affect his acting. Tom Cruise is 48 and he’s still doing his own stunts. As long as he makes the right career choices, I believe Renner will be one of the biggest stars in Hollywood in 5 years. 

Daniel Day Lewis is Lincoln

Last week, it was announced that Daniel Day-Lewis would be staring as President Abraham Lincoln in the upcoming Steve Spielberg-directed biopic. Liam Neeson was originally set to star, but after being attached to the project for a while, he decided to drop out. And when he stepped down, Spielberg figured, “Who better to play America’s 16^th president than another big-nosed Irish dude?”

Jokes aside, I do think DDL will do a phenomenal job as Honest Abe. Day-Lewis is notorious for being extremely picky with his roles. The guy does a movie like every three years. He’s only been in 19 films total since his first role as “child vandal (uncredited)” in 1971’s Sunday Bloody Sunday. He’s also earned two Best Actor Oscars, for My Left Foot (1989) and There Will Be Blood (2007).

Lincoln was scripted by Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Tony Kushner. Spielberg will helm the feature and production is set to begin in fall 2011. Spielberg is also committed to directing Robopocalypse (which is about exactly what the title implies), but will do Lincoln first. Disney’s Touchstone Pictures will release the picture in late 2012.

Potter takes over the world box office

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Pt. 1 opened to slightly over $125 million this weekend, making it the 6^th largest 3-day opening of all time. The films also raked in $205 million from international showings, putting its global total at a staggering $330 million already. And since Warner Bros decided to make the first film into two, they’ll be making similar, if not bigger numbers with the second installment (which is due for a June 2011 release).

The franchise that made J.K. Rowling a billionaire has grossed over $5.4 billion dollars at the box office. The lowest grossing film (but my personal favorite) was the Alfonso Cuaron-directed Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the third one in the series), which still made $795 in worldwide box office. Most of the other films have been in the $900 million range. Will HP7-1 be the one that finally breaks a billion? If not, HP7-2 surely will, since everyone wants to see how the series ends. This was a smart move from WB, essentially making double the money with one production (both films were shot at the same time). And since HP7-2 will be in 3-D, I think the 25% up-charge will boost the gross to over a billion dollars.

With all the money these films make, you would assume WB is really raking in the dough. But the net profit is not as large as you would think. WB never released HP7’s budget but claimed it was “less than $250 million” which means it was probably $250 million. A movie of this magnitude also requires a marketing budget of at least $60 million. This puts the total at roughly $310 million. The studios keep half of all box office grosses and the other half goes to the exhibitors. So for WB to recoup this $310 million, the movie has to gross $620 million (which shouldn’t be too much of a problem). But WB is notorious for creative accounting, which shows it losing money on a lot of these big budget cash cows. The fifth film, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007), grossed $938 million worldwide, but WB still claims it lost over $160 million on it.

Still, WB can't deny the Potter franchise has been a blessing for the studio. After the Potter series end, their next big feature will be Batman 4, the follow-up to the 2008 juggernaut, The Dark Knight. 

Unstoppable?

Unstoppable is getting good reviews. Go figure.

P.S.

Apparently Denzel only does train movies now. Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 then this thing? Even Training Day has “train” in the title. 

Arrested Development

Some say it’s the best comedy writing in decades. Some say the ensemble cast rivals any that came before. Some say it’s simply the best TV show ever. So why was development arrested on Arrested Development after only 3 seasons? Maybe it was the ever-changing time slot. Maybe its target demographic was too ambiguous. Or maybe it was just too smart for network television.

No matter how you slice it, there’s nothing we can do to bring the show back now. After Arrested Development was canceled in 2006, rumors surfaced that the show would move to Showtime. It seemed like a much more appropriate fit because they would have a lot more freedom on a premium cable network. However, creator Mitch Hurwitz wasn’t too keen on the idea. On the topic of extending the series on Showtime, Hurwitz said, "I had taken it as far as I felt I could as a series. I told the story I wanted to tell, and we were getting to a point where I think a lot of the actors were ready to move on.” He also claimed he was "more worried about letting down the fans in terms of the quality of the show dropping" as opposed to upsetting them by not making any more episodes.

And although I love this show and agree that it might be the best TV show ever made, I agree with Hurwitz. Out of the 53 episodes, there was never one bad one. But it never got any love from its network either. Fox even aired the 2-hour series finale against the opening ceremonies of the 2006 Winter Olympics on February 10, 2006.

There have been a lot of rumors about an Arrested Development movie also. In August, reports surfaced that Hurwitz was “half-done” with the feature film script. However, David Cross (Tobias) shot down these rumors a week later claiming the movie would probably never happen because the cast members had moved on. But I’m sure if there is a script, the gang will re-unite for one final chicken dance.

It’s Fox’s loss. Seinfeld didn’t really pick up steam until the fourth season. It should have given Arrested Development one more shot at glory. But they canceled it. Canceled?! You’re gonna say that to the show that won 6 Emmies in 3 seasons? C’mon!