Helicopter parenting of movies

Sony Pictures issues an apology as reported by Fox News for the part of the Peter Rabbit kids movie that has a scene where blueberries are thrown at one of the characters who is allergic to them. Will future films be devoid of any teasing?


Fifty shady degrees below zero

The latest 50 shades movie might as well be named that. Instead it’s called Fifty Shades Freed, I mean like “Freed”?? The poster also has a tacky climax inference. Bad taste. The entire foundation of this film is or should be about love AND S&M, not experiencing both and then being freed from slavery or freed from the bondages of love or wherever this thing goes which is probably in circles. The first in this series was fair to stunning in the sense of how a shy girl is led to explore the love making bondage scene. The 2nd was awful, it was just a muck of things. This third one should be buried, it gives the color spectrum of grey a bad name. Seems audiences responding to IMDb agree giving it a whopping low rating of 3.1 today after it being out for less than one full week.


Top Gun is a gay movie

Horrormaniac on youtube states: “Quentin Tarantino opowiada o prawdziwym przesłaniu TOP GUNA šŸ™‚ Scena z filmu “Sleep with Me”.” After watching this scene I’m convinced.


Hard NOx

Season 1 Episode 1 of the “Dirty Money” series features a documentary on the Volkswagen “cheating scandal” regarding their clean diesel TDI that was claimed to be emitting too much pollution. The claim is that the company faked it’s test results to make the car emissions look cleaner than they were. Diesels are all over the place but mostly are trucks and are constantly emitting soot and Nitrous Oxide as the main pollutant, the polutant that was bastardized in the Volkswagen Clean Diesels, but these trucks are given a pass so why are cars given such a hard time? The documentary which is based on so called facts presented by the EPA are not exactly as they appear. The NOX emissions are exaggerated. The documentary uses the fear factor to get and maintain the viewer’s attention. This is a technique that many films use for entertainment but I take issue when it’s used to present a real life matter as absolute. The facts are that the emissions violations presented are not absolute. The testing methods are not absolute by any of these agencies. There are differences on how much emissions are emitted when the engine is warm and when changing speed. The documentary fails to present one of the most basic of facts and differences between burning gasoline and burning diesel, diesel is 10% more efficient than gasoline according to DUMMIES.com and many other scientific sources.** That means for every 100 miles a truck goes a car can only go 90 miles on the same volume of fuel. This is a point to not be taken lightly nor overlooked but the documentary doesn’t touch on this at all because most likely because it becomes too technical to explain, and also less sensationalizes the flaws that are being highlighted. Another point that is disingenuous is that it exposes (what was exposed by the Environmental Protection Agency) the company used monkeys to test how bad the fumes of their “clean diesels” were or were not. In typical dramatic emphasis they show a monkey’s terrified face in what was probably a re-creation not using real fumes of course, but where movie editing comes into play, looking for the one section of film that presents terror in a monkey’s face out of many hours of letting the camera roll. This is one of the most disingenuous things a documentary film maker can do, present the concept that “innocent animlals” are harmed while not even mentioning that they were studied by a human lung institute for betterment of man kind, something that is done routinely by the medical community and accepted overall. The fact is that Volkswagen hired another firm that does this for science.[1] Instead of presenting Volkswagen as trying to make sure their cars were not harming humans, and that they were 10% more efficient than gasoline, they induce all sorts of negative emotions of pain, fear, horror, disgust, etc. to keep viewer attention. All medias were at the time this story developed and broke also on this bashwagen, to bastardize the “big bad company” Volkswagen as this “scandal” emerged mid 2010’s. No one calculates the pollution created by re-manufacturing these cars, to completely replace those recalled and destroyed (what a waste of energy!!!) as what was done in the end to Volkswagen was to force a recall on the hundreds of thousands of these vehicles. What about all that pollution used to remanufacture plastics and all processes of manufacturing and distribution/delivery by diesel trucks! Why not just reclassify those TDI’s as trucks, what is the difference?? Disesel trucks cannot pass the same tests that were forced on the TDI engine yet they remain on all roads polluting daily in amounts that are worse than what the Volkswagen Clean Diesel did. I see these massive diesel trucks driven by one person all the time here in Southern California, they are heavy trucks, driven daily to work, they get less than half the mileage per gallon than the TDI. More waste and pollution yet it’s all legal, but why? The documentary also doesn’t present the problem with government agencies, who are not saints. It’s funny how the public is drawn in to how government can be deemed “corrupt” in one thing yet be considered saints when it comes to “clean air” where such air is bombarded with diesel truck fumes every second. The documentary presents “compelling facts” but it fails miserably in the theme of what makes a truly good documentary or what is now coined as a docuseries. Another film called “Backfire” that was in the works as of 2017 is supposed to be another documentary on this “scandal of the century”. Another thing to consider is SAFETY. There was a diesel spill less than a mile from where I live last week, a big rig overturned as it was hauling a generator, a wide and heavy load that for safety reasons has a police escort. The diesel fuel spilled all over the side of the road into the dry brush in the state where the largest brushfire in history occured recently, California. It did not ignite. If this was gasoline it likely would have and wildfires would have erupted. A diesel car is many times more safer in this accord than gasoline which is so highly flammable. Lives could be saved by switching to diesel as there would be fewer if any fires in diesel crashes. EPA does not consider this fact nor does the aforementioned docuseries episode, emphasis is on drama. Take a look at what happens on a highway when a car ignites gasoline fumes from a spill.

** the article aslo states “When the exhaust from conventional diesel fuel was found to cause cancer, clean diesel engines were developed. Although thousands of conventional diesel fuel-burning vehicles are still on the road, public pressure and environmental organizations have prodded individual states and the federal government to enact legislation and fund replacement programs to take them out of use as quickly as possible.”

Coffee causes cancer [2] why isn’t that being removed? Because it also has benefits. I doubt we’d be able to make as many cars as we do without it.

beatcancer.org [2]

reference [1]Ā 


Getting turned on

Sometimes in creating moving imagery we forget details. This is understandable when budgets are slim but when it happens in a motion picture series on TV with big budgets perfection is expected and we really shouldn’t see such goofs. For example, in the “Cheers” TV series Episode 15 Season 2 there is a scene where Sam Mallone is about to turn off the lights to Diane’s apartment but the light switches are already off.

He goes to shut the lights off. The actor must have noticed something is off. Literally.

It’s the switches they are already off. He pretends to shut them off. The lights dim.

Don’t do this at home when making iMovies. Remember to go over detalis.


Mute

One review stated “If it wasn’t for Netflix, Mute wouldn’t exist”.

My review:

I liked this movie but it did not get a high rating. It’s appearing on Netflix and as seen on an article on Hollywood Reportler that claims the movie might be as bad as Cloverfield Paradox (no comparison in my opinion) the producer says, “if it wasn’t for Netflix, Mute simply wouldn’tĀ  exist”. The movie is also obviously one of dedication to the movie making arts, in the article it also says “Mute is a film defined by its director, who worked for more than a decade”. I am sure this film is not for everyone thus the middle range rating, but what is incredible about what Netflix doing it that it is providing movies for everyone, whereas in the past many films would not have ever been made, and unfortunately, many films never were.

 

 


Shake OK not OK

Camera shake is used in a couple of segments of the Netflix Black Mirror series where it is used the right way and the wrong way. The first image we see here is of the scene where mom is desperately looking for her 4 year old little girl who got separated from her in the park when she was preocupied with taling with someone. She is screaming “Sarah!” many times, the camera follows the mom, spins around, shows from differrent angles her frustration. Apparently the producer believed that this was good to add the frantic motion to display the confusion. This was completely unnecessary and actually made it harder to see mom’s distraught facial expressions that convey that message much more than shaky cameras.

Later in the episode called Arkangel (S4E2) which is produced by Jodie Foster we see the daughter in her teens frantic and frustrated that her boyfriend just dumped her. In this scene there is shake but it’s necessary because there is no dialog. It adds to the presentation of emotional upset and should only be used in limted basis when there is no dialog. The reason it also works here has to do with how the viewer knows the context of her frustration from more than one perspective, hers, and her moms, and even that of us as we watch it and feel for what she went through her whole life bringing her to a point where we wonder if she might kill herself. We do not always have that kind of perspective and the shake and wander compliments the feelings of this scene.


Poo vs Paddington

Disney jumps into the ring by bringing Winnie The Pooh to “life” with computer imagery in a new movie. Doesn’t look all that good to me.


Send your identity to the Sun?

US Government sponsored NASA seems to have nothing better to do so it’s offering you a chance to send your name on it’s Sun probe which is supposed to help with predicting the weather and stop climate from changing.

I suppose you can watch the one’s and zeros of your name burned to disk burn up when it gets there in your imagination as your name would be incoded onto a thumb drive. VIP passes even available.

This news has insired some thought. The craft is said to have 4.5 inch carbon shields to protect it from the intense radiation causing the temperature to be 2500 degrees F although those are made of “composite” materials, not 100% carbon.

“At atmospheric pressure it [carbon] has no melting point, as its triple point is at ~4,330Ā degrees C, or 7,820Ā degrees F [3][4] .”

I wonder what is it’s melting point in space? Space is said to be a vacuum. Is there no melting point in a vacuum?

Looking at the images seems there are numberous parts that would not have this protection, for one, the solar panels, or are they 100% carbon? Never heard of such a thing, silicon is fundamental to solar. Silicon melting point is 2577 degrees F[5]. Is this made of both silicon and carbon? How do we know if the 2500 degree damage point is even accurate?

Other parts like metal poles and brackets could not possibly be protected, they wouldn’t be able to bend.Ā  Are they 100% carbon or a conposite? Is this thing really going up there?

Fusable alloys have a melting point of 361 degrees F [1]. Melting point of silicon which is in solar panels is 2579 F at lower pressure it is about 1832 F at higher pressure. Is there any pressure in a vacuum?

Let’s make a movie presenting the facts that would effectively point out whether we believe this is even possible. Since NASA states the temperature would be 2500 degrees F for serious damage it sure seems this thing wouldn’t make it. One of the key elements we need to determine is determining if there is any pressure in a vacuum as it appears the less pressure the higher the melting points.

There are movies made that say that we never even went to the moon, only to a movie set but those hardly touch on these sets of details. It seems particles determine pressure and there are a wide array of influences that can affect pressure besides particles of matter in space*.

* Wikipedia states “According to modern understanding, even if all matter could be removed from a volume, it would still not be “empty” due to vacuum fluctuations, dark energy, transiting gamma rays, cosmic rays, neutrinos, and other phenomena in quantum physics.”

References 1, 3, 4, 5 found at Wikipedia.


Legal

The Hollywood Reporter has a great section covering legal matters in the industry

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/executive-suite