Vintage Sci-Fi Movie Poster: The WEIRDEST Visitor the Earth Has Ever Seen! ‘The Man From Planet X’, 1951Posted: July 1, 2014
Description from Internet Movie Database:
“As a mysterious planet hurls itself toward earth, an enigmatic extraterrestrial scout arrives on a remote Scottish island with unknown intentions.”
For Gizmodo, Casey Chan writes: In the future, we’ll get the news from fair and balanced android newscasters that’ll somehow terrify us more than the cable newspeople we have today. These android newscasters are frighteningly lifelike and can interact with humans, read the news and Tweets, tell a joke and basically replace the lousy talking heads on TV.
The android newscasters were shown off in Japan at the Android: What is a Human? exhibition in Tokyo. At times, the two robots demoed—Kodomoroid and Otonaroid—look and act so real that they seem like human actors pretending to be a robot.
Japanese scientists on Tuesday unveiled what they said was the world’s first news-reading android, eerily lifelike and possessing a sense of humour to match her perfect language skills. Duration: 01:20
Commemorating the 13th, full moon…
In the current edition of John Nolte‘s Hollywood Playbook, this item caught my eye: Deadline‘s Mike Fleming Jr. and Variety‘s Peter Bart discuss the state of movies and whether or not films are dealing with a brain drain as talented writers and producers head over to television in the hopes of grabbing their own piece of this new Golden Age.
Bart thinks it is all cyclical. Fleming is edging towards despair.
Fleming: Because those series and 10 more like them are better than anything I see on a movie screen. For the 25 years I’ve covered it, film has always been the sexiest, most prestigious part of the business. … But now, it feels like the ecosystem has been damaged. The creative vision on the big films comes from executives who give creativity-stifling one-step screenwriter deals, with emphasis on reaching four quadrant audiences. Producers have been marginalized. Should the authorship of a picture belong to the studio exec? By contrast, some of the best series are generated by feature writers who couldn’t get hired after studios turned away from smart mid-budget dramas in favor of no-budget genre and high-priced tent poles. I remember Tony Gilroy telling me a couple years ago that movies like his superb Michael Clayton would go extinct, but there should be no funeral because all those writers who made them were flocking to TV and wait and see what happens. Man, was he right. Will the next generation growing up in this creative blight be inspired by mediocrity to dream about having the authority to reboot The Hangover?
First off, “Michael Clayton” sucked. And I don’t think the idea of a “Hangover” reboot will wait for another generation. In five years, “The Hangover” will return with the characters as dads, or something. Read the rest of this entry »
— Dane Cook (@DaneCook) May 8, 2014
Anderson Cooper isn’t known for being profane, so CNN viewers were surprised on Wednesday night when he dropped an f-bomb on television. Here’s a video of the special moment (at about 2:50):
[VIDEO] REWIND: Early Morning Local News Show Finds Guest Tracy Morgan Not Quite Sober Yet, Goes Disco Bananas on Live TVPosted: April 16, 2014
This is from 2007, but still as funny as the day it unfolded on live TV. Watch as host Robert Holguin giggles his way through a very admirable professional effort to manage the unexpected turn of events. Highlight: Tracy sends out a message to parents, suggesting he’s gonna impregnate the daughters off the show’s unsuspecting early morning viewers. Did the phones light up at the station that morning? You bet!
Tracy Morgan of Saturday Night Live and 30 Rock is interviewed on morning television by Robert Holguin of KVIA. The live interview goes wildly out of control when the whacked out comedian takes off his shirt.
Note: Some good stuff can be found in IMDB’s Trivia page
What worked for Breaking Bad might not work for Mad Men
AMC unveiled the first half of Mad Men‘s split final seventh season to the lowest debut audience since the show’s second year. But unlike the cable network’sBreaking Bad — which climbed in the ratings with every season, including its similarly split two-year final run — only 2.3 million viewers watched Don Draper’s return Sunday night at 9 p.m. The acclaimed period drama then had two repeats for a grand total of 4.4 million. This marked the first of seven episodes that will air this year, with the final seven planned for 2015.
AMC pointed out to reporters that Mad Men is “the most upscale show on ad-supported television among adults 18-49, and sees significant time-shifting activity.” The network also noted these numbers are not far off from the sixth season’s average.
UPDATE: A KTLA TV reporter friend in L.A. broke the news to me, this video clip is not real, it’s a joke. Like a lot of people, I fell for it. Well, it’s funny anyway. And for a prank, well played!
Note: Jonathan Wilner is a pro-bundler, he defends the practice. In this article for WIRED, he speaks for the cable companies, not the consumers. Founder of the broadband pay TV platform Unlimited Football, and former VP of technology at Foxsports.com, Wilner represents the sellers of bundled programming, not the interests of individual customers. His opinions should be viewed with that in mind. My comments are in italics.
Wilner writes: These days, barely a week passes in the U.S. entertainment industry without litigation, legislation, or argumentation over bundling–the practice of offering a “package” of channels instead of the option to buy a la carte. I, for one, say enough with bundle bashing. Bundling is hardly unique to the entertainment industry, nor is it solely an American phenomenon. There’s a reason for this: Bundling benefits consumers and vendors in more ways than one.
Bundles exist and are popular with consumers across a range of goods and services: Computer software, automobile trim and option packages, restaurant meals, gym memberships, even amusement park tickets…
I have to interrupt Wilner for a moment, to point out the obvious. These are bad examples. With the exception gym memberships (bundle-only) none of these examples put consumers in the position of “buy a bundle, or no deal”. Amusement parks, computer software, restaurant meals, sure, those things are offered in package form, but are also available individually. Clearly you can buy one restaurant meal, you can buy one software program, one amusement park ticket, one pair of custom headlights for your car. Hell, if you wanted, you could buy one headlight. Ala carte.
Cable companies don’t “offer” programming in bundled form–that’s your only choice. Take it or leave it. (and they arrange the bundles, not you) You “get” to choose among bundled packages. In order to get programming from a cable TV provider, accepting a bundle is they only way to get it . Why does Wilner offer such poor examples?
Imagine if you wanted to buy an airline ticket, and your only option was to buy a vacation package that included dozens of airline tickets? Or if you wanted to one out, but had to buy a booklet of 25 meal tickets? That’s the current arrangement with cable companies.
And despite all the furor over television bundling, non-TV programming often is bundled too: NBA League Pass, Netflix, Hulu, even Sirius radio subscriptions require consumers to pay a flat rate for a package that may include programs they don’t want.
In other words, “hey, these other providers do it.” So what? It’s still an anti-consumer practice.
While anti-bundling advocates purport that a la carte programming would reduce costs to consumers, it simply isn’t true. In a series of posts from his blog Stratēchery, Ben Thompson provides compelling evidence to show that if ESPN was offered on an a la carte basis, it could maintain its current profitability only if individual subscribers paid about $100 a month for it.
“…what he did to me in the attic felt different. I couldn’t keep the secret anymore.”
Dylan Farrow writes:
For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didn’t like. I didn’t like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him. I didn’t like it when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear. I didn’t like it when he would place his head in my naked lap and breathe in and breathe out. I would hide under beds or lock myself in the bathroom to avoid these encounters, but he always found me. These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal. I thought this was how fathers doted on their daughters. But what he did to me in the attic felt different. I couldn’t keep the secret anymore.
When I asked my mother if her dad did to her what Woody Allen did to me, I honestly did not know the answer. I also didn’t know the firestorm it would trigger. I didn’t know that my father would use his sexual relationship with my sister to cover up the abuse he inflicted on me. I didn’t know that he would accuse my mother of planting the abuse in my head and call her a liar for defending me. I didn’t know that I would be made to recount my story over and over again, to doctor after doctor, pushed to see if I’d admit I was lying as part of a legal battle I couldn’t possibly understand. At one point, my mother sat me down and told me that I wouldn’t be in trouble if I was lying – that I could take it all back. I couldn’t. It was all true. But sexual abuse claims against the powerful stall more easily. There were experts willing attack my credibility. There were doctors willing to gaslight an abused child.
“..I could only hide my panic until I found a place to be alone and fall apart…”
After a custody hearing denied my father visitation rights, my mother declined to pursue criminal charges, despite findings of probable cause by the State of Connecticut – due to, in the words of the prosecutor, the fragility of the “child victim.” Woody Allen was never convicted of any crime.
“My wife and I bought this after selling our daughter Amanda into white slavery. We actually got a refurbished. It’s missing the remote, but oh well– for $10K off, I can afford a universal, right? The picture is amazing. I’ve never seen the world with such clarity.
Amanda, if you’re reading this, hang in there, honey! We’ll see you in a year.”
[you know you want to buy this TV, as a bonus, it'll really, really help support this site]
I just wanted to add an addendum to my review. Since posting it, we have received a flood of responses. People have said some pretty hurtful things–even questioning our values. Let me assure you, this was not an easy decision to make, and we made it as a family. Obviously, it’s very personal. But in light of all the second-guessing, I wanted to explain our thinking.
First and foremost, screen size. I really think you can’t go too big. 85″ may seem huge, but you get used to it fast. Second, resolution. Is 4K overkill? Please, that’s what they said about 1080P! More dots = better. Period. And as far as this being a $40,000 “dumb” TV, people need to re-read my initial post: WE BOUGHT IT REFURBISHED. It was only $30,000…
Good news, via popgoescultureblog:
For the record, I’m among those that question AMC’s decision to split the final season. To me, it smacks of either artistic vanity, or business concerns trumping loyal audience. I understand it’s a demanding show to produce, and maintain the extraordinary quality, so it benefits the creator and his crew. I’m inclined to think that AMC’s got a valuable property, they know it, and they’re milking more advertising dollars out of Mad Men. Enjoying a more relaxed writing and shooting schedule isn’t likely the primary driver of season-splitting decision.
[For collectors, Amazon has Mad Men: Seasons 1-4]
If the final episodes can be delivered with as much audience-pleasing closure as Breaking Bad, these complaints will dissolve. The show is already on track to become an enduring TV masterpiece.
(AP) LOS ANGELES U.S. home video spending rose nearly 1 percent to $18.2 billion in 2013, the second straight year of growth as higher spending on video streaming subscriptions and digital purchases offset the decline in DVDs.
The figures were released by the consortium of Hollywood studios and electronics makers, The Digital Entertainment Group, on Tuesday.
Digital sales of movies and TV shows rose 47 percent to $1.2 billion, while subscription streaming spending rose 32 percent to $3.2 billion.