Bossk

Quote

---

Originally posted by: jimbo
Also I don't want to kill gays I just don't want them to be considered normal.

---

Quote

---

Baseball Gets Spidey Cents
"Now standing on second Spider-Man: Barry Bonds..."

That play-by-play call probably won't happen, but it could after Major League Baseball struck a reported $3.6 million deal with Sony's Columbia Pictures to promote Spider-Man 2 in its ballparks--and on its base paths.

As announced Wednesday, logos for the big-budget sequel will be stuck on pitching rubbers, on-deck batting circles and, most controversial of all, bases in big-league stadiums from June 11-13, heretofore to be known as Spider-Man 2 Weekend.

Fourteen major-league clubs plus the lowly Kansas City Royals, who we guess technically still play in the American League, will play host to the promotional effort. Every team reputedly will net between $50,000-$125,000 for their part in the pact with Satan.

The New York Yankees, for whom $100,000 probably doesn't even qualify as lunch per diem, are the one team so far to cry foul over the plan. George Steinbrenner's club, whose players wore giant Ricoh patches/billboards on their vaunted pinstripes for a special opening-week series in Japan, will display the Spidey bases, each featuring a red, diamond-sized movie logo, only before the game and not during play at the House That Ruth Built and That Peter Parker Is Not Really Welcome In.

Additionally, the web-slinging superhero will not be allowed to attach his likeness or logo to the Bronx Bombers' pitching mound.

"We try to work with Major League Baseball," club executive Lonn Trost said in the New York Daily News. "But if we think it's something that's not good for the Yankees or Yankee Stadium, we're not going to do it."

Calls to an MLB spokeswoman for comment on the Yankees' rebel stance was not returned Thursday.

Others are having little trouble expressing their opinions about baseball's Spidey sense, or relative lack thereof.

"Personally, I'm not thrilled about it. I think it's a little tacky," said Jeffrey Santaite, president of the Professional Baseball Fans Association.

Still, Santaite said he understands in-stadium, even in-game, advertising is the way business is done today.

"Probably [there's] a certain line that it would become a distraction," Santaite said. "I don't necessarily think on a base it would become a distraction."

Don't tell that to ESPN.com columnist Eric Neel. "Apparently, running the Expos isn't embarrassing enough," Neel wrote of the Spider-Man 2 deal. "It's a money grab. It's gluttony. It's Gordon Gecko and his slick-back 'do spouting off on the virtues of greed."

Cleveland Indians first baseman Travis Hafner tried to find the web's silver lining. "Maybe we can forget our uniforms and wear Spider-Man outfits," he told the Cleveland Plain-Dealer. "It may help me steal a base. I can just shoot a web out of my sleeve in the direction of second base."

For the record, the Spidey deal is not meant to serve the players, but Sony, which wants kids to know that its summer blockbuster starring Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst is opening June 30, and baseball, which wants kids to know that its game is way cooler than stupid ol' basketball and football no matter what those Mike Ditka ads for erectile dysfunction say.

While movie ads on bases are new, movie ads in ballparks are not. Posters are routinely superimposed behind batters on local and national TV broadcasts. Other promo efforts are even slicker. Last year, for example, Los Angeles' Dodgers Stadium worked in virtual commercials for the likes of The Matrix Reloaded and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines on its outfield big screen in the guise of meet-the-players featurettes.

In the end, fan-booster Santaite said the baseball purist is not going to take well to the game's latest advertising innovation. And in the end, the game's latest advertising innovation isn't going change at least one fan's summer movie-going plans.

"I didn't like Spider-Man, so having it on second base is not going to make me want to see [the sequel]," Santaite said.

---

Quote

---

Also this afternoon... I suppose I should have expected it in an election year, but it's still a little surprising to me how quickly some people are to turn any discussion into a hot-button political battle. I've gotten more than a few e-mails this morning (based on our earlier post) from angry people lambasting Michael Moore as a liberal, un-American, axe-grinding blowhard, and from others trashing Disney CEO Michael Eisner as a right-wing, ultra-conservative, neo-Nazi. And I just don't give a rat's ass about any of that. Seriously, people! Save the political rallying cry for November. I'm not interested.

My problem is with the idea of the mass communication of personal opinion, whether it be by filmmakers or editorial columnists or TV and radio pundits or what have you, in a media environment in which a few massive corporations control the entire playing field - all the outlets and resources for creation, distribution and exhibition of films, TV shows, newspapers, talk shows, news commentary etc. For years now, industry critics have been warning that as these massive media conglomerates were allowed to buy ever more studios, publications, broadcast stations and networks, and as they then merged into even larger companies (like AOL/Time Warner, Fox News Corp, etc), there would a greater danger of the stifling of opinions.

Look... I think Michael Moore is an okay guy, but I didn't care for all the factual liberties he took in his last film, Bowling for Columbine, nor did I care for his using the Academy Awards as a bully pulpit. I think Mel Gibson's a pretty decent fella too, and I've always loved his films, but I didn't much care for The Passion of the Christ - not for any personal political or religious reasons, but for the simple reason that I'm just not all that interested in sitting in a theater for 3 hours watching a guy get beaten to a bloody pulp.

The point is, whatever your feelings about controversial filmmakers and their works, people have a right to agree or disagree with them, and a right to see or not see their films. A few decades ago, when there were lots of independent studios and distributors and TV stations, this wouldn't have been an issue. If a major studio balked and pulled their support, there would be plenty of other independent labels to step in and take over. Not so anymore. How many studios and distributors bailed on Gibson? How many millions of his own money did he have to spend to get The Passion made and seen? You might be thinking, well so what? The film did get made and it did get seen. Turned out it was a monster hit and Gibson profited many times the amount he spent. The problem is not everyone has the kind of personal wealth Gibson does. Not every filmmaker can pull tens of millions out of their own pocket to back their work.

If a studio or distributor pulls support for whatever reason - political, economic or what have you - in THIS day and age, there aren't many alternatives. And the more filmmakers have to face these kind of market obstacles, the less likely controversial voices will be inclined to make controversial films. The same is true of any creative (but controversial) endeavor, meant for wide distribution to a mass audience. Look at all the trouble Howard Stern is having these days. The decision to pull his show from Clear Channel radio stations isn't just about economics, I'll guarantee you that.

THAT is my problem with this. Is this a Constitutional free speech issue? No... but it's a free speech issue of another sort just the same.

By the way, for the one or two of you out there who e-mailed me to say, "You're a DVD website! Stick to DVD news!" My response is this: There isn't a person on our staff who isn't about the love of film, first and foremost. The Digital Bits is a champion of films and filmmaking, and we are a champion of your rights as film fans and consumers. DVD just happens to be the best way for the most people to view films today, so that's what we deal with. Tomorrow it could be Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD or something else, and then we'll be a Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD or something else website. But we will ALWAYS champion filmmaking, and the rights of filmmakers, and your rights as film fans. That's why we fought DIVX, that's why we support anamorphic widescreen and the presentation of films in their original aspect ratio, and on and on and on. Hell... that's why we respect the right of George Lucas to make all the changes he wants to Star Wars, but it's also why we damn well want the original version preserved for the future too.

What does that mean? It means sometimes we're gonna stick our heads into an issue. You may not always agree ("I don't like widescreen - I want my pan and scan!"), and we respect that, but there it is. So get used to it or go elsewhere. I'm sure DVDHappyPlace.com or whatever would be glad to have you.

'Nuff said. Stay tuned...

---

Quote

---

Now then... a lot of you have been waiting for this title, so here goes. Warner has just announced the DVD release of The Lost Boys: Special Edition for 8/10 (SRP $26.99). The 2-disc set will include the film in anamorphic widescreen video (aspect ratio 2.40:1), with Dolby Digital 5.1 audio, audio commentary by director Joel Schumacher, The Lost Boys: A Retrospective documentary (with Joel Schumacher, Richard Donner, Keifer Sutherland, Jami Gertz, Corey Feldman, Corey Haim, Jamison Newlander, Greg Cannom, Edward Herrmann and Michael Chapman), the Inside the Vampire's Cave multi-part documentary (including A Director's Vision, Comedy vs. Horror, Fresh Blood: A New Look at Vampires and The Lost Boys Sequel?), the Vamping Out: The Undead Creations of Greg Cannom featurette, a photo gallery, the Haimster & Feldog: The Story of the 2 Coreys featurette, multi-angle video commentary with Corey Haim, Corey Feldman and Jamison Newlander, deleted scenes, an interactive map of "vampires in the ancient world", Lou Gramm's Lost in the Shadows music video and the theatrical trailer.

---