‘The Kennedys’ Gets Snubbed By History Channel, Might Head For Showtime

A&E Television, owners of the The History Channel, have declined to pick up The Kennedys, an eight-part miniseries documenting JFK’s rise to the presidency and subsequent assassination.

The series was scheduled to appear on The History Channel later this year, but the network cited problems with the historical accuracy of the production, echoing critics’ comments on the leaked scripts almost a year ago. A&E released a public statement elaborating their decision:

While the film is produced and acted with the highest quality, after viewing the final product in its totality, we have concluded this dramatic interpretation is not a fit for the History brand.

While this is certainly a blow to the big-budget production, it’s unlikely that the miniseries will be shelved completely. The Kennedys is being offered to Showtime, a premium network that’s unlikely to turn down content with such high production values (and shouldn’t have a problem with the historical accuracy – or lack thereof – in the script). There’s certainly precedent for the switch, as Showtime picked up The Reagans when CBS declined it in 2003. There are some startling similarities: both series have drawn criticism from historians and the surviving family that they depict.

The miniseries is an ambitious project. Produced by Muse and Asylum Entertainment, the estimated budget for The Kennedys is a whopping $25 million. Recognizable stars like Greg Kinnear, Katie Holmes and Tom Wilkinson fill out the cast, and if early previews are any indication, the overall production is impressive.

Some have wondered if A&E’s ties to the real-life Kennedys were a factor in its decision. Caroline Kennedy, daughter of late former first lady Jackie Kennedy Onassis, is currently writing a book on her mother published through Hyperion. The publisher is part of the Disney Empire, which has a partial ownership of A&E Networks and The History Channel by extension. Another member of the Kennedy extended family, Maria Shriver, expressed her displeasure about the series to NBC – which also owns a stake in A&E.

So, did the screenwriters play fast and loose with history or was A&E pushed to abandon the series over its less-than-flattering look at an American icon? Could be a little of both. While any talk of backroom deals between the Kennedy family and network executives is pure speculation, the historical accuracy of the series has been brought into question for almost an entire year. Filmmaker Robert Greenwald created StopKennedySmears.com, a site which chronicles the inadequacies of the show and the critical reaction of historians. One particularly damning quote comes from David Talbot, whose book Brothers: The Hidden History of The Kennedy Years was used as a source for the docu-drama:

It’s soap opera as character assassination and an egregious distortion of the historical record. I’m completely dumbfounded as to how he used my book as one of his sources.

The site has published a victory message on the news of The History Channel declining the series.

It’s also worth considering that a depiction of a presidential family will always carry political implications. Greenwald proudly admits his liberal stance, and while it’s not clear if there’s a conservative bias in The Kennedys depiction, it’s likely that any overtly negative portrayal of a Democratic party hero would rustle feathers in Hollywood. With the current political divide in the United States as vicious as it is, it’s not surprising that a project with so many potential pitfalls has been waylaid.

The show is not the only project focusing on the Kennedy dynasty at the moment. Darren Aronofsky, director of The Wrestler and Black Swan, will direct a biopic focusing on first lady Jackie O. titled Jackie. Aronofsky’s wife Rachel Weisz (of The Mummy and its sequel) is attached to play Onassis.

-

Meanwhile, we’ll be waiting for news of Showtime’s decision on whether to pick up The Kennedys or not.

Source: Zap2it, TV Line

View the original article here

Early Test Screenings: ‘Scream 4′ Might Actually Be Good?

While the original Scream film was almost universally loved (I include myself in that universe), the second and third were, at best, widely tolerated. Still, as with all film properties I once held dear, I’m more than willing to give a sequel a chance -- even when it’s being made ten years later for an audience that has all but forgotten Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette and, dare I say it, Wes Craven.

Scream 4 has had a number of behind-the-scenes issues: rewrites, Campbell’s reluctance to return, studio interference, the breakup of Hollywood’s sweethearts, Cox and Arquette, et cetera. Color me surprised then that an early test screening is getting all kinds of excellent buzz.

The screening, which took place Thursday, January 6th in Pittsburgh, elicited a number of positive reactions which can be found strewn across the internet, from Twitter to Scream-Trilogy.net to IMDB.com. (Thanks to /Film for finding the quotes.) Check out the various reactions below:

From DanielleRocks of Scream-Trilogy.net:

“It was phenomenal! What can I say. This outshines the 3rd one easily. Definitely the bloodiest of all of them, but I feel like they’ll edit some of it down. An unrated DVD would be nice to have though. All the acting was superb. Not one flaw. The opening scene was hilarious and brutal. Definitely a lot of great Williamson writing. The characters all felt very genuine. Gale was back to her bitchy self, and had a bunch of great one-liners. The ending was insanity. Easily the best of all the series, in my opinion, anyways. The crowd experience was great, and everybody was totally into it. Cannot WAIT to see this in theaters come April. Hopefully they don’t change anything. Loved it loved it loved it.”

Here’s a bulleted breakdown of other reactions to Scream 4, almost all of which were glowing:

Scream 4 has the best opening scene of the series — smart, hilarious, and absolutely brutalThe movie is very similar to the original Scream and nearly as scaryIt’s better than Scream 2 and 3One of the roles was severely miscast — the commenter declined to say which one

Alas, there was at least one person in attendance whose reaction was, shall we say, less than positive. /Film points out one viewer who thought the ending was very dragged out and wasn’t impressed with the killer.

Thankfully, there’s still time to improve, because the print – which was between an hour and forty-five minutes long and two hours – was far from finished, as it was missing more than a few effects shots.

The official Scream 4 plot sees Sidney Prescott, played by Neve Campbell, now a self-help book author, returning home to Woodsboro as the final stop on her book tour. She reconnects with Sheriff Dewey, played by David Arquette, and Gale Weathers, played Courteney Cox. Death and mayhem, of course, ensue shortly thereafter.

The film also stars Emma Roberts, who plays Sidney’s cousin, Hayden Panettiere, Rory Culkin, Adam Brody, Anthony Anderson, and Alison Brie. Kristen Bell and Anna Paquin are also in the film, but let’s be honest (SPOILER?), they’ll probably be dead less than ten minutes in.

Check out the teaser trailer for Scream 4 below:

Frankly, it’s hard to tell if the above positive reactions are those of diehard Scream fans just happy to get the chance to watch an early screening of number four, or if they’re genuinely positive reactions. Either way, I’m happy to hear that people enjoyed it, and I’m looking forward to this fourquel even more than I was before. (Read: slightly.)

Scream 4 hits theaters April 15th, 2011. That’s not exactly a primetime horror movie month, but maybe it’ll be so good that won’t even matter.

Source: /Film

View the original article here

Study finds that Wi-Fi might be a tree killer

November 23 2010 by admin in Gadgets |

Next time you fire up Wi-Fi on your laptop or your mobile device, you might want to think about the harm you’re doing to the environment, specifically, the trees around you.

Seriously.

According to a Dutch study, uncovered by the good folks at CNET, Wi-Fi is making trees sick. The story goes like this. The people of the Dutch city of Alphen aan den Rijn commissioned a study to find out what was afflicting their trees. Well, that study found that over the past 5 years, all deciduous (read about the term here) trees have been affected by the radiation coming from the networks that we use for our mobile devices.

Another astonishing figure from the study is that over 70 percent of the trees in the urban areas of the Netherlands have been infected with this Wi-Fi virus. 5 years ago, only 10 percent showed symptoms which include bleeding, growth abnormalities and bark fissures.

Sounds awful.

Luckily, humans haven’t experienced the same issues.

Yet.

Now, these are not definitive results. As stated in the report, and translated from Dutch via Google:

The researcher from Wageningen University indicates that these are initial results and that has not been confirmed in a repeat survey. He warns strongly that there is still no far-reaching conclusions from its results. Based on the information now available can not be concluded that the WiFi radio signals leads to damage to trees or other plants. It takes into account previously published studies showing no effect. The knowledge center awaits with interest the publication of the survey.

While we’re not scientists, we’re avid Wi-Fi users so we’ll be keeping an eye on this as it develops.

View the original article here