The Hush-Hush News Report 7.21.09: Crossing the PC Line

Posted by Jeremy Thomas on 07.21.2009

This week the Hush-Hush News Report looks at what happens when cultural sensitivity is taken too far with movies, such as the case with this week's Orphan! Plus, DC comic movie news, who's up for the role of Bilbo Baggins, a Voltron movie, the G.I. Joe director speaks and more!

Welcome to the Hush-Hush News Report! I'm your host as always, Jeremy Thomas. It's been a hell of a week at Hush-Hush HQ, culimating on Thursday with my computer taking a dive when I got home. Much swearing and cursing followed by a very tense period while I tried a last-chance recovery followed, after which the computer luckily decided to work again. Between that and thinking my iPod classic had been lost but finding it today, I'm feeling very relieved compared to the emotional state I could have been at today. But enough about me...you came here for movie news, so let's get to it!

Before you start reading, have you bookmarked 411Mania.com yet? It's the easiest thing in the world to do, and it'll get you your daily dose of entertainment news that much quicker! Typing the URL out in the address bar is such a pain, don'tcha think? Hell, make it your home page and it'll be that much easier for you!

DC Writers Taking Back Properties for Film Development



The Hollywood Reporter has published an article on the film projects that DC Comics has in the works. They mention previously-reported titles The Losers, Jonah Jex, The Green Lantern, and Red, but there's more on others we haven't heard much about lately. Here's a few excerpts:

This past fall, Warners quietly hired three of DC's biggest writers -- Geoff Johns, Grant Morrison and Marv Wolfman -- to act as consultants and writers for its superhero line of movies. The move involved taking back the reins on projects being handled by such producers as Charles Roven ("The Flash") and Akiva Goldsman ("Teen Titans").

The moves have begun to pay off. Johns worked up a new treatment for a "Flash" script, being written by Dan Mazeau; Johns will act in a producer capacity on the project, which has not attached a director.

The projects Morrison and Wolfman are working on are in the early stages at Warners, whose execs declined to comment.

The studio is taking pitches on sci-fi hero Adam Strange and the underwater-breathing hero "Aquaman," to be produced by Leonardo DiCaprio and his Appian Way shingle.

Also in the pipeline: "Bizarro Superman" being written by "Galaxy Quest" scribes David Howard and Robert Gordon; a sequel to "Constantine," with Goldsman and Erwin Stoff producing; two concurrent Green Arrow projects, an origin story and a prison-set one titled "Super Max"; and "Shazam," which was set up at New Line but has moved to Warners, with Pete Segal attached to direct.

Here's another example of how it appears that DC is trying to learn from Marvel's successes. The studio has traditionally just passed their projects off to Warner Bros. and let them have at it; that clearly has not always been a wise move. Getting Johns, Morrison and Wolfman—best known for their work on Green Lantern, JLA and Blade/Teen Titans, respectively—involved with the scripts for the company's film projects is a very wise move. There's never been any question that other than Batman of course, DC's comic book films have been inferior to Marvel's over the last several years as a general rule. That said, the company has some very marketable franchises and putting the right spin on them is all they need to do.

I'll admit to not being very enthused about a Flash movie, but that's because I've never been able to take that outfit seriously. If handled right it could work well. Bizarro Superman could be a fantastic way to spin that particular franchise without having to reboot it—again. That the Galaxy Quest folks are working on it gives me hope that the script could be quite good. Green Arrow is a remarkably marketable character as long as they leave the fist arrow alone, and the long-rumored Super-Max film would have some serious potential. Shazam is a very recognizable character. The one that intrigues me most is the Constantine sequel. I always felt that it was one of Keanu Reeves's best performances—and this is coming from a guy who blew a gasket when I heard Reeves was playing John Constantine. Reeves has expressed interest in returning and I think it would be a great sequel. Hopefully they won't screw this up, and for now it looks like DC is moving things in the right direction for once.


Bean in Game for Thrones



Sean Bean will play the lead in "Game of Thrones," HBO's adaptation of the George R.R. Martin fantasy-book series, says The Hollywood Reporter. Tom McCarthy is directing; David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, who wrote the screenplay, are executive producing. Mark Addy is in final negotiations to also join the production. Kit Harrington, Jack Gleeson and Harry Lloyd also have come aboard.

The books revolves around a battle among seven kingdoms and between two ruling families for control of the Iron Throne, the possession that ensures survival through a 40-year winter to come. Bean will play Lord Eddard "Ned" Stark, known for his sense of honor and justice, who becomes closest adviser to King Robert (Addy).

Harrington will play Jon Snow, Bean's bastard son, and Lloyd will play Viserys, a powerless ruler who seeks to marry off his sister to a powerful king. Gleeson will play Joffrey, King Robert's son. Peter Dinklage also is in the cast for the production, which is in the pilot stage and begins shooting in October in Ireland.

A Game of Thrones is one of those book series that people keep telling me to read and I haven't gotten around to; the acclaim I've heard for it makes me very interested though. Of course, Bean has fantasy credibility by virtue of being Boromir in The Lord of the Rings and this certainly didn't hurt his getting the role any. HBO has a well-deserved reputation for making quality work, and nothing about this project makes me think it will be otherwise. I'm certainly interested to see how this turns out and will be tuning in when it eventually airs on the pay cable network.


Atlas Entertainment Reassembling Voltron



Atlas Entertainment's Charles Roven, Richard Suckle and Steve Alexander are developing a big screen version of Voltron, says the Risky Biz Blog.

The producers behind Get Smart and The International (Roven also produced The Dark Knight) have acquired the rights to make a live-action feature based on the robot-lion property, pushing the project forward after several years in development with the Mark Gordon Company.

Roven and his partners acquired rights to the Japanese title from World Events Productions, a St. Louis-based company that has held those rights for more than two decades. Wanted producer Jason Netter of Kickstart Entertainment and World Events' Ted Koplar are joining the Atlas trio in producing.

"Voltron" was a television hit in the 1980's and featured a band of five robot-lions who combined to form one super lion. A group of five pilots control the lions, which are charged with defending the planet Arus from villain King Zarkon, who dispatches evil creatures called Robobeats to fight the Voltron robots.

With the success of Transformers it was only a matter of time, wasn't it? The Voltron project has actually been in the works for some time, but I imagine the astounding success of Rise of the Fallen put this one on a fast-track. If G.I. Joe does well then I imagine it will be pushed along even quicker. Voltron doesn't have the awareness factor that either of those two projects have, but it is certainly remembered fondly by many children of the 80's, myself included. I always loved the show and while I admit that this stinks of the kinds of crass bandwagon development tactics I just mentioned, that doesn't mean I'm going to take the idea out back and shoot it in the head just yet. This producing team has an interesting resume and I think they could handle it quite well. Whereas Rise of the Fallen was a big, dumb action film, this could be a big, smart action film and if they manage to pull it off I'll be excited. Of course, it could end up being terrible but I think this deserves a "wait and see" approach.


DiCaprio and WB to journey to The Twilight Zone



Warner Bros. and Leonardo DiCaprio's Appian Way are moving ahead on a Twilight Zone movie, hiring Rand Ravich to write a script based on the iconic TV series.

Ravich's feature credits include directing The Astronaut's Wife and executive producing Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. He also created NBC's detective series "Life."

The original "Twilight Zone" series ran for five seasons starting in 1959 on CBS, with Rod Serling creating the series and writing more than half of the 156 episodes. Steven Spielberg and John Landis produced and directed segments for the 1983 WB feature film, Twilight Zone: The Movie.

I'm interested to see how this plays out. Obviously the TV show is one of the iconic shows in the science fiction/horror genre and I've always thought that the sci-fi anthology movies and TV shows were fantastically done for the most part. Yes, some of the Masters of Horror pieces were weak but I loved Tales from the Darkside, Outer Limits and every incarnation they had of Twilight Zone. I would assume this movie will be an anthology as well, and if WB and Appian use some of their clout to get serious filmmakers involved in this than we could get a real quality piece. Rand Ravich is a good man behind the camera and I'm interested to see where he goes with this.


Sommers Debunks G.I. Joe Rumors



According to CineFOOLS, director Stephen Sommers confirmed that the cast of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra are signed on for a second film, adding to the speculation that there is already a sequel confirmed.

Sommers also responded to rumors that he was fired and wouldn't have the final cut of the film under his control:

"Yes I have final cut, it was actually a surprise because I was in the editing room and I got a phone call from a friend checking if I had been fired and replaced, so I just kept editing. That's what's crazy about the internet because I have final cut and they couldn't throw me off if they wanted and clearly when you see the movie you'll realise how silly that was. Someone said 'It was the worst testing movie in Paramount's history' that's crap! When you see the movie you'll know it's false. It is discouraging though. If you took two seconds to look into it not only do I have final cut but as a director if I didn't have final cut, you'd have to really screw up a movie to get fired because once a director gets fired from a project the stigma attached to that movie... you're just dead."

Well, we knew the rumors couldn't be true about Sommers being fired now, didn't we? As he said himself here, doing that would be a huge statement from the studio that the movie sucks and it would bomb. Now, that being said, this doesn't give me any hope for the film. So they didn't fire the director during post-production. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement is it? I mean, they didn't fire James Wong from Dragonball or Andrzej Bartkowiak from Street Fighter either, you know what I mean? Nor is "It wasn't the worst testing movie in Paramount's history" a vote of confidence. It's good that they had Sommers address these rumors because to pretend they never happened would just let them grow, but the end result is that I'm not any more optimistic about this movie than I was before reading this bit. I don't need bad press to tell me the movie is going to be terrible, I just need to see the trailer. Which I have. Yes, it's going to be terrible.


Carnahan Waging World War Z



Matthew Michael Carnahan ("State of Play," "Lions for Lambs," "The Kingdom") has been set to rewrite "World War Z" for reports Fangoria.

Max Brooks, the author of the book on which the property is based, says "He's one of Hollywood's hot A-list writers, so if they went after him and paid him a mountain of gold, it definitely shows their confidence in this project."

"Babylon 5" creator and "Changeling" scribe J. Michael Straczynski was previously attached to write the film and submitted a draft which scored very good online reviews.

Set a decade after a virus turned much of the planet's population into zombies, the story follows a journalist interviewing subjects from around the world about their experiences during the 'zombie war'. The book fuses elements of political satire, war and survival horror as it explores how various nations, governments and individuals respond to the crisis.

I'm very curious here as to why they didn't do with Straczynski's script which, as this article says, had very good reviews online. However, Carnahan is also a very good writer and I think he could really add something to the story. He obviously knows how to handle political-military films and there are some elements of that within World War Z which is a fantastic read by the way. I know I trashed the overabundance of zombie films these days but this is one that's been announced for a while and I'm very excited about it because it's not a blatant attempt to try and copy other zombie films.


Cusack's The Factory To Be Ultra-Grim?



Shock Yill You Drop spoke with producer Joel Silver about Dark Castle Entertainment'sfuture release The Factory. Silver says the John Cusack-starring thriller is still on track for a October 22nd, 2010 release. He added that it could be one of the most grim entries in Dark Castle's wheelhouse, darker than Orphan which shoulders some dark themes. In the film, Cusack plays a detective who discovers his daughter has been kidnapped, just one of many young girls who have gone missing. Morgan O'Neill directed by a script he penned with Paul Leyden.

I'll be talking about Orphan below, but for now let me just say that I hope none of those "dark themes" have been sidelined for the sake of public relations. Anyway, we at Hush-Hush Headquarters are mighty fans of John Cusack's, and his work in 1408 showed he can handle thrillers and horror quite well. Putting him in what sounds like an unrepentantly grim and dark film is something I can't wait to hear more about. Cusack is golden in pretty much everything he's ever done and as much as I love horror and thrillers, this is something I can't wait for.


Bilbo Watch: Tennant, McAvoy & Radcliffe in Jackson's Sights?



The Telegraph claims that Doctor Who's David Tennant is being tipped to play Bilbo Baggins in the big screen adaptation of JRR Tolkien's book.

The Scottish star leads a list of stars, including James McAvoy and Daniel Radcliffe, vying to play the title role of Bilbo Baggins in "The Hobbit." The film – which may be split in two – is based on Tolkien's children's book prequel to The Lord Of The Rings hit series.

Tennant is due to make his debut appearance at the world's biggest science-fiction and fantasy convention Comic-Con in the US next week.

And Rings director Peter Jackson is also expected to announce his choice for the role when he attends.

Geoff Boucher of the Los Angeles Times, said yesterday: "David Tennant just happens to be making his very first trip to the San Diego expo to promote "Doctor Who," a television series that he will soon be leaving behind. "Peter Jackson, the producer of the two-film "Hobbit" series that begins its theatre run in 2011, is also slated to appear this year, and, well you can see the dot-connecting possibilities. ...

"I think Tennant would be exceptional in the role."

Now, before we get too in-depth on this, let me just say this: Peter Jackson has already said he will not be announcing any Bilbo casting at Comic-Con. "No, we won't be announcing Bilbo for a little while," he said. "We're starting to think about casting, but we're knee-deep in the script right now. And when we do go to actors, they're probably going to ask to see a script, so we're powering ahead with getting the first draft done." So at this point, all this talk is just casting rumor…keep that in mind. But hey there's nothing wrong with a good casting rumor so let's dig in, shall we?

First off, I would like to say that assuming they had free schedules, any of these three would make an excellent Bilbo. Still, scheduling is not an assured thing, especially when you consider that Radcliffe still has two Harry Potter films to go. Tennant also has a busy schedule, and McAvoy is becoming a known name within Hollywood. I do find it interesting that they're supposedly considering these three when there is no less than a 19-year age gap between the three actors; Radcliffe is 19, McAvoy is 30 and Tennant is 38. I can see them shooting for something more in the 30's range, which would leave Radcliffe out—probably to his benefit, as the last thing he needs is another fantasy franchise to further typecast him.

That just leaves Tennant and McAvoy in this rumor. Either of them would work fine, though if I had to bet between them my money would be on McAvoy. He's got a young look to him that belies his age and that would serve him well as a hobbit. He has the acting chops, and just enough mainstream recognizance that audiences won't pass him off as a nobody. Outside of Dr. Who, Tennant is best known as Barty Crouch Jr. from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and I don't think that's enough for him to really register on audiences' consciousnesses. So out of these three my vote would be for the Wanted star, although I'm sure it will end up going to someone entirely different. Still, speculation can be fun, no?

---

Check below for some of the excellent work here on-site you should be reading if you haven't already:

Ask 411 Movies: Leonard Hayhurst answers questions about Eli Roth's Thanksgiving, movies that were originall radio shows, Ma and Pa Kettle films and more!
Alternate Takes: Sean Lealos looks at a few of the best pure science-fictions films of all-time!
The Movie Zone Top 5 - Most Wanted DVD's: Trevor Snyder comes up with a great topic again and the staff gives some great answers of movies that need DVD releases!
Around the World in 24 Frames: Len Archibald's Kurosawa retrsopective continues with the amazing Rashomon!
The McGuffin Review: Cory Johnson covers the fourth episode of the season for True Blood!
Ten Deep: Owain Brimfield gives us the ten best seige films!



And for shameless self-promotion, check out my work, both here in the Movie Zone and over in the Wrestling Zone:

The Watcher Diaries: Goodbye Iowa: A Riley-centric episode brings us further into the Season Four muck.
Angel Investigated: I've Got You Under My Skin: One of the creepiest Angel episodes of all-time. Seriously.
The 411 Movies Podcast: The whole gang is back together at last, and we talk about new movies, Scream 4, a Ghost Rider reboot director's cuts and how much Gary Foster sucks!

The Wrestling Top 5: Stables: We needed more Flock love, damn it!
Wrestling Zone Fact or Fiction: Len Archibald and Andy Critchell discuss Angle vs. Foley, Raw guest hosts, Tara as Knockouts Champion and then some!
Wrestling's 4R's Tuesday Edition: Another Rey Rey/Jericho classic. What's not to love?
The 411 PPV Roundtable: TNA Victory Road: Without tabulating in advance, I don't think a lot of people had good records for this one.
411's Wrestler of the Week: Week 16: Kurt Angle, Naruki Doi, Booker T, Scott Steiner and...Seth Green???





Do you Twitter? If not, you should! And while you're at it, add these to your list of people that you follow so that you can get the latest updates!

Follow Me on Twitter!
411Mania.com
411's Wrestling Zone
411's Movies & TV Zone
411's Music Zone
411's Games Zone
411's MMA Zone
411's Boxing Zone

---

From Eddie G:
I always thought a tv show where current actors remade scenes from famous movies would be cool. It avoids the need for a useless theatrical remake, but does give a fun taste. Cloony as Rhett Butler, etc...

I sort of feel the same way, and I actually hope that Cinemash is successful enough to bring something like that about. I doubt it will happen but it could be very fun and would bring some of these classic films back without completely remaking them so audiences could be inspired to go check out the originals. Hey, I can dream, right?


From Todd Vote:
The Nines was one hell of a mindf*ck. I loved the idea of that film, and Reynolds was incredible in it. You want to know why Reynolds gets so much hate? He's a good looking talented actor who is banging Scarlett Johannsen. Let's face it, the internet is full of jealous types. That's why Reynolds gets so much hate, in my opinion.

Also, I think I would have been okay with Timberlake being cast as Hal Jordan too. JT gets a permanent pass from me for his work in Alpha Dog, and Black Snake Moan. I think we still have great things to see from him in the acting arena. Fillion would have been the best choice IMO, but I think Reynolds will be a more than capable Hal Jordan.
Another great read, keep up the good work.

Thanks, Todd! I think that could be some people's problem with Reynolds; honestly, I think a large part of it is his Van Wilder work which immediately put him in the lightweight category in most people's minds. There's Blade: Trinity of course as well, although I really don't understand people's hatred of him in that one. I thought he added a very necessary levity and that the biggest problem in that film was the script and David Goyer's direction. More on that in a moment. Whatever the reason, Reynolds's hate is undeserved in my mind and I agree he's a great choice.


From Lanphoon:
You missed one point. The most important point is Ryan Reynolds can't act. This is going to be a horrible choice.

Because he continually gets roles from major studios (big budgets please, not one where he's the lead; and certainly not one like this) doesn't mean he can act. There have been plenty of other flavor of the times, pretty boy actors that continually got roles that shouldn't have. There is a big difference between "studio" actors and people who are actors. If I have to explain that to you then you don't know what you are talking about. The fact that Justin Timberlake got even a mention for this role shows me where DC is going with this.

I'm tired of hearing all the excuses for why Blade 3 sucked: the script, the director, lack of studio backing, etc. The worse thing about that movie was Ryan Reynolds. I like some of his movies but no one can convince me that he's a great actor, nevermind a good one.

I put all your posts together and edited the flames out, Lan. Your opinion is your own and fair enough, to each their own. However, you have to give evidence to back up your assertions if you expect them to be taken seriously. "Ryan Reynolds can't act" Is an assertion, and saying he was bad in Blade—which as I've said just above is an opinion I don't share—isn't backing evidence. With all due respect, you seem like you hated one role of his and haven't let go. Check out The Nines, Smokin' Aces, Adventureland, Chaos Theory and Definitely, Maybe and come back with specific reasons that he failed, and then you'll have a chance of convincing people. Just saying he can't act isn't winning your argument, I promise. Thanks for reading, though!


From Guest#3448:
I am shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, that the article didn't bring up the "Mr. Mom as Batman? REALLY?" argument that everyone mentions when comic geeks whine about how "X doesn't belong in Y role."

Wait till the movie comes out, people. You may be surprised. I'd hope TDK would suggest that WB now knows what it is doing (but that might have been more them being fortunate to have Chris Nolan than their own doing).

At least it's not Justin Timberlake. Or Jack Black.

Now the Portman in Thor thing I am more worried about...unfond memories of The Prequels...

I actually forgot the Michael Keaton/Batman furor, and that's an awesome point 3448. It's the closest example to a situation like this. Keaton did fabulous as Batman and no one took him seriously before then; he had even less of a dramatic rep then Reynolds does now. If Keaton succeeded, and I think he did, then I think we can give Reynolds a shot. As for Natalie Portman, there are the Prequels as negatives, but then look at V for Vendetta where she did amazing in her role. There's also Closer, Cold Mountain and—yes, I'm going to say it at risk of my guy credibility here—Where the Heart Is. Portman's a capable actress and I think she'll nail this one.


From The Great Capt. Smooth:
Here's an idea. Let's wait until the GL movie comes out. Where do you think the bad buzz comes from? People who don't give things a chance.

Now Smooth, that's just CRAZY TALK! What are we gonna do, if not bitch about movies? We might actually have to be optimistic, and that of course is not cool.

---

The Hush-Hush Editorial Section: Crossing the PC Line

This coming week sees the release of Warner Bros.'s latest horror offering, Jaume Collet-Serra's Orphan. The film stars Peter Sarsgaard, Vera Farmiga and Isabelle Fuhrman and is about a couple who, following a tragic miscarriage, adopt a child only to find out the young girl is not what she appears to be. With a 2,600-plus theater release, the studio has of course been doing the usual media blitz of advertising. It has also brought, perhaps surprisingly, a 4,200-person boycott on Facebook as well as outrage from various Christian and nonsecular adoption groups. The protestors say that the film promotes negative stereotypes about orphans, and took particular offense to a line that appeared within the trailer that aired in front of Drag Me to Hell. The line specifically stated "It must be difficult to love an adopted child as much as your own." Warner Bros. quickly changed that line in the trailer to a different one and Senior VP Scott Rowe went so far as to admit that the company "messed up" in promotion for the film.

Okay, I think it's time for a reality check here, folks.

Before I launch into this, let me say that I am a very strong supporter of adoption groups. I personally was adopted as an infant by my parents, as was my older brother. I think that adoption is a wonderful thing and without it, I very possibly wouldn't have had the opportunities that I did growing up. People who do tireless work for adoption advocacy have my complete respect and I would never wish to see their hard work spit upon. That being said, I think I have as much right as anyone to comment about this, and I can say that as an adopted individual myself…this is a whole big load of crap. This is a horror film, and it's being advertised as a horror film. It's not even being advertised as a thriller, which could conceivably be taken as something that is a representation—however distorted—of real life. Horror generally implies a more fantastical take on a subject matter and this clearly seems to be a film that goes in that direction. To think that anyone actually looks at a movie like the Orphan and thinks "Well, that's certainly got to be what adoption's like these days" is to bestow on the film a level of realism that I don't think the makers merit or even want. And furthermore, I think that if anyone looks at a horror film and lets it dissuade them from going through with an adoption process that they otherwise may have done, it's probably for the benefit of the child they were about to take into their home.

The line of cultural sensitivity in art is something that is often debated, and film is no exception to that. From films dealing with religion to films dealing with the Holocaust, Hollywood has often found itself at a focal point of controversy and protest. Recent examples of this include not just Orphan, but gay rights groups and Austians decrying some of the sexual actions and words portrayed by the main character in Bruno, blindness support groups protesting Blindness and mentally handicapped groups speaking against Tropic Thunder. This is only a tiny handful of the many films to get protested against—not because of any zealous fanaticism, but because misguided individuals believe that those viewing these films will somehow think they correspond with real life. To any of us outside of that line of thinking, this is of course ridiculous. No one looks at a farcical comedy like Bruno and think that Austrians really look up to Hitler. Likewise, no one looks at Tropic Thunder and thinks less of the mentally challenged because of it. Even a serious film like Blindness is obviously not making a statement about what the visually-impaired person is like. To those who view the situation from a balanced point of view, this simply doesn't make sense.

So why does it happen? What makes a group stand up and call for a movie's boycott. The answer is simple: fear and sympathy. In a world where there is unfortunately an inequality toward the LGBT community, blind people, adopted children and so on, people have an innate desire to protect these individuals from the pain that may be inflicted on them. This is noble of course, and such intentions come from a very warm place. Unfortunately, the adage about Hell and what its road is made of applies here. Good intentions do not positive actions make, and in people's desire to protect people who have a harder time than others, the end results is usually something quite counter to what protesters want. They want to give people a chance to find equality, but what they are actually doing is cutting those people off at the knees by assuming they need such extreme methods of protection. I know someone who is blind, and believe me there is nothing she hates worse than people treating her like an invalid who can't stand up for herself. There are many who feel the same way, but it's rather difficult to stand up to people's self-righteousness without getting cut down in the process.

One of the things that irritates me the most about this is how, in this situation, Warner Bros. backed down…perhaps more than I have seen any studio do so in a long time. We're used to seeing studios react with messages that contain words like "it was not our intention…" or "we apologize if anyone was offended." These studios usually will still stand behind their products though. In Warner's case, the message was clear: "We messed up." For a studio to be so afraid of a little PR problem that they are willing to cut a movie's legs off is mind-boggling, and shame on Warner for doing so.

And this is the biggest kicker. I present to you the trailer in its unedited form. The offending line is at 1:45:



That's right…the line is spoken by the villain in the film who is obviously either mentally unbalanced or some sort of supernaturally evil creature. And people think that we're going to take what she says seriously? Wow.

So please, for those of you out there who see a studio's trailer offering and get offended, or see a protest and think "wow, they're totally right," do me a favor. Learn about what's going on. Cultural sensitivity is good, to a degree. Once it becomes political correctness, it's just wrong.

Well, that's all we have time for this week. Join us next week for more of what you come to see: movie news, casting rumors, rants and more! This is Jeremy Thomas, off the record, on the QT…



…and definitely, "Hush Hush!"