——

Not sure what director Marc Webb’s reboot offers that’s much different than the three that came before, but that’s probably the idea. No sense in fixing what isn’t broken.

This trailer, though, does seem to give away almost all of the plot.

King’s interview with Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly earlier today revealed new details about the investigation and why the congressman thought the leak may have happened in the first place.

The New York Republican told Kelly the proof for his initial suspicions about the leak revolved around how much information about the raid hit the press shortly after it occurred.

“That compromised our assets on the ground,” he says.

His concern grew after reading a Maureen Dowd column in the New York Times “almost bragging that the administration would give Sony and [Director] Kathryn Bigelow unprecedented access to the most classified operation in history.”

That was enough to ignite a preliminary investigation by the Defense Department into the matter, King reveals. And, apparently, investigators found something worth pursuing.

“The Inspector General has decided to go ahead with a full investigation,” King said. “I feel very vindicated on this … they wouldn’t be wasting their time on this if they didn’t think there was at least probably cause.”

King didn’t accuse the Obama administration of purposely leaking info for a project which could cast Obama in a positive light. Instead, he pointed to a less nefarious cause.

“Sometimes you have amateurs running the operation,” he says, while later adding he’s glad Sony is making a movie of the raid.

“This should be made into a movie. This was so heroic, and it was a tremendous accomplishment,” he says.

Over the past five years, a dozen-plus anti-war films have flopped at a 100% rate (Boal and Bigelow’s Oscar-winning “Hurt Locker” only grossed $17 million domestically — and in my opinion it did not look favorably on our military), and if that doesn’t prove the power New Media has to compete with and even defeat The Hollywood PR Machine, nothing does. Why Sony ever believed they could get away with  releasing into the 2012 election narrative a multi-million dollar feature focusing on one of President Obama’s very few successes is beyond me.

Sony’s plan was an obvious one. Not only would the release of the film in the crucial weeks leading up to the election bring this event back to the forefront of voter’s minds, it would also give Obama’s Media Palace Guards the excuse and cover they desire to resurrect this story just when the President might need it most. This was cynical, sinister, and the worst kind of exploitation of our Military.

I don’t give credit when people do what they should’ve done in the first place, but I am glad Sony came to their senses. However, their excuse for bumping the release date is a laugh-out-loud howler. Apparently they were askeert of Kevin James, you know, because his ”wacky shenanigans” might compete for the same ticket-buyers:

Sony Pictures has set Kathryn Bigelow‘s untitled hunt for Bin Laden drama (unofficially titled Kill Bin Laden) for December 19, 2012.  The studio had originally set the film for October 12, 2012, but moved it to make way for Kevin James‘ wacky shenanigans in Here Comes the Boom.

And if this is indeed the case, it’s almost as entertaining…

According to Box Office Mojo, Kill Bin Laden currently has the December 19, 2012 date all to itself[.]

…because one of the reasons Sony gave for the original release date was that no other Oscar-season dates were open.

I’m not so sure that even five years ago Sony would’ve felt any pressure to do the right thing here, to NOT exploit the valor and bravery of our Military in a multi-million dollar, in-kind campaign commercial to benefit the re-election of a failed president.

God bless New Media.

Finally, with the pressure of the release date off, the pressure is also off Bigelow and Boal to take the election into consideration during the creative process. We might just get a better film out of this.

More on the story here, here and here.

The rest of the entertainment media is downplaying the news, but that’s probably because they’re pouting.

Best Description of ‘Quantum of Solace’ Yet

IMDB:

Roger Moore, who played James Bond longer than any other actor, has complained that the 007 franchise has suffered a decline in quality in recent years. In an interview with Varsity, the student newspaper at Cambridge University in England, Moore expressed admiration for Daniel Craig’s performance in the last Bond movie, Quantum of Solace, but he compared the movie itself to “a long disjointed commercial.”

A very long disjointed commercial.

NBC TV and Universal Film Struggle

LA Times:

The NBC broadcast network and the Los Angeles based Universal movie studio posted weak numbers for the quarter ended Sept. 30. The film studio underperformed at the box office, resulting in a 7.8% revenue decline compared with the third quarter of 2010.

Tepid ratings at NBC as well as increased spending for new prime-time programming added to the drag on NBCUniversal’s overall results. The broadcast TV division barely turned a profit.

Is the economy to blame? The product? Both?

Sony is looking at a billion-plus dollar loss, but that’s due in large part to sales of televisions, Blu-ray players and other electronic items.

—–

—–

SCOTTDS’ EPIC LINK-TACULAR

FULL-LENGTH TRAILER FOR ‘AMERICAN REUNION‘

RANKED: TERRENCE MALICK FILMS FROM WORST TO BEST

AN INSIDE LOOK AT THE FILMING OF ‘THE HOBBIT‘

‘WALKING DEAD’ RATINGS DIP (BUT ARE STILL HUGE)

FOX RENEWS ‘THE X FACTOR’ FOR A SECOND SEASON

‘THE GOONIES’ VS. ‘THE MONSTER SQUAD’

NEW LINE PURCHASES ‘CATEGORY SIX,’ SCRIPT FOR “FOUND FOOTAGE” DISASTER FILM

TOM CRUISE TAKES ‘MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE’ TO NEW HEIGHTS

GUILLERMO DEL TORO PREPPING HIS NEXT ANIMATED FILM FOR DREAMWORKS

TERRENCE MALICK WILL SHOOT TWO NEW FILMS IN 2012

THE 10 MOST SHOCKING/CONTROVERSIAL MOVIES OF ALL TIME

J.K. ROWLING ADMITS SHE WAS THINKING OF KILLING OFF RON WEASLEY

A LOOK BACK AT THE FAILED 2000 SCI-FI ANIMATED FILM ‘TITAN A.E.‘

AMAZON VISITS PIXAR

AN ESSAY ON JEAN COCTEAU’S ‘ORPHEUS‘

5 REASONS ‘DARIA’ SHOULD COME BACK INSTEAD OF ‘BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD‘

A LOOK BACK AT THE DEVELOPMENT OF ‘SIX FEET UNDER‘

41 THINGS WE LEARNED FROM THE ‘HALLOWEEN’ COMMENTARY TRACK

—–

—–

LAST NIGHT’S SCREENING

Over the past few days I’ve watched both the 1997 television miniseries version of “The Shining” and Stanley Kubrick’s 1980 theatrical film. I know this is heresy, but I think the miniseries is superior in every way. Better story, scarier, deeper characterizations, and — are you ready for this? Steven Weber’s performance is better than Jack Nicholson’s.

This isn’t Nicholson’s fault. He’s a brilliant actor who did up to a hundred takes for Kubrick that ran through every possible emotion. Therefore the performance is a creation of the director’s in the editing room, but it’s still an over-the-top performance that constantly takes you out of the film, especially the third act.

Weber, on the other hand, is completely believable, especially in the climactic confrontation scene with his young son where everything that’s come before emotionally culminates in this one scene. It’s a heartbreaking scene and, I think, a performance that deserves more attention.

Kubrick’s film is also somewhat stiff and stagy, especially in the opening scenes. Obviously, it’s beautifully filmed and contains a number of iconic moments, but it’s also distant (a Kubrick trademark) and episodic.

I await your scorn.

—–

—–

--Please send tips/suggestions/requests/complaints to jnolte@breitbart.com

If the studio and filmmakers want to begin to repair the damage they’ve created by pretending their multi-million dollar film’s release date wasn’t intended to be a multi-million dollar in-kind contribution to the Obama 2012 campaign, they need to bump the picture well into 2013. Or…

They can be honest about what they’re up to, like the “Atlas Shrugged” producers have been, and admit their desire to impact the election.

“Who, us?” just isn’t going to cut it. The good news is that someone over at Sony might be coming to their senses.

Hollywood Wiretap:

Sony’s planned October 12, 2012 release of Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal’s film about the hunt for Osama bin Laden may be shifting. The New York Times on Wednesday reported that the picture may be moving from its slot – which would have fallen shortly before next year’s presidential election – to a post-election date, and possibly not until 2013.

In its report, The NYT cited two people who were briefed on the studio’s plans.

Back in August, Maureen Dowd reported the pre-election release date and pointed out that the film might boost re-election prospects for President Barack Obama by dramatizing the killing of Bin Laden.

Following that, Rep. Peter King, a republican from New York who is also the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, voiced concerns over the White House’s cooperation with the filmmakers.

According to the story, Sony will make up their minds in a few weeks.

Though I was no fan of ‘The Hurt Locker,’ I’ve been a Bigelow champion going back to ‘Near Dark’ and love the idea of her being the one to tell this story. But whether or not the film becomes tainted as a partisan, political football is completely up to her and the studio.

Furthermore, the men and women who risked their lives to bring bin Laden down deserve better than to have their courage, duty, and sacrifice exploited in a campaign commercial.

No one loses if the the release date is moved into 2013… other than those with mercenary political motives.

Bigelow and Boal

The Hill:

A Republican lawmaker from Kansas wants to prevent the administration from helping Sony make a move about the killing of Osama bin Laden.  

The Stop Subsidizing Hollywood Act introduced by Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.) would stop the Obama administration from spending taxpayer money to share information about the killing of bin Laden with Sony Pictures, which is looking to release a film about that event in October 2012. 

Jenkins said the bill, introduced on Friday, is necessary because the government has no role to play in helping the movie industry at a time of fiscal crisis.  

“In an era of 9 percent unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, credit downgrades, and record debt ceiling extensions it is unconscionable that tax payer dollars are being used to aid the Hollywood film industry in fact checking and script research,” Jenkins said. “American families have been forced to go through their budgets line by line and look for ways to tighten their belts, and it is time the federal government does the same.”

Sony, Bigelow and Boal have been given every opportunity to do the right thing and push the film’s release date into late December and out of the political arena. They have CHOSEN not to do so. Furthermore, they were the ones who chose to play politics with this film to begin with, not Rep. Jenkins and not anyone on the Right.

There’s nothing we would all like more than to enjoy a non-partisan, pro-American film about the killing of Osama bin Laden, nothing we would all like more than to anticipate the film we’ve been waiting ten years to see — the one where Hollywood finally takes our side in the War on Terror. But the decision has been made by the Hollywood Left to cynically use a key moment in our history and, worst of all, the bravery and heroism of our troops, as partisan political pawns.

As of right now, conservatives not only have the right to do everything within their power to bring down this film, they have an obligation.

If the filmmakers and studio want to play politics … let’s play.

Our upcoming film project about the decade long pursuit of Bin Laden has been in the works for many years and integrates the collective efforts of three administrations, including those of Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, as well as the cooperative strategies and implementation by the Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency. Indeed, the dangerous work of finding the world’s most wanted man was carried out by individuals in the military and intelligence communities who put their lives at risk for the greater good without regard for political affiliation. This was an American triumph, both heroic, and non-partisan and there is no basis to suggest that our film will represent this enormous victory otherwise.

So the “Obama Got Osama” film is not meant to boost the re-election chances of our beleaguered president?

Prove it.

If the slated Oct. 12, 2012 release date is merely a coincidence–as the statement suggests–or solely based on opening the film during “Oscar season” (which runs through December and even into early January), surely those responsible for the film will agree that it is obscene to politicize the triumph of our most heroic Americans by unnecessarily injecting them into the election cycle against their will.

So, we call on Oscar winning director, Kathryn Bigelow, and Oscar winning screenwriter, Mark Boal, to formally ask Sony Pictures to release the bin Laden film in late December — long after the 2012 election season is over, long after the film itself and the publicity surrounding it can have any kind of impact.

It’s their movie, they have expressed what sounds like a sincere desire to create a “non-partisan project,” and now is their chance to ensure that’s the case.

Whatever the final outcome of the film, the current release date taints every frame of it. This is their opportunity to remove that taint.

New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, broke a story last Saturday on the White House’s curious role in the production of a new Hollywood movie that tells the story of the killing of Osama bin Laden by Navy SEAL Team 6. The movie is set to be released October 12, 2012, conveniently just before the November presidential elections.

The movie’s creators are none other than director Kathryn Bigelow and journalist Mark Boal, whose 2009 movie, “The Hurt Locker,” won six Academy Awards in 2010.

The White House has offered Bigelow and Boal a questionable in-depth look into the mission which ended the terror king’s reign and is getting “top-level access to the most classified mission in history from an administration that has tried to throw more people in jail for leaking classified information than the Bush administration,” according to Dowd.

Predictably, The Washington Post, Reuters and, The Los Angeles Times led their coverage of the story with White House denials of jeopardizing national security. The Politico took a more balanced approach.

According to a Politico article on the matter, Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, has written a letter to the CIA and Department of Defense demanding an investigation into the White House role in allowing unprecedented access into the mission and is quoted as saying, “It shouldn’t have been out there that SEAL Team 6 did this, and there have been so many details out there.” King continues, “And now we find out they are cooperating with a movie — what are we doing?”

White House press secretary Jay Carney chimed in on King’s remarks saying, “We do not discuss classified information and I would hope that as we face a continued threat from terrorism, the House Committee on Homeland Security would have more important topics to discuss than a movie.”

King responded saying, “Obviously, I hit a sensitive nerve, what he said was nonsense — there has been so much classified information released over the last 90 days.”

It appears that a double-standard exists when the presidential administration demands that intelligence agencies take painstaking efforts to seal (no pun intended) leaks of classified information and then are held responsible for anything that does end up in the public domain — a mistake that would most likely cost someone’s career — yet the White House can allow journalists and movie directors top-level access into highly secretive information in order to boost the public’s view of a President who is suffering from unfavorable poll numbers just in time for reelection.

“The Administration’s first duty in declassifying material is to provide full reporting to Congress and the American people, in an effort to build public trust through transparency of government.  In contrast, this alleged collaboration belies a desire of transparency in favor of a cinematographic view of history,” King concludes.

The filmmakers’ statement is below but, unfortunately (and incredibly), it doesn’t address the film’s release date, which is set for October 12th, 2012 –just  a few weeks prior to the November 6th presidential election. This is THE elephant in the room and the likely reason no one involved with the film will address it is due to the fact that there’s no logical reason reason to release the film on that date unless you want to give Barack Obama a pre-election boost — a $50 to $75 million dollar in-kind political contribution.

Bigelow and Boal

If Sony Pictures and the filmmakers want to take the partisan stink off of this thing, then they need to move the release date to late December. Obviously everyone involved is eyeing Oscar season, which is fair enough. But Oscar season lasts straight through Christmas.

Via Variety:

[T]he filmmakers have said that have had help from not only the Obama adminstration but also the Bush and Clinton adminstration and have released a statement on the current scrutiny the film has under gone. The film is directed by Bigelow and is written by Mark Boal, the same team that made the Oscar-winning “The Hurt Locker.”

“Our upcoming film project about the decade long pursuit of Bin Laden has been in the works for many years and integrates the collective efforts of three administrations, including those of Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, as well as the cooperative strategies and implementation by the Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency. Indeed, the dangerous work of finding the world’s most wanted man was carried out by individuals in the military and intelligence communities who put their lives at risk for the greater good without regard for political affiliation. This was an American triumph, both heroic, and non-partisan and there is no basis to suggest that our film will represent this enormous victory otherwise.”

What we all know, and this includes Obama’s friends involved in the film, is that what this release date is designed to ensure is that right in the heart of the crucial last few weeks of Obama’s reelection bid, the ONLY bright spot in Obama’s failed presidency, will intentionally become the focal point of the news narrative. The whole of the left-wing media will use the film’s public relations push to swamp everything else out.

Maureen Dowd got this exactly right:

The White House is also counting on the Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal big-screen version of the killing of Bin Laden to counter Obama’s growing reputation as ineffectual. The Sony film by the Oscar-winning pair who made “The Hurt Locker” will no doubt reflect the president’s cool, gutsy decision against shaky odds. Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012 — perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher.

The moviemakers are getting top-level access to the most classified mission in history from an administration that has tried to throw more people in jail for leaking classified information than the Bush administration.

It was clear that the White House had outsourced the job of manning up the president’s image to Hollywood when Boal got welcomed to the upper echelons of the White House and the Pentagon and showed up recently — to the surprise of some military officers — at a C.I.A. ceremony celebrating the hero Seals.

And the worst part is that the courage and sacrifice of the men and women who helped to bring down bin Laden is being intentionally and cynically exploited for partisan political purposes.

America and the people who protect her have waited ten years for a film about this war that takes our side and now that we might finally get one, it comes in the form of a Left-wing campaign commercial.

If the release date isn’t political, they why did the filmmakers’ statement COMPLETELY IGNORE it? 

Why won’t they address it?

Why won’t Sony explain it?

We all know the answer to that question.

What do you think?