Video Production – Famous Movies Filmed in Toronto

Los Angeles and the Hollywood hills were for a long time the only Mecca for the North American movie industry. New York has always followed closely. However, throughout the years and mostly due to economic reasons, Ontario’s capital has become a privileged place for the film industry.

Many people are surprised when they find out that famous movies, which are thought to be made in the USA, were actually filmed further north. We want to give you a list of some of this productions so that you have an idea of the important role of this city when it comes to movies.

– X-Men (2000): Professor Charles Xavier and Magneto meet in the suitably futuristic surroundings of Roy Thompson Hall to discuss the future of human- and mutant-kind.

– Serendipity (2001): This famous New York film actually uses some streets of Canada’s largest city as filming locations.

– Chicago (2002): The movie might be set around the windy city, but several scenes were shot in Ontario’s capital: the Elgin Theatre, Union Station, Osgoode Hall, and the Queen’s Park legislature building.

– My big fat Greek wedding (2002): The city’s Greektown along Danforth Avenue appears prominently throughout the movie, and if you’ll also spot downtown’s Ryerson University and Jarvis Collegiate Institute.

– How to lose a guy in ten days (2003): Another famous Manhattan film, gets all of the scenic shots there, but much of the movie’s inside scenes were done in Canada, like the “Knicks” game at Madison Square Garden and the gala event near the end of the film.

– Resident Evil- Apocalypse (2004): There are key scenes in Nathan Phillips Square and at the Prince Edward Viaduct. The CN Tower even makes a brief appearance.

– Mean Girls (2004): This comedy was filmed in a number of real-life Canadian high schools. Sherway Gardens, UofT’s Convocation Hall, Etobicoke Collegiate Institute, and Malvern Collegiate Institute are some of the locations used.

-The incredible Hulk (2008): Though it may seem as the film was shot in New York, it was actually shot in the city’s downtown core, in areas such as Yonge Street and the Financial District.

– Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World (2010): Some recognizable places include the Public Library, Casa Loma as well as popular coffee shops on St. Clair West. While some films prefer to conceal their Canadian affiliations, director proudly infuses local culture into almost every aspect of the movie.

– Cosmopolis (2012): The columns of Union Station provide the location to one of the key scenes of the movie.

These are only some of many movies that have been filmed in the city. TV series are also often produced here. When you look at all that’s taking place here you come to understand the growing importance of Canada when it comes to providing locations and most important production services. Many video production companies have opened, making it an attractive destination when it comes to entertainment, information and advertising industries.

Toronto is Hollywood North

Hollywood North is a term used to describe the film industries and film locations north of California, principally in Canada. Ontario’s capital ranks as the largest film and television production centre in Canada, and third overall in North America, behind Los Angeles and New York.

Government tax incentives at both the provincial and federal level promote the city as a destination for many US film productions. It costs less to film and produce north of the border, so many Hollywood directors find in this city the perfect place for bringing their projects to life. In addition to the financial benefit, the Province has worked hard to develop a well-trained labour force and supporting infrastructure. Producers can shoot, edit and animate all in one place, rather than heading back to Hollywood.

Ethical Choice in the Movie Gone Baby Gone

Gone baby Gone is a movie about deep philosophical arguments when a little girl gets kidnapped. Ethical issues arise when Patrick and Angie discuss whether they should take the missing girl case. Angie does not want to take the case because she is afraid that she might find an abused or dead child. Patrick does not want to find her dead either but since they know people in the neighborhood and they have the skills they should. Angie is taking a utilitarian approach of getting the most pleasure and benefit from the situation by not taking the case. Patrick is taking a Kantian ethicists approach. He takes the case justified by reason that they need to find out the truth, which is the moral thing to do. The truth is plays a big role to Patrick in the movie since people keep lying to him.

When Patrick shoots the pedophile he acts in an egoist manner. He knew he could get away with it. He was so angry and sick that the little boy died he had to satisfy his own needs. He did not let the courts decide the fate of the pedophile he acted from his own interest. He questioned his actions after and feels bad about it after, but he still shot the pedophile. The cop Remy Bressant argued with Patrick, saying it was the right thing to do. He acted from an intuitionist view. He saw countless criminals being let off for crimes they committed so he did not feel bad. He understood that the pedophile was guilty and he got what he deserved. He did not need to reason nor could understand why someone would.

From the viewpoint of Aristotelian virtue ethics Patrick Kenzie is a good person. Patrick promised Amanda’s mother that he would get back her daughter and he did. That was his own moral choice and he would do regardless of the cost. It was his good character, which virtue ethics is based on that obtained Amanda. Another example of his good character would be taking the case. He did want to find Amanda dead but he would still take the case. His moral choice outweighed the consequences, which is how a virtue ethicist would feel.

Patrick uses the golden mean theory in dealing with the decision to bring Amanda back home. He did not want the conspirators to have Amanda that would be excessive. He did not want her Mom to have Amanda because that would be too deficient. So he decided to let her mom have her so this way he could check up on her. He took a “middle path” that he thought would suit best the situation.

The First option in Gone Baby Gone is you can call the police and they will take Amanda back to her Mother. Her mother is a drug addict, she is poor and she just cares about herself. The second option in Gone Baby Gone is you can turn the other way and let Amada live a life with fake parents but who will care more for her. The fake parents would be conspirators in her abducting. The utilitarian theory would take the second option. This way everybody is happy. Everyone that died would not have died. Amanda would not know. Amada would have had a more stable life. The Kantian Ethicists answer would be option one. They would make the right choice that they would want to be consistent.

Kids should not be taken away from their Mothers; therefore Amanda should not have been taken from her mother. If you make exceptions it is not fair for the kids who are actually taken away from their mothers in different situations. There would be no respect or order so there are no exceptions. Angie and Morgan Freedman follow the utilitarian approach. They both know that Amanda would be better off with Morgan Freedman. Patrick could not live with the fact that he let a child be kidnapped when he knows kidnapping is wrong regardless. He follows the Kantian ethicist theory. If I were Patrick I would of done exactly what he did although I would of not let Amanda be back with her mother. I would let child services deal with the problem because a kid should never have to grow up in a Jerry Springer environment. I agree with the Kantian Ethicist theory. “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law of nature.”

Alcohol and Drug abuse should not be in a kids upbringing. Amanda should not be with her mother. I think the only reason why Patrick let Amanda back to her mother is because he had a relationship with her and grew up with her.

Judy Garland Love Letter to Frank Sinatra in Time for Sinatra the Movie

A Letter of Love and a Movie About a Legend

Martin Scorsese is set to direct a movie about the intriguing and interesting life of Frank Sinatra. The Oscar winning director will entitle the movie, “Ol’ Blue Eyes” and it will be produced by Universal Pictures. This is going to be the first film that will show the entertainment legend’s life in detail. It has been the film project that people had been anticipating for the past few years and Hollywood is still buzzing on the finer details of the movie. Director Martin Scorsese would like to focus on pivotal moments of the music icon such as his growing up years, greatest hits, involvement with politics, and his love life.

And, of course the many relationships in his life, both romantic and platonic, including four marriages.

One of his most controversial relationships was with Judy Garland. Frank Sinatra and Judy Garland had a romantic relationship during two different time periods. The first time was in 1949 as these two legendary singers got together on a trip to the Hamptons. Their secret and romantic rendezvous happened when Judy Garland was still recovering from her nervous breakdown and needed much rest, support and comfort. Frank Sinatra, being the romantic type and caring person that he was, accompanied Judy Garland and their love blossomed there in the beautiful views of the Hamptons. However, during that time, Judy Garland was still married to the director named Vincente Minnelli. The second time that they were romantically involved was in 1955. He had just separated from Ava Gardner when he got together with Judy Garland. During that time, Judy Garland was still with Sid Luft, her third husband.

It is interesting to note that his relationship with Judy Garland was one of the special relationships that he had in his life. Up to now, it is the subject of many conversations and books about Frank Sinatra after many years that have passed.

There is a website that has an original handwritten letter from Judy Garland to Frank Sinatra. It is a romantic piece that contains heartfelt words that reflects that fountain of intimate emotions in the Sinatra and Garland relationships. For the Sinatra movie, Martin Scorsese is imagining and planning Al Pacino to play the role as Frank Sinatra. Imagine Al Pacino holding the original love letter in a scene depicting the Sinatra and Garland relationship? Imagine owning this piece of history! It is a rare relic that Frank Sinatra fans and enthusiasts would love to have or even just see.

For more information, you may go to the website

Leadership Found in the Few and the Small


Envision an army of ants, multitudes of them carrying food and piling the food on a large rock. These ants are performing their task in uniformity and in a sequential order. The leadership is responsible for delivering the goods in order to maintain the survival of the ant colony.

On the human side, imagine a commanding officer of a unit assigned to a foreign country, responsible for his troops’ safety, operating an efficient command post, defending his country, and operating as an assumed dignified commander.

“Success in leadership, success in business, and success in life has been, is now,

and will continue to be a function of how well people work and play together (Kouzes & Posner, 2002, pg. 21).”

The two films which were selected represented a virtual-time situation, “A Bug’s Life” and a real-time situation “A Few Good Men.” Each film demonstrated a leadership style conducive to its environment and a communication style which revealed its strengths and weaknesses. Both films illustrated deception in leadership, the revelation of power in numbers, and the success and failure of leadership in action.

Analyzing Leadership in the Ants

The main character of this movie was an ant name Flik. Flik was an army ant who had a creative imagination. His role brought challenges to the leadership team and forced them to make a decision to send him away to find an answer to their dilemma of confronting the grasshoppers. In the beginning of the movie, the ants are gathering food and marching the food up to a rock. This gathering of food serves a two-fold purpose:

  • First, to feed the swarm of rebellious grasshoppers, led by “Hopper” their leader, and
  • Second, to secure the survival of the ant colony.

The story focuses on a colony of ants who seasonally gather food for themselves and a wild gang of rowdy grasshoppers. When bumbling worker-ant Flik (David Foley) destroys the food supply, the angry grasshoppers, lead by the maniacally warped Hopper (Kevin Spacey) threaten to kill the ants if they don’t produce a new supply of food by the time they return, an impossible feat. Flik leaves the anthill in search of help in the form of bigger bugs to wage war against the grasshoppers. What he doesn’t know is he has actually discovered a group of down-on-their-luck traveling circus insects in need of a job. When the ants realize that their heroes are really circus performers (and the circus bugs realize that these grasshoppers are really big and mean) the situation goes from bad to worse. Ultimately the ants use their large numbers to overcome the grasshoppers. (Gore, 1998,

Yukl’s definition of leadership basically defined the process in which leadership was demonstrated in “A Bug’s Life.”

Leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how it can be done effectively, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives (pg. 7).

Leadership was prevalent in all parts of the movie. The “Queen Ant” and the “Princess” were the female leaders who were born into their natural assignment by virtue of the fact they were the reproducers of the colony. They performed their assignment with the utmost of integrity, considering the safety and well-being of the colony. Because of this demand, their leadership skills reflected, “….consensus building, inclusiveness, and interpersonal relations, being willing to develop and nurture subordinates and to share power and information with the colony (Carr-Ruffino, 1993; Grant, 1988; Hegelsen, 1990; Rosener, 1990) (Yukl, pg. 412).” The movie demonstrated how each ant was committed to the survival of the ant colony; thus, demonstrating the shared power from the leadership. Leadership’s goal was to organize and protect the colony, laying down their life for one another if necessary.

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another (John 13:34, NIV)

Although there was a Hierarchical type of leadership, the movie shifted the spotlight to the workers who were part of a “networking” which reflected the Paradigm Shift stated in Benus and Nanus book, written by Chronicler John Naisbitt (1997, pg. 13).

Communication in the Colony

When Flik was sent away to seek help, he heard the colony cheer for his leaving. The colony was communicating a cheer of “yea, he is leaving” but Flik thought they were communicating a cheer of “yea, he is going to find help.” Communication was the main element in this movie. There was:

  • Miscommunication – When the colony sent Flik away to seek help, they did not communicate the real reason of why he was being sent away.
  • Non-communication – When Flik hired the circus bugs, he did not communication to them the real purpose of their going to the colony.

Body language was prevalent in the movie and reflected powerful emotions throughout

the movie:

The face is the language of emotions. Different parts of it are used to display different emotions. Fear is usually looked for in the eyes, as is sadness. Happiness is seen in the cheeks and the mouth as well as in the eyes. Surprise is seen in the forehead, eyes and mouth (Latiolais-Hargrave, 1999, pg. 39).

Communication was a powerful tool within the colony expressing emotions, surprise, anger, and deception. The biggest turnaround in the movie took place when the Princess communicated to the colony to rally together and unify for the purpose of saving what generations of ants have fought for. Once the Princess realized the colony was more powerful in number and unity, they were able to defeat the grasshoppers and end their harassment. The model of communication which this movie followed was the Superior and Subordinate Nonverbal Relationships: Appearance, Gesture and Movement, Face and Eye, Vocal Behavior, Space, Touch, Environment, Scent, and Time. This reflected the Higher Status definitions and the relationship to the Lower Status relationships (Goldhaber, 1993, pg. 197).

Analyzing A Few Good Men

The main character of this movie was Navy lawyer Lt. Daniel Kaffee. He was assigned to defend two Marines who were facing a Court Martial for the death of a fellow Marine. The intensity of the movie bounced leadership off the wall in almost every scene. From the beginning of the assignment of defending the accused until the end of the trial, the leadership and the tremendous interaction revealed a range of leadership from the ethical down to the dark side of charisma.

In this military courtroom drama based on the play by Aaron Sorkin, Navy lawyer Lt. Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) is assigned to defend two Marines, Pfc. Louden Downey (James Marshall) and Lance Cpl. Harold Dawson (Wolfgang Bodison), who are accused of the murder of fellow leatherneck Pfc. William Santiago (Michael DeLorenzo) at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Kaffee generally plea bargains for his clients rather than bring them to trial, which is probably why he was assigned this potentially embarrassing case. But when Lt. Commander JoAnne Galloway (Demi Moore) is assigned to assist Kaffee, she is convinced that there’s more to the matter than they’ve been led to believe and convinces her colleague that the case should go to court. Under questioning, Downey and Dawson reveal that Santiago died in the midst of a hazing ritual known as “Code Red” after he threatened to inform higher authorities that Dawson opened fire on a Cuban watchtower. They also state that the “Code Red” was performed under the orders of Lt. Jonathan Kendrick (Keifer Sutherland). Kendrick’s superior, tough-as-nails Col. Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholson), denies any knowledge of the order to torture Santiago, but when Lt. Col. Matthew Markinson (J.T. Walsh) confides to Kaffee that Jessup demanded the “Code Red” for violating his order of silence, Kaffee and Galloway have to find a way to prove this in court. A Few Good Men also features Kevin Bacon as prosecuting attorney Capt. Jack Ross, and Kevin Pollak as Kaffee and Galloway’s research assistant, Lt. Sam Weinberg. — (Deming, 1992,

The lawyers and the Marine Officers each formed their leadership relationships which described the Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX). This theory “…describes the role-making processes between a leader and an individual subordinate (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975) (Yukl, pg. 116).” The exchange relationship usually takes one of two different forms. According to the theory, most leaders establish a special exchange relationship with a small number of trusted subordinates who function as assistants, lieutenants, or advisors (Yukl, pg. 116). In the case of the Marine Commander and the LMX Theory, his intention in usurping his authority was for deceptive purposes. The lawyers utilized the LMX (Yukl, pg. 116) Theory to produce a values and ethical outcome for the Marine prisoners.

Communication for the Pros and Cons

The lawyers representing the convicted soldiers shared their leadership responsibilities. They were appointed to the case and one of them emerged as the leader because of his passion for the truth. They eventually found the loop hole in the case and proceeded to communicate a path which led to the truth. Their presentation created an atmosphere of suspense which eventually broke the Commanding Officer’s self-righteousness attitude and unfolded the truth.

Researchers comparing the impact of assigning or choosing leaders have discovered that followers expect more from natural leaders than appointed leaders.Since they have more invested in leaders that they have selected for themselves members have higher expectations and tolerate less failure. Yet, at the same time, group members give natural leaders more room to operate. Emergent leaders have greater freedom to make decisions on behalf of the group. One of the most common assignments for appointed group leaders is to plan and to preside over meetings, the subject of the next section (Hackman And Johnson, 2004, pg. 193).

The Marine Commander communicated a message to his entire command which perverted the Marine Code and the minds of the soldiers. The Commander was highly charismatic and knew his strength and power. He became his own Commander-in-Chief, deceiving himself and creating his own rules and regulations. Charismatic leaders tend to make more risky decisions that can result in a serious failure, and they tend to make more determined enemies who will use such a failure as an opportunity to remove the leader from office (Yukl, pg. 251).

For a man’s ways are in full view of the Lord, and he examines all his paths. The evil deeds of a wicked man ensnare him; the cords of his sin hold him Fast. He will die for lack of discipline, led astray by his own great folly. (Pro. 5:21-23,NIV).

Resolution Conclusion

The bugs had resolved to believe their destiny was doomed by serving the grasshoppers the rest of their ant lives. They did not realize their power in unity until the situation became a life and death matter. The colony was used to following rituals, rites and routines (Hackman & Johnson, pg. 224) which kept them bound to traditional servant hood. The Princess and the Queen were desperate for a resolution. At the point of contending with the enemy, the colony realized their numbers were greater than the grasshoppers. It took the boldness of the Princess to urge the colony to unite together and defend their rights and territory.

Your effectiveness as a symbolic leader will depend in large part on how well you put your “stamp” on an organization’s culture or subcultures either as a founder or as a change agent (Hackman & Johnson, pg. 230).

In “A Few Good Men”, the Commander became so wrapped up in his assignment that he went overboard in performing the very purpose he was assigned to his post. He perverted the Code of Ethics and his charismatic leadership fell into the dark side contributing to the death of his fellow Marine. The resolution of the movie came to past when the Commander’s true intentions were revealed. Hackman and Johnson describe his charismatic leadership as follows:

  • Uses power only for personal gain.
  • Promotes his or her own personal vision.
  • Censures critical or opposing views.
  • Demands that his or her own decisions.
  • Be accepted without question.
  • Engages in one-way communication.
  • Is insensitive to followers’ needs.
  • Relies on convenient external moral.
  • Standards to satisfy self-interests (pg. 117).

Leaders who learn to listen, seek wisdom, and evaluate the situation can find resolution in most conflict. Although these movies are secular, God can use the foolish things of the world to confound the wise (Matt. 11: 25, NIV) and teach life-learning lessons. The lesson learned from “A Bug’s Life” was the fact that desperate situations can bring unity and resolution. “A Few Good Men” was an example of the struggle people encounter when they shut off the rest of the world and allow their world to become the pivotal point in all of life.

My Verdict on Balance (1989) A Short Film

If one wants to understand the directors’ vision of the short film Balance, he/she would have to possess great knowledge of German history or be prepared to delve into the subject. The leading political parties in those days may have (and I use ‘may’ because I’m not entirely surely) curtailed the freedom of expression, which including films by censoring direct references or attacks against the government. Unless we have lived in those times or are as curious as Leo Tolstoy about World history, we may not understand many elements in Balance: the numbers on the… (What should I call them?) daunting figures, why these figures looked identical, and what the musical box represented etc, since they are represented symbolically.

But one can grasp a general idea about the film- some say it is about corruptive power, some feel the movie castigates materialism while a few reviewers with good historical knowledge talk about fascism and related topics. After a couple of watches, I observed one small detail that cleared some concepts in my mind- the person who was sitting on the box while the platform kept tilting left and right managed to eliminate most of his companions, and while at first he does this accidentally, by the end his deed is deliberate and cruel.

This made me think of the box as some form of throne or title. Before it arrives, the five work in perfect harmony till the contents of the box are heard by the characters. Then one decides to do away with the box (he possible prefers harmony) and tries to create an imbalance to knock off the foreign object. But he is stopped by another as the rest witness the action, baffled. When one begins to dance to the music playing from within the box, another applies pressure on the platform to bring the box towards him. This causes the performer to sit on the box to prevent falling, while the rest move hurriedly in a state of panic and confusion. The guy on top of the box doesn’t push the first guy intentionally and we can make this out by the look on his face. The second person too is kicked accidentally, but when the man had an option to save his last mate, he decided not to.

Now understand this situation using this context: the man on the box or the throne inevitably acquires power. The first few times people close to him suffer unintentionally by him or the power he has (the weight of the box) and he can be exonerated for those crimes. But when the person realizes that the box is the source of dominance, he cuts off any others’ reach by killing them intentionally and deviously. No one is left to question him, and he seems to be satisfied in the ending. But he doesn’t realize how lonely his position at the top is and how far he is from ‘power’ in metaphorical terms (he doesn’t get the fruits of power).

Everyone should see Balance at least once for the various messages it sends across. But make sure about the kind of film you are in the mood for: this isn’t your Pixar, happy, all’s-well-that-ends-well treat.

Fun Facts About "Life of Pi"

The movie “Life of Pi” is based on a novel of the same name written by Yann Martell. Although the book and movie revolve mostly around characters that are from India, Martell himself is Canadian. During his childhood and teenage years, Martell lived in Spain, Costa Rica, Mexico, France, and Canada. He writes in English, but French is his first language. Other books by Martell include “We Ate the Children Last” and “Beatrice and Virgil.”

The story in both the novel and movie centers on the life of Piscine Molitor, an Indian boy who was named for a swimming pool in Paris. Because his name draws jeers from boys at school, Piscine takes on the nickname Pi. “Life of Pi” is told in a framed story format, which means an older Pi is telling the story to a reporter. The story is mainly about how the younger Pi survived a shipwreck and spent time on a lifeboat with wild animals, including a fully-grown Bengal tiger.

In addition to drawing a lot of attention from moviegoers of all ages, “Life of Pi” also has quite a bit of interesting trivia associated with it. The film is directed by Ang Lee, but numerous other popular directors were attached to the film at some point in development, including M. Night Shyamalan.

“Life of Pi” also has several fun connections to the Spider-Man franchise of movies, including links to the trilogy starring Tobey Maguire as well as the reboot film “The Amazing Spider-Man.” The first link involves Maguire and Andrew Garfield, who played Peter Parker in the newest film. Maguire was originally cast as the reporter who interviews the older Pi, but Garfield was also considered for the role. Although Maguire filmed some scenes, Ang Lee made a decision to replace him before editing. According to reports, Lee felt Maguire was too big an actor for the role.

Another link to Spider-Man can be found in actor Irrfan Khan. Khan, who plays the adult version of Pi, played the role of Dr. Rajit Ratha in “The Amazing Spider-Man.” The name of the tiger in “Life of Pi” is Richard Parker, which is also the name of Peter Parker’s father in “The Amazing Spider-Man.”

Martel did not get the name Richard Parker from the Spider-Man stories, however. He got the name from an English law case from 1884. The case, known as R. v. Dudley and Stephens, centered on an argument about whether necessity could be used as a defense in a murder trial. Specifically, the argument was about cannibalism in a castaway situation. Four men, including a seventeen-year-old cabin boy named Richard Parker, were shipwrecked. After days of hunger, the three other men killed a possibly dying Parker and ate him. Martel’s choice of this name for a shipwrecked tiger that could, at any moment, eat Pi is full of dark comedy.

The name of the ship from the 1884 court case was the Mignonette. In a scene in “Life of Pi” where the older Pi is being interviewed, a ship called the Mignonette passes in the background.

An interesting fact about the film’s creation has to do with the tiger. Suraj Sharma, the actor that plays Pi, was reportedly never in contact with an actual tiger. In fact, all scenes depicting Sharma and the tiger within the lifeboat were computerized. Although the CGI is very well done, there is at least one moment in the movie where it is apparent to viewers. The tiger jumps from an island to the boat, but there is no movement on the surface of the boat. When Pi makes the same move a moment later, the surface of the boat flexes under his weight.

Sharma was almost not seen on the lifeboat at all, though. He didn’t even mean to audition for the film. He was with his brother, who was responding to a casting call, when the casting team spotted him. With more than 3,000 other young men showing up for the role, the team chose Sharma as the lead. “Life of Pi” was Sharma’s first movie and, as of January 2013, he has not appeared as an actor in any other film.

“Life of Pi” is a fun and thoughtful film that examines topics like survival and religion in an offbeat and unique manner. It is fitting that the movie is also associated with so much fun and odd trivia.

Rottweilers of Fame

The popular rottweiler breed has seen some of it members become quite famous. This ranges from comic books to movies and onwards. Here is a look at a few of the rottweilers that made into the halls of fame.

We start in the world of cartoon movies and find Scout, the rottweiler pet of Professor Shepherd in the action adventure and comedy cartoon called Road Rovers. Through a rather failed experiment the rottweiler Scout is transformed into Muzzle, a quite mad and foaming character that is mostly kept in a mask and strait jacket. Occassionally he is set free as a last resort when the Road Rovers are in real trouble and this usually turns out to the advantage of the good. Perhaps this rottweiler character has contributed to some people being scared of this breed of dogs.

In the realm of childrens books resides another famous rottweilers, Good Dog Carl. In a series of worldess childrens books the images of Carl the rottweiler entertains children of all ages. These books, 13 in total, and especially the board book version, have become immensly popular. The illustrations were brought to life by Alexandra Day.

On the big screen we find for example Snot, a rottweiler who starred, or at least took part, in the movie National Lampoons Christmas Vacation from 1989. The movie was one in a series and received mixed reviews though it is probably hard to find a critic that had anything negative to say about the rottweilers performance in the movie.

In real life there is Missy, the rottweiler of the english soul singer Joss Stone, born as Joscelyn Eve Stoker. Many rottweilers would probably be jeaulos of this one as her owner was recently voted Dog Owner of the Year. Along with Missy she also owns a poodle, Dusty, named after singer Springfield one the major influences for Joss.

Returning to the world of cartoons we find another rottweiler that may have contributed to the image that some carry of this breed as a wild beast. Punisher, a Marvel anti-hero, used to have a pet rottweiler called Max, which he saved from the animal pouchers.

Last, but not least, amongst the famous rottweilers lets mention Dracula. Owned by the heavy metal vocalist and musician Phil Anselmo, who is probably best know for vocals and lyrics with the now defunct Pantera band.

These were a few of the rottweilers of fame. There are surely more and surely more will come as this great dog continues to live amongst us.

How to Find Clothes From the Movies

Want to find clothes from the movies to add to your wardrobe or give as a gift? Well, you are not alone. This new fashion trend is really catching on in larger cities, metro areas, and even some smaller towns as available clothing suppliers and the internet enables the demand for specific types of clothing, outfits, and individual garments to be met. To find clothes seen in a movie, the most important thing is to know as much about the movie as possible.

Your first stop on this hunt might be the IMDB (The Internet Movie Database) where you can look up your favorite move or actor. By doing this research first you can uncover all the important information about the film you want to buy clothes from. For example, let’s say you watched Sling Blade and wanted to find the hat worn by Doyle Hardgraves or the shirt worn by Vaughan. In these cases, you might not know the names of the actors or when the film was made. The Internet Movie Database at can provide all of this info and much more!

Once you know which actor you want to dress like and which movie he or she was in, you can then try searching online to find out more about the available designers and clothing stores that provide this very specific type of service. These types of websites usually allow you to search by actor, film, or fashion type. You can usually even just search the most recent additions to their supply.

Whether you are searching for designer clothes, sunglasses, hats, shoes, dresses, coats, jackets, or other accessories worn by famous actors and actresses in the movies, you can find exactly what you are looking for online!

This new fashion trend is a great way to expand your wardrobe. If you want to dress like Seth Rogen in Knocked Up or Don Cheadle in Crash or George Clooney in Ocean’s 13, you can do it easily now via the Internet and sites like and that help you do this!

Why Is Pixar’s Brand So Successful?

Pixar’s brand in animated movies is successful because they simply have strong content and they have high barriers of entry that a potential competitor has not been able to overcome. Pixar is the animated movie wing of the Walt Disney Corporation. Each of its 14 movies has been very successful in terms of box office revenue and many of its movies have been nominated for Oscar consideration. I love their movies, as do many adults. Pixar is one of the top brands in media. They make animated movies that are a hit with kids, but their story lines have a lot of substance for adults.

Recently, I attended one of their movies for leisure. I couldn’t help but mix business with pleasure. As the movie was progressing, I began to think about Pixar’s brand and how it is put together. In the business press, Pixar is well thought of. It has a solid reputation in business and marketing circles. I observed the audience. The audience was made up of both kids and adults.

Sure, Pixar’s movies are animated. This genre is attractive to kids. That’s why kids go. However, I am an adult, and Pixar has created a brand with me. I was very expectant of the date of the release of the movie that I attended. Pixar’s movies have a brand with adults as well as kids.

As a general rule, I have come to the conclusion that a company should never market to just one group. This has made me think about Pixar’s branding strategy. A marketer wants as broad an audience has he can get, but a brand should never targeted for “everyone.”

In observing, Pixar I have come to the conclusion that there is an exception to every rule and Pixar is the exception to the branding rule which says that products should be targeted.

Pixar is something like the Model T in 1908. Henry Ford did a brilliant job of marketing and branding his car. The Model T was directed to everyone because virtually every American wanted a car, and there weren’t good alternatives. In 1908, there was a small middle class. In our nation, in 1908, most people were struggling financially. Low cost was the most important factor in any car brand in 1908. The Model T could do this. The Model T was a unique brand in a unique time in our history. Pixar is the same way.

Pixar’s movies have a great story lines, and they have immersive computer aided technology. Pixar movies are an overwhelming content for adults to watch. The quality of its content and the capital that is needed to make and market these movies creates a huge barrier to entry. I don’t see how the brand could be varied —an animated movie is an animated movie. Perhaps another movie house at some point will create an umbrella brand —create two renditions of the same brand. The way this would happen is that if some movies were made just for kids, and another group of movies would be designed with adult themes and be obviously created for just adults. A General Motors model for branding in animated movies.

In addition to the high barriers of capital, Pixar is also well run. Pixar has 3 overriding principles that it uses in creating great movies. Everyone must have the freedom to communicate with everyone. There has to be an environment in which it is safe for everyone to offer ideas. At Pixar there is an attitude that there is no idea that is not to outlandish. The creators of the content for Pixar’s movies stay close to the academic community. Pixar is located in the Los Angeles area. It is located near technology houses, such as the lab at USC, that do game changing technology in the area of game technology.

Dean Hambleton

[email protected]

What Do Judges Look for in Acting Auditions?

Have you ever wondered why some people make it through in auditions; while others get shown the door? Then wonder no more. The main reason behind success and failure is on how well the audition judges can reflect and interpret your performance to meet their expectations. The following are a few of the things most judges look for in acting auditions:

1) Ability to show a wide range of emotions. Judges at the auditions would expect you to move with the tune; this means that when it is time to show shock open your eyes as wide as you can and place your hand at the mouth. On the other hand, grief can be expressed by showing deep thought and sadness. However, try as much as possible not to look at the floor while expressing grief. This is because the director won’t be able to see your face. When you smile don’t just smile with your mouth but let it also show in your eyes that you are genuinely happy. Your eyebrows can also be used to express happy feelings; tilted brows show genuine enthusiasm as opposed to flat brows.

2) Ability to bond with other actors both on and off camera. As an actor you will not be at the movie alone; the ability to relate well with your fellow actors shows maturity and a desire to learn from others. Treat other actors the way you would also like them to treat you. This would reflect on camera as many actors would offer to shoot videos with you.

3) Spontaneity. This is the ability to be unpredictable in your acts. Make your audience always trying to figure out which kind of a person you are due to your different reactions to similar situations. Judges prefer people who have multiple personalities because they make the show much more interesting.

4) Sometimes experience counts. Experience shows that you have first hand information of what is required of you. Also, the more experienced you are, the less likely your chances of making mistakes. This is the main reason why different movies refer to the same actors to do their acts. If you are a totally new actor at the auditions, try to make good movies with your friends before showing up at the panel.

5) Easy to work with. Acting judges prefer people who are able to grasp concepts easily and follow simple instructions. Don’t be the kind of person who always asks them to repeat what they had already told you. If you have a hearing problem, tell them earlier so that they can be prepared to handle you.

6) A good match for the part they are casting. This has to do with the kind of personality you have. If they are casting a rogue person then you have to indicate roughness and a rude attitude. Even if you are good on screen, if you don’t match the character they are looking for, just don’t show up for the auditions.