The 76 year-old “Queen of Soul” has reportedly passed after a long bout with pancreatic cancer.
The AP News Tweeted early this morning the following:
Aretha Franklin, the long-reigning “Queen of Soul” who sang with matchless style on such classics as “Think” and her signature song, “Respect,” died Thursday at age 76, said her representative, Gwendolyn Quinn. The cause was advanced pancreatic cancer.
Her last performance was for the Elton John Annual AIDS Foundation Gala in November.
In March the singer cancelled her upcoming performances due to an undisclosed illness.
For years Aretha Franklin has battled rumors about her health ranging from respiratory illnesses to pancreatic cancer.
In an interview with Access Hollywood she said, “I don’t know where ‘pancreatic cancer’ came from.
“I was sitting there reading the newspaper and it was saying someone in my family said that. No one in my family ever said that to anybody.”
The multi-Grammy award winner deserved a little “RESPECT” and the media honored her privacy requests, despite growing concern for her weight loss.
Ms. Franklin reportedly had diabetes. Studies have found a correlation between the common blood sugar disease and the lethal cancer. Once recent study found if one had a worsening of their diabetes it could be a sign of pancreatic cancer. Since diabetes is a disease that affects the pancreas and its ability to produce and release insulin, its logical that there may be a correlation.
Pancreatic cancer has a high mortality rate and unfortunately it remains asymptomatic until it has progressed to an advanced stage. So a worsening of diabetes (in the absence of poor diet and lack of compliance with medication) may be the only sign that pancreatic cancer is occurring. The earlier the cancer is caught, the better the prognosis.
She is a legend and has touched us all. May she rest in peace.
Her fellow musicians and friends react:
Let’s all take a moment to give thanks for the beautiful life of Aretha Franklin, the Queen of our souls, who inspired us all for many many years. She will be missed but the memory of her greatness as a musician and a fine human being will live with us forever. Love Paul
This morning my longest friend in this world went home to be with our Father. I will miss her so much but I know she’s at peace. #QueenOfSoul
The greatest voice in American popular music has been stilled. Our beloved #ArethaFranklin has gone. For me, she was a musical lighthouse, guiding and inspiring with every note. I loved her so and love her still. Goodbye, Queen of Soul.
One of the highlights of my career was singing with #ArethaFranklin at The Tony Awards. It was an out of body experience for me. One of greatest singers of all time. You will be missed by all. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=csm3A80M9qA …
On Wednesday, Academy President John Bailey and C.E.O. Dawn Hudson announced three “key changes” - a shorter show with a three hour hard limit, an earlier date for the ceremony and a new “Popular Film” category.
Um. Okay. Well, key changes is usually code for, “We’ve noticed our ratings dropping and we’re panicking - quick, let’s make some key changes!”
Let’s break down their panic!
Three Hour Limit
The Academy Awards is a long show. It usually runs three to four hours. Everyone knows this. It doesn’t stop people from watching. And it’s been that way for multiple decades. Sure, some folks have mild grumbles about that fact but ultimately - the exact same people will have the exact same complaint no matter how many hours the show runs. Cutting the show from 3.5 hours to 3 hours is fairly meaningless. Those same people will complain if it’s two hours or ninty minutes.
And the Academy ideas for how to cut the show is this - some “lesser” awards will happen during the commercial break and viewers will be updated in shortly edited clips during the broadcast.
Sheesh. Some of these folks are random crew members who will never be nominated and / or win another Oscar again. Just let them have their bloody five minutes on TV, for Pete’s sake!
“Change” conclusion: Unnecessary. And certainly not a “key” change.
Earlier Telecast Time
They want the show to broadcast 2-3 weeks earlier than its usual “last week in February” timeslot. I guess they think that the Oscars two weeks earlier will increase ratings. Or something. The next Oscar, the 90th Ceremony is moving to early March to avoid competing against the Winter Olympics. Which seems fair to move the telecast for that one year. But, in general - moving the ceremony two weeks earlier doesn’t seem as it if it will increase viewers. I just don’t know what they are thinking here.
Let’s test this. Ask a friend. Go to someone you know who doesn’t watch the Oscars at all.
Say to them, “Hi friend! Are you going to watch the Oscars this year?”
They will respond, “No, of course not. I hate that show. I’ll never watch it.”
Catch them with, “But what if it was broadcast two weeks earlier than usual?”
Watch their cold eye roll of indifference burn into your soul!
“Change” conclusion: Ridiculous and unnecessary. And totally not a “key change.
New Category: Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film
And the “We don’t think your film is good enough to be nominated for an Academy Award but because it made a lot of $$$, we’ll throw you a bone” Oscar, goes to …
This is the “key change” drawing the most negative press. Celebrity reactions have been mixed with (usually) the old folks saying, “I hate change” and the young folks saying, “I love change.”
Well, I’m all for change. As many have pointed out the Oscars have not added a new category since “Animated Feature” in 2002 so it’s certainly time for some change. I am happy to hear that a new category is in the works. For the last two decades I have oft said there is glaring missing category from the Oscars, the “Outstanding Achievement is Stunt Coordination.” Once I say that outloud aren’t you like, “Oh, yeah. They totally need that category.”
The fine folks over at Vox.com thought the same thing with their: Forget Best Popular Film. Here are 6 new categories the Oscars actually need. (Although, I disagree with their “Best Casting” idea).
Alas, no. It is not any of those fine ideas. The Oscars will now give an Award to the film that made a ton of money but wasn’t quite good enough to be nominated for an Academy Award.
Of course, we already have those exact awards coming from both the Golden Globes and on a more comedic level - the MTV Movie awards. The Oscars is supposed to be the Award show with gravitas. It shouldn’t be handing out awards to movies because they are popular.
On the other hand - the Oscars originally, had two “best movie” categories. That’s right! The very first Academy Awards gave out two “best film” winners in two separate categories: Wings won “Outstanding Picture” and Sunrise won “Unique and Artistic Picture.”
Of course that was Academy Awards 1. By Academy Awards 2 the “Unique and Artistic Picture” category was gone - never to return. Because, “fuck those unique and artistic pictures!” #amiright
I kid. But seriously, in 2009 the Academy tried to address the “popular films not being nominated” problem by increasing the number of nominated “Best Films” from five to ten. Probably because The Dark Knight, a movie that was critically acclaimed and widely popular didn’t receive a “Best Film” nomination much to the chagrin of fans.
BUT THEN - just two years later the Academy was like, “Um, it’s really hard to find ten films we want to nominate for Best Film - every single year!” and changed the ruling from “ten films will be nominated” to “a number no less than five and no more than ten films” will be nominated for Best Film.
So, change happens fast because folks don’t seem to think things through enough. And then change happens again to fix the changes that were hastily made. I suspect something along those lines is what’s in store for this “Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film” idea.
I mean, if it’s an “outstanding achievement” - just nominate it for Best Film! Why wouldn’t you do that? The movie is an outstanding achievement!
It doesn’t seem like rocket science to me, folks.
Transcript of the Academy’s full press release:
* * *
Last night, the Board of Governors met to elect new board officers, and discuss and approve significant changes to the Oscars telecast.
The Board of Governors, staff, Academy members, and various working groups spent the last several months discussing improvements to the show.
Tonight, the Board approved three key changes:
1. A three-hour Oscars telecast
We are committed to producing an entertaining show in three hours, delivering a more accessible Oscars for our viewers worldwide.
To honor all 24 award categories, we will present select categories live, in the Dolby Theatre, during commercial breaks (categories to be determined). The winning moments will then be edited and aired later in the broadcast.
2. New award category
We will create a new category for outstanding achievement in popular film. Eligibility requirements and other key details will be forthcoming.
3. Earlier airdate for 92nd Oscars
The date of the 92nd Oscars telecast will move to Sunday, February 9, 2020, from the previously announced February 23. The date change will not affect awards eligibility dates or the voting process.
The 91st Oscars telecast remains as announced on Sunday, February 24, 2019.
We have heard from many of you about improvements needed to keep the Oscars and our Academy relevant in a changing world. The Board of Governors took this charge seriously.
We are excited about these steps, and look forward to sharing more details with you.
John Bailey and Dawn Hudson
The Academy later issued an addendum:
While the details for a popular film category are still being finalized, a single film is eligible for an Oscar in both categories — Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film and the Academy Award for Best Picture. The new category will be introduced this coming year, at the 91st Oscars. In creating this award, the Board of Governors supports broad-based consideration of excellence in all films.
True Crime documentaries are nothing new. A few of the better ones have even freed innocent victims from jail for crimes they did not commit. The Thin Blue Line (1988) is a documentary film directed by Errol Morris that covers the story of Randall Dale Adams, who was convicted and sentenced to death for a murder he did not commit. One year after the release of Thin Blue Line Adam’s was exonerated and released from prison.
The Paradise Lost Trilogy covers the infamous West Memphis Three case where three teenage boys were convicted and sentenced to life in prison for murders they did not commit. After 19 years in prison and two Paradise Lost sequels, new DNA evidence was found that linked a known serial rapist to the killings and the West Memphis Three were released from prison.
Netflix has a variety of crime docu-series available to stream. The most popular being last years ten part Making a Murderer, directed by Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos. Season 1 was a huge hit for Netflix and season 2 is expected on Netflix by the end of 2018.
And now Netflix has again struck true crime gold with The Staircase, a 13 part series directed by Jean-Xavier de Lestrade that covers the 2001 accidental death, or murder, of Kathleen Peterson . Kathleen was found covered in blood at the bottom of the stairs at her and husband Michael Peterson's home. Michael says she was drunk and slipped down the stairs. The police and the DA say that Michael Peterson bludgeoned her to death. 16 years of legal proceedings followed.
While the director and producers have very carefully claimed The Staircase is an unbiased look at the American justice system it becomes pretty clear that the docu-series is extremely pro Michael Peterson.
And that’s fine because, after watching the entire 13 part series I’m on the fence as to his guilt or innocence. Which, I suppose - makes for fine viewing. I found the series to be more satisfying, than Making a Murderer which is equally on the side of the white male man accused of murder. What I mean by “more satisfying” is that, agree with the conclusion of The Staircase or not - it has an ending. Making a Murderer for all it’s pros and cons - is just going to go on and on.
So what exactly is “The Staircase” about? (A spoiler free breakdown)
Fair question. As mentioned above - it’s mainly about the legal proceedings of Michael Peterson who is accused of murdering his wife. It covers Michael's life in great detail including the lives of his children and his charismatic lawyer, David Rudolph.
People are fascinating. Late great film critic Gene Siskel always said that an actor’s face is far more interesting than an explosion. And that carries over to documentaries and real life. People are interesting and flawed and ridiculous and they lie when they should tell the truth and they tell the truth when they should probably lie. And that’s what’s great about The Staircase. It's about people. I liked Michael Peterson, I liked David Rudolph, I like Michaels daughters and one of his sons.
I found one of the other sons a little shady, only to find out that said son had a weird, extensive criminal history - none of which was presented in the docu-series. In fact, there was considerable amount of “strangeness” cut out of the series. Accused murderer Michael Peterson had a fifteen year love affair with The Staircase editor even though the director and producers all claim that fact didn’t affect her judgement as she cut together the series.
Um - maybe that’s true. But probably not.
There is a hugely popular theory of how Kathleen actually accidentally died that is oddly absent from the series. There theory is equally absurd as it is plausible. If you want to continue a spoiler free review do not click this link here (which discusses the theory in detail).
But the main thing I found odd about The Staircase is the lack of empathy towards Kathleen Peterson - the victim. The woman who either tragically died or was murdered. We know virtually nothing about her other than - she's the victim. Maggie Serota writes a really nice piece for Spin.com called Netflix’s The Staircase Doesn’t Seem Particularly Concerned With Kathleen Peterson.
From her piece:
“Like a supporting female character in a mafia movie, the Kathleen presented in the crime doc had no interior life of her own and existed only to know other people, namely her husband and likely killer Michael…”
Serota’s observation is spot on. For a 13 hour series covering the death (possible murder?) of Kathleen Peterson - we are presented very little information as to … well, anything about her. Which means the show produces very little empathy for the victim, other than a few harrowing photographs of the crime scene. And worse than that, doesn't even try to produce empathy for her. According to The Staircase, Kathleen Peterson is basically just - "the dead woman."
And that seems like a professional choice by the director, the producers and the editor in an effort to slant the viewer towards the idea that Michael Peterson is innocent.
And maybe he is. But Kathleen Peterson is dead under mysterious circumstances. And her in debt husband needed money. And Kathleen had a huge life insurance policy. By the way, if you are suddenly thinking, “You said this was spoiler free!” I assure you that information was spoiler free. You know why? Because the 13 part series doesn’t even bother to mention the fact that there was a money problem and a huge life insurance payout. (Motive, anyone?)
Michael Peterson received one third of the life insurance policy, which he spent on legal fees. The other two thirds of the money went to Kathleen’s first husband and her daughter from that previous marriage.
All that being said, I found The Staircase to be fascinating and in places, quite shocking. There are story twists in the series that, if you viewed them in a feature film you would say to yourself, “No way is this even remotely plausible!” But as they say, “Life is stranger than fiction.” And the events surrounding the death / possible murder of Kathleen Peterson are certainly that - strange.
All thirteen one hour episodes of The Staircase are currently streaming on Netflix.
Four of the five top grossing films in the United States thus far in 2018 are sequels, with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom already grossing $222 million to take the fifth spot on that list.
It should be no surprise that the dinosaur-driven, action-thriller saga would manage a good enough opening week to more than cover its $170 million budget. But I see Fallen Kingdom falling in the box office like the dinosaurs suddenly fell from existence.
I have long been a fan of the Jurassic franchise. It’s responsible for some of the best special effects and puppeteering in cinema history. The idea of resurrecting the dinosaurs to live amongst humans intrigues the hell out of me, and the Jurassic Park ride at Universal Studios is also one of my favorite all-time rides.
Fallen Kingdom just isn’t a very good film. The setting nor the story allow the filmmakers to take advantage of its stars – and I’m not talking about Chris Pratt and Vincent D’Onofrio. I’m talking about the dinosaurs, who have always been the stars of the Jurassic franchise, and there’s evidence other people are aware of Fallen Kingdom’s failures.
Fallen Kingdom’s weekly domestic gross fell 71 percent from last Friday to this Friday. Only Hotel Artemis and Chappaquiddick experienced larger drops in revenue over the same time. With films like Sicario 2 and Uncle Drew expecting $18- and $16-million openings, respectively, Fallen Kingdom’s brief reign atop the box office will be briefer than the length of time Jurassic Park and Jurassic World were open to the public. A July 4 opening of The First Purge in 3,000 theaters won’t help, and Ant-man and the Wasp opening in 4,100 theaters on July 6 will precipitate Fallen Kingdom’s fall in domestic box office revenue.
Meanwhile, Tag had the fourth-best percentage change in revenue over the last week, losing just 30 percent in revenue during that time, and it’s still being shown in over 3,000 theaters, so there’s plenty of time for people to see something original and unique to wash the bad taste Fallen Kingdom left in their mouths. It’s really hard for an action movie to overcome poor reviews (51 percent critic score on Rotten Tomatoes and 59 percent audience score), but moviegoers are more willing to give comedies the benefit of the doubt because of people’s unique senses of humor. An action movie must be carried by characters, conflict or effects, but a comedy always has comedy on which to fall back, which might be why Tag’s box office revenue dissipated 55 percent to Fallen Kingdom’s 71 percent in their respective first week’s Friday-to-Friday revenues.
In an age when an original idea is hard to come by at the movie theater, I appreciate a film like Tag that attempts to tell a story never before told, except for in The Wall Street Journal. A group of friends spending the month of May playing tag for 30 consecutive years is a damn fine premise for a movie. It’s not a story entirely, but it gives you the time and place to serve as a setting and interesting characters that can hold an audience’s attention long enough to tell your story.
Tag’s unique premise makes for the perfect bromance comedy about making friendships span the tests of time and space. Not only is Tag hilarious; it’s a bonafide action movie worthy of the big screen. The action sequences are shot superbly, slow-motioned to Matrix-level speed and accompanied by wickedly funny play-by-play commentary.
Jeremy Renner’s character, Jerry, has never been “it,” and this is the year his friends finally get him, because they know where he’s going to be and when. But Jerry’s not the Neo of tag for nothing. He’s got mad skills, making his friends look ridiculous in some of the best action sequences doubling as physical comedy that you’ll see in theaters this year or any other. The same cannot be said for Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, whose predecessor also excelled because of an action-comedy combination.
So if you’re looking to scratch your action movie itch, consider seeing Tag instead of Fallen Kingdom. You’ll not only be entertained by the frequency and presentation of Tag’s action sequences, but you’ll laugh during and between those action sequences and enjoy seeing an original idea projected on the big screen.
The setting for Johnny Knoxville’s Action Point is based on an actual place called Action Park — a New Jersey amusement park opened in May of 1978. While it was operated by drunk, stoned teenagers, that wasn’t the reason for the park earning the nickname “Accident Park.” It was their boss who demanded the park test the bounds of physics and personal injury laws.
Action Park’s attractions were dangerous by design, famous to area youth and infamous to their parents for having no brakes and no speed limits. Seat belts weren’t just optional; they were mostly nonexistent. Action Park was a testing ground for amusement park attractions. Its employees were innovators, but employees and visitors alike often became victims of Action Park’s attractions. But all did so willingly, whether they paid or were paid to be there.
Action Park CEO Gene Mulvihill reportedly offered employees $100 to test rides, and he opened them despite those tests resulting in injuries. It wasn’t that Mulvihill didn’t care about his employees and patrons. He just didn’t think he or his employees should be solely responsible for the experiences patrons could have at Action Park. “You make your own fun” Knoxville says at one point in the movie, channeling Mulvihill, whose “philosophy was that amusement park visitors should be in control of their experience, envisioning a park where patrons managed the rides—including how fast and how high they went,” according to a piece by Brynn Holland for The History Channel. It should be no surprise that Mulvihill’s mind for mayhem attracted the eye of Knoxville — an eye he nearly lost in the making of Action Point.
Mulvihill basically believed amusement parks to be like ski resorts. Regardless of proper maintenance and supervision of attractions, they, like a ice- and snow-covered mountain, are inherently dangerous, and upon paying the price of admission, the patron, not the park, should be solely responsible for any injuries sustained as a result of the patron’s actions. While Mulvihill’s argument that any ride has the potential to cause injury is sound, that’s not how judges saw it when a handful of personal injury lawsuits forced Mulvihill to close Action Park in September of 1996.
The practice of Mulvihill’s philosophy by employees and patrons had predictable results. The wave pool was called “The Grave Pool” because lifeguards frequently rescued up to 30 swimmers on busy days. Women also frequently sustained yeast infections from the water. Six people died at Action Park, which was obviously not advertised in the movie. But the almost 20 years Action Park was open for business is a testament to its patrons’ acceptance and practice of personal responsibility, a quality which Knoxville’s character, D.C., assumes is foreign to his granddaughter, who I thought was a grandson for half the film.
Action Park is no doubt the perfect setting for Knoxville’s jackassian stunts, but it should have been the subject as well as the setting. The place didn’t just have character; it was a character. Instead, Action Point tries to be a story about a part-time father learning how to be a good father figure when it should tell the story of the most dangerous amusement park that’s ever existed and the men and women responsible for that existence.
I’ve long been a fan of Knoxville’s Jackass shenanigans. I was even a jackass myself back in high school. Some of the first films I made were of my friends and me doing stunts like riding office chairs down really steep streets, bicycle jousting, and being towed on a snowboard behind a GMC Jimmy. The Jackass movies are responsible for some of the loudest, longest laughs I’ve enjoyed in theaters besides maybe Your Highness. Even Knoxville’s Bad Grandpa had its moments (mostly the end, which wasn’t because of Knoxville) despite attempting to tell a story. But Bad Grandpa wasn’t much of a stunt movie. Action Point is, and John Altschuler and Dave Krinsky’s attempt at storytelling sinks Knoxville’s latest and quite possibly last attempt at making us laugh at the expense of his and his friends’ bodies.
Knoxville sustained four concussions, broke his hand, lost a five-inch piece of skin from his scalp, lost two teeth, one of which was shoved into his skull, and sneezed his eyeball out of his head while shooting the stunts for Action Point. He said in an interview on “The Dan LeBatard Show with Stu Gotz” that he had to put his sessions with his therapist on hold to get into character. In his first session, Knoxville thought his therapist was a genius for saying “think before you act,” because he had never seriously considered it an option. Stuntmen aren’t unlike athletes in that acting instinctively tends to be safer and more effective than thinking. Thinking leads to over-analyzation and fear.
But Knoxville should have thought about how to make Action Point before agreeing to make it. He should have demanded that this “based on a true story” story should simply tell the true story. Knoxville isn’t a good enough actor to give a convincing, dramatic performance, upon which the film’s story depends. A bear gave a better performance than Knoxville did in Action Point, and no amount of cannabis could make the stuntless segments of the film enjoyable, which is most of the film.
Had Knoxville simply done a mockumentary about Action Park, portraying a daredevil amusement park owner whose only family are his misfit employees and regular patrons, and whose challenge is to keep the park open despite a new competitor and threats of legal action, Action Point would have done Action Park justice. Instead, Action Point tells an all too familiar story so badly it makes the stunts less enjoyable. Action Point should have been another Jackass, not another Bad Grandpa with flashbacks.
Solo: A Star Wars Story opened to fine reviews but performed well below expectations at the box office, even for a non-episodic Star Wars Story. But that shouldn’t deter you from seeing it, and it shouldn’t deter Disney from making another.
A lot of things go into a film’s box office performance besides the quality of the film. I can assure you, Solo is just fine, and while fine might not be good enough for some, it’s a whole lot better than the atrocities that are Episodes I, II and III, and those performed very well at the box office.
Before seeing the film, I was excited for Solo to finally introduce Chewbacca as a main character and develop his relationship with Han, portrayed as well as could be expected by Alden Ehrenreich (although I think those casting the film could have sacrificed looks for performance potential). I wanted Solo to be a bromantic comedy of sorts, and it is, in a less-funny, Dude-Walter Sobchak kind of way.
When Chewie first sits in the Millennium Falcon’s copilot seat, I got goosebumps, and while nostalgia was the source of most of the joy I derived from the film, and most of the its best parts are in the trailer, the movie was worth seeing in theaters. You’ll want to see and hear Solo’s action-packed moments in a movie theater. There are some deep blacks displayed during moments of action that your television at home might not display very well. Despite Solo paling in comparison to Deadpool 2 and Avengers: Infinity War, it’s a solid movie that’s probably a tish too long and falls short of its unfair expectations. I don’t even know if I liked it as much as Tomb Raider, but I’ll probably see it in theaters again regardless.
Solo released two weeks after a Deadpool sequel that except for the first 15 minutes, might be better than the original. And young Han still has Avengers: Infinity War with which to contend. Oh, and box office returns were at record lows last summer and are only getting worse, with U.S. theater attendance the lowest it’s been in 23 years and home entertainment spending up 11 percent. It’s a very competitive movie market and one that’s most friendly to a select few blockbusters -- generally the ones with the biggest budgets.
Jon Cazares wrote about how Solo was a sinking ship from the start. The two original directors, Christopher Miller and Phil Lord, had reportedly shot 80 percent of the film and were fired for allegedly over-spending. Then the hiring of Ron Howard, who reshot much of the movie despite saying much of what Miller and Lord had shot was usable, probably doubled the budget. While Solo ended up a big-budget blockbuster, it wasn’t meant to. In fact, had Solo stayed on budget, it would have been the cheapest Star Wars film produced by Disney and cheaper than all but the original trilogy at $125 million, making its $104-million opening weekend look a whole lot better.
So while Solo is already considered a flop by the entertainment media, don’t let that be the reason you don’t see it in theaters. Think for yourself. Don’t let the mass media dictate your consumption. And if you’re looking to give your air conditioner a break for a few hours, hit a matinee and enjoy a Star Wars film that challenges the norm more so than any before it.
Roseanne Barr goes on a Twitter rant and acts like a lunatic!
Not exactly news though, since she’s been a lunatic for at least ten years. Barr uses Twitter and other social media platforms to spread all manner of idiocy. That being said, she does indeed have the constitutional right to say such lunacy and spread such idiocy.
Also, we all know that her free speech right does not protect her from consequences. And today her lunatic rant has gotten her huge hit of a TV show - cancelled! (There is no sarcasm there, either. Her show was a ratings juggernaut for ABC).
It all started early this morning when, on Twitter (in a now deleted Tweet), Roseanne, while referring to Valerie Jarrett, an African American former Obama aide, wrote, “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.”
Well, ABC wasted little time with a reply and two hours later publicly cancelled the Roseanne revival despite its huge ratings. ABC wrote:
“Roseanne’s Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show.”
Barr quickly deleted the Tweet but the damage had already been done. Screenshots of it can be found all over the internet (here it is on TMZ). Her cast mates and the show producers quickly fell all over themselves condemning Barr’s words. One of them even quit - Wanda Sykes said she would not return to the show. Of course, that’s all moot now the show has been cancelled, but still. It’s nice to see.
Barr tried to pull the ol’ “It’s a joke” instead of offering an apology. And I agree with her here. It was a joke. She’s a comedian, comedians make jokes. That makes sense. It’s just that - this was a particularly racist joke. Barr should have the right to say it. And she does. And now there are consequences. Which is great!
Not so great for the entire cast and crew who just lost their jobs because Roseanne is a lunatic racist. But still - a step in the right direction if you ask me. Roseanne did get around to offering an apology writing on Twitter:
“I apologize to Valerie Jarrett and to all Americans. I am truly sorry for making a bad joke about her politics and her looks. I should have known better. Forgive me-my joke was in bad taste. I am now leaving Twitter.”
Meh, no big loss to Twitter.
Anyway, I should at least note I’ve not watched a single episode of the Roseanne show, ever. I’ve heard it actually did a decent job of tackling socio-economic issues. I don’t know one way or another and so I don’t really have a dog in this fight other than - I am happy to read that there are some things more important to ABC executives than money. The Roseanne revival made ABC piles of cash! But racism should get you fired every time and so ABC made the right call.
Well played ABC!
The first 14 minutes and 25 seconds of Deadpool might be the best beginning to a movie I’ve ever seen in a movie theater. It has everything every blockbuster film should have to draw you in and put you on the edge of your seat. It introduces you to an interesting character, it entices you with either drama or comedy, and culminates in a climactic scene that sets the scene for the hero’s journey through the movie’s plot.
Deadpool 2’s first 15 minutes aren’t as good as Deadpool’s, which is to be expected. While the opening credits of Deadpool 2 are just as hilarious as those for Deadpool, the first 15 minutes of Deadpool 2 just can’t measure up to its predecessor. You can only introduce the Deadpool character once, and Deadpool does it as well as any film has, including Batman, the opening to which serves as source for a joke in Deadpool 2. Thankfully, Deadpool 2 doesn’t attempt to outdo the first 15 minutes of Deadpool, opting instead to use drama to set the stage for the sequel.
The first 15 minutes aside, the rest of Deadpool 2 is not only more entertaining than Avengers: Infinity War, but it’s better than Deadpool, too.
Back when Super Troopers 2 was released, I wrote about how a select few sequels achieve the critical acclaim of their predecessors. Much of that is due to the precedent set by the original film, as is the case with the first 15 minutes of Deadpool. Despite the wild success of The Godfather, ask any Italian or most film professors which is the better film, The Godfather or The Godfather: Part II, and Part II, will come out ahead. Ask any Star Wars fan which Star Wars is best, and most will tell you The Empire Strikes Back is better than its predecessor, A New Hope. Empire’s Rotten Tomatoes rating is even higher than A New Hope’s. The same is true of Deadpool 2’s Rotten Tomatoes rating. It’s rating is one percentage point higher than Deadpool’s as of this writing.
If you liked that Deadpool brought attention to the fact you’re watching a movie and used it as comic relief, you’ll love Deadpool 2. The sequel ups the ante in this regard, blending reality and fiction in a sort of Gonzo journalistic attempt at filmmaking. The “whose balls did I have to fondle to get my very own movie” moments are many more and even funnier than the original’s. Instead of suspending reality for audiences, Deadpool and Deadpool 2 use reality as the butt of many of the films’ jokes, and it works wonderfully, even providing laughs through its casting of characters. (Hint: stay seated after the sneak-peak trailer following the end credits for outtakes during filming of Deadpool 2.)
If you liked the relationships formed between Deadpool and Colossus and Negasonic Teenage Warhead in Deadpool, you’ll love how those relationships grow and the new relationships Deadpool forms with Josh Brolin’s Cable (who is just as good in this as he was in Avengers: Infinity War), Zazie Beetz’s Domino, who is equally fantastic in her role, and Negasonic Teenage Warhead’s girlfriend, Yukio.
Finally, if you thought you laughed a lot when you saw Deadpool, you’ll laugh even more often and harder and longer when you see Deadpool 2. It is without doubt the funniest comic book movie ever made, overtaking its predecessor, of course. I laughed more during Deadpool 2 than I did during Super Troopers 2 and think you will, too.
Holy wow, Batman! “This is America” is sophisticated, genius art!
But I’ll get back to that.
First I just want to say that, oftentimes music and movies are too quickly labeled “genius” or “art,” simply because they are created. And if something is created it must be - art. Especially if it’s created by someone we adore! Well - maybe. But not all movies are art, nor do they try to be. The same, I think it could be said, is true for music.
And then there is the much maligned “music video.” A truly lost form of expression. Well, not “lost” exactly but certainly ramped way down from the 90’s heydays where music companies paid to produce music videos because, “If you don’t have a video - you don’t have a hit!”
Remember, MTV used to have two full channels dedicated to music video. Not so much any longer. Nowadays, rich musicians use their own money to finance their own music videos and take the loss in hopes that increased publicity from said video, will lead to higher sales and more clicks on YouTube (or similar stream channels,) which also brings in the bacon.
And then we come to Childish Gambino’s “This is America.” For those that don’t know, Childish Gambino is the musical stage name for freakishly talented Donald Glover - actor, writer, producer (no relation to actor Danny Glover). Gambino actually has several music videos out, most of them cleverly written with semi humorous, semi serious tones. And, for my taste - with mixed results.
So, this weekend, when I heard the crushing throng of folks talking about Gambino's “This is America,” I was skeptical. I mean, Glover’s talent is self evident. His writing is fantastic, his comedic timing is spot on, he’s going to be BADASS as Lando Calrissian in the upcoming Star Wars Solo film. (But that’s just a prediction. That will totally become truth!)
Anyway. Again, I was a bit skeptical because - as much a fan of Glover’s as I am in regard to his writing and acting, I am lukewarm on his music.
And then I watched “This is America.” Dear Bloody God was my skepticism misplaced!
As a song - “This is America” has choir melodies and trap rhythms that blend incredibly well together. The writing is blistering social critique from all angles of race. But as a video - it’s a work of genius art.
Movies, and music video are a world of images and imagery. “Show, don’t tell” is the most commonly used phrase told to young directors - “Show your audience what is happening - don’t have characters tell the audience what happened or is happening!” Show your visuals. Show your imagery. This is, after all, a visual medium.
And “This is America” drips with important imagery beginning with (but certainly not limited to) Gambino’s Jim Crow comparison. The NY Times has a nice collection of writers from all over the country commenting on the video’s imagery. And since the imagery is critical to understanding the video, I urge viewers to read into some alternate theories into the “meaning” behind Gambino’s “This is America.”
“You never know what’s in the head of an artist unless they tell you. So we have to interpret and sometimes we get it right. I did go out and read some of the critiques from various people and they’re just all over the place. I like it. I like it because, quite frankly, I like any art that pushes intelligent discussions about racism. Any art that pushes that is good for this country.”
In all his points here, I agree wholeheartedly. I would also add that in order to be “great art”, it has to have the capacity to scare people. And “This is America” is doing just that - angering & scaring folks of all races, all over the country. That being said, the positive praise far outweighs the negative. The video has a crushing amount of fervent supporters. Count myself among the supporters.
But if you watch the video and you “just don’t get it” or even if you hate it - that’s okay too. Great art, such as this, can handle the criticism. I would urge you to read up more on the history of the imagery Then watch the video again, watch the sharply directed & choreographed obfuscations in the foreground and the background and take note of the loving treatment guns receive juxtaposed with the cold indifference of dead black bodies.
“This is America” is a really great, and important work.
I am certainly not alone in my thoughts. In less than one week, “This is America” has racked up more than 65 million hits on YouTube alone. And so, like this upcoming fact I am about to drop, or not but - “This is America” will go down as one of the greatest music videos ever produced.
Maybe even the greatest.
And that title will be well deserved.
Josh Brolin, who portrays Thanos, the villain in Avengers: Infinity War and the character with the most screentime, is listed 27th in the credits for the film -- just ahead of Chris Pratt, the star of the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise. In all, the stars and co-stars of seven film franchises are represented in Avengers: Infinity War.
The result of so many superstars sharing one screen is a two-and-a-half-hour-long movie and a billion-dollar budget for Marvel Studios, 80 percent of which has already been recouped. Regardless of the film’s box office success, we know The Avengers franchise can’t last forever and are reminded of that throughout Infinity War.
Spoiler alert: Infinity War writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely abandoned the Hollywood ending for this one, probably at the request of Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige, who hinted that Infinity Wars would bring the first 22-movie arc to a “finality.” While that doesn’t mean there won’t be more Avengers movies after next year’s, different characters could be wearing the costumes.
Spoiler alert: Many of the Avengers “die” in Infinity War. I put that in quotes because now that The Avengers has borrowed a tactic from X-Men: First Class that originated in Superman, no one is ever really dead. Knowing the Avengers can now turn back time, the deaths, at least at the end of the film (wink), didn’t invoke much of an emotion in me. But the ending was shocking nonetheless.
Spoiler alert: I for one appreciate a film that ends with the villain winning, like The Joker did in The Dark Knight. Thanos beats the Avengers like The Joker did Batman, which will result in Avengers 4, the untitled sequel to Infinity War set to release next year, likely making more money than Infinity War. That was the case when a similarly solemn ending in Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers resulted in an even better box office return for Return of the King.
Since all the Avengers actors and actresses have signed contracts for two Avengers films, this one and the next one, there’s no way of telling who actually died in Infinity War. That’s the point of those vague contracts, but we do know a few Marvel heroes will survive to make more sequels.
Pratt and his fellow Guardians are the only Marvel characters with a movie on Marvel’s schedule after the next Avengers film, set to release in 2019. Chris Hemsworth, of the Thor franchise, is expected to return given both the box office success and critical praise of Thor: Ragnarok. Plus, he hasn’t exactly taken Hollywood by storm with his roles outside the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Benedict Cumberbatch will likely get his own sequel thanks to the $670 million Doctor Strange made worldwide.
Spoiler alert: “It was the only way” are Strange’s “last” words to Tony Stark after giving Thanos the Time Infinity Stone to spare Stark’s life. That tells me Thanos winning the first battle and Stark surviving that battle are both necessary for the Avengers to eventually overcome Thanos. I’m also certain the Avengers will go back in time to resurrect the “dead” Avengers with the help of Captain Marvel, according to the short preview revealed at the end of Infinity War’s credits.
If Captain Marvel, set to release March 9, 2019, is even close to as good and successful as DC’s Wonder Woman, it will help Marvel fans get over the inevitable end of the Avengers as we know them. Rumors are that Chris Evans of the Captain America franchise will play the character for the final time in the next Avengers film. Robert Downey Jr. is also under contract for just one more film and has to be getting prohibitively expensive. He made $50 million for Infinity War. Scarlett Johansson was the next-best paid Avenger at $10 million and is expected to get her own Black Widow spinoff. And we know Ant-man and the Wasp is on the way.
Growing old in roles isn’t often allowed in Hollywood, unless you’re Sylvester Stallone, who has done it with Rocky and Rambo. Women are almost never allowed to grow old in roles, with Renée Zellweger’s Bridget Jones not much of an exception since the character was supposed to be “old” from the start. Sigourney Weaver’s run in the Alien franchise might be the longest Hollywood’s allowed a woman to grow old in a role, and Weaver aged so gracefully there wasn’t much reason to take her off the screen.
The point is Infinity War serves as a warning to those who thought Downey Jr. would play Iron Man long after his famous facial hair turned gray. The film’s ending encapsulates how it feels when things end -- film franchises and life alike. It’s depressing, but you’ll find reason for hope if you just sit patiently through the credits, consisting of mostly digital artists’ names printed so small and moving so fast you can’t read them. The same goes for life -- patience is rewarded, and no matter how bad it gets, there is always hope.