‘Avengers’ Director Whedon Goes On Anti-Capitalist Rant

I love ya, Joss, but grow up…

So says the guy probably worth somewhere around a gajillion dollars and who likely made somewhere around a thousand times more money from “Avengers” than anyone on the crew.

But Whedon’s obviously talking about socialism for, you know, other people:

“We are watching capitalism destroy itself right now,” [Whedon] told the audience.

He added that America is “turning into Tsarist Russia” and that “we’re creating a country of serfs.”

Whedon was raised on the Upper Westside neighborhood of Manhattan in the 1970s, an area associated with left-leaning intellectuals. He said he was raised by people who thought socialism was a ”beautiful concept.”

Socialism remains a taboo word in American politics, as Republicans congressmen raise the specter of the Cold War. They refer to many Obama administration initatives as socialist, and the same goes for most laws that advocate increasing spending on social welfare programs. They also refer to the President as a socialist, though this and many of their other claims misuse the term.

This evidently frustrates Whedon, who traces this development to Ronald Reagan[.]

We have people trying to create structures and preserve the structures that will help the middle and working class, and people calling them socialists,” Whedon said. “It’s not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal […] it’s some people with some sense of dignity and people who have gone off the reservation.”

Great idea. Let’s start with Hollywood!

Good heavens, there are probably a hundred thousand people living in poverty around Los Angeles — living on the streets, waiting tables, parking cars — waiting and working and hoping for a taste of the success Joss Whedon’s enjoyed. You know, the people Whedon is obviously referring to when he speaks of serfs.

I say, tear down those studio walls! Open those studio gates! Enough of Hollywood meritocracy! Spread the wealth!

It’s time to produce screenplays written by nobodies and cast actors who aren’t very good.

It’s time to pay gaffers and production assistants and wardrobe and make-up personnel the same amount of money as, well, Joss Whedon makes!

Lead by example, Joss.

Show us the way.

Show us how it can work.

Reboot of Firefly??

Please let it be so!

In the course of writing the below report on the Firefly 10th Anniversary press conference from San Diego today I stated that Joss Whedon was seriously considering a reboot of the entire Fireflyfranchise, to air on the Science Channel, and following their upcoming reunion documentary.

I do honestly, personally believe that my report from this afternoon is accurate. Brendon disagrees and has cited his reasons for believing that Whedon was joking: remarks made by Joss Whedon in a further panel later this evening to the effect that he has no plans as yet to return to television; comments from Whedonesque, who have good access to Whedon, stating that there is definitely no reboot in the works.

I have continued to work to either confirm or disprove my assertion that a new series of this show, including the original cast, is imminent. I have reached out to both Joss Whedon and the Science Channel, asking to confirm my reading of Joss’ remarks and the conclusion I made in my article.

I am still waiting on a reply.

Kate Kotler writes for Bleeding Cool;

Out of the 10^th Anniversary Firefly Reunion panel came a surprise announcement which will delight Browncoats the world over:

Bleeding Cool was on the scene when Joss Whedon and The Science Channel’s Debbie Myers confirmed to a packed room of journalists that if the planned Firefly reunion movie performs well that we can expect a full Firefly series reboot. And, it seems as if Whedon plans to wipe the slates clean and bring back the entire original cast.

“The opening sequence [of the Firefly reboot] is a conversation between Wash and Book,” said Whedon quite, quite seriously to the amazed Firefly cast and crew on the press panel with him Friday in San Diego.

“Have I never talked to you about this?” He asked Nathan Fillion, seated to his left.

To this point, Whedon has seldom discussed the decision to kill off the characters portrayed by Alan Tudyk and Ron Glass in the 2005 release, Serenity. To critics and fans, alike, this decision provided a finality which indicated that it would be unlikely that a reunion or reboot would ever be possible.

Now we know, that perception was incorrect.

Some are supposing that because Whedon followed the comment with an offhanded remark about rebooting the series with a younger cast (“Zac Effron as Simon…”) that bringing back Wash and Book is more of Whedon’s patented “snark” and are not taking the concept of a reboot seriously.

Not so; immediately upon confirming that, yes, he would like to head back to the ‘Verse again, The Science Channel’s General Manager, Debbie Myers, stated emphatically, “We can help you with that!”

Regardless, it is clear that even after a decade, the impact of the short-lived sci fi series is still being felt by both fans and the cast.

“[Doing Firefly] taught me how to act,” said Nathan Fillion of his involvement with the show, “Out of [the show] I got some of the best work I’ve ever done and a movie, I really couldn’t ask for more.”

“I have much more perspective,” said Alan Tuydk of watching the series again for the first time, “Everything is a discovery again after ten years.”

Bleeding Cool will continue to work to confirm the exact details of the promised reboot and the confirmed movie. Stay tuned!

Oprah Winfrey, the Obama supporter fame left behind

NationalPost

Now that the U.S. presidential race is well and truly underway, celebrity A-listers are at it again — with one massive exception.

A-listers play the political game in a way the rest of the world can only imagine. George Clooney, for example, is hosting a fund-raising dinner for Obama in Switzerland. This might be the new definition of a real celebrity: If you can hold a fundraiser for the president of the United States on a continent that is not the one in which he is running, you are a real star. The rule has a useful corollary: If you can afford to fly out of your own country to attend a $40,000-per-plate dinner, you are a big donor.

Mr. Clooney’s Switzerland shindig for his favourite politico is but an echo of a much more significant exchange that occurred some four years ago. I was reminded of that transaction by the psuedo-news of Katie Holmes’ flight from her marriage to Tom Cruise — and the caravan of Scientology that goes with it. Those whose minds are, like mine, perilously defenceless against the absorption of the absolutely trivial, will recall that when Cruise first hooked up with Holmes, he went on Oprah Winfrey’s show and started jumping up and down on the cushions of the guest couch like a 10-year-old with a new toy, or a monkey with (as we say these days) incontinence issues.

 

Cruise went on Oprah’s show then because he was an A-lister, and Oprah’s was the show of celebrity shows, the singular plateau on the nearly barren savannah of celebrity display cases. Oprah was the queen of all that she surveyed. She was regularly highlighted as one of the most, if not the most, influential persons in the United States. If she touted a book, it went to the top of the best seller lists. She waved a wand and the already famous were made more famous. And she was ardently “non-political.”

But four years ago, the House of Oprah made an epic decision: It chose to endorse Barack Obama. Oprah featured Obama on her show, with Michelle, and put the celebrated Oprah muscle to task for his campaign. It was a truly momentous event — the most powerful woman in entertainment endorsing a presidential candidate.

The move was timely. Obama had not yet crested to the great heights of adulation that marked the later stages of his campaign. Oprah endorsed him when it counted, then — having made her point — withdrew from the stage. I can’t think of a more significant moment in the modern intersection of the worlds of Hollywood and Washington, celebrity and power.

Was Oprah’s benediction a “tipping point”? Was it the moment when Obama jumped from being just another candidate to being a star in a class of his own?

Perhaps, but that was then. What of now? Well, something strange has happened. Oprah    has lost her chi. She ended her long-time relationship with mainstream television and decided that she should have her own network. It is one of the very few examples of a person ordering her own self-exile. And the result is that she has simply ceased — in television terms — to be. I cannot recall a more precipitous drop in status, and in the influence status bestows, than Oprah’s almost complete fall from entertainment eminence.

Who speaks of Oprah now, save in valediction? Is she endorsing Obama this time? Who cares? Had her “fall” something to do with breaking her tradition of staying out of politics?  I think the answer is simpler than that: Fame is frail, celebrity is a bubble and the spotlight passes.

I’m sure Oprah’s absence won’t cast a shadow on the dinner in Switzerland, not will Mr. Clooney raise a glass to the departed queen. Oprah will be an unacknowledged ghost at that banquet. No star, and no president, wants a reminder of glories that have faded, or of stars than shine no more.

RIP, Andy

Gave us a lasting memory of how gentle life could be and was during that most innocent of times. We will always remember the gift Mr. Griffith gave us.

As well as one of “My Three Sons” – Don Grady.

Generations will miss the both of you.

As well it should…

Obama Celebrity Fundraiser Barrage Worries Some in Hollywood

Some of the president’s most ardent entertainment industry supporters quietly tell The Hollywood Reporter that while they realize he needs to deploy all of his weapons to compete with deep-pocketed Republican super PACs, they fear the increasing reliance on stars and celebrity contests could backfire with swing voters and mobilize the right.

PHOTOS: The 20 Biggest Political Players in Hollywood

“We don’t like what he’s doing, but we understand it,” says one Hollywood fund-raising insider. “He has to raise the money. It’s a bad situation.”

Reaction was particularly strong to the $40,000-a-plate dinner co-hosted June 14 by Sarah Jessica Parker and Vogue editor Anna Wintour with guests including Meryl Streep, Aretha Franklin and Bravo’s Andy Cohen. Critics say the tony, heavily promoted event­ — Parker sent an e-mail to supporters promising the evening would be “fabulous,” and Wintour posted a video online urging supporters to enter a lottery for two tickets — risked creating the impression of an elitist, out-of-touch candidate in a period of ongoing distress and growing economic inequality.

“It’s a mistake,” a veteran Hollywood exec says flatly of the event, which the Drudge Report headlined “Checks in the City.” The exec adds: “He’s supposed to be a man of the people, and he’s hanging out with Anna Wintour? Is he trying to turn the election into a celebrity reality show?”

Conservatives quickly pounced, with Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus writing a column on Breitbart.com titled “Out-of-touch Obama Is in Wintour Wonderland.” Even liberal-leaning Jon Stewart reminded viewers that the insufferable magazine editor in The Devil Wears Prada was loosely based on Wintour, quipping, “If there are two things the American people relate to, it’s the devil and Prada.”

Despite the criticism, the Parker-Wintour event raised at least $2 million for Obama’s re-election effort, and a fund-raiser later that evening at The Plaza featuring singers Mariah Carey and Alicia Keys brought in $2.5 million. This is on top of the $15 million raised at a George Clooney dinner in May and millions more from twin June events, one emceed by Ellen DeGeneres and one hosted by Glee co-creator Ryan Murphy.

And the Obama campaign is far from done: An online contest is under way that allows donor-participants to name the celebrity they’d like to join for dinner with the president, and on June 26, Obama will appear onstage in Miami at a benefit concert with singer Marc Anthony. Another online contest offers backstage passes to that event (with an entry form in English and Spanish, signaling how important Latinos will be to winning Florida).

Despite the risks, most industry Democrats see no alternative given the Republicans’ ability to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in super PAC donations from corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals like brothers Charles and David Koch. Gaming magnate Sheldon Adelson already has given $20 million to GOP campaign coffers and says he’s willing to pour as much as $100 million into this election. Without celebrities to generate buzz for Obama’s campaign, many believe he will be far outspent.

In addition to the focus on high-profile events with the president, the Obama campaign is homing in on entertainment-industry donor lists, trying to milk even more money out of Hollywood.

“We need you to panic NOW!” wrote Cookie Parker of the Obama campaign in an e-mail that hit showbiz inboxes in early June, urging recipients to commit to giving or raising “$1,000 each month until the election.” The increased urgency — with an event slated for June 20 at actress Donna Mills‘ L.A. house touting Sharon Stone as a special guest — also has left some with a bad taste.

“After he took office, he ignored everyone here,” gripes one L.A. donor, “and now we feel like we’re being used.”

Still, with Mitt Romney gaining on Obama in many polls, insiders admit they will cough up for the president. Says Universal chief Ron Meyer, an ardent Obama supporter, “He has to do what he has to do.”

Idiocy

HBO’s ‘Game of Thrones’ parades President George W. Bush’s decapitated head on a stick

In the same week that HBO is premiering a documentary about President George H.W. Bush, it has been revealed that the network’s popular drama “Game of Thrones” used a modeled head of his son President George W. Bush in a grisly decapitation scene.The tenth episode of season one “Game of Thrones,” now out on DVD, features the younger Bush’s head on a stake, and notes that his head appears in a “couple of beheading scenes,” according to commentary on the “Game of Thrones” DVD.

The show creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss state that George W. Bush’s was used as physical inspiration to create a head for a scene in which King Joffrey shows Sansa Stark her deceased father’s head on a stick.

“It’s not a choice, not a political statement!” one of the writers insisted during the DVD commentary. “We just had to use what heads we had around.”

HBO did not respond to our request for comment, but as outrage mounted Wednesday, they released a statement saying they were “deeply dismayed to see this and find it unacceptable, disrespectful and in very bad taste.” HBO also said the scene would be removed from future DVD pressings.

READ: HBO’s full apology.

The producers also did an about face, kind of, releasing their own statement.

“We use a lot of prosthetic body parts on the show: heads, arms, etc. We can’t afford to have these all made from scratch, especially in scenes where we need a lot of them, so we rent them in bulk,” the statement read. “After the scene was already shot, someone pointed out that one of the heads looked like George W. Bush. In the DVD commentary, we mentioned this, though we should not have. We meant no disrespect to the former President and apologize if anything we said or did suggested otherwise.”

Several people on social media sites called for a boycott of HBO, calling the “Thrones” move “uncool” and an example of “lamestream media.”

However, others on Twitter gave the impaling act the thumbs up.

“No wonder I love this show,” tweeted one, while another called it “clever.”

More Fresh Prince!

Blast from the past

Fresh Prince

The Wisdom of Captain Mal

Frenysapplications

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

…”Point of interest, offering to shoot us might not work so well as an incentive as you might imagine.”

Chris Matthew Opens Mouth To Change Feet

Chris Matthews: GOP Willing To “Outsource” Election To A Mormon

He’s such a prince of a guy…

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews says Republicans are willing to outsource the election to a Mormon in order to win the presidency. Matthews also likened the process to calling India or another third-world country to get your computer fixed.

On top of that, Matthews called Romney a cultist as well as his two opponents who are Catholics.

“I think religion matters,” Chris Matthews said on MSNBC’s “Ed Show” with host Ed Schultz. “Reverend Al, you, Ed and I know the way that the people in these polls down there say they think the president is a Muslim. I mean, the majority in one of those states thinks he is, the other 30-some percent don’t know. In other words, they don’t know whether he’s lying about his religion, which is a pretty strong indictment right there. So, culturally, they are out to lunch for the president. There not going to vote for President Obama. So who they going get to beat him. That seems to be on their mind’s now, not who they like. They are willing to outsource it to a Mormon.”

“It seems to me, if they can win — I said it’s almost like calling up India, or somewhere in the third-world to get your computer fixed. You don’t care who is fixing it, just fix the damn computer. They want to get rid of Obama so they’re willing to vote for a guy they don’t like or trust his religion. But they have no choice,” Matthews said during MSNBC’s primetime coverage of primary results on Tuesday night.

“They have three, or two RCs — Roman Catholics running and a Mormon so the three cultists running. I have to pick one of the three cultists as they see them. This isn’t as funny as I’m making it, but it’s ridiculous to pick a guy they really think is the other, the heretic, the Muslim, what a strangest of religious prejudice is at work here, they pick the guy they don’t like to pick a guy they hate worse,” he finished.