The unconventional streaming service is done – a flameout less than seven months after launching
On October 21st, The Wall Street Journal caught a whiff that a certain young video streaming service was about to bite the dust. Rumors turned out to be true, as the hardly six-month-old Quibi shut down that same day.
Quibi was an unconventional streaming service from its very beginning, a risky idea from Hollywood veterans Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman. Conceptualized in August 2018, their idea was to create a streaming platform dedicated to short-term content on mobile screens. The founders figured that people might appreciate “quick bites” of entertainment on the go— hence the service’s name.
Although the idea was irregular, Katzenberg and Whitman were still able to work their magic and build up hype for the product. In the months leading up to its April 2020 launch, Quibi ads were everywhere, many of them featuring notable celebrities. The moguls behind the project also raised over $1.75 billion from high-profile investors and garnered an additional $150 million in ad revenue from the likes of Pepsi and Walmart. In the final hours before its release, Quibi was starting to look like a forthcoming underdog success story.
But when the launch happened, audiences quickly realized some issues with Quibi. It lacked particularly alluring content; the small-screen “Turnstyle” optimization was unusual; many questioned, “Why pay money for such a service when there are so many free mobile streaming destinations like YouTube or TikTok?”
Evidently, Quibi was off to a rough start, but the road only got rockier. In May, a lawsuit emerged as the video company Eko sued Quibi for infringing on a patent for the “Trurnstyle” technology.
Now with heavy criticism and a legal battle on their hands, Quibi’s viewership also started to dwindle. The number of subscribers was actually disappointing from the very beginning, but the figures really started declining around Quibi’s three-month birthday, when the service’s lengthy free trial was running out.
Why did it fail? And what does it means for streaming to come?
According to The Verge, one report estimated that Quibi lost ninety percent of its subscribers in July, just when they were all supposed to start paying the monthly fee: $4.99 with ads, $7.99 without ads.
Essentially, part of Quibi’s appeal was to attract a mobile audience— people who were riding trains or sitting in waiting rooms. Now that most people are working from home and avoiding public spaces, a short piece of visual narrative watched from a smartphone does not seem as appealing, even if the service did just launch its first TV app a few days ago.
The other part of Katzenberg and Whitman’s letter stressed how Quibi could not carry on as a stand-alone company. Allegedly, the partners tried getting Apple, WarnerMedia, Facebook, and NBCUniversal to acquire Quibi, but no one was buying. Thus, they had no choice but to close up shop.
Quibi stood as a big Hollywood experiment from the get go. Although both of its founders were well experienced in the entertainment industry, a small-screen subscription based streaming service would be considered a bold endeavor for anyone to sell.
We can blame Quibi’s failures on timing, pandemics, competition, or simple over-ambition, but in the end, the only hard truth is that the platform lasted a very short time. Perhaps the shortest time ever for a recognizable streaming service.
Sometimes, Hollywood rewards audacity, like when a young director breaks the rules or a studio chooses to invest in a chancy intellectual property. However, for every Jordan Peele’s “Get Out” or Disney’s acquisition of Marvel, there are a million projects that didn’t make it. Sadly, Quibi is one of them.
In the streaming war, an ongoing battle where Disney+ and Netflix seem to be winning while HBOMax, AppleTV+, and NBCUniversal’s Peacock hold their ground, Quibi will go down as the young, daring private, sent out by senior officers to storm the trenches, only to take one in the gut early on.
We will never know what it could have been, and there may be others like it to come. For now, though, Quibi may be a cautionary tale for entertainment executives, one that has alas met a hasty epilogue.
The answer lies in the dirt, or as the movie’s tagline states, “The Solution Is Right Under Our Feet.”
At a time when so many existential, even extinction level issues [climate change] loom and threaten mankind, it is easy to feel helpless and even hopeless. And, yet, in the most unexpected way imaginable, a simple act such as opening up the Netflix app and choosing a documentary could be the first step towards a new way of thought and, indeed, action.
The new documentary “Kiss The Ground” does not minimize climate change, or downplay the fact that it is persistent and would bring terrible catastrophes looming on the global horizon, it does not fixate on the negatives. Instead, it offers a rare and amazing thing: solutions to solve the problems and rebalance Earth’s ecosystem. And it does so in a direct, simple and amazingly uplifting manner.
“Kiss The Ground” emphasizes regenerative soil usage and smart agriculture as the keys to saving the planet. Taking the audience to farms and ecosystems all across the world, the doc illustrates how humans have squandered the Earth’s natural bounty by over-tilling the land and drenching crops in pesticides.
Contrary to popular belief, these conventional farming tactics are not only damaging the environment, but they are also hurting the agricultural economy, leaving crops vulnerable and unsustainable in the event of a disaster. The film explains that these tactics are depleting fertile land, and if we don’t change our methods, the planet will only have sixty more years of harvests left.
Salvation is not beyond reach, though. As aforementioned, the bulk of the documentary is optimistic, and it offers a solution in an unlikely place. Namely, carbon.
[Carbon dioxide] is usually the enemy in [environmental documentaries], as we have far too much of it trapped in our atmosphere and the [fossil fuel industry] pumps it out at alarming rates to our planet’s detriment. Although an excess of carbon in the air could be the planet’s doom, “Kiss The Ground” suggests that increasing carbon in the ground could be a solution.
Through extreme close ups, microscopic images, and a few animations, the documentary shows how healthy soil is rife with living things. These things (worms, bacteria, microbes, etc.) all need carbon to live and play a vital part at the base of the food chain.
Unfortunately, the pesticides and over-tilling actively destroy these organisms, rendering the land naturally defenseless. The movie thus calls for a shift towards using soil with increased organic matter that sucks in and sustains carbon. According to one farmer in the film, every one percent increase in the dirt’s organic matter equals ten tons of carbon per acre. This means cleaner air, healthier ecosystems, and a more sustainable form of agriculture that could combat [global warming].
Many farmers have already endorsed this organic method on macro scales. “Kiss The Ground” even brings audiences to China’s [Loess Plateau], a once luscious place rendered a desert through centuries of depletion. With a rejuvenated focus on land management and organic prioritization in recent decades, however, the Plateau has effectively rebounded. Now the brown landscape is once again an Edenic green.
The change does not only have to happen on farms and distant, rural lands, though. The documentary also takes viewers to [San Francisco] and [Haiti] to show how urban hubs are playing their part, stressing the importance of composting and not letting anything go to waste. Seemingly everything—right down to human feces—can be reused and repurposed for a more sustainable world.
In the end, the people of this film – the farmers, scientists and concerned celebrities, come across almost as walking, talking, living, breathing testimonials for the solutions they are proposing.
In a world where the future will almost certainly hold either oblivion and human extinction, or, if we join together to create it, an almost Utopian rebirth they are the rare exception and point clearly toward a better way for us to live on this planet.
Seeing those who made and collaborated on this film and how they live and interact during their quest to save themselves and all of us, it becomes possible to believe in these solutions, and more importantly in human-kind’s ability to choose the right path for a future.
Tying together the sound, simple yet incredibly powerful ideas of recreating Soil health and Regenerative Agriculture, together with sustainable energy and transportation, the road to survival and hope has never looked so feasible. However, with sustainable energy being more widely known and understood as a priority, it is the ideas in “Kiss The Ground” that most need to be shared and disseminated most urgently. Watch it, then pass the word.
Environmental authors, activists, and documentarians Josh and Rebecca Tickell directed and produced “Kiss The Ground.” The duo also wrote the film with help from Johnny O’Hara. Meanwhile, actor [Woody Harrelson] narrates and celebrity appearances include [Tom Brady], Gisel Bündchen, Ian Somerhandler, Jason Mraz, and California Governor [Gavin Newsom]. There are also dozens of farmers, scientists, and notable environmental scholars featured in the picture.
Made in secrecy during the past 6 months with interviews from administration insiders
Just when it seemed like 2020 could not get any stranger, President Donald Trump announced via Twitter on October 2nd that he and First Lady Melania Trump tested positive for COVID-19. In what some would see as a ‘karmic’ coincidence, within twenty-four hours of this breaking news, Neon media dropped a trailer for the new documentary “Totally Under Control,” which focuses on the President and his administration’s unsuccessful response to the coronavirus.
“Totally Under Control” is the second Trump-focused project from documentarian Alex Gibney. Earlier this year, the director released “Agents Of Chaos,” an HBO mini-series centered on Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Gibney is also responsible for the 2010 Oscar nominated doc, “Client 9: The Rise And Fall Of Eliot Spitzer” and the 2007 Oscar winner, “Taxi To The Dark Side.” Most of his films take on timely topics through an investigative lens. “Totally Under Control” will be no different.
Unsurprisingly, Gibney latest movie condemns the Trump administration, as it chronicles how the President handled the coronavirus across the first half of 2020. Its synopsis states:
“On January 20th, 2020 the US and South Korea both discovered their first cases of COVID-19. However, nine months later, the novel Coronavirus has claimed the lives of over 200,000 Americans and caused staggering economic damage, while in South Korea, there were no significant lockdowns and, in an urbanized population of 51 million, only 344 lives have been lost. Where did we go wrong?”
The film aims to answer this question and shed light on America’s complicated, corrupted, and fruitless reaction to the global pandemic. To do this, Gibney uses news footage from the past ten months— much of it showing Trump’s early, woefully dismissive thoughts on the coronavirus before it hit the United States.
He also interviews experts from doctors, to scientists, to government officials, all of whom agree that the current administration’s reaction to COVID was absolutely abhorrent from the start.
The trailer plays out like that of a disaster movie, beginning with former Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority leader, Rick Bright explaining, “The scientists knew what to do for the pandemic response. The plan was in front of us, but leadership would not do it.” Bright goes on to recall how he tired bringing this vital information to the public, but was consequentially fired from his federal position.
As the trailer unfolds, the music gets more and more intense. The interviewees retell the all-too-familiar 2020 story of how COVID got worse by the day and the United States government did nothing to combat it. Meanwhile, quasi-apocalyptic images of ubiquitous ambulances, omnipresent sirens, medial personnel in hazmat suits, restless political rallies, and so on flash across the screen.
All the while, Trump’s voice comes in and out with infamous phrases such as “It will disappear,” “It will be wonderful,” and most egregiously, “I don’t take responsibility at all.”
Art imitates life as covid disbeliever enters hospital after contracting virus that affects ‘almost nobody’
Today, these statements are more ironic than ever before, as Trump himself has been checked into the Walter Reed Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland for COVID. The diagnosis occurred just two days after the first presidential debate, where Trump continued to downplay the coronavirus in favor of reopening the country.
“Totally Under Control” will be available On-Demand starting October 13th and will stream on Hulu starting October 20th. Although the film focuses on current (and ongoing) events, it is not the first piece of media to tackle the coronavirus, and it surely won’t be the last.
As you might be aware, a new documentary is on the top ten most watched list on Netflix and is getting a lot of attention. The Social Dilemma is a well made documentary, directed by Jeff Orlowski, that aims to reveal the problems, very very big problems that have arisen, mainly in the past decade in the way social media and internet platforms generally, are operating and prospering.
While that may sound harmless at first blush, it’s the sheer scale; trillions of dollars, and the lack of any product or service, other than to advertisers, that begs the question: at what expense to humanity?
This is a big, important subject and is one that is extremely difficult to cram into an “entertaining” documentary. Here, an attempt is made to tackle that difficulty in two main ways.
First there are many on-camera interviews with almost exclusively former and current Silicon Valley insiders, many of whom where partially responsible for the very systems and methods that are being called into question here, and second, the two inter-twined semi-fictional dramatic elements, clearly meant to help viewers that may lose interest in discussions of algorithms, machine learning and corrupt business models.
Choosing insiders is not an oversight but by design
The choice of such a long list of high level tech insiders as interviewees is important and meaningful. The very fact that people, most of whom profited and made careers out of building these systems and platforms, are willing, now, to passionately speak out about them, and agree that they are horrific mistakes that have the potential to destroy not just people’s lives but humanity and the planet itself, speaks volumes.
While there are many other scholars, journalists and witnesses that could, and should, have their ideas and opinions heard, it is the extreme fact that insiders are willing to address these problems so candidly and so passionately, that helps this to be a mind-blowing and impossible to ignore documentary film.
Companies like Google and Facebook are some of the wealthiest and most successful of all time. They have relatively few employees. They just have this giant computer that rakes in money, right? Now, what are they being paid for? That’s a really important question.
-Jaron Lanier, founding father of virtual reality, computer scientist
The film must be seen, and the information absorbed, to understand the true importance, but, in a nut-shell, what is becoming more obvious by the minute is that the combination of massive power based on worldwide near-monopoly status, and a business model that has no contribution to make or product to sell, has allowed these platforms to amass trillion dollar fortunes in a lethal mix that must be stopped at all costs.
”The first fifty years of Silicon Valley the industry made products, hardware, software, sold them to customers, nice, simple business. For the last ten years the biggest companies in Silicon Valley have been in the business of selling their users”.
-Roger McNamee, Early Facebook investor and Venture Capitalist
Critics fail to see the film’s urgency and instead nitpick it as an imperfect entertainment product
There are layers of irony in the fact that the weaknesses decried by many critical articles written about this film are the same ones that the film is pointing to, and a major force, one that propelled these online platforms to positions of virtually unlimited power in the first place: human weaknesses and short attention spans.
”The classic saying is: “if you’re not paying for the product, then, you are the product”
-Classic Silicon Valley truism
The interviews are powerful and the quotes and alternately chilling and illuminating. So much so that it is actually difficult to absorb all at once. Many reviewers chose to simplify this reality by boiling the many serious quotes down to “dystopian” cliché, as if the end of the world is a topic for a cartoon movie review. Others harped on the weakness of the acted-out semi-fictional stories as not being the optimum way to get the real data and facts across.
The two narrative threads portrayed by actors revolve around an imaginary semi-suburban mixed family and their interactions with technology platforms and social media and a fictional visualization of the “back end” of the software systems used by the giant platforms (Facebook, Google, etc).
This back end software is elevated to a “triple-android” character, portrayed by Vincent Kartheiser, of Madmen fame, as sort of automaton-triplets that embody the actions of the software, AI and the integrated instructions, presumably from Zuckerberg himself (or the equivalent at Google or other platforms. (character name is, revealingly, “AI”)
This is a new kind of marketplace now. It’s a marketplace that never existed before. And it’s a marketplace that trades exclusively in “human futures”. Just like there are markets that trade in pork belly futures or oil futures. We now have markets that trade in human futures at scale. And those markets have produced the trillions of dollars that have made the internet companies the richest companies in the history of humanity”
-Shoshanna Zuboff PhD., Harvard Business School Professor, emeritus and author of “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism”
While these filmic-devices are not ideal or particularly precise in showing the problems with the entire complex system, they are, nevertheless, a good choice to find a way for the statements of the interviewees to be dramatized. They can help people who are not technical analysts to viscerally grasp the deep and serious problems being discussed. Without these elements the film’s audience would be, almost certainly, far smaller. This fact was not appreciated by many reviewers, however.
”Many people call this ‘surveillance capitalism’. Capitalism profiting off of the infinite tracking of everywhere everyone goes, by large technology companies whose business model is to make sure that advertisers are as successful as possible”
-Tristan Harris, Google’s former design ethicist and co-founder of The Center for Humane Technology
One reviewer even mistook the fictional anthropomorphic portrayal of software algorithms and artificial intelligence, all three by the same actor, as a real “unnamed” social platform and that these characters were supposed to be employees of the “unnamed” platform!
All of this confusion is directly related and lies at the heart of the eponymous dilemma being addressed. If the interview subjects, many of whom have become extremely rich from their contributions, are terrified of the evil power of these systems and platforms, what can be done to stop them from getting even bigger and more powerful and eventually destroying us all?
What chance of understanding and solving the problem to the rest of us have?
”How much of your life can we get you to give to us? We often talked about, at Facebook, this idea, of being able to just “dial that” as needed. And we talked about, you know, Mark (Zuckerberg) have those dials… “let’s dial up the ads a little bit”, dial up the monetization, just slightly… At all these companies there’s that level of precision”
-Tim Kendall, Facebook / former director of monetization, Pinterest / former president, CEO / Moment
Such a question sounds almost like a joke to anyone who has not followed and investigated the rise of these behemoths and the “legal” and yet criminal behaviors they perpetrate on a global scale, amplified by computing and financial powers that would have been unimaginable even 2 decades ago.
Therein lies the rub.
The beginning of the end of malignant big tech structures or of us?
The only criticism that stands out to this reviewer is that the message of doom was portrayed as an open question with not much in the way of suggestions for solution, or ways forward other than “delete your social media accounts”.
”there are times when there is a national interest, there are times when the interests of people, of users, is actually more important than the profits of somebody who is already a billionaire”
-Roger McNamee, Early Facebook investor and Venture Capitalist
While that, in and of itself, is a start, the reality is that governments around the world, particularly in Europe and Australia have convicted the giants of criminal behavior on multiple occasions and there are many pending anti-trust actions, not to mention grass roots support for radical change to laws and regulations as a response to the truly destructive nature of these platforms.
“These markets undermine democracy and they undermine freedom and they should be outlawed. This is not a radical proposal. There are other markets that we outlaw. We outlaw markets in human organs. We outlaw markets in human slaves. Because they have inevitable destructive consequences.”
-Shoshanna Zuboff PhD., Harvard Business School Professor, emeritus and author of “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism”
In an odd way the truth of even the most hyperbolic statements is what makes it so hard to keep people engaged. If these platforms and, in particular the dangerous and destructive business models that they are allowed to operate under, are not replaced or at least broken up, this could represent an even larger threat to humanity than climate change or nuclear war, so where do we start to dismantle them?
”We could tax data collection and processing. The same way that you, for example, pay your water bill, by monitoring the amount of water that you use. You tax these companies on the data assets that they have. It gives them a fiscal reason to not acquire every piece of data on the planet.”
-Joe Toscano, Google / Former experience design consultant and author of “Automating Humanity”
This is where interviewing and asking some very distinguished people who were, in part, responsible for building these systems, falls apart. Why should they be expected to have a solution for a problem that they, admittedly, were a part of creating?
”What I see are a bunch of people who are trapped, by a business model, and economic incentive and shareholder pressure that makes it almost impossible to do something else.
-Tristan Harris, Google’s former design ethicist and co-founder of The Center for Humane Technology
The answer is, of course, that they should not be expected to be the ones with the solutions – though their support of finding solutions and tackling the problems is very valuable, indeed. This is why this film deserves not criticism as an imperfect entertainment vehicle, but rather support and recommendation, as an important beginning in recognizing the threat posed by these business models; to mental health, economic prosperity and political stability of all nations.
”Whether it is to be utopia or oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race right up to the final moment…”
The Ultimate Hero-Villain Fight to unfold in New Trailer
Warner Bros. released a new trailer for “Wonder Woman 1984” (WW84) and the film and new clip were showcased at the virtual DC FanDome. The new footage gave fans a deeper look into the villainous character name Cheetah played by Kristen Wiig and the revived time-traveler Steve Trevor played by Chris Pines.
This year’s DC FanDome, the annual event geared toward DC Comic fans, featured a jam packed event of panels, info on video games, and highly anticipated teasers, trailers and behind-the-scene peaks of upcoming DC movies. The DC FanDome only lasts 48 hours, a two day event, this year, consisting of virtual presentations. The first day just happened on August 22, 2020 and the next is set for Sept 12, 2020 in case you missed day one.
Like 2017’s “Wonder Woman,” actress Gal Gadot plays the title superheroine in “WW84.” Although this is only her second stand alone film as the character, Gadot has played Wonder Woman three times in the DC Universe before—appearing in “Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice” and “Justice League” as well as her solo outing.
From the rainbow tinted posters to the electrifying trailer, the movie is clearly invested in the 1984 setting. It looks like a disco-infused, fun-filled superhero flick, with quality humor, captivating visuals, and a strong cast to carry it along—Pedro Pascal from “The Madalorian” is playing the main villain!
The first trailer was released back in December of last year. This second trailer shows action-packed clips with great special effects and the epic fight scene between the two women. Fans also get to see another look at Diana Prince’s iconic golden armor.
WW84 still holds the current schedule for release to theaters this October 2, 2020, however it is not yet clear due to COVID-19 if any changes to the release date will be subject to change as the date approaches.
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
Director James Gunn giving his take on new 2021 version
DC FanDome is an event, geared for DC Comic fans, that features a jam packed event of panels, info on video games, and highly anticipated teasers, trailers and behind-the-scenes peaks of upcoming DC movies. The DC FanDome only lasts 48 hours, a two day event full of virtual events. The first day just happened on August 22, 2020 and the next is set for Sept 12, 2020 in case you missed day one.
As part of the first first wave of the virtual convention, James Gunn revealed video footage of behind-the-scenes production and in process scenes of “The Suicide Squad”. The star studded cast, as shown below, includes actors that will be be reprising their roles from the 2016 version (Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn) and also a huge list of stars to play DC villains. In an article by Variety, it was reported that Gunn dug deep into DC comics to find a wide range of villains for the movie and even invented a few villains from his own imagination for the project.
https://youtu.be/xLNofMawA2c
Idris Elba plays Bloodsport
Margot Robbie plays Harley Quinn
Viola Davis plays Amanda Waller
Sean Gunn plays Weasel
Pete Davidson plays Blackguard
Daniela Melchior plays Ratcatcher 2
Joel Kinnaman plays Colonel Rick Flag
Nathan Fillion plays TDK
Jai Courtney plays Captain Boomerang
Steve Agee plays the on-set King Shark and John Economos
Mayling Ng plays Mongal
David Dastmalchian plays Polka-Dot Man
Alice Braga plays Sol Soria
John Cena plays Peacemaker
Juan Diego Botto plays Presidente General Silvio Luna
Peter Capaldi plays The Thinker
Michael Rooker plays Savant
Flula Borg plays Javelin
Joaquín Cosío is Mayor General Mateo Suarez
Jennifer Holland plays Emilia Harcourt
Storm Reid plays Tyla
Its not exactly clear if “The Suicide Squad” is a prequel, reboot or some other form of a non-sequel feature but, as was indicated by producer Peter Safran, that the movie will not be a direct sequel to the original, “It’s not Suicide Squad 2. It is not a sequel. I will leave that alone but, yes, it’s called The Suicide Squad.” Production of the film was wrapped before COVID, and the movie is scheduled to be released in theaters on August 6, 2021.
https://youtu.be/Wemdq9-cfws
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
On July 6th, actor Tom Hanks sat down for an interview with The Guardian to promote his new movie “Greyhound.” However, this interview was not done face-to-face between Hanks and the correspondent. Like almost all other professional interactions nowadays, it was done remotely, with the two parties talking via computer screens in their homes—practicing social distancing due to the coronavirus.
This particular interview with Hanks was especially telling, because the actor was actually one of the first American celebrities to contract COVID-19 back in March, and “Greyhound” was among a long list of movies meant to hit theaters this summer, but got sidelined because of the pandemic.
Now, Hanks—along with his wife Rita Wilson, who also had coronavirus—is fully recovered and well. Nevertheless, his beef with the pandemic is not entirely settled, as the coronavirus’ consequential theater shutdowns has forced him to release his new film on a different platform: Apple TV+.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with Apple TV+. As far as streaming services go, Apple is a rising phenomenon and has brought about several praiseworthy shows since it launched last November. All the same, Hanks intended “Greyhound” for a theatrical release, and in the interview he called the film’s ultimate home on Apple TV+ “an absolute heartbreak.”
Again, this is not necessarily a jab at Apple, but it is indicative of what many filmmakers are going through right now. Streaming vs Theatrical releases was a hot debate in Hollywood long before COVID-19 ran everything amuck, but now that releasing movies in theaters is not an option, many movies have no choice but to sell out to the streamers and debut online.
“Greyhound” for example, was meant to hit theaters in March with Sony Pictures as distributor. However, the pandemic pushed the release date back perpetually, and in May, it sold to Apple for $70 Million, getting an official July 10th release date on the site.
Hanks continues in the interview, “I don’t mean to make angry my Apple overlords, but there is a difference in picture and sound quality [when viewing a film online rather than in a theater].” He is not the first filmmaker to voice this opinion, but he is also not the first filmmaker to have his creative work siphoned off to an unanticipated platform during these unprecedented times. Paramount Pictures, for example, sold the Kumail Nanjiani-starring rom-com, “The Lovebirds” to Netflix earlier this year despite initially banking on a theatrical release.
Triple Threat Thwarted by Timing, perhaps, but will be enjoyed nonetheless
The alternative would’ve been to hold out on releasing these films until theaters re-open. Given the fact that the theaters are closed indefinitely, though, only the movies that are more-or-less guaranteed blockbuster hits are taking this risky option—Marvel’s “Black Widow,” Universal’s “Fast & Furious 9,” DC’s “Wonder Woman: 1984” and Warner Brother’s Chris Nolan-directed “Tenet” are among them.
“Greyhound”— which Hanks wrote and produced as well as starred in— might’ve had blockbuster potential, but the clock was ticking a little too temperamentally on production company Columbia Pictures and the film’s $50 million budget. Returns simply could not be left up to a temporally unspecified gamble.
Luckily, the stigma around direct-to-streaming releases has diminished in recent years, as Netflix in particular has garnered a large number of Oscar nominations with prestigious projects like Martin Scorsese‘s “The Irishman” and Alfonso Cuaròn’s “Roma” going straight to the service. Likewise, even the studios are also transitioning to the streaming world these days with Disney+, HBOMax, and Peacock headlining the ongoing streaming wars.
Still, with “Greyhound” being a war epic set at sea, we can empathize with Tom Hanks for wanting audiences to experience it on the big screen. In fact, we can empathize with all of the filmmakers who put their hearts into creative projects for 2020, and are now seeing them shrunk down to something smaller—but perhaps not lesser—than their expectations.
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
“Wonder Woman: 1984” has had a bumpy road finding a release date. The DC follow-up to Patty Jenkins’ sensational 2017 “Wonder Woman” was originally meant to hit theaters last December, but the studio (Warner Brothers) switched up the schedule, pushing the movie back to a summer release date in June. This decision proved to be a poor one, though, as movie theaters closed their doors in March due to the coronavirus and most of them remain shuttered to this day. “WW84” has thus been pushed back further and further. Now, it is aiming for an October 2nd debut.
As an Amazonian princess, Gadot’s character does not age…
Chris Pine also returns from the original “Wonder Woman” cast, reprising his role as love-interest Steve Trevor. Conspicuously, his character unambiguously died in a plane crash at the end of the first film, but the trailer seems to find him alive and well.
Like 2017’s “Wonder Woman,” actress Gal Gadot plays the title superheroine in “WW84.” Although this is only her second stand alone film as the character, Gadot has played Wonder Woman three times in the DC Universe before—appearing in “Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice” and “Justice League” as well as her solo outing.
Chris Pine also returns from the original “Wonder Woman” cast, reprising his role as love-interest Steve Trevor. Conspicuously, his character unambiguously died in a plane crash at the end of the first film, but the trailer seems to find him alive and well.
To make matters even stranger, there is a seventy year gap between the two films’ settings. The 2017 movie took place in 1918, pinning the protagonist in the middle of World War I, while “WW84” obviously happens during 1984. As an Amazonian princess, Gadot’s character does not age and thus appears the same in both films. This also explains her place in the other, contemporarily-set DC films. However, it still doesn’t quite answer our questions about Chris Pine’s more mortal character, who also appears to still be in his thirties despite the time lapse.
Being part of a superhero franchise, though, these diegetic elements are not worth getting too worked up about. Odds are the movie will explain Trevor’s return in some fantastical, but nevertheless logical, manner. After all, this is the eighth film in the DC Extended Universe. So far, the series has dealt with alien invasions in “Man Of Steel,” Atlantean societies in “Aquaman,” mystical magic in “Shazam!” and so much more. At this point, any explanation seems like fair game.
Great Throwback Aesthetic in Stark Contrast to Our Somber Times
What really sticks out in”WW84″ right now is not the diegetic loopholes, but the novel, vibrant aesthetic. With a few exceptions, DCEU movies often get criticism for their grey pallet and overly-sinister energy. Fans frequently plead for Warner Brothers to offer a bit more color and optimism to the franchise, citing Disney’s Marvel films as exemplars for comic book adaptation.
Happily, “WW84” seems to finally be taking a cue from the fans. From the rainbow tinted posters to the electrifying trailer, the movie is clearly invested in the 1984 setting. It looks like a disco-infused, fun-filled superhero flick, with quality humor, captivating visuals, and a strong cast to carry it along—Pedro Pascal from “The Madalorian” is playing the main villain!
Happily, “WW84” seems to finally be taking a cue from the fans. From the rainbow tinted posters to the electrifying trailer, the movie is clearly invested in the 1984 setting.
Due to mixed reviews, the DCEU has kind of faltered in recent years. A large-scale lateral narrative in the vein of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe is not quite a plausible outlook for DC anymore. Instead, Warner Brothers has been using its DC intellectual properties to focus on stand-alone films such as “Joker” and Robert Pattinson’s upcoming “The Batman.”
However, like the franchise’s last entry, “Birds Of Prey,” “WW84” has direct ties to some of the other DC movies. Thus, the film could possibly lead into something larger. After all, “Wonder Woman” was one of the DCEU’s highest praised movies, championing a female superhero for the first time in a blockbuster film and earning over $800 million at the box office. The success of “Wonder Woman” paved the way for her role in “Justice League,” so perhaps the sequel will carry the franchise to new heights yet again…
That is, if theaters ever open.
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
Warner Brothers Kicks Out Promo-Shots Hoping to Build Buzz for Theater Release
“Wonder Woman: 1984” has had a bumpy road finding a release date. The DC follow-up to Patty Jenkins’ sensational 2017 “Wonder Woman” was originally meant to hit theaters last December, but the studio (Warner Brothers) switched up the schedule, pushing the movie back to a summer release date in June. This decision proved to be a poor one, though, as movie theaters closed their doors in March due to the coronavirus and most of them remain shuttered to this day. “WW84” has thus been pushed back further and further. Now, it is aiming for an October 2nd debut.
Poster: Warner Brothers
Like 2017’s “Wonder Woman,” actress Gal Gadot plays the title superheroine in “WW84.” Although this is only her second stand alone film as the character, Gadot has played Wonder Woman three times in the DC Universe before—appearing in “Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice” and “Justice League” as well as her solo outing.
Chris Pine also returns from the original “Wonder Woman” cast, reprising his role as love-interest Steve Trevor. Conspicuously, his character unambiguously died in a plane crash at the end of the first film, but the trailer seems to find him alive and well.
Poster: Warner Brothers
To make matters even stranger, there is a seventy year gap between the two films’ settings. The 2017 movie took place in 1918, pinning the protagonist in the middle of World War I, while “WW84” obviously happens during 1984. As an Amazonian princess, Gadot’s character does not age and thus appears the same in both films. This also explains her place in the other, contemporarily-set DC films. However, it still doesn’t quite answer our questions about Chris Pine’s more mortal character, who also appears to still be in his thirties despite the time lapse.
Being part of a superhero franchise, though, these diegetic elements are not worth getting too worked up about. Odds are the movie will explain Trevor’s return in some fantastical, but nevertheless logical, manner. After all, this is the eighth film in the DC Extended Universe. So far, the series has dealt with alien invasions in “Man Of Steel,” Atlantean societies in “Aquaman,” mystical magic in “Shazam!” and so much more. At this point, any explanation seems like fair game.
Great Throwback Aesthetic in Stark Contrast to Our Somber Times
What really sticks out in”WW84″ right now is not the diegetic loopholes, but the novel, vibrant aesthetic. With a few exceptions, DCEU movies often get criticism for their grey pallet and overly-sinister energy. Fans frequently plead for Warner Brothers to offer a bit more color and optimism to the franchise, citing Disney’s Marvel films as exemplars for comic book adaptation.
Happily, “WW84” seems to finally be taking a queue from the fans. From the rainbow tinted posters to the electrifying trailer, the movie is clearly invested in the 1984 setting. It looks like a disco-infused, fun-filled superhero flick, with quality humor, captivating visuals, and a strong cast to carry it along—Pedro Pascal from “The Madalorian” is playing the main villain!
Poster: Warner Brothers
Due to mixed reviews, the DCEU has kind of faltered in recent years. A large-scale lateral narrative in the vein of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe is not quite a plausible outlook for DC anymore. Instead, Warner Brothers has been using its DC intellectual properties to focus on stand-alone films such as “Joker” and Robert Pattinson’s upcoming “The Batman.”
However, like the franchise’s last entry, “Birds Of Prey,” “WW84” has direct ties to some of the other DC movies. Thus, the film could possibly lead into something larger. After all, “Wonder Woman” was one of the DCEU’s highest praised movies, championing a female superhero for the first time in a blockbuster film and earning over $800 million at the box office. The success of “Wonder Woman” paved the way for her role in “Justice League,” so perhaps the sequel will carry the franchise to new heights yet again…
That is, if theaters ever open.
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
“America The Beautiful” broadcast from Washington DC on 4th of July. Nothing wrong with that. Perhaps this year in particular – with many reasons to remind ourselves of our rights under the constitution and while we consider the future of the nation, perhaps some historical classic and meaningful titles are in order. Some great songs from our hallowed past, many with a more thought provoking auditory emanation of the American Dream, and perhaps that reflect the real lives and loves of Americans.
This Land Is Your Land
The ultimate people’s anthem. Endlessly influential, from Bob Dylan to Springsteen all the way to the present day. Not to be forgotten. Ever.
The Star-Spangled Banner (Jimi Hendrix)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKAwPA14Ni4
Misunderstood, yet insightful to the nth degree. Performed at Woodstock (50 year anniversary happening now) at the height of unrest during the Vietnam War. For many, perhaps the peak and final moments of the 60s. Has taken on mythic status and while the controversy has faded, the insight and bittersweet love for the country shines through, to this day. Hendrix was a veteran and knew exactly what “rockets red glare” really sounded and felt like.
Born In The USA
In the parade of the misunderstood “Born In The USA” may stand as the most misinterpreted song ever. Pride at being born in the USA? Absolutely. Look at the rest of the lyrics to get the more nuanced take on what it means.
America, West Side Story
What can you say? Classic all the way.
Living In America
Anything by James Brown is an American Treasure.
America The Beautiful (Ray Charles)
Ditto
A bit more from The Boss and some lesser known gems to round out the tour:
Rising up to Expose Himself in 2nd Film as Director
On Friday, January 24th, former Daily Show host Jon Stewart made a surprise cameo on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.” Rising unannounced from the depths of Colbert’s desk, the comedian was greeted with thunderous applause in the Ed Sullivan Theater, and after humorously declining to comment on recent political news, Stewart debuted the trailer for his new movie “Irresistible.”
Stewart’s “Irresistible” is not to be confused with the 2006 drama-thriller film of the same name. This “Irresistible” is a political comedy characteristic of Stewart’s humor. It is the satirist’s second directorial project, and his first comedy film. While he has a long resume when it comes to writing and producing, Stewart’s only previous directing job was for the 2014 political drama “Rosewater.”
“Irresistible” stars Steve Carell—a former correspondent of Stewart’s on “The Daily Show” from 1999-2005. In the film, Carell plays Gary Zimmer, a top political strategist for the Democratic Party. After seeing a video of a retired Marine veteran (played by Chris Cooper) standing up for undocumented workers in his rural Wisconsin town, Zimmer moves to the small community to help the veteran run for mayor. It is a move to help the Democratic National Committee win back middle America, but as the local campaign gains national attention, the Republican National Committee sends their own representative (played by Rose Byrne) to counter Zimmer’s plan.
When it comes to Jon Stewart, the political commentary is never abstract. “Irresistible” is quite explicit in its contemporary undertones, commentating on the tumultuous relationship between Democrats and Republicans in the United States today. As most politically informed people know, the 2016 election was won by a handful of voters living in small, mostly Midwest districts. Therefore, the face off between Zimmer and his opponent strategist in Wisconsin is particularly telling.
Photo / Focus Features
Stewart Stays involved, albeit in new Role as Producer / Director / Writer
Stewart announced his plans to direct the film back in October, 2018 with Steve Carell already tentatively attached to the lead role. Three months into 2019, Rose Byrne and Chris Cooper also came onto the project. Topher Grace, Mackenzie Davis, and Debra Messing joined the cast a month later.
Focus Features acquired distribution rights to the film in April 2019 and Plan B Entertainment is producing the film with a short list of experienced individuals including Jeremy Kleiner and Dede Gardner of “Moonlight,” Lila Yacoub of “Moonrise Kingdom,” Brad Pitt, and Jon Stewart himself.
While it might seem like Jon Stewart has not been active since his step down from “The Daily Show” in 2015, this is entirely untrue. Over the past few years, he has done much work behind the camera, writing episodes of “The Daily Show” and “The Nightly Show With Larry Wilmore” while producing lots of content with Colbert.
Nevertheless, “Irresistible” is indeed one of Stewart’s first high profile productions in a while. Although he is unlikely to appear on screen during the film, he does don the triple creative crown as writer, director, and producer. The movie will also be a return to comedy acting for Carell, who has been doing more dramatic roles of lately, appearing in heavier projects such as “Beautiful Boy,” “Vice,” and “Welcome To Marwen.” He has also been working behind the camera, creating the sci-fi comedy “Space Force” series and the action-comedy “Angie Tribeca.”
“Irresistable”originally scheduled for theaters May 29th is now available to stream:
Production Companies making a stand? Helping to educate through free viewing
Warner Brothers has made the film “Just Mercy” available to rent for free on all major digital platforms for the whole month of June 2020. Shortly after, Paramount made “Selma” free to rent as well. The announcement comes during the wake of mass global protests in support of Black Lives Matter (BLM) following the murder of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor and in honor of the many other Black men and women targeted by racists and killed at the hands of unjust police.
A movement has been created and from that theres been a light shed that there are many people that hold an open and eager desire to educate and expand their awareness on matters of race, especially those coming from a place of privilege. Books, documentaries and movies can be positive starting point to learn more about the history of discrimination and systemic racism that continues to take place against African Americans and many people of color on a continuous basis.
Click to see “Just Mercy” and help Lynxotic and Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
“Bryan Stevenson was a young lawyer when he founded the Equal Justice Initiative, a legal practice dedicated to defending those most desperate and in need: the poor, the wrongly condemned, and women and children trapped in the farthest reaches of our criminal justice system. One of his first cases was that of Walter McMillian, a young man who was sentenced to die for a notorious murder he insisted he didn’t commit. The case drew Bryan into a tangle of conspiracy, political machination, and legal brinksmanship–and transformed his understanding of mercy and justice forever. Click to see book “Just Mercy” also available on Amazon.
Warner Brothers released the following statement on its website
“We believe in the power of story. Our film Just Mercy, based on the life work of civil rights attorney Bryan Stevenson, is one resource we can humbly offer to those who are interested in learning more about the systemic racism that plagues our society. For the month of June, Just Mercy will be available to rent for free across digital platforms in the US. To actively be part of the change our country is so desperately seeking, we encourage you to learn more about our past and the countless injustices that have led us to where we are today. Thank you to the artists, storytellers and advocates who helped make this film happen. Watch with your family, friends and allies. For further information on Bryan Stevenson and his work at the Equal Justice Initiative please visit EJI.org.
“Somebody has to stand when others are sitting. Somebody has to speak when others are quiet.” – Bryan Stevenson
We stand with our Black colleagues, talent, storytellers and fans – and all affected by senseless violence. Your voices matter, your messages matter. #BlackLivesMatter
Click to see “In Peace and Freedom” and help Lynxotic and Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
SELMA is the story of a movement. The film chronicles the tumultuous three-month period in 1965, when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. led a dangerous campaign to secure equal voting rights in the face of violent opposition. The epic march from Selma to Montgomery culminated in President Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the most significant victories for the civil rights movement. Director Ava DuVernay’s SELMA tells the real story of how the revered leader and visionary Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (David Oyelowo) and his brothers and sisters in the movement prompted change that forever altered history.
Paramount released a statement ” “We hope this small gesture will encourage people throughout the country to examine our nation’s history and reflect on the ways that racial injustice has infected our society. The key message of Selma is the importance of equality, dignity and justice for all people. Clearly, that message is as vital today as it was in 1965.”
“Just Mercy” and “Selma” are available to watch for free on the following streaming platforms: Apple TV, Fandango Now, Google Play, Amazon Video, Redbox, PlayStation Store, YouTube and Vudu).
The new film mimics real life (sans 5 years or so) bringing the characters and actors together again after 30 years to reprise their excellent roles and adventures. Alex Winters and Keanu Reeves are back as Bill S. Preston, Esq. and Ted “Theodore” Logan to revisit the plot twists and add a few more 30 years older and still très excellent.
As is to be expected and adored, challenges abound and hilarity ensues, with the trailer already tinged with a sweet comic potency due to the aged dynamic duo faithfully playing their younger selves with no held back pride or shame at exposing themselves in decrepitude of the physical form due simply to the years gone by.
With no hard fast release date due to the uncertainty of the level safety that a theatrical celebration of such excellence would enjoy, summer is at least promised and that would be a righteous chance to party on to the new historical phase of in-theater celebration of celluloid for the next generation.
We hope in all certitude that the original date for release, which was August 23rd, can be help or at least will be in the vicinity of the actual theatrical one. Orion Pictures Release with distribution by Warner Brothers.
Competitive bidding underway for films previously set for worldwide release to theaters
Tom Hanks stars in the new Sony Pictures World War II drama, “Greyhound,” which was due for a theatrical release on June 12th. Like many other films meant to come out this summer, though, “Greyhound” has been derailed by the coronavirus and the worldwide shutdown of movie theaters. Thus, the film has been expedited to the streaming market and will now be available exclusively on Apple TV+.
Launched just last November, Apple TV+ has been an underdog in the streaming war so far. The affordable $4.99/month service met some early awards for its highly praised “The Morning Show” and has created a few shows starring major talent such as “Defending Jacob” with Chris Evans and “See” with Jason Mamoa. The platform has also done a few spinoff shows such as the children’s “Fraggle Rock: Rock On” and a revival of Steven Spielberg’s “Amazing Stories.”
By-and-large, Apple TV+ has been committed to original content, opting to produce in-house series and movies rather than acquire outside titles. However, Apple TV+ does not have the vast libraries of Disney+, HBO Max, or NBCUniversal’s Peacock. It is a tech company that just entered the film and TV entertainment world and it must to compete with Netflix and Amazon Prime, both of which have created more original series in recent years, but still rely heavily on mergers and acquisitions for variety.
Apple TV+ appears to have a long road ahead in order to gain significant foothold
While Apple’s closed-system quality-over-quantity approach to streaming is admirable, it’s not giving them any leg-up on their rivals. Hence, they are presently bending their own rules a bit, talking with bigger studios about licensing out additional content. The service allegedly paid Sony $70 million for “Greyhound” and according to Deadline, the site will treat the film as its biggest movie release yet.
The deal also works out for Sony. Unlike Disney, WarnerMedia, or NBCUniversal, Sony does not have its own streaming service, so allocating its property to Apple gives them a presence in the streaming world without selling out to one of their theatrical competitors. Of course, Sony would probably prefer to release “Greyhound” on the big screen, but the global pandemic has all but slaughtered that possibility.
During the coronavirus, all streaming sites have seen increases in activity. Apple TV+, like any of the other platforms, is profiting off of, but also vying for the attention of people stuck at home. Throwing a Sony-produced Tom Hanks war epic in the captive audience’s faces will certainly help the site’s cause.
Aaron Shneider directs “Greyhound,” and its narrative comes from a screenplay by C.S. Forester and Hanks himself. It follows the true story of an American navy ship crossing the Atlantic in the early days of World War II while being pursued by troves of enemy German U-Boats. Apple has not yet scheduled a release date for the film, but it will likely come out sometime this summer.
Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman launched Quibi on April 6th. The latest project from the two well-experienced entertainment moguls, Quibi is a streaming service designed for the smallest of screens— namely, smartphones and other mobile devices. The subscription based platform’s initiative is to provide short bursts of entertainment for people on the go, keeping content between seven and ten minutes long apiece.
Quibi entered the streaming war with a lot of hype, propelled by a massive marketing campaign and a line up including several noteworthy filmmakers such as Steven Spielberg, Guillermo Del Toro, Steven Soderbergh, Sam Raimi, and more. Many industry insiders had high hopes for the novel platform, even after it decided to stay true to its April 6th launch date amidst the coronavirus.
Sadly, that decision might be coming back to haunt Quibi, as the service came out over a month ago and has so far severely underperformed. The service cost roughly $1.4 billion to create— most of the money coming from Hollywood studio investors and the Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba— and according to the New York Times, it has garnered under 2 million active subscribers in its first month. At a price of $4.99-$7.99 per month, this is a long way from breaking even.
Despite knowing the risk of launching Quibi during COVID-19, Jeffrey Katzenberg is now attributing the site’s underperformance to the pandemic. In a New York Times video interview, he unambiguously stated, “I attribute everything that has gone wrong to coronavirus.”
The founder’s rationale is that the platform is best consumed for people with busy, mobile lives. Quibi provides content catered to people on tight schedules, with news and entertainment served in quick doses. Under the current quarantine, however, people are more sedentary than ever before. Katzenberg continued to the Times, “My hope, my belief was that there would still be many in-between moments while sheltering in place. There are still those moments, but it’s not the same. It’s out of sync.”
This makes sense, but is called into question when considering the success of other streaming sites during the lockdown. Established platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney+ have benefitted immensely from people staying at home. With theaters closed, lots of content is getting expedited to streaming and these sites are serving as the last lines of entertainment during these isolating times. Netflix has added 15.8 million subscribers in 2020, and Disney+ 4.5 million in the month of April alone.
Of course, Quibi lacks a lot of what these preexisting services have to offer. It does not possess the name brand recognition of a Netflix or Amazon, nor does it have have the vast, familiar library of Disney+. Despite its impressive rolodex of attached producers and a few reboots of popular shows, Quibi has had to build from the bottom up with original programming.
No Blockbuster (yet?) and Now A Changed Attitude Re: TV
Unfortunately, on top of all the circumstantial roadblocks facing Quibi as a company right now, its shows have not been well received either. Many critics and consumers are not buying into the concept of watching content on a phone. Even though Quibi invested lots of effort into creating “turnstyle” technology for a seamless vertical/horizontal viewing experience, the final product has been underwhelming. A review from The Vulture called the technological attempt’s outcome, “a sad cropped, vertical version of a show that looked better in widescreen.”
Now, Quibi is looking towards the future. With so much money and human capital tied up in the project, it has no choice but to keep moving forward, trying to rebound and improve upon itself.
Marketing-wise, Quibi plans to start advertising for individual shows. Up until now, the platform has marketed itself as a whole, with celebrity-endorsed commercials promoting the overall site rather than specific programs. Going forward, Quibi will create more ads centered on particular shows, much in the same vein as Netflix and Disney+.
The site will also be updating its terms of usage. For starters, Quibi users will no longer be tethered to their phone screens. Subscribers will soon be able to watch Quibi shows on their televisions. This was always something that Quibi aspired to in the longterm, but wanted to get its customers used to the small screen standard first. Given the users’ apparent aversion to mobile viewing, though, Quibi is accelerating the process.
Moreover, Quibi content will be sharable on social media going forward. At first, Katzenberg and Whitman wanted to keep all of Quibi (including screenshots) behind its subscriber paywall. Those walls are now becoming permeable, as Quibi demands more traction. Allowing users to share Quibi shows on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter will help spread its popularity and get more people talking about it.
Evidently, Quibi is undergoing some changes at the moment. Regardless of the peculiar situation, the bottom line is that Quibi has not been so successful out the gate. Things will probably get even more competitive in the coming months as NBCUniversal’s Peacock and AT&T’s HBOMax enter the streaming world. Consequentially, Quibi executives are changing their approach immediately, lest the Quibi craze be over before it even begins.
Weightlessness becomes the sound stage setting for innovation or absurdity
From “Star Trek” to “Star Wars,” “Interstellar” to “2001,” outer space has been the primary setting for a wide range of science fiction and action movies over the years. Still, never has a film actually been shot in the infinite frontier. Sure we have footage from the stars (even from the moon and Mars), but no feature film has been bold enough to actually construct a full-length narrative with principal photography occurring in space.
All that is about to change, as Deadline Hollywood recently reported that actor Tom Cruise has been in conversation with tech wizard Elon Musk‘s SpaceX to shoot a movie entirely in space… the first feature to ever have its production take place outside planet Earth.
As of right now, details are quite spotty. All we know for sure is that Cruise is on board and so is Musk. The film will not be attached to any pre-existing Tom Cruise franchise and no studio has signed on to the project yet. Also, in typical Cruise fashion, the movie will likely fall into the action genre.
Because COVID-19 has more or less put the film industry on pause indefinitely, significant progress on the project will probably not begin until business is back to normal. Obviously, this movie will require an unprecedented amount of planning. Cruise will need to endure astronaut-like training to face (let alone act in) a zero gravity environment. The same goes for all of the supporting cast and crew members, none of whom have been announced yet.
The project will probably be insurmountably expensive, but with Musk, Cruise, and SpaceX (and by extension NASA) at the film’s back, they will certainly be able to raise the funds and attract major studio interest. A budget has not been estimated yet, but the film could easily end up being the most expensive production of all time. It depends on how many actors, crew members, and sets they need to prepare and transport to beyond the exosphere.
Fringe benefit or impossible to insure, an action stunt that creates headlines, if not much else
Even in his sixties, the eternally youthful Tom Cruise is a perfect pick to lead the first film shot in space. The actor still does his own extreme stunts and the past few “Mission: Impossible” movies saw him leaping from helicopters, hanging off the side of a moving airplane, and scaling the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. If any Hollywood persona has what it takes to perform in space, it is Cruise.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk—who recently had his first child, named X Æ A-12, with partner Grimes—is one of the greatest visionaries alive today. His SpaceX company is behind the electric-powered line of Tesla cars and it is currently planning a flight to the international space station with its innovative Crew Dragon capsule. Having Musk lend his expertise to the film industry will be a real treat.
Cruise is currently awaiting the release of his most recent film, “Top Gun: Maverick,” which has been pushed back from June to December due to the pandemic. The aviator-based action movie is a sequel to its 1986 predecessor, and Cruise stars alongside Jennifer Connelly, Val Kilmer, Jon Hamm, and others. Although Cruise has done copious action adventure films throughout his career, he’s somehow never done one set in space. Given his aptitude for practical stunts, it only makes sense that his first one is filmed there for real.
Moving up the major release of “Rise” a full 2 months
Break out the lightsabers and pour yourself a tall glass of blue mile, because Monday is May the 4th (be with you), a global holiday celebrating everything Star Wars. Disney is getting in on the action by bumping up the home release of “Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker” on Disney+. Releasing the ninth and final film in the Skywalker saga now comes a whopping two months earlier than its originally scheduled debut for the streaming site— a sure treat for cooped up moviegoers itching to binge more content during the quarantine.
The Star Wars fun does not stop there, though. Disney+ is also airing the final episode of “The Clone Wars” on the 4th. The acclaimed and beloved animated series has been off the air since 2014, but Disney decided to make a final season for their streaming site in 2020. Episodes have come out stagnantly since February 21st, and the conclusion arrives appropriately on May the 4th, putting Star Wars fans of the edges of their seats.
As if all that wasn’t enough, Disney+ still has one more surprise up its sleeve for the global Star Wars day. On the 4th, the site is also releasing a making-of documentary on “The Mandalorian,” the first live action Star Wars series that met immense praise at the end of 2019. “The Mandalorian” wrapped its first season in December and has already been renewed for a second and third season. It met record-breaking viewership figures and was a huge draw for Disney+ subscribers upon the service’s launch last November. Given that “The Mandalorian” sports some of the best writers, directors, and VFX people in the television game (not to mentioned executive producer John Favreau), the making-of story is bound to spark intrigue from Star Wars fans and general cinephiles alike.
Photo / Disney
Making the most of this springtime celebration of the saga to boost Disney+ awareness
Clearly, Disney is doing its best to make May the 4th a special occasion. This is the first May 4th that Disney+ has been in existence for, and it also falls at a time when audiences are stuck at home with nothing but streaming services to keep them entertained. This would not be the first time that Disney+ pleasantly surprised fans during the quarantine, though, as the site also expedited releases of “Frozen II” and Pixar’s “Onward” in light of the pandemic.
Moreover, the holiday arrives at a potentially uplifting time, as movie theaters are slowly opening up again. Perhaps a few theaters in the newly reopened Texas and Georgia will be able to host some May 4th Star Wars celebrations on the big screen.
While there are currently no new Star Wars theatrical releases on the horizon, 2020 remains an active year for the franchise. Not only is “The Mandalorian” season 2 scheduled for release in October, but the creative minds at Disney and Lucasfilm are currently working on a Ewan McGregor-starring Obi-Wan series for Disney+ as well as an enigmatic multi-media project titled “The High Republic” which launches in August. Meanwhile, the long awaited Cassian Andor series remains in development as well as an additional Star Wars show helmed by “Russian Doll” co-creator Leslye Headland.
Not only is “The Mandalorian” season 2 scheduled for release in October, but the creative minds at Disney and Lucasfilm are currently working on a Ewan McGregor-starring Obi-Wan series for Disney+
Disney’s parks—and therefore Galaxy’s Edge and Rise of the Resistance rides—sadly remain closed right now. Nevertheless, the House-of-Mouse is offering a lot for May the 4th 2020. Fans will surely have more than enough to get them through the day, lost and relishing in the plethora of new and familiar stories from a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.
Universal Studios and AMC theater chain at war over a potential straight to video future.
Throughout the history of the movie theater business, it has often survived desperate times, successfully adapting and staying in business during the Great Depression, two World Wars, the rise of television as competition, and, so far, even the recent streaming boom. Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the entertainment industry has likely met its match, and the exhibition sector is getting hit the hardest.
For the first time since the 1918 pandemic, when theaters in San Francisco alone lost $400,000 per week while closed in what we now call a “lock-down”, theaters across the globe are being forced to barricade their doors. Adhering to social distancing precautions, government officials and theater owners alike are barring the possibility of people gathering in close proximity at the cinema.
Clearly, averting these gatherings is the responsible thing to do during the coronavirus outbreak, but several weeks into the lockdown, many theater workers were struggling to make ends meet. Now, exhibitors are even losing the cooperation of studios.
Currently quarantines are being gradually phased out, with social distancing procedures being used for “non-essential” retail, restaurants and in some cases movie theaters in the first wave of relaxation. Next would be Schools, parks and other public gatherings. Later, in a third phase, concerts and sporting events would be sanctioned, assuming that there is no second wave of cases to cause a reversal back to strict lock-down quarantines again. That is, at this point a big “if” as some states are already should surges in the number of new cases.
Just as restaurants could face financial hardship if they must maintain 50% or even 30% capacity to adhere to social distancing guidelines, a half-empty theater is an anathema in the movie business and could kill off theatrical releases altogether if required for years.
Part of the reason why theater chains have been able to persevere for so long is because major Hollywood studios see the continuing economic value of putting a movie exclusively on the big screen for at least a few weeks. The theatergoing experience allows studios to profit off of ticket sales before making their products available on the far more modestly priced home video markets. At least, this is how the process has conventionally taken place.
If congregating for any reason is too dangerous it could render Hollywood theatrical releases virtually extinct
Now, with so many theaters closed, it makes almost no sense for movies to even attempt theatrical releases during the pandemic. For a few titles (mostly the flashiest blockbuster-style movies like “Wonder Woman 1984,” “Fast 9,” or “Black Widow”) studios have pushed back release dates, knowing that they will eventually turn a profit at the box office despite delays. However, for some more modestly budgeted movies, production companies have contemplated (and in some cases executed) forgoing theatrical runs altogether and releasing the movies straight to video on-demand.
Bypassing theatrical runs has obviously been a possibility for decades, and the perspective has gained significant momentum in the past few years as direct-to-streaming titles have gained legitimacy. If the practice became widespread, however, this would be a nightmare for the theater industry. Because the pandemic is likely to prevent public gatherings for months or even longer, the shift towards this business model is rapidly becoming unavoidable.
Most notably, Universal Studios recently released “Trolls: World Tour” in theaters and on-demand at the same time. To the shock of theater owners everywhere, the film has reportedly made over $50 million on-demand, perhaps exceeding box office expectations and proving that a movie can make huge profits while eschewing the box office and going straight to this direct-to-home-video model.
Universal’s choice to take this unconventional path with “Trolls” led to the studio butting heads with AMC Theaters. AMC President Adam Aron penned a scathing open letter to Universal’s Chairman, claiming, in a threat that sounds like a bluff, that the chain would never play another Universal movie in any of its theaters. That’s a bold claim considering that Universal releases all DreamWorks, “Fast & Furious,” and “Jurassic Park” titles, all of which would bring in major numbers for AMC.
Worst case scenario, however, AMC won’t even need to worry about this, for Universal amongst other studios will see the success of the direct-to-home-video model and replicate it, significantly decreasing, perhaps even nullifying theaters’ essentialness in the release process.
Other movies that were already out when theaters started closing such as Universal’s “The Invisible Man,” Warner Brother’s “Birds Of Prey,” and Pixar’s “Onward” were expedited to on-demand. They are all now on Amazon’s Prime Cinema platform, available for rent at the theater-ticket-like-price of $19.99. The cost is definitely higher than a standard rental, but when watching with the whole family, it is cheaper to view these movies at home than each individual paying for a separate movie theater ticket.
That is, if people could even choose go to the theaters when they wanted to take the risk.
The world is changing fast and it is unlikely if things will ever go back to “normal”
Despite the success of Prime Cinema rentals and “Trolls: World Tour” on-demand, studios cannot ignore the desperation and unique extremes of the times. People are in a vacuum and home entertainment is the only kind of entertainment available to them. If consumers had the option of going to the movies, perhaps the home-video model would not prove as successful.
Essentially, the entertainment industry is undergoing a massive non-consensual experiment, but the variables are erratic and irreplicable. There is no telling how these movies might’ve done at the box office if the box office still existed.
When theaters open up their doors again, studios might realize that people still appreciate going to the cinema and that continuing theatrical releases as usual is the only financially sensible option. Of course the level of fear that people will still feel, even after governments sound the “all clear”, is also an unknown.
Click to buy “Save The Cat” and help Lynxotic and all Independent Local Bookstores
AMC and Cinemark both hope to have their doors open by mid-June or July. Meanwhile, the states of Georgia and Texas will be amongst the first states to allow theaters to continue business. Returning to normalcy will not be simple, though. Just because state governments allow theaters to reopen does not mean that they have to. Plus, many theaters will probably want to take precautions with their crowds, allowing a limited number of people in at a time. The movies themselves will also probably be in limited supply, as it wouldn’t make sense for a movie to get a theatrical release if theaters are only open in a couple states.
If theaters were open today, we would currently be entering a huge summer blockbuster season with “Wonder Woman 1984,” “Fast 9,” and “Black Widow” leading the charge alongside Disney’s “Mulan,” Pixar’s “Soul,” and Warner Brothers’ Christopher Nolan directed “Tenant.” Likewise, we’d be seeing a whole lot of indie content pushed up through the festivals such as South by Southwest and Cannes— the former getting cancelled back in March and the latter pending cancellation.
God forbid the need for precautionary measures is still as extreme through the end of the year, but if the entertainment industry in still in the same situation come winter, then the closures, cancellations, and postponements will collide with the Awards Season. Already the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences has stated that a theatrical run is no longer a requirement for Oscar nominees, breaking down a barrier that has been a point of contention over the past few years. As of right now, it is unclear if this waived rule will remain in perpetuity after its adoption during this highly abnormal year.
Regardless, those who own and work in movie theaters remain on the edges of their collective seats. While nobody in the entertainment industry is currently in an ideal situation, the theaters are clearly the most vulnerable; and that threatens the survival of the most hallowed of hollywood traditions.
Starting in a Crisis but Representing the New Normal?
In the modern digital age of direct-to-streaming films, studios and production companies have long contemplated the idea of releasing movies straight to home video markets at the same time as their theatrical debuts. Over the past few years, the gap between films’ theatrical runs and their home video releases has only shrunk, and the line has further greyed with rising numbers of nontraditional release platforms, or forgone theatrical runs altogether.
By and large, though, theaters have still maintained their relevancy. However, that has changed over the past couple months. Right now, theaters are shutdown across the globe because of the coronavirus and many recent releases have been expedited to Video-On-Demand markets. The most conspicuous of these expedited releases is that of DreamWorks’ “Trolls: World Tour,” which made history as the first film to get a VOD and theatrical release on the same day.
Releasing “Trolls: World Tour” like this was a bit of a gamble. Like many other movies, “World Tour” simply could have postponed its premiere for a more stable time. Nevertheless, the VOD release it seems to have paid off. The film came out on April 10th and has already earned Universal Studios $50 million. For comparison’s sake, the movie’s 2016 predecessor—simply titled “Trolls”—earned $46.6 million for its opening weekend in the theaters and overall had a $346.9 million Box Office run.
“Trolls: World Tour” will not have an enormous Box Office success given all of the theaters closed right now. However, it will arguably make more off of its VOD rentals than it ever would during a traditional theatrical period.
Granted, this is an unusual time. “World Tour” and its home release are probably benefitting from the isolated audiences practicing social distancing. Likewise, the film costs $19.99 On-Demand, a price that emulates that of a movie ticket, but is noticeably more than that of a regular VOD rental. The movie also garnered some extra attention as the first film to execute this unconventional release platform. Lastly, it is a family comedy appropriate for kids and adults alike to watch on a common screen. All of this considered, the VOD success of “World Tour” might be an anomaly tied to beginner’s luck and the current circumstances.
Virtual “Box office” Cume is nothing to Sneeze at
Nevertheless, the entertainment experiment that is “Trolls: World Tour” has still proven fruitful, raising the question of whether or not other movies will follow in its footsteps. If “World Tour” can get $50 million in its first week On-Demand, maybe the persistent gap between theaters and home markets has become futile. Perhaps moviegoers are content to watch a new picture at home for the same price of seeing it on the big screen.
The nullification of theatrical releases would naturally be bad news for the theater companies, but it would give streaming sites and tech companies a leg up in the entertainment market. It would also completely transform the industry release pipeline that has persisted for the past century. This potential change, however, will not manifest overnight. “Trolls: World Tour” simply demonstrates that a corresponding VOD and theatrical release can be financially effective, and it may spark an evolution in the enduring movie distribution model.
“Trolls: World Tour” is a PG-rated animated comedy-musical. Walt Dohrn directs alongside David P Smith, and the voice cast includes Anna Kendrick, Justin Timberlake, Rachel Bloom, James Cordon, and many more. It is available on Amazon’s new Prime Cinema hub alongside other VOD expedited titles such as “The Invisible Man,” “Emma,” “The Way Back,” “Bloodshot,” “Birds Of Prey” and others.
Plenty of reasons for Pessimism but Huge Sudden Changes are where we’ll find the greatest Opportunities
The film clip above, featuring the Steven Spielberg directed film based on the sci-fi book by Ernest Clines, is built on a fairly familiar and, lately, believable premise. In the year 2045 (or sooner from the looks of things) all our human foibles and follies have devastated the world landscape, both physically and economically. Global warming has taken a toll and disasters we now know so well, such as pandemic outbreaks and economic catastrophes, are recent history and shape the reality at hand.
The story takes place in the world of young virtual reality explorers. And from there the plot is a pretty standard fantasy exploration of the potentials and drama that this backdrop produces.
This and other dystopian works of fiction are suddenly ringing true in a new way, and on different levels, since the world has been on lock-down as we battle the novel coronavirus. There is a feeling of a world on the verge of collapse, with an unknown and very uncertain future, and talk of an economic malaise with almost no historical precedent about to unfold, if you accept worst case scenarios.
Yet, using wild flights of imagination and optimism there are hidden bright spots and silver linings that might arise, not accounted for in this film or other works of dystopian art.
“Ready Player One” promo still image / Warner Bros.
An Idea so Big and Radical it is Hard to Wrap our Heads Around it no matter how hard we try
Click to buy “Ready Player One” and at the same time help Lynxotic and all independent local bookstores. Also on Amazon
What if the twin terrors of the covid-19 Pandemic and the possible economic collapse that may follow are actually a kind of gift to the world and humanity? What if this is the mother of all opportunities, like some wildly fantastic movie plot, where the wake up call from the cosmos comes at exactly the perfect moment to, well, wake us all up?
It’s easy to forget that, before we all became consumed in pandemic survival mode, there were already enormous changes and challenges afoot, a they were not small potatoes.
Global warming and climate related disasters were beginning to take center stage in political and social thought. Greta Thunberg was Time’s Person of the Year, and, for the first time, climate deniers (generally paid shills for the oil industry) were no longer being taken seriously.
All that now seems like a distant memory, but what has changed? A lot and also nothing. The threat of global warming and the urgency to stop carbon emissions and begin a transition to sustainable energy is no less pressing, regardless of our current preoccupation with stopping the pandemic.
Skys around the world have turned blue and clear while traffic is a fraction of the previous norm
Though many have warned the pollution and carbon burning will resume with a vengeance, once the quarantines are lifted, there is nevertheless a psychological effect of seeing and experiencing the beauty of clean air and reduced traffic that is fascinating. Eerily similar to scenes in the film 12 Monkeys, wild animals roam freely in urban centers.
Like a good omen or an invitation to positive change, the idea that nature can bounce back so quickly could be seen as a clarion call to change. Of course, a year from now we could see a world where fossil fuels are even more entrenched, due to economic desperation, where societies take great strides backwards in the ability to communicate and all the problems from the past and present accelerate into a final snowball bound for hell.
But what if something else happens?
What if the drastic measures, like the world wide lock-downs, and the economic stimulus actions attempting to stave off the potential economic catastrophe, indicate the potential for entire nations and even the entire world to work together in times of great need?
Virtual and Enhanced Communication as Tool for Crisis Adaptation
One of the interesting and unforgettable earmarks of the current crisis lifestyle is the switch in our lives from “real” lives to internet lives and virtual meetings and events. TV shows are staging networked broadcasts using FaceTime and Zoom, with the various actors and talking heads streaming from their private quarantine stations. We communicate with each other privately using the same technologies and non-contact methods.
What if this foreshadows a revolutionary change in how we use technology to improve our lives, accelerate communication, increase productivity and prevent the future from being an ecological disaster of biblical proportions?
What if all of us learning to adapt to a life with less unnecessary travel, while at the same time studying and inventing solutions for those problems is exactly what we need to be doing? What if we all need to collaborate on ways to stop the spread of disease, certainly, but also need to find ways to seamlessly transition to solving the bigger underlying pre-existing issues in order to save ourselves and our planet?
What if we were all forced to stay inside and use our computers to communicate. And what if we were forced to learn new “jobs” and ways to survive financially? And what if we could engage people around the world to work from home solving the real problems facing humanity, instead of flying and driving around, burning carbon, chasing the latest greed-driven suicide gold rush?
Ideas like universal basic income will not be optional when 50% of the world is unemployed. But if the income generated by the robots and the energy produced by solar, wind and other clean, sustainable energy sources are available and not in the hands of corrupt politicians, Bezos and Zuckerberg, and the fossil fuel companies, then why not?
These kinds of “radical” solutions will have all sorts of political and greed-driven opposition, of that you can be sure. But, as with the coronavirus, when faced with an insurmountable obstacle, like a rapidly spreading deadly virus that does not spare victims just because they have money or power, things change fast. Really fast.
I have always said, climate change deniers will stop trying to convince people it’s a hoax once Miami and New York are underwater. In a different way, we are already there. What we are living through is like a test run and a wake up call that can help us to prepare for the real and necessary changes to come.
Having the Future Thrust Upon you is not as bad If you Look Forward to Change
So why not make the most of it? Many people are. Reading books, particularly serious books for learning new ideas and thinking outside the box, are having an online sales boom. People are using the time and freedom to set their own schedule and goals, and considering career paths and constructive engagement in ways they might have never otherwise even considered.
In this scene from the original “Matrix” film the writers sub-consciously show us the horrors of the future – but instead what they show is a symbolic representation of the present and the past. Humans are imprisoned for life in “farms” and live only to produce energy – the food fed to babies locked in pods is a sticky black goop said to be the liquified remains of the dead, but is, clearly just a very familiar substance already enslaving us all: crude oil.
Perhaps, looking back from a better future made possible by this pandemic, we can see a reality where the greatest obstacles to change were the addiction to failed behaviors, failed infrastructures and suicidal greed that was considered “normal” in a dying world. If a larger force makes those things impossible or less viable then it should be welcomed with open arms.
There is an existing world infrastructure based on fossil fuels and greed that has been artificially propped up by political and economic forces for far too long. Now that entire system is collapsing on itself. The coronavirus is just a pin prick to the bubble of stupidity and greed that has been there all along.
Those of us that can see and imagine a future, not built around and based on that failed system, will have the opportunity to use our computers and virtual communication systems, primitive as they are at this stage, to communicate with one another and discuss ways to find a new beginning. That new beginning is already starting with blue skys and clean air across the world. Leaders not motivated by greed and yet wielding power like Elon Musk are putting enormous energy into solving the carbon burning dilemma and replacing it as quickly as possible with sustainable energy.
The economic upheaval to come must be seen as an opportunity to replace the old structures with new and better solutions. The recent extreme acts of the government show at least a willingness to try things never before attempted. Many will not work. Meanwhile, enormous, radical change is no longer a science fiction dream but an unavoidable reality.
Let’s embrace the dream and face the future with the wildly optimistic idea that changes for the future do not have to be dystopian. They can be Utopian. Why should we settle for anything less?
Please click on photo to buy “Blowout” and at the same time you can help Lynxotic and All Independent Local Bookstores. Also available on Amazon
Last November, legendary filmmaker Martin Scorsese made his debut into the world of streaming with “The Irishman.” After ViacomCBS deemed the project too costly, Paramount withdrew support from the movie and Netflix picked it up, willing to give Scorsese the creative freedom (and $159 million budget) he needed to see his vision come alive.
Click to buy “Killers of the Flower Moon” and at the same time help Lynxotic and all independent local bookstores. Also on Amazon
Now, it looks as if that recent history already about to repeat itself. Scorsese’s next big project, titled “Killers Of The Flower Moon,” has been in development under Paramount since early 2019. However, its budget has been perpetually increasing, now requiring an estimated $200 million. This is a tall price for any studio to pay for a film, but ViacomCBS in particular is already in a precarious financial situation as it struggles to keep up with conglomerate competitors like Disney, WarnerMedia, and Universal.
Furthermore, Paramount (like all other studios) is currently dealing with the COVID-19 setbacks and economic crashes. Now is not a safe time for anyone to take extravagant risks in the entertainment industry, and a $200 million Scorsese project is far from a conservative investment.
While Paramount has not officially detached itself from the film yet, Scorsese has already started eyeing other production companies, most notably his old pals at Netflix and some new faces at Apple. Last year’s “The Irishman” was one of Netflix’s biggest selling points, especially as the streaming wars started taking off in mid-November. The film set a new standard for Netflix as a company that supports creative and prestigious filmmakers. During awards season, “The Irishman” earned the streaming site an unprecedented 10 Oscar nominations. Sadly, it took home none.
Apple is the New Kid on the Block but with Very Deep Pockets
Apple, on the other hand, would be new territory for Scorsese. The tech company’s new streaming site, Apple TV+, launched just last November, and has focused more on creating quality television series than films. However, the platform recently released its first original movie—“The Banker” starring Samuel L. Jackson—and is allegedly spending big money on a Will Farrel-Ryan Reynolds musical adaptation of “A Christmas Carol” for an upcoming holiday season. Adding the new Scorsese project to the platform’s budding filmography would likely benefit Apple’s rising studio image.
Scorsese reportedly talked with executives at Universal and MGM as well, so there remains a possibility that the film will not end up on a streaming site at all.
Of course, whatever studio or website “Killers Of The Flower Moon” ends up on, the adopting company will have to go through ViacomCBS first. Paramount is not required to sell the film, and it will definitely want compensation for all of the money it has already invested. The way things are going, though, selling will probably be in Paramount’s best interest, for the film is becoming far too expensive to hold on to.
In addition to Paramount, a smaller, independent company called Imperative Entertainment is also attached to the film. Unlike Paramount, though, Imperative will likely continue its attachment, for it bares far less of the financial burden.
“Killers Of The Flower Moon” is meant to come out sometime next year, but with the coronavirus affecting schedules across the board as well as the current studio mix-ups, it very well might take longer to finish.
Book Origin is Intriguing as a Backdrop to a A-List Team Effort
The film is an adaptation of the 2017 book, “Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI,” by bestselling author David Grann. The book follows the federal investigation into the murders of Osage County Native Americans in 1920s Oklahoma. It’s a slow burning true story that will lend itself well to Scorsese’s hardboiled, historical take on narrative film.
Scorsese veterans Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro are meant to star in the movie. Di Niro starred in last year’s “The Irishman” and has appeared in nine Scorsese features since they first collaborated in 1973’s “Mean Streets.” The much younger DiCaprio last worked with Scorsese in 2013’s “The Wolf Of Wall Street” and has done a total of five movies with the auteur since 2002’s “Gangs Of New York.” He is also expected to star in a Theodore Roosevelt biopic, which Scorsese has been developing and hopes to start directing after finishing “Killers of the Flower Moon.”
This project will be the twenty-sixth feature in Martin Scorsese illustrious directorial career, which has lasted over half a century now. Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro are two of his most loyal collaborators, and their creative relationships with the director have been quite fruitful from artistic and financial perspectives. Both actors are Oscar winning leads, yet “Killers Of The Flower Moon” will be the first time they share the screen in a feature since 1996’s “Marvin’s Room.”
Regardless of where it ends up studio-wise, “Killers Of The Flower Moon” is bound to be a cinematic spectacle and a much talked about movie in the coming years. Whoever ends up getting their hands on the film will be lucky. That being said, it comes at a hefty ($200+ million) price, which is a sizable gamble even in the most normal of circumstances.
The reality is sinking in, slowly, that the future is truly unknowable and that big changes and even bigger challenges are looming. Twin shocks of a health emergency and a financial crisis, intertwined and yet with separate trajectories, are still to be resolved in our near future.
Click to buy “The Big Short” and at the same time help Lynxotic and All Independent Local Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
And then there’s the myriad of other challenges that were already acute, such as global warming and the “other” epidemic; corruption and greed. It’s almost too much to face up to, and no one can be blamed for wanting to just turn away.
Too much has been glossed over. After the 2008 crisis we all just wanted to put that ugly mess behind us and get on with our lives. I suppose the criminals that netted billions as a “reward” for almost destroying the entire global economy were also eager to just move on.
All that as it may be, perhaps, a way to begin the process of regaining our courage and looking into the future with some kind of hope, or at least a deeper understanding of the human dilemma and historical precedents, might be to enjoy films about small moments of triumph before great adversity. Here are a few recent options:
Barely 12 years ago, the financial collapse and ensuing “Great Recession” was a nightmare scenario. The aftermath of that debacle is also a contributor to the economic dangers we see before us in 2020. This film, likely the best based on that era, highlights how outsiders and misfits were able to prosper, even as they witnessed the corruption, failure and systemic injustice that brought the world to the brink of total economic chaos.
Starring: Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling and Brad Pitt.
Click to buy “Antrhopocene” and at the same time help Lynxotic and All Independent Local Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
For a bird’s-eye overview and scientific perspective – Athropocene is a film for those ready to think deeply on how, once beyond the immediate danger, we would want to emerge into a new era as a species. A positive reaction to the current crisis, worldwide, has been a series of ideas and proposals that show a willingness to confront the challenges from an entirely new perspective. Maybe new leadership can mean starting over and making a pledge to try a new approach to literally everything.
‘The film follows the research of an international body of scientists, the Anthropocene Working Group who, after nearly 10 years of research, argue that the Holocene Epoch gave way to the Anthropocene Epoch in the mid-twentieth century as a result of profound and lasting human changes to the Earth.”
Facing death constantly is a reality in war times. This story is a testament to resilience and survival against all odds.
Angelina Jolie directs this adaptation from Laura Hillenbrand’s popular book, “Unbroken” stars Jack O’Connell, Domhnall Gleeson, Alex Russell, Miyavi and Finn Wittrock
Cinderella Man
This Depression era feel-good story takes on new meaning as we see a “Great Depression II” potentially looming. Looking for strength and courage facing forces that threaten our survival, and coming out at the end in a better place, that’s a synopsis and blueprint we can all benefit from observing, even if it’s packaged as a Hollywood vehicle. Russel Crowe at his best. Maybe worth a second look.
Click to buy “Unbroken” and at the same time help Lynxotic and All Independent Local Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
