Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Newsstand, Politics

Earlier this evening, talks between the WGA and AMPTP broke down once again. Negotiating between the two sides for a second time began shortly after the Thanksgiving break following three weeks of picketing, protests and celebrity spotting. This time, things were nasty, with each side releasing a statement that pretty much amounts to a spit in the face (though the WGA's letter kind of wipes off that spit, and makes an attempt to hug it out). Here's the breakdown (without all the strike lingo and number stuff): AMPTP delivered a proposal that was better, but not really, because it would require the WGA to remove several of their important demands. The WGA ran into a hotel room, locked the door and debated their next move. While still in the hotel room, AMPTP knocked on the door and told them they were leaving the bargaining table -- that this was a take it or leave it proposal -- and when the WGA send a letter stating that all of those demands are taken off the table, they'll go back to talking. Game on!

A few noteworthy lines from each side's official statement:

WGA: "We reject the idea of an ultimatum. Although a number of items we have on the table are negotiable, we cannot be forced to bargain with ourselves. The AMPTP has many proposals on the table that are unacceptable to writers, but we have never delivered ultimatums."

"We remain ready and willing to negotiate, no matter how intransigent our bargaining partners are, because the stakes are simply too high. We were prepared to counter their proposal tonight, and when any of them are ready to return to the table, we're here, ready to make a fair deal."

AMPTP: "While the WGA's organizers can clearly stage rallies, concerts and mock exorcisms, we have serious concerns about whether they're capable of reaching reasonable compromises that are in the best interests of our entire industry."

"Their Quixotic pursuit of radical demands led them to begin this strike, and now has caused this breakdown in negotiations. We hope that the WGA will come back to this table with a rational plan that can lead us to a fair and equitable resolution to a strike that is causing so much distress for so many people in our industry and community."

Then there's this gem from the studio and network reps: "Under no circumstances will we knowingly participate in the destruction of this business."

So, are things f**ked ... or are they f**ked?

[via Deadline Hollywood]

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Images

No! It stings! It hurts! I'm melting! Yes, that appears to be Lindsay Lohan standing next to Batman on the set of ... just another weird photo shoot. Fear not, my JLA friends, the girl is not starring in the upcoming Justice League flick. But she is, for some odd reason, posing for a bunch of pics with Marvel and DC characters -- all of whom are dressed up in outfits you'd expect to find in the post-Halloween bargain bin at K-Mart. Dude! How can they disrespect Batman like that? And it's not only Batman -- wait till you see what they've done to Spider-Man and The Incredible Hulk. It's beyond awful. The pics come to us via IESB's celeb site, CelebSkin, which, honestly, needs someone else to write for them. I barely made it through several grammatical mistakes before finally landing on these images.* Stick them both together and I'm literally scarred for life (which, to the commenter who took me seriously, is a joke). Nothing against IESB; they just need to proof and edit. Like, a lot.

So what's the deal here? Is Lindsay trying to tell the world that she wants a role in the next big superhero flick? Or did some hot Los Angeles club simply pay her half a million to pose with superhero models to promote their establishment? Don't know, don't wanna know and, honestly, I don't care. See Lindsay with Spider-Man and The Hulk after the jump ...

*The grammatical errors on the site have been fixed, so disregard my previous statement.

Continue reading Holy Crap Batman! Is Lindsay Lohan Starring in 'Justice League?!'

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Newsstand, Home Entertainment

Ah, Barbara Walters. I remember the days when I'd set away the whole evening to watch her interview celebrities and dig beneath the surface to get the good stuff. There'd be the probing questions, those pensive, emotionally-intensive pauses, and sometimes even tears. At least then, it felt more like a real conversation instead of these days, where it's a lot more sensational. ("Look at the bump! So and so is not pregnant! ...This just in! She's not pregnant, she's just fat! Look at that slight curve to her stomach. So fat!") Well, just as many of you are tired with those news pieces, she's tired with doing her part to continue them and has decided to leave those celebrity interviews behind.

Reuters reports that she has recently said: "I am not going after the tabloid stuff, I don't do it," and "It's a different climate now and 20/20 and the other magazines are focused on the big celebrities. I didn't want to keep doing that, I have been doing it for years." Instead of Brad, Julia, or George, next up for her interviews are the likes of Bill Clinton, Hugo Chavez, and Don Imus. I understand her annoyance over what has happened in the world of celebrity gossip, but I still think there's a place for learning about actors and actresses in a more respectful, yet still probing, environment. At the very least, it can balance the worst of paparazzi pics and celebrity gossip, but that's just me. Chime in with your thoughts in the poll and comments below!

View Poll

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Thrillers, Celebrities and Controversy, Newsstand

He wasn't born yesterday, and he's certainly not a newbie to the business, but you might start wondering about Will Smith with this latest piece of news. Reuters/Moviefone report that the popular actor made one heck of a flub on Tuesday in Tokyo -- one that "had the producer of his latest film [I Am Legend] holding his head in anguish." During a news conference in the foreign city, "Smith inadvertently revealed the plot, prompting co-producer and co-screenwriter Akiva Goldsman to shout: 'Don't give away the ending!'" The report goes on to state that Goldman pretended to be surprised, although I'm not sure why he'd have to pretend -- a slip like that is entirely surprising.

So, the press were asked to keep the ending a secret, in hopes that it wouldn't get out and spoil the film for viewers. Now let's recap some of Smith's big movies -- Independence Day, Men in Black, I, Robot... And these are only some of them. What on earth led the man to spoil a movie that relies on the anticipation of mystery? He hasn't been working wildly, and if Peter O'Toole can handle tons of roles, I'm sure Smith can handle his nicely-paced, steady work. Is he suffering from a lack of sleep? Maybe his people should send him to his room for a nice, long nap before those people who made the spoiler shirt find him!

But this also reminds me of other famous loose-lipped plot revealers -- those people who throw out the twists and endings of films either with reckless stupidity, or malicious jerkiness. Personally, I'm thinking of Rosie O'Donnell telling everyone about the twist in Fight Club. What slips do you remember?

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, 20th Century Fox

Okay, how many people from Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan have not sued the production? By now, I would assume that at least half of these guys have, and even though it has been over a year since the flick has screened to audiences, disgruntled, unknowing participants are still rolling in. Reuters reports that the latest guy to complain is driving instructor Michael Psenicska. Remember the scene? According to his lawsuit, he was fooled into thinking that he was part of a "documentary about the integration of foreign people into the American way of life." He names star Sacha Baron Cohen, One America Productions, Todd Lewis, and Twentieth Century Fox in the claim.

The instructor says he got $500 in cash for the lesson, and says that it was all "surreal," as Cohen drove erratically, drank, and propositioned a pedestrian for sexy time. In addition to that cash, he's asked for $400,000 in the suit, for damages and his continual emotional harm. Oh, how I love the emotions angle, especially when it's coming from a gruff guy who was freaked out by Borat's kiss greeting. I guess the thought of hundreds of thousands of dollars was enough to make him get in touch with his softer side. Can you imagine how much worse he'd be handling things if he was part of some of the other scenes? The lesson to be learned in all of this: Don't agree to any sort of media involvement if there's even the slightest possibility that you wouldn't like their spin on things.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Horror, Celebrities and Controversy, Movie Marketing, Best/Worst

Lame because: The "torture porn" boom-that-wasn't didn't fill 2007 with dull movie series (Hostel II, Saw IV) and lame attempts to cash in (Captivity, Turistas) that uniformly failed to deliver at the box office; it also led to even more tedious op-ed pieces and blog posts decrying the trend as yet another sign of the decline of civilization or defending it as a form of expression. I sincerely don't know which is worse; Eli Roth's inability to make a real movie, or people complaining about the movies he makes so badly. (Asked about where you can go as a direction for future artistic exploration with 'torture porn' by The New York Times, Roth's witty rejoinder was ""They say there is more than one way to skin a cat. Well, there are many ways to skin a human." Congratulations, Mr. Roth, but is it just the one trick that your pony does?) Another tedious element of talking about "torture porn" is that it reframes talking about horror films as good vs. evil, as opposed the way a reasonable person would go about framing the discussion, which is as good vs. bad. Anyone who thinks excessive violence is a modern trend in pop culture is invited to flip open a copy of Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus or some of the more choice bits of the Old Testament; the high-pitched whine about 'torture porn' that came at us in stereo from the restrictive right and liberal left in 2007 is yet another droning tone in the mass-media chorus that drowns out any attempt to talk about the realities behind violence in this country -- underfunded policing and public psychiatric care, guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, the failure of individual responsibility. It's easier to talk about violent movies as a cause of violence than it is to tackle any of the things that actually cause violence but, really, when High School Musical was at the top of the charts, did you see a lot of singing and dancing in the streets? How to turn it around: The better question is, why would you want to? Hopefully, studios will look at the dwindling return-on-investment these films represent (even if Lionsgate is threatening to run the Saw series into the ground) and realize that, hey, audiences might be interested in horror films that scare instead of disgust (The Orphanage) or are made by actual talents (the upcoming Funny Games) as opposed to hacks who only know where to get a bulk rate on fake blood and plastic sheeting.

Next up: Stop being greedy!

Where did they rank?

Permalink | Email this | Comments