Connect with us

fight news

Are we witnessing the death of movie stars? – Boise State Public Radio

Published

on





(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “CASABLANCA”)
HUMPHREY BOGART: (As Rick Blaine) Here’s looking at you, kid.
(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT”)
LAUREN BACALL: (As Marie “Slim” Browning) You know how to whistle, don’t you, Steve? You just put your lips together and blow.
(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE”)
MARLON BRANDO: (As Stanley Kowalski) Hey, Stella.
SCOTT DETROW, HOST:
Bogie, Bacall, Brando – you know movie stars when you hear them.
(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “FIGHT CLUB”)
BRAD PITT: (As Tyler Durden) The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club.
(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “NOTTING HILL”)
JULIA ROBERTS: (As Anna Scott) I’m also just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to love her.
(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “TRAINING DAY”)
DENZEL WASHINGTON: (As Alonzo) King Kong ain’t got s*** on me.
DETROW: Pitt, Julia, Denzel. And with others, it’s an image. Marilyn Monroe standing over a subway grate, the breeze billowing her white dress.
(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “THE SEVEN YEAR ITCH”)
MARILYN MONROE: (As The Girl) Oh, do you feel the breeze from the subway? Isn’t it delicious?
DETROW: A young Tom Cruise in briefs sliding across the living room floor to the sounds of Bob Seger.
(SOUNDBITE OF SONG, “OLD TIME ROCK AND ROLL”)
BOB SEGER: (Singing) Just take those old records off the shelf.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
DETROW: Or Audrey Hepburn stepping outside of a taxi in black satin and tortoiseshell shades.
AISHA HARRIS, BYLINE: I mean, when I think about movie stars, I think about someone who feels larger than life.
DETROW: NPR’s Pop Culture Happy Hour host Aisha Harris has been thinking a lot about movie stars lately, and she’s a little worried about their cultural health today.
HARRIS: There’s usually some sort of, like, mystique or mystery, I think, to a movie star.
DETROW: Since the Golden Age of Hollywood, movies have been defined by their stars.
(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “TOP GUN”)
TOM CRUISE: (As Maverick) I feel the need, the need for speed.
DETROW: And, in turn, they’ve defined our times. But is that changing?
BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: Americans didn’t have royalty, so these folks were our royalty.
DETROW: That’s NPR’s film critic Bob Mondello. He says long before the advent of franchises and intellectual property, major studios like MGM, Paramount and Warner Brothers depended on stars to sell their movies to hungry audiences. Stars weren’t just born, they were made.
MONDELLO: MGM used to brag that they had more stars than there are in heaven. They created those stars. They were actors, workaday actors who came to Hollywood, and they were groomed in a variety of ways. Their hair color was changed. Their names were changed. They did as much as they could to make someone glamorous.
DETROW: With the help of fan magazines and powerful gossip columnists with studio connections, they would cultivate their images and give them personalities.
MONDELLO: And those personalities stuck with them from picture to picture. You went to a Cary Grant picture because he was making a certain kind of movie. He was playing a certain kind of character.
(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “CHARADE”)
CARY GRANT: (As Peter Joshua) Sorry. The name’s Adam Canfield.
AUDREY HEPBURN: (As Regina Lampert) Adam Canfield? Wonderful. Do you realize you’ve had three names in the past two days? I don’t even know who I’m talking to anymore.
GRANT: (As Peter Joshua) Oh, man’s the same, even if the name isn’t.
DETROW: Those personalities burrowed into the minds of audiences whose principal form of entertainment was going to the movies. At the height of cinema’s popularity, more than 80 million Americans went to the theater more than once a week as these studios cranked out movie after movie.
MONDELLO: Well, it was a factory system. In the early days of film, film was what television has become. If you put out a Ruby Keeler movie and it was a hit, then you put out another one and another one and another one. And she – Ruby Keeler and Dick Powell made musicals together in the 1930s that seemed to come out every six months.
(SOUNDBITE OF SONG, “PETTIN’ IN THE PARK”)
RUBY KEELER: (As Polly Parker, singing) Come on. I’ve been waiting long. Why don’t we get started?
DICK POWELL: (As Brad Roberts, singing) Come on. Maybe this is wrong.
KEELER: (As Polly Parker, singing) Well, gee, what of it?
POWELL: (As Brad Roberts, singing) We just love it.
MONDELLO: And the rationale for that was to keep the machinery going.
DETROW: Mondello says that machinery began to break down as stars wanted more control over their careers and directors got more control over their movies. But the legacy of that old star system cast a long and lasting shadow over the industry.
MONDELLO: I mean, I look at photos from those days and think there’s no one like that now.
DETROW: But even if there’s no one today like Marilyn Monroe or Clark Gable, there are still movie stars, right? Well, not according to some of the stars themselves.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
ANTHONY MACKIE: Like, there are no movie stars anymore. Like Anthony Mackie isn’t a movie star. The Falcon is a movie star. The evolution of the superhero has meant the death of the movie star.
DETROW: That was a clip of Marvel actor Anthony Mackie from a 2018 Comic-Con event that’s recently gone viral. And he’s not the only one blaming the dominance of superhero movies and other established intellectual properties on the decline of the movie star. Director Quentin Tarantino echoed his words on a podcast late last year.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
QUENTIN TARANTINO: You have all these actors who have become famous playing these characters, but they’re not movie stars.
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Right.
TARANTINO: Captain America is the star.
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Right.
TARANTINO: Thor is the star.
DETROW: Many critics have also sounded the alarm over a lack of real movie stars in Hollywood. Are there really none left? I asked Pop Culture Happy Hour host Aisha Harris.
HARRIS: Well, I think it depends on how you define a movie star, right? I mean, there’s also this idea of who is bankable, who is going to draw a crowd merely just for the fact that they are in the movie. And I think to some extent that is true, that we don’t really have movie stars in the traditional sense anymore, because even when we’re talking about someone like Tom Cruise, like, he is someone who I think when you think about Tom Cruise, you’re like, I want to go see this movie because he’s in it. But most of the movies he’s made in the last decade have been franchise films.
And so you have to question, you know, is this Tom Cruise who’s driving, you know, all of this box office to movies like the “Top Gun” sequel and, you know, “Mission Impossible” or is it the franchise doing a lot of a lot of the heavy lifting? Because we do live in this era now where franchise is king. All of our biggest stars now are in franchises, and it’s hard to tell where their charisma and where their pull begins and where the pull of the franchise itself and the familiarity of the franchise begins.
DETROW: Right. I mean, we’ve got the buzzy movies of the summer are – what? – “Indiana Jones” 5.
(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “INDIANA JONES AND THE DIAL OF DESTINY”)
HARRISON FORD: (As Indiana Jones) You.
MADS MIKKELSEN: (As Dr. Voller) Have we met?
FORD: (As Indiana Jones) My memory is a little fuzzy. Are you still a Nazi?
DETROW: “Mission Impossible” 72. I think it’s, you know, it’s 7 Part 1, I think, actually.
(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – DEAD RECKONING PART ONE”)
VING RHAMES: (As Luther Stickell) None of our lives can matter more than this mission.
CRUISE: (As Ethan Hunt) I don’t accept that.
HARRIS: Yeah. Yeah.
DETROW: And then “Barbie,” which is a movie based around a toy.
(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “BARBIE”)
RYAN GOSLING: (As Ken) Hi, Barbie.
MARGOT ROBBIE: (As Barbie) Hi, Ken.
ALEXANDRA SHIPP: (As Barbie) Hey, Barbie.
ROBBIE: (As Barbie) Hi, Barbie.
EMMA MACKEY: (As Barbie) Hi, Barbie.
DETROW: Is IP just the movie star now?
HARRIS: I kind of think so. It’s interesting because you have, like, one example is Zoe Saldana, right? Zoe Saldana is – recently became the first performer to star in four movies that made at least $2 billion at the box office. Now, that’s like a very arbitrary sort of record to break, but it kind of points to this idea that, you know, Zoe Saldana, yes, she’s famous, she’s a movie star, but I wouldn’t necessarily call her a movie star. Like, people aren’t going to see “Guardians Of The Galaxy” or “Avatar” just because she’s in it. That’s no shade to Zoe Saldana. But, like, that’s the truth.
DETROW: Yeah.
HARRIS: And I think that, you know, the way that we are measuring movie star has had to shift because the landscape has shifted, and things are not the same as they used to be 10, 15, 50 years ago.
DETROW: How much does this matter, though? Does this matter just because these are people that we think about and talk about and are common bonds for all of us? Or is there an effect on the movies being made if this orbit of movie stars that has centered movies for so long is changing?
HARRIS: Well, I think it definitely matters in the sense of, you know, what is being released in theaters and what gets to be released in theaters. And so we’re having this ongoing conversation about the death of moviegoing and the fact that the only way to get butts in seats seems to be to, you know, create this familiar IP and cast the biggest movie stars you can think of in them.
And I think that from a creative standpoint, it feels kind of dire because, look, I’m always happy for another “Mission Impossible” movie. I think that this is, like, the rare franchise where the movies have actually gotten better over the years. But at the same time, it’d be nice to see Tom Cruise in something that, you know, wasn’t IP because some of his greatest performances are in, you know, dramas or one-off, you know, movie action, movie set pieces. And I think that it really does sort of swallow up in many ways our favorite actors and performers into these roles that are driven by not necessarily character driven or narrative driven, but just by, you know, what is going to draw people into theaters. And that’s familiarity. That is reboots. That is sequels.
DETROW: Now I’m interrogating myself. And I feel like I’ve seen a lot of movies I really like on my couch. And the only time I’ve been in a movie theater in the past year was a couple of weeks ago to see the new “Flash” movie, which I knew would be terrible, but I wanted to see Michael Keaton as Batman. And I was like, you know, I’m going to go. And then it was terrible.
HARRIS: Yeah. I mean, we’re all complicit. We’re all part of the problem. Our money is what is making Hollywood want to keep going back to the well and not being daring, not being creative, not being interesting, unfortunately, you know.
DETROW: Is there a limit to this, though? Because, I mean, if you look at some of the returns, “Indiana Jones” – hard to find a bigger franchise than that – Harrison Ford – hard to find a bigger movie star than that, even though he is – not exaggerating – roughly the age of President Joe Biden – but, I mean, it’s – it is underperforming and falling off a huge cliff. And that’s just one of several examples of what you think would be a no-brainer maybe not panning out. Or maybe we shouldn’t make movies with 80-year-old action stars is the takeaway. I don’t know. You could go a few different ways there.
HARRIS: Well, I mean, I don’t want to be ageist about it, but I do think that, you know, it doesn’t help that the last “Indiana Jones” movie, it was widely panned for good reason. It was not very good. And so, you know, I think that something like “Top Gun,” the fact that that did so well at the box office last year definitely sort of kind of proves the opposite point. But you also have to realize that it had been like 30-plus years between the first and the second one. And so I think there was that extra draw. And I think that the diminishing returns are often because there’s just not enough time in between, you know, these sequels and these franchises.
And it’s just – I really do think, though, now that I think about it and now that you’ve asked that question, I do feel as though Tom Cruise does feel like sort of the last sort of last person standing because, you know, all of his peers, even, you know, Will Smith, when he makes an action movie, it’s not really doing it. It’s not doing it the way that it did, you know, when he was Mr. Fourth of July for that long stretch of the late ’90s into the aughts.
DETROW: Yeah.
HARRIS: And I think part of it is also that Tom Cruise, unlike a lot of other movie stars, does not really play the social media game. If you look at his Instagram page, pretty much all of it is just promotion for whatever movie he’s hawking, you know, that summer. Other performers like Will Smith feel the need to put themselves out there on social media. And so there’s not as much mystique or mystery there. Whereas with Tom Cruise, it’s like we know a few things about him. We know about the Scientology. We know about all that stuff. But, like, he doesn’t really try to put himself and make himself seem like a normal person. He still has that air of mystique. And that, I think, helps in bringing people into theaters because, you know, we don’t know every little thing about him.
DETROW: And he doesn’t do the prestige TV game either, right? If you want to see Tom Cruise, you have to get your butt to a movie theater.
HARRIS: Yeah. That’s very true, too. He shows up every year to, you know, do his “Mission Impossible” thing. And that’s what we’re here for. We know exactly what we’re going to get with him.
DETROW: That was Aisha Harris. She’s a host of NPR’s Pop Culture Happy Hour. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
The biggest portion of Boise State Public Radio’s funding comes from readers like you who value fact-based journalism and trustworthy information.
Your donation today helps make our local reporting free for our entire community.

source



fight news

Is Galaxy Fight Club (GCOIN) Worth the Risk Monday? – InvestorsObserver

Published

on




Galaxy Fight Club achieves a high risk analysis based on InvestorsObserver research. The proprietary system gauges how much a token can be manipulated by analyzing much money it took to shift its price over the last 24 hour period along with analysis of recent changes in volume and market cap. The gauge is between 0 and 100 with lower scores equating to higher risk while higher values represent lower risk.

Risk/Reward Score - High
InvestorsObserver is giving Galaxy Fight Club a high Risk/Reward Score. Find out what this means to you and get the rest of the rankings on Galaxy Fight Club!

Trading Analysis

The risk gauge rank for GCOIN shows the token is currently a high risk investment. Traders focused on risk assessment will find the gauge most useful for avoiding (or adding) risky investments.

Advertisement

The price of Galaxy Fight Club is 44.42% lower over the last 24 hours, leading to its current value of $0.027426386. The change in price goes along with volume being below its average level while the token’s market capitalization has risen during the same time period. The crypto’s market capitalization is now $394,513.84, meanwhile $28,675.98 worth of the currency has been traded over the past 24 hours. The volatility in price relative to the changes in volume and market cap changes give Galaxy Fight Club a high risk analysis.

Summary

Recent price movement of GCOIN gives the cryptocurrency a high risk score due to past 24 hours of price volatility in relation to volume changes, giving traders reason to be concerned on the token’s manipulability at the moment. Click Here to get the full Report on Galaxy Fight Club (GCOIN).
Subscribe to our daily morning update newsletter and never miss out on the need-to-know market news, movements, and more.
Thank you for signing up! You’re all set to receive the Morning Update newsletter
Stock Price data may be delayed up to 15 minutes.
Copyright © 2023. Portions of this content may be copyrighted by Fresh Brewed Media, Investors Observer, and/or O2 Media LLC. All Rights Reserved. Portions of this content protected by US Patent numbers 7,865,496, 7,856,390, and 7,716,116. Investing in stocks, bonds, option and other financial instruments involve risks and may not be suitable for everyone. Portfolio results are unaudited and based on varying investment expiration dates. Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

source



Continue Reading

fight news

Paddy Pimblett doesn’t expect to be ranked after beating Tony Ferguson at UFC 296 — so he’ll settle for Bobby… – MMA Mania

Published

on





We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from. To learn more or opt-out, read our Cookie Policy. Please also read our Privacy Notice and Terms of Use, which became effective December 20, 2019.
By choosing I Accept, you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies.
Filed under:
Tony Ferguson is not ranked in the Top 15 at 155 pounds.
That’s why Paddy Pimblett doesn’t expect to earn a spot on the lightweight ladder with a victory over the former interim champion when they collide at the upcoming UFC 296 pay-per-view (PPV) event, locked and loaded for Sat., Dec. 16, 2023 at T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas.
Related
“I’ll be honest, I don’t see myself being put in the Top 15 after a win against Tony,” Pimblett told The Energized Show (transcribed by MMA News). “Bobby Green didn’t, and Bobby Green fought — beat him before I did, you know what I mean? So, I can see me fighting someone like that: Bobby Green, Grant Dawson, you know what I mean? Someone like that to get in the rankings.”
Pimblett and Green have a score to settle after this “fathead” incident at UFC San Diego.
“I mean, that’s what I can see after I beat Tony,” Pimblett continued. “Like, especially if the big fella Conor’s [McGregor] coming back in UFC 300, lad. The missus will be due a couple of weeks after that. So, it’d be nice to get another, another fight in, get another payday in before the twins are due.”
Related
The promotion is currently working on its lineup for the blockbuster UFC 300 card in April, which may be headlined by former two-division champion Conor McGregor. Pimblett vs. Green would be a strong addition, assuming “King” prevails this weekend at UFC Austin.
To see who else is fighting at UFC 296 click here.
Check your inbox for a welcome email.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

source



Continue Reading

fight news

Boxing News: Charlo wins in comeback fight » December 4, 2023 – Fight News

Published

on





In a grudge match, undefeated WBC middleweight champion Jermall Charlo (32-0, 22 KOs) scored a ten round unanimous decision over José Benavídez Jr. (28-3-1, 19 KOs) in a non-title WBC special event on Saturday night’s Benavidez-Andrade card at the Michelob ULTRA Arena at Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino in Las Vegas. Returning after nearly 2 1/2 years, Charlo was stronger than the aggressive Benavidez and won most of the rounds. Benavidez was wobbled in the tenth. Scores were 98-92, 99-91, 100-90.
Give props. He fought well. He knows how to fight.
Charlo did a good job moving, countering, and even leading in many rounds of the fight. Yes, he did well. However, I question if he can even stop Canelo who is much stronger than Benavidez Jr. Charlo will need to beat Canelo on points should they fight. I dont see a KO for Charlo against Canelo.
lol Canelo has never been knocked down let alone knocked out. Charbum absolutely has no chance of even hurting him. Charbum will be the one getting laid out if they fight.
Please nobody wants to see Charlo vs Canelo. The only fight for Canelo is Benavidez.
Benavidez vs Bivol is what we really want to see
Charlo very dominant, Jose put a valiant effort, but lacks fundamental
He should be ashamed he could not ko Benavides
Boxing should not let this fights go on
In the weigh in looks like over weight boxer is not a problem
But this like putting one live on risk
Charlo was too strong for Benavides
Can’t say I’d be too proud beating a guy two weight classes below me. And he couldn’t stop him? The commentators kept saying solid performance by Charlo and i get it .. he was out 40 months. But still, this was a super middle weight fighting a blown up welterweight. I guess that’s what Benavidez gets for all the pre fight talk. I pick Plant and Morrell over Charlo.
Not to bad after almost three years without fighting but nowhere close to challenge any one of the big names at Super Middle. Plant, Mibilli, Morrel and Benavidez would smoke him.
This fight did not settle in my gut correctly because Charlo missed weight. Under such weight related circumstances, Benavidez hung in there with a solid chin. Charlo’s punches were creative, and his jabs were mean.
Agree E man …Charlo had some good moments….but clearly that finisher that beast we are use to seeing .,.not there… hopefully it is rust…but …Charlo struggling with something else…can clearly see it…I hope that Charlo is “ok” outside the ring…
Yep, how good would charlo have been if he had of sweated off the extra 3-4 pounds and actually made weight ? Possibly a more even playing field for the smaller Benevidez Jr……
Hopefully charlo fights plant next
Not bad for charlo.good fight to get the rust out! Benavidez was talk,talk bullishht and no pop in his punches! Great sportsmanship on charlo at the post fight interview. Bobo gettn’ KO by benavidez next fight! Its a total mismatch, bobo too weak for the hard punching destroyer in benavidez! Bobo’s promoters don’t realize the danger they put him for picking this fight. Benavidez by brutal KO of the year on the 8th or a “no-mas” call out!
Dominated a welter weight (blown up). He got rounds in and maintained composure surprisingly.
I’m at the fight and there are no ring girls! WTF!!!
Benavidez about to stop Boo-boo. One more round
Done.
It was expected! A bobo blow out! Benavidez is in onother level, and not the bums bobo is used to fight and strugled with when he was champion! The most “avoided” title just was too big for bobo!
I don’t think it was right that Charlo be allowed to come in so heavy in violation of the contractual catch weight limit of 163. He likely was close to 170 when he stepped into the ring, more than 7-8 lbs heavier than Benavidez. He enjoyed a height advantage too. Totally unfair. Credit to Jose for putting up a valiant effort. Charlo couldn’t knock him out either. I personally am not very impressed with Charlo. He wants the big money that fighting Canelo or David Benavidez would bring, but it’s obvious that he would be no match for either. His more immediate goal should be to fight Plant, so he can save face and exact revenge for Plant slapping him. This is the reason that Plant slapped him too, to force him to choose Plant as an opponent with the title on the line.
Jose Benavides was out boxed. He did show he has a decent chin. Charlo didn’t have enough punching power to stop Benavides. Charlo will not beat Alvarez.
Just wanted to note….Charlo …I am praying for you….you are a man before a fighter…In your corner in “life”….hang in there champ…
Charlo is done at top level. I think Plant beats him at 168 and benavidez would knock him out as quick as he did Andrade. If he has to fight Adames at the middleweight limit, then he loses that too.
Way to go Charlo!
ok, lets just hope that we dont now have
canelo-charlo. if so, another hard pass for me
Surprised he couldn’t KO him. Jose Jr, a career Welterweight comes in at a catch weight of 163. Meanwhile Charlo, a natural Middleweight comes in 3.4# over at 166.4. So you had an overweight out of shape Welterweight fighting a Super Middleweight.

Session expired
Please log in again. The login page will open in a new tab. After logging in you can close it and return to this page.

source



Continue Reading

Trending