BFG to Blow Up ANOTHER Rumored Doom Reboot, PLEASE

Doom: Annihilation ⭐️

On Netflix streaming as of this posting, and good luck getting through it, unscathed. That’s not a recommendation. Despite loving the original VIDEOGAME and being just so-so on the original movie, I found this reboot completely uninspired and unnecessary.

But it gets worse.

From the dumbest idea for a reboot rumor department, comes another possible Doom reboot. Yes, we need another ID Software Doom movie — a reboot, nonetheless — about as bad as a 12-gauge shot to the face.

How can there be another reboot talk a year later?!?!

Personally, we’re a little skeptical about another Doom adaptation – after all, the games have often prided themselves on prioritizing gameplay over story – but we hope Universal will find a balance that’ll appeal to general moviegoers and longtime fans alike. And if they do indeed manage to snag Cena to star, that’d certainly be a big step in the right direction.

Doom Reboot Reportedly In The Works, Fast & Furious Star Eyed To Lead

With John Cena in the lead? Sure, why not. Do we need another Sarge? The Rock has been there and done that. Guess it’s Cena’s turn. Vin Diesel turned down starring in the original one.

I get that studios (some/most/all?) are desperate with their IP, but the world doesn’t need another Doom movie. Especially another reboot. The first Doom picture was a bust and lost money and I don’t know the finances on Annihilation, but guessing that’s not been a huge moneymaker. Who thinks another reboot will do something the other two movies haven’t done?

When stupid project ideas are floated my go-to response is: can’t we just pick any other bestselling book and make a movie from that instead of another cash grip reboot? Moviegoers are smarter than this. Seriously, we are.

Now, before anybody jumps on me for bashing a movie I haven’t seen (it’s not even a movie yet, though, it’s a rumor of another reboot). We don’t need to see this, that’s the point. This project should be dead on arrival. Whomever is thinking about it at Universal needs to get the memo that Doom is not a viable movie reboot property any time soon.

In some weird, surreal way it’s like we’re inside the game, geared up, and from out behind a maze comes a reboot sequel, tentacles, teeth, ready to rip moviegoers to shreds.

We’re all doomed.

CBS, please scrap Star Trek: Picard Season 2 and give us Star Trek: Next Generation Titan

I give up, replace me with a real crew exploring the universe, that’s Star Trek that you deserve!

CBS won’t listen to some lowly blogger, but hey, I’ll put my request on the web for all of virtual eternity.

Don’t want to rehash my dislike of Star Trek: Picard, but the show described in the paragraph below sounds like the Star Trek I’d still love to watch … if only it existed.

“Assuming that the Titan is still in service — probably a reasonable assumption — she’s nearly a decade in Riker’s rear-view, and he in hers,” Chabon says. “It’s off somewhere in the galaxy exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life, etc. This brand new Curiosity-class ship was freshly crewed up and ready to go.”

Star Trek: Picard Showrunner Explains Why Riker Wasn’t on the Titan in the Finale

That’s right (bolding in quote above is mine), you can keep Picard. Thank goodness Patrick Stewart is lobbying against a pandemic plotline for season two (Star Trek: Outbreak!).

Give me Riker before he was retired in charge of the Titan. Give him some synths, perhaps Brent Spiner as some other Data-relative or having his memories implanted, Worf at tactical, Geordie Laforge as the Scotty of the engine room, Counselor Deanna Troi as the new Number One, Dr. Crusher in charge of medical or as a hologram assisting a new doctor. Send this crew out into the great unknown.

There we go. That’s the series that, with the right humanity and solid writing and acting, would be worth seeing. Those of you reading that stayed with Picard longer than me, what do you want to see happen for the next Star Trek?

Go ahead. We can always dream.

Frozen Wages – Disney’s Executives Take Salary Cut During These Difficult Times

Frozen II ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Maybe these big companies are learning from the economic meltdown of 2008 and wanting to show us that the generously compensated executives are also feeling the pain of the employees far down the company chain. Most of these lower level employees have had their incomes reduced to $0, no thanks to layoffs.

It is probably not how the company’s leadership had planned to mark the one year anniversary of the $71.3 billion Disney-Fox merger, which was 10 days ago, on March 20. With Hollywood production shut down, theatrical releases on hold and amusement parks closed, Disney’s incoming CEO Bob Chapek this morning announced a salary reduction of 30% for EVPs and above, 25% for SVPs and 20% for VPs “until we foresee a substantive recovery in our business.” Chapek himself is taking a 50% pay cut, while executive chairman Bob Iger will forego 100% of his salary. All reductions are said to apply to base pay.

Disney’s Executive Pay Cut Threatens To Deepen the Divide Between The Two Sides Of The Merged Company

This is good in theory, but not as applicable in reality. Salary is somewhat irrelevant for executives who make their lion’s share of wealth through stock options. Yes, they can lose millions of dollars on paper with stock price fluctuations, but they also can gain them back as the market juggernaut regains. Take a look at the Dow Jones historic trend over the last 40 years.

It goes up, dips a bit, goes up, dips, but overall it’s ascending over time. The precipice at the far right is where we are right now: economic uncertainty. Many businesses are closed, millions out of work, shelter in place everywhere, everybody knows it seems like we’re all doomed. This illustrates market reaction to falling off the mountain peak. You can see a similar dip near 2009 when Wall Street needed a bailout. The market might just tank to those levels or lower again. Time will tell.

I’m not trying to be snarky, but still stinging from articles that came out after the Wall Street bailout of the financial markets about executives getting golden parachutes and making double digit millions in severance packages, while their companies were saved from financial ruin by taxpayers. Why were we ever bailing out these rich executives? There needs to be provisions in place for companies which cannot award high level executives from cashing out on the taxpayer’s pocketbook.

Am hopeful, but wary, that a lesson has been learned and government bailouts when we’re essentially broke as a country (see: $2 trillion deal stimulus package receives bipartisan support, movie theater chains likely included) will not lead to more of these stories in the coming days, weeks or months when life starts returning to normal.

$2 trillion deal stimulus package receives bipartisan support, movie theater chains likely included

The world debt clock is a pretty sobering reminder of the money America does not have

As stated before, I prefer to stay out of politics here on this blog, however, the crossover with the pandemic, financing and government is nearly impossible to avoid.

The full details have yet to be released. But over the last 24 hours, the elements of the proposal have come into sharper focus, with $250 billion set aside for direct payments to individuals and families, $350 billion in small business loans, $250 billion in unemployment insurance benefits and $500 billion in loans for distressed companies.

Stimulus package: White House, Senate reach historic $2 trillion deal amid growing coronavirus fears – CNNPolitics

There has been some bi-partisan support in the U.S government for a $2 trillion dollar deal that will provide support for “distressed companies” presumably movie theater chains will be on this list.

Those couples with adjusted gross income of $150,000 or less will get a check for $1,200 each and $500 per child. Our national debt will soon rise to over $25 trillion dollars. See the debt clock linked above.

I get why we’re sending stimulus checks to people, not so sure about all the businesses getting help, but that’s a rabbit hold I probably shouldn’t get into. It’s not like these businesses are going to be out for a long time, and the fact that we setup bailouts for businesses under the fear of them not wanting them to go out of business is a bit vexing to me.

I’m all for helping individuals, families and small businesses, but less interested in helping big businesses (most don’t need the help, although they are opportunistic and holding their hands out). Especially when we’re bound to see executive golden parachutes and high salaries continuing to permeate the headlines.

Not even sure how I feel about helping out the movie theaters. Is this something a country deep in debt should be doing?

If you’re business is failing and you’re an executive or high level senior manager you shouldn’t be getting some multi-million dollar deal, you should be worried about keeping your job. Instead, it’s the lower level employees getting laid off, the business gets bailed and the executives get raises. That’s a pretty broad sweeping comment, so it obviously doesn’t apply to every business, but that’s my take from watching time and again the government screw over the regular workers and the corporation gets “help” from taxpayers. That’s all of us helping the wrong people.

Look at the debt. I’ll be dead and gone before that 25+ trillion dollars is likely the major issue it should be, but for my children and grandchildren, we’re leaving an awfully big bill they will need to worry about paying.

Forget the pandemic, the real disease is financial. It’s called debt and interest. And it’s just a matter of time before there is 100% infection in every taxpayer’s bank account.

Will Social Distancing by Movie Theaters Truly Provide More Protection Against Viral Infection?

Will admit that I kind of laughed when I first learned abut “social distancing” by the movie theaters.

I mean, really, it’s like people going into a frenzy over buying toilet paper and water at the grocery store. They are putting themselves at greater risk by shopping where there are tons of people. The more people you’re around, the greater chance you’ll encounter someone infected, therefore increasing the chance you’ll be infected.

CEO and President Adam Aron said, “With this action, we are facilitating the ‘social distance’ between guests who still want to see movies on a big screen.”

AMC capping ticket sales in effort to prevent spread of COVID-19 | Coronavirus | kctv5.com

Theory is nice, but that’s about it for practicality. If we’re using common sense, anyway.

Come on, if someone coughs into the air somewhere inside the theater … the particles will circulate throughout the theater (we saw this graphically depicted on film in the movie Outbreak, see: Outbreak (1995) Trending on Netflix). What we need is some sort of self-contained suit when we enter the movie theater to truly, fully protected against infection by an infected moviegoer.

Yeah, i know, not practical to have a containment zone, spray, then climb into a suit breathing only air from a tank, but that would be the only way virtually guaranteed not to catch an airborne virus.

(still have risk of hole in suit)

I’m no expert, but putting two seats between each moviegoer to protect against an airborne virus inside a room is like using a broken condom and hoping you’ll have some added protection.

Fresh air and not being in the proximity of anybody who is infected is the only thing that protects us against being infected. When they quarantined all those people on the cruise ship, those who weren’t sick were almost certainly guaranteed to get sick breathing all the same reconstituted air of other infected passengers.

I like the Wynn Casino idea of thermal scanning of anybody entering the casino. Those with an abnormally high body temperature — a known virus symptom — will be discreetly asked to leave. Now, that is protecting other patrons and a smart use of technology.

When we visit movie theaters, even when there was no virus threat (let’s face it, in flu season that has never been a reality), we typically attend during off busy times (besides opening nights of course). Matinees, day time, when traffic is reduced. This does more to protect us from infection than social distancing.

We’re still going to see movies, regardless the risk, because if we catch the virus, we’re both healthy and don’t have any major illnesses. If I was a little older and had some health issues I’d stay home, stay away from people in gathered locations as much as humanly possible. Wouldn’t go shopping (I’d have it delivered and left outside) then when the delivery person is gone, I’d pick it up. I would go into hermit mode, which would be my advice for anybody old and sick. But then I’d give those people the same advice during any flu season. Stay away from others as much as possible.

People die every day for a wide variety of reasons. This particular virus outbreak is being handled with a degree of panic never seen before. Panic will not help anybody. Calm, reasonable response to the situation will. Take a deep breath, the experts will find a vaccine and in a few months — hopefully — this will all be behind us.

Meanwhile, stay vigilant. That’s great advice no matter what is going on the world around us.

Trolls World Tour next wide release a month from now, while My Spy and other films missing wide release opportunity

My Spidey sense is tingling concerning the movie, My Spy.

I understand why some of the movie dates are being pushed back. Don’t quite get it with A Quiet Place Part II, that movie could dominate for a nearly a month in whatever theater attendance exists because it would largely be the only game in town.

Everybody that is seeing movies and braving the crowds, including the new policy of “social separation” (more on that to follow), will be lapping up whatever movies are sent our way.

Face it, the theaters for the next month are going to be like water in the desert. Tumblweeds.

My Spy, I’m calling out. That movie definitely should not have not been pushed back again. It’s already been pushed back multiple times, which was making me wonder what was happening with the movie. Not all movie date pushbacks are bad, mind you, especially if they do reshoots, re-editing and fix things that private screenings expose, but there undoubtedly in the current times be movies that push back using the virus as an excuse for additional promotion.

And, here we go, talk of the gay couple subplot and it being tangentially about the LGBTQ presence in movies:

At its heart, My Spy is a story about Dave Bautista getting caught during spy work by a young girl who then blackmails him into teaching her how to be a spy. However, a subplot in this story has young Sophie living next to a gay couple who help drive the tale to some of its funniest moments. Ahead of its release, Dave Bautista has spoken about the LGBT representation in the movie and the fans’ reactions to it.

Dave Bautista Talks Diversity In My Spy After Reactions Praise LGBT Representation – CINEMABLEND

Subplots for diversity? Sigh. Is that all the movie could have done for diversity is make it a subplot? If it’s going to get praise for LGBTQ representation, then why isn’t it a more central plot?

I haven’t seen My Spy yet, can’t because they pushed it back again, but if they had released it this weekend as it was scheduled, I’d be able to see it and comment on how significant the gay couple next door is to the actual movie storyline

(just by the description above it sounds like it was shoehorned in — which is not a favorable way to present any diverse group of people)

What makes me suspicious is that the studio is jumping on the coronavirus excuse train instead of the business logic one, is the LGBQT angle. Is this some promoter pushing this as a social justice angle for the film? This hasn’t worked with other films and now I’m concerned about this one.

Here’s an idea. Why not have made the gay couple the spies? Why not make the gay couple the central characters instead of some beefy white guy (Dave Bautista)? Now that would be a film that promotes diversity.

As a subplot, it’s almost an insult and will only lead to criticism from people saying that it was unnecessary, unneeded and done intentionally to increase attendance from the LGBTQ audience. Moviegoers see through this stuff. Really, we do.

If I was a studio head right now, I’d be moving my new movie into the empty movie theater parking lots until April 10 when Trolls World Tour hits. That’s a month of opportunity to lap up any/all new ticket sales. If your movie is even remotely interesting and entertaining it’s going to sell better in the next month than it will when it goes up against four, five or more wide releases later this year.

Mark my words, that competition is inevitable. The studios only have room for so many wide release movies, so the 2-4 movies each week for 4 weeks that should have been released will now be tacked onto other weeks when there are already 2-4 wide release movies.

Seriously, do the studios think the average moviegoer is going to see double and triple-header movies just because they decided to go wide the same weekend as tentpole movies like No Time To Die?

It’s not my money. I get what they are trying to do. They think releasing now when theater attendance is down and there is a severely limited international audience makes sense. I get it for James Bond #25 (see: Even James Bond isn’t immune to coronavirus, No Time to Die pushed back to November) but I don’t for A Quiet Place Part II or My Spy and probably dozens more movies with less fanfare that are missing a significant moviegoer audience who wants to see your films right now, coronavirus be damned.

Or, maybe you think I’m wrong and we should have literally a black hole for all new movies for a month? It doesn’t make any sense to starve the hungry.

I do agree there are some gigantic budget movies that depend critically on international box office sales, and those should be pushed back, but where are the lower budget films? The ones that don’t have the bigger international draw? Why aren’t those being released between now and Trolls World Tour on April 10?

Riddle me this, Batman: a month of empty theaters, just another middle finger from this virus gone wild.

Kathleen Kennedy and The Mandalorian Rumors

Kathleen Kennedy, love or hate her, she’s been involved in some way with many awesome movies

I don’t get the internet hate aimed at Kathleen Kennedy.

Hold the angst, Star Wars fans, she might have been a strong executive producer and had a hand in ruining Disney Star Wars, but I’m applying greater damage to the writers and directors than the executive producer. Many have blamed Kennedy for shutting down projects, delaying movies to “get them right” and more.

Is it such a crime to delay a movie to make it better? Look at Sonic the Hedgehog. Sure, different studio, different people, but if that hadn’t been delayed to redo Sonic’s CGI what would have been the results?

Yes, Kennedy has pushed a feminist agenda in a male dominated Hollywood. Sheesh, can we blame her, guys? Really? What would you do if Hollywood was all women and you were the lone industry male leader? Wouldn’t you push a male-driven agenda?

I’m no fan of jamming in social justice crap and feminism where it doesn’t belong, but her crusade to empower women in positions of storytelling and power inside Hollywood is refreshing — and right. It should be about 50/50, just like it is with the population on earth. I refuse to believe there aren’t just as many talented women writers, directors and producers — if they are given the opportunities.

It’s unfair not to consider Kennedy’s resume. Look at all those blockbuster movies at the top of this post. Indiana Jones, E.T, Jurassic Park, Poltergeist, Back To The Future Schindler’s List … and so on.

Sure, she’s been part of duds, but just having a couple of those titles I mentioned on your resume should get you into any movie making Hall of Fame, even if all you did was get coffee for the crew (I don’t believe that’s all she did, by the way, but those who hate her claim that was her involvement).

She’s been involved creatively — the degree of which is the dispute for her detractors — of some truly amazing films throughout her career. She’s been something of a right arm to Steven Spielberg and she’s blamed for why Disney Star Wars sucks, except all too conveniently for The Mandalorian, of course.

The rumor claims Jon Favreau wasn’t all happy with Kennedy’s approach so he enlisted George Lucas and they went above Kennedy to Disney CEO Bob Iger, which resulted in Kennedy being distanced from The Mandalorian (it’s also been said Kennedy has been banned from the Season 2 set, though this rumor says Kennedy is still somewhat involved and attends meetings).

The Mandalorian Rumors Include Baby Yoda, Emperor, Rey | Cosmic Book News

I like what Jon Favreau and Dave Filoni are doing with The Mandalorian. I like some of what Kathleen Kennedy is doing these days. Admittedly, less of what she’s involved with in the last 10 years or so has excited me than her first 20 years, but hey, maybe her best works were in the early days. You see that with all sorts of creative people. They only have so many good ideas and then they start to recycle them. There are only so many Stephen Kings in the world.

(Kennedy was involved with Creepshow, too — refer to the filmography at the top of the post)

Let’s not forget that George Lucas chose Kennedy as his successor. Did Lucas believe that she’d take Star Wars the direction he wanted her to? Maybe. Maybe not, but frankly Lucas has been screwing up Star Wars long before Kathleen Kennedy. Lucas created some world-changing films, a ground-breaking special effects company, and essentially retired. That was like 20 years ago he did anything revolutionary and new. The prequel Star Wars were mostly garbage. We need to be intellectually honest about George Lucas in recent times — he hasn’t mattered.

I’m not a Kathleen Kennedy apologist. If she is part of a film that sucks, she deserves the heat associated with it and those reading should know I’ll say so. However, I’ve already gone on record as saying that I don’t think the producers are as responsible as many make them out to be (see: How Important are Movie Producers?). What degree of involvement — good and bad — Kathleen Kennedy has played in many, many great films can be disputed, but one thing cannot:

She’s been a wonderful force for women in Hollywood.