Sex

How is This a Good Idea For a Movie?

Morbius-Jared-Leto.jpg

I get that if you are a fan of the comic book series Morbius you are going to explode with rage at the banality of my lame take on this, but how is this even remotely a good idea?

Matt Smith is in final talks to join Jared Leto in “Morbius,” a film based on the Spider-Man villain of the same name.

“Safe House” director Daniel Espinosa will helm the movie. Exact details of who Smith would play are unknown at this time, other than it being a major role in the film.

Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless, who co-created the Netflix series “Lost in Space,” penned the script. Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach are producing “Morbius” with Lucas Foster. Palak Patel will oversee the pic for Sony.

Writer Roy Thomas and artist Gil Kane created Morbius in 1971 for “The Amazing Spider-Man #101.” The character was a scientist who tried to cure himself of a blood disease, with tragic results. He became afflicted with vampiric traits such as fangs and a thirst for blood — and wound up battling Spider-Man.

So, it’s like the movie Venom, which didn’t do that well, and it has Jared Leto, who tried to be the Joker and feel sort of flat with that, and we’re making another superhero film starring men again? A film about an obscure villain character that looks weird?

This is after determining that when women get better roles in these films they tend to be more successful? Like what just happened in Aquaman? And, in the case of Wonder Woman, when the lead of the story is a female, the movie tends to have artistic merit as well?

The female characters were central to the success of Black Panther as well. And I think the chief criticism of Ant Man and The Wasp was that there wasn’t enough Evangeline Lilly, correct?

Okay, whatever.

No, No We Don't Answer That

COSBY.jpg

There is no contrition on the part of Bill Cosby. He imagines himself Jesus, and he has a view of himself that believes he is being persecuted so he can maintain the air of superiority that a PhD used to provide:

Bill Cosby was sentenced to several years in prison on Tuesday for sexually assaulting a woman over a decade ago. 

Judge Steven O’Neill gave Cosby, 81, a sentence of between three and 10 years in prison for attacking Andrea Constand in 2004. Constand is one of more than 60 women who have accused the previously beloved comedian of preying on them over the past five decades.

The real tragedy is that this didn’t happen fifty years ago when it really would have taken a bite out of the quality of his life and prevented many more victims from having to experience what it was like to be drugged and raped.

It all started four years ago:

Cosby 2014.jpg

Camille Cosby smiles, uncomfortably shifting in her chair. Staring off camera, switching positions, silent. In the latest contribution to the Bill Cosby saga, we see husband and wife side by side as he addresses the very act of questioning about his numerous rape allegations in an AP interview (above). Mrs. Cosby continues to smile and looks away from the reporter several times, both she and her husband presuming that the cameras have stopped rolling. I will not read into her silence. I will not pull meaning about this woman and her thoughts and decisions other than to say that in the watching, the silence is palpable, wince-inducing and profoundly painful.

That exchange highlights the most meaningful currency in this 30+ year long drama that is just now seeing its climax unfold on the public stage: silence. At every turn, it is the silence that serves as a proxy for power in the story of Bill Cosby, his alleged sexual deviance and the current downward spiral of public opinion. Silence here, as in most cases, represents the power wielded and power taken by those who are seen as, well, powerful.

Everything went to hell after that interview. More women came forward. You could feel the momentum shift. Cosby and his legal team have done everything in their power to destroy every victim, delay the judgement of the courts, and keep him out of prison.

So long, motherfucker.


Stormy Daniels is Not a Stupid Person

51202908

We have been conditioned to think that the blonde in question is an idiot. That does not seem to be the case:

Stormy Daniels [Stephanie Clifford] can't get her story straight. Or maybe she can but chooses not to.

The pornographic film director and actress issued a signed statement Tuesday in which she once again denied having an affair with Donald Trump in 2006. Then, in a bizarre twist, she cast doubt on the authenticity of the statement hours later in an interview with late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel.

Kimmel noted that Daniels's signature on the statement appeared different from her previous signatures.

“Did you sign this letter that was released today?” Kimmel asked.

“I don't know. Did I?” Daniels replied. “That does not look like my signature, does it?”

Wait. What? Of course Daniels knows whether she signed the statement. After the Kimmel interview, Daniels's spokeswoman, Gina Rodriguez, told The Washington Post that she and an attorney witnessed Daniels sign the document Tuesday afternoon.

Daniels either suffers from short-term memory loss or, more likely, is deliberately sending mixed messages.

Why would she do that? Here's a theory: Daniels is trying to tell us, through winks and nudges, that she did have sex with the future president, even as she officially denies an affair.

Daniels said in her statement Tuesday that she was not “paid ‘hush money,’ as has been reported in overseas-owned tabloids.” That was a backhanded reference to a report by the Wall Street Journal that Daniels accepted $130,000 to keep quiet during the 2016 presidential race. (For the record, Journal owner Rupert Murdoch is Australian-born but is a U.S. citizen, and the paper is not tabloid-size.)

Of course, all someone has to do is step forward with a penalty check--probably a little larger than $130K--and then double it so that Miss Clifford (her real last name) can come clean about what went on, but who's going to do that?

She knows that no one will help her. No one will do that. So, why not cash in?

We are being manipulated, of course. We're being led around by a woman who understands that men are stupid because they will spend untold amounts of money to be in her presence and buy the products she sells (beyond movies, she is an entrepreneur who sells access to the content she creates and to the sex toys that she endorses). She knows that the focus is on her looks and her line of work. This is smart because she is in the process of enriching herself despite what the country is doing to itself. She's more of a Republican than Trump, for crying out loud.

But what's really troubling is that this has not crippled Trump politically. Lesser sex scandals in size and scope (he had a relationship with her for about a year, in case you have forgotten) have sunk Democrats. For someone like Trump, of course not. This is who he is. He's a serial philanderer who doesn't care what anyone thinks of him. He makes hypocrites out of every follower.

I may be in the minority, but if Clifford had come out with her story in late 2016, it wouldn't have made a difference. It might have even helped Trump with the asshole contingent that voted for him. Certainly nothing he does is hurting him with evangelicals and Nazis.