Sadly, that’s where the positive moments of the episode end because the final two dates are with Jed and Luke. Jed goes first, but he and Hannah spend most of their time talking about Luke. If you’re this close to finding your future husband, he asks, why keep someone you’re uncertain about around? She stumbles over her answer before finally telling Jed that she and Luke have a connection; she knows it’s hard to understand, but he’ll have to respect it. “You’ve got to let me figure it out,” she says.
Over dinner, she thanks him for bringing up the Luke stuff. Jed admits it’s hard for him to understand how she can be falling in love with him but still holding onto someone who’s been toxic to her and everyone else. It makes him wonder if there are other bad situations she won’t let go of out in the real world. “I’m just really freaking sure about you, and I don’t want to be unsure,” he says. She gets so frustrated at that she leaves the table.
When they both sit back at the table, Jed insists that he trusts her decisions and has her back no matter what. Hannah says his conversation scared her, but ultimately it shows her that he cares. They go to the fantasy suite.
The next day, Hannah and Luke take a helicopter to Santorini. It’s fairly uneventful, though I did a spit take when Luke, a man who told Hannah that he was falling in love with her on their second date, says he doesn’t take “dropping the L word” lightly.
Their dinner that night starts off well enough, until Luke opens his mouth. “I want to make sure that from now on things are known how they’re supposed to be,” he says. “So let’s talk about sex.” Sex is a beautiful thing only when it’s in the “guidelines of a marriage,” he says. He concedes that he’s been abstaining from sex for almost four years—and he knows she’s not a virgin either—but he wants to know that she won’t be having sex with the other guys in the fantasy suites. He adds he’d “100%” go home if she did.
While I screamed at my television and threw my phone across the couch in horror, Hannah keeps her cool. “Sex is a very big deal to me,” she replies. That said, she doesn’t agree with him. “The way that you just said that…it’s like, why do you have the right to do that because you’re not my husband,” she explains. She feels he’s judging her when he doesn’t have the right too. “Pride is a sin too, and I feel like this is a pride thing.”
Tonight’s episode of The Bachelorette was action-packed, to say the least. We finally learned who Hannah slept with in the windmill (Pilot Peter), Tyler Cameron proved himself to be the perfect man, and, oh yeah, Hannah Brown and Luke Parker had a heated debate about religion and sex that led to their breakup. Yes, my friends, Hannah finally spoke the words we’ve been waiting for all season: “I have had sex, and Jesus still loves me.”
How she got there isn’t surprising if you’ve been keeping up with The Bachelorette. Luke sat Hannah down and said he’d remove himself from their relationship if he found out she’d slept with any of the other contestants. This, naturally, did not sit well with Hannah—and their proceeding conversation was explosive. But I’ll let them do the talking. Here is the transcript, in full:
Luke: Let’s talk about sex.
Luke: You know sex is an incredible thing. And it’s a beautiful thing. Well, you know, only when it’s within the guidelines of marriage. This whole process, I’ve been studying Hebrews, and it talks about how marriage should be honored by everybody and how the marriage bed should be kept pure. I know you’re not a virgin. We’ve had the talk. You know I’m not. I’ve been abstaining myself from sex for, like, three-and-a-half to four years now. And I know that regardless of what I’ve done in the past, I am saving myself for marriage. And I am very confident that we’re on the same page with our morals. And I just want to hear it from your mouth. There’s a lot of people that say they believe in something but yet they live or do things completely differently. Thinking about Fantasy Suites, I’ve heard people proclaim their faith but yet they’ve said things like, “I’m excited for Fantasy Suites. I want to explore this relationship on a sexually intimate level, and that’s what I’m looking forward to.” And to me, that’s like, “Whoa, what? Excuse me? There’s something I’m missing here.” I don’t believe that’s something you should be doing. I just want to make sure you’re not going to be sexually intimate with the other relationships here.
Luke: I totally have all the trust in the world for you, but at the same time I just want to make sure we’re on the same page. If you told me you’re having sex or you had sex with one or multiple of these guys, I’d be wanting to go home, 100% But if that’s something you’re not going through, then I’m just ‘gonna continue to grow the relationship and move on.
Hannah: Um…Sex is a very big deal to me. And I’ve said I’ve had sex with two people in my life and it was long relationships I thought were ‘gonna be my husband. But some of the things you said, I don’t agree with at all. And, honestly, I’m kind of mad because the way you just said that is…Why do you have the right to do that? Because you’re not my husband. And you’re not—
Luke: Can I cut you off for a second?
Hannah: It’s just that you’re questioning me, that you’re judging me and feel like you have the right to when you don’t at this point. I get when you care for somebody that you don’t want to think about someone being intimate with another person, but guess what? Sex might be a sin out of marriage but pride is a sin too. And I feel like this is, like, a pride thing.
The Bachelorette‘s Fantasy Suite episode is one of the most-anticipated of the season, and Hannah Brown‘s did not disappoint. From the teasers we already knew there was drama with Luke P.—surprise, surprise—but little did we know the other highlights that would come from it. For one, we now know that Peter the Pilot is who Brown slept with in that windmill—but more importantly, we have more confirmation that Tyler C. is the world’s most perfect man.
Because she felt their physical connection was more developed than their emotional one, Brown told Tyler C. she did not want to have sex in the Fantasy Suite. His response to this was perfect and, truthfully, how all men should react all the time. No exceptions!
“The Fantasy Suite has the connotation of sex. For me, it’s way more than that. I just want to be with you and have that time with you,” he said. “You have to really love and really respect and honor each other’s boundaries.”
And that’s exactly what he did. Brown woke up the next morning from their Fantasy Suite and said, “[Tyler] was the most respectful man that’s ever been with me. Ever.”
Twitter users are very excited about how Brown and Tyler’s night went down. Like I said, though, this type of behavior shouldn’t be an anomaly: It should be the norm. But even still, it’s great to see on TV.
“I see myself at the end with Hannah B., that’s for sure,” Tyler told Glamour in an interview. “She’s a real-ass woman. She’s her. She doesn’t care. She’s unapologetically Hannah B.—and I love that. I adore that.”
Check out just a few reactions to Tyler and Brown’s Fantasy Suite for yourself, below:
The Bachelorette airs Mondays at 8 P.M. ET on ABC. Let’s see what happens next!
Warning: SPOILERS forYesterdayare in play. If you haven’t seen the film yet, and want to remain unspoiled, bookmark this story and come back once you’re current.
The world of Yesterday is one that’s built on major change. In particular, the Beatles and several other key pop culture contributions have disappeared, thus changing the world that protagonist Jack Malik, played by Himesh Patel, inhabits.
Strangely enough, the story of the film underwent some major changes itself, as one of the conditions director Danny Boyle laid out in order to secure his participation was that he wanted to see 20% to 25% of the script changed before he signed on.
Writer Richard Curtis, working from an original draft by writer Jack Barth, may have shaped Yesterday into the film that it eventually became in its final draft, but Boyle made some key changes that served as cherries on top of the completed narrative.
During a conversation with CinemaBlend on one of the press days for the film, Curtis revealed the following changes that were added into the film, through the suggestions of Danny Boyle:
As Richard Curtis discussed the original version of Yesterday that he’d drafted, there were quite a few points that were altered to streamline and refocus the film’s narrative. Part of those edits were revealed to take place through deleting an entire character played by Ana De Armas.
Just as her removal from the final cut of Yesterday was to prevent Jack from looking like he didn’t deserve Lily James’ Ellie, there was more content that was cut from the movie’s first act for other reasons.
In light of those cuts, the addition of the third act’s “grand sweeping gesture” seems to be part of a trade-off that was made between Danny Boyle and Richard Curtis. With De Armas’ Roxanne gone from the film, and Jack revealing his feelings to Ellie during his final concert, the love story that Yesterday wanted audiences to be invested in needed some new notes during the finale to make the story work.
Even more investment material was originally included in Curtis’s draft of the film. Initially, he had intended to include a lot more of Jack’s background as a failing rock star. Danny Boyle would step in again with some notes, as Richard Curtis pointed out his reasoning for including the material, and how it was cut, in the following terms:
Looking back at all of the changes that were made to Yesterday’s story, Richard Curtis’ admission that Danny Boyle helped shave the film into fighting shape is really easy to agree with. Not only that, but getting this look into the extensive changes made to the film really shows just how collaborative the process was between writer and director.
In the wrong hands, a film like Yesterday could have been an overly maudlin film that hit all of the standard notes a romantic-comedy is expected to. This makes the revisions that both Boyle and Curtis made to the film all the more valuable, in that they deliver a film that’s traditional enough to be accessible, but freshens the formula up to the point that it feels new and effective as well.
You can enjoy the results for yourself at your earliest convenience, as Yesterday is currently in theaters now. Meanwhile, if you’re interested in a new song to sing along with at the movies, check out our 2019 release schedule!
There are many movies in cinema history that are based on a true story, but Lulu Wang’s The Farewell is really on a different level due to the personal nature of the true story being told. After all, the film is based on Wang’s own experiences coming into conflict with what she discovers is a Chinese societal tradition: not telling the elderly about terminal illnesses when they only have a little time left to live.
In The Farewell, Awkwafina, Tzi Ma, and Diana Lin play fictionalized versions of Lulu Wang and her parents, respectively, as they head from their homes in the United States back to China so that they can covertly say goodbye to the family matriarch, Nai Nai (Shuzhen Zhao). Given the autobiographical nature of the story, you may wonder how the reality of the situation was ultimately influential on both the narrative and members of the cast – and by clicking play on the video below you’ll find out!
Another Disney live-action remake is headed to theaters with July’s The Lion King, and as many are well aware, there are more live-action projects on the way. “Why?” some on the internet may ask. So, why do more remakes of Disney classics keep coming down the pipeline? It seems like a valid question, especially when polarizing castings or various other changes that appear in these remakes tend to stir up all sorts of concerns or even arguing amongst Disney fans.
It’s a question that has marked this decade in particular, and has slowly intensified with each passing year following Tim Burton’s Alice In Wonderland remake in 2010. Believe it or not, though, there’s a reason Disney continues to push these live-action remakes through: the movies make money. Until these remakes stop making money, we are going to continue to see live-action remakes of all the animated Disney classics get produced. Let’s take a look at what got us here, how much The Lion King could make and what the future of the live-action projects holds.
Just How Much Money Do These Live-Action Remakes Make?
Since 2010, there have actually been nine live-action Disney movies that were remakes or adaptations of animated classics. While critics may have been middling on most of them, they were all solid commercial successes. In fact, two of them (Alice In Wonderland and Beauty And The Beast) have grossed over a billion dollars. Jon Favreau’s previous live-action flick The Jungle Book wasn’t far off from that, either, bringing in $966.6 million, and Aladdin is doing pretty well at around $960 million at the time of this writing.
Even the lesser performing live-action Disney adaptations have pulled a respectable profit. Christopher Robin was the lowest with $122.7 million difference between projected budget and box office numbers, but tit’s worth noting its budget was a quarter of most of the other live-action adaptations of this era — and it wasn’t a straight adaptation, either, like some of the more beloved properties. This may be why it didn’t measure up numbers-wise to a majority of the cookie-cutter adaptations like Beauty and the Beast.
Put all of the estimated budgets of these nine films (around $1,118,000,000?) up against the box office pull ($6,366,600,461), and Disney has come out way ahead on these sorts of animated-but-realistic projects. Audiences may say they want something original, but time and time again Disney has put these projects out and they’ve flopped: think John Carter and particularly Tomorrowland. When looking at the numbers, it isn’t hard to see why Disney feels no guilt in giving an audience remakes that look pretty but aren’t strictly necessary.
What Happens If The Lion King Flops, Will Live-Action End?
With all that in mind, let’s say there’s a hypothetical boycott in which the entire world (because international box office numbers for these films often nearly double the American box office) boycotts The Lion King and it flops. Sure, Disney might be rattled that people of many nations and backgrounds united on this one issue, but it still has many remakes, sequels and adaptations in the pipeline that ensure this trend keeps on rolling.
That’s not to say a few flops wouldn’t make Disney re-evaluate that strategy, but if we’re wondering if The Lion King will hit a billion dollars despite lukewarm reviews, then I think we’re all subconsciously admitting the day people stop turning up for these movies is pretty far off, which means there is certainly appetite for them. Still though, if by some miracle this movie flops, Mulan flops, and the next few that follow flop, then maybe, maybe, Disney will stop re-releasing animated classics in live action.
But Disney Will Eventually Run Out Of Animated Movies To Remake, Right?
To date, Disney has made nine live-action remakes of animated classics, and three adaptations based on the animated classics. There are several others of both types in various stages of development, and scores of many other movies in its vault to consider for future live-action adaptations. Sure, not all of them like Fantasia or The Three Caballeros will probably get made, but there are still plenty of options.
Even then, folks need to realize that any of these live-action adaptations could get another live-action adaptation down the road. The Jungle Book already had a live-action adaptation in 1994, and made more money with a version that was actually less live-action (and is getting a sequel) two decades later. Remakes of remakes are on the table, which means Disney could be going to this fountain long after we’re all dead and gone. That’s not even getting into all the sequel possibilities out there.
Is this really that bad of a thing though? Disney’s live-action remakes may cause some controversy, angst, and destroy the childhood of some grown adults, but box office numbers show a lot of people watch them. Are we to believe the masses are going to the theaters just to hate watch a movie they wish was never made to begin with? Of course not, although one may think that looking at the outrage and comments on some of these movies. Just remember, angry people on social media are often just a minor part of a whole.
So, Disney Likely Won’t Quit These Live-Action Remakes
Again, there’s an unfathomable scenario where multiple Disney live-action remakes and adaptations flop and the company stops, but the numbers indicate those days are far off into the future. Until folks stop turning up for these movies, there’s no chance in hell Disney will ever consider shoveling audiences slightly different but more of the same movies they’ve already made millions off of.
And really, who can blame Disney? Do people get upset at Vanilla Ice when he shows up to a venue and plays “Ice Ice Baby,” instead of a deep cut from his album? No, people want the classics and what they know, and the box office has often shown that’s largely true with movies as well.
Are there exceptions? Absolutely, but take one glimpse at the box office success of originals IPs vs. sequels and remakes of established franchises, and it’s clear which route studios prefer to go almost every time. it’s always going to be worth the complaints from the peanut gallery, until enough disgruntled souls finally put their foot down and say “enough is enough.”
In particular, there still seems to be enough excitement around these projects that we could be getting more for some time to come, which means the only question left to ask is whether or not the House of Mouse will be able to maintain it’s current pace of putting a slew of these out each year. Which means it’s up to you to get on board with the new movies, or don’t.
Disney’s next live-action film is The Lion King, which is in theaters Friday, July 19, but we’ll likely be hearing more about the 2020 schedule soon. Stick with CinemaBlend for details on its box office performance, and if it stays on pace to hit a billion dollars or not.
Are You Excited For More Disney Live-Action Remakes?
This past spring, Shazam, formerly known as Captain Marvel, finally made his film debut, and the DC Extended Universe-set origin story saw Billy Batson going up against Dr. Thaddeus Sivana, his arch-nemesis from the comics. But Shazam has another opponent who’s given him a lot of trouble over the decades: Black Adam, who will be played by Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson on the big screen.
With Shazam! 2 getting the green light, some might have wondered if that’s when we’ll finally get the long-awaited cinematic clash between Shazam and Black Adam, but Zachary Levi, who plays the World’s Mightiest Mortal, believes that showdown is being saved for Shazam! 3. In the actor’s words:
I can say that as far as I know, Black Adam is not going to be in the second Shazam!, because the idea is that they want to go and do a standalone Black Adam movie first. And then it would kind of be, if we do a third Shazam! and a second Black Adam, kind of [parallel] like that, that’s where we would [meet].
Zachary Levi shared what he knows on the Shazam vs. Black Adam of it all at Germany’s CCXP Cologne convention (via Comicbook.com). Granted, the villains for Shazam! 2 haven’t been officially announced yet, but given how Shazam! ended and that Warner Bros and DC want to spotlight Dwayne Johnson’s Black Adam just as much as Shazam, it makes sense that the long game is being played with when these two finally come to blows.
As Zachary Levi also noted, if Shazam and Black Adam were to fight too early, that would result in this corner of the DCEU peaking prematurely. Levi said:
Because he’s like the ultimate bad guy for Captain Marvel, Shazam. Like [Shazam and] Black Adam, they’re doppelgängers right, the evil twin to who I am. So that’s got to be like the final battle.
Dwayne Johnson was cast as Black Adam around the same time that Shazam! was announced, and while initially was the plan was for Shazam and Black Adam to fight in the first Shazam! movie, eventually it was decided that Black Adam deserved to star in his own movie first. There were various updates about the Black Adam movie in the following five years, but after Shazam! hit theaters and critically impressed, Johnson revealed that Black Adam will filming will begin next year.
Initially depicted in the comics as a straightforward super villain, Black Adam has evolved into an anti-hero in the last two decades, primarily using incredible powers to protect his home country of Kahndaq. The DCEU is going the anti-hero route with Dwayne Johnson’s Black Adam, although when the time comes for him to fight Shazam, obviously he’ll be illuminated in a more villainous light.
Although he was unnamed, Black Adam was teased in Shazam! as the individual who the Wizard Shazam bequeathed powers to in ancient times. Black Adam’s status as the Wizard’s champion was taken away when he released the Seven Deadly Sins onto the world. Even if the rumors are true and the Black Adam movie primarily takes place in the present day, presumably we’ll see flashbacks of Black Adam thousands of years ago and learn more about how he fell from grace.
As for Shazam! 2, we can reasonably assume that the villains be Sivana and the super intelligent caterpillar known as Mr. Mind, who had previously been imprisoned at the Rock of Eternity. In the Shazam! mid-credits scene, Sivana was desperately scrawling runes on the walls of his prison cell in an attempt to get back to the Wizard’s lair, but Mr. Mind showed up and proposed that they join forces to gain power and take over the Seven Realms.
Mr. Mind is arguably Shazam’s third most well-known foe from the comics, so he’s certainly deserving of some of the cinematic spotlight. It also makes sense to pair him with Sivana since they’ve worked together in the comics, so it’ll be interested what sort of scheme they hatch in Shazam! 2.
Which brings us to Shazam! 3, when Zachary Levi thanks the Shazam/Black Adam fight will finally unfold. Whether that were to be the last Shazam! movie or more would follow, that brawl would definitely be a worthy culmination to everything that’s happened so far, not to mention a moment comic book fans have waited a long time to see in live action. If you thought the fight between Superman and Zod in Man of Steel was intense, I suspect this fight would rival that intensity or even surpass it.
We also shouldn’t discount that these two could get a rematch in Black Adam 2, but we’re a long ways away from learning if that project’s a possibility. No doubt Warner Bros and DC want to keep Dwayne Johnson part of the DCEU for a long time, and since there are few instances of a superhero fighting a super villain across multiple movies, at least numerous Shazam/Black Adam tussles would be novel.
Stay tuned to CinemaBlend for more updates on what’s happening with both Shazam and Black Adam on the big screen. In the meantime, you can find out what else is in development for the DCEU in our handy guide, and don’t forget that Shazam! is currently available on Digital HD and arrives on Blu-ray and DVD tomorrow, July 16.
If the comments and concerns voiced above turn out to be true, what will Hollywood do? Smaller studios and distributors, i.e. basically everyone but Disney and Warner Bros, will likely face the greatest obstacles, but even the aforementioned production behemoths need to keep the bills rolling in. They should be fine, though, especially now that they both have highly-publicized, absurdly well-priced streaming services coming in the fall.
New York is officially the second state to make it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees because of the way they wear their hair.
Last week, Governor Andrew Cuomo passed Assembly Bill 07797, legislation that would “prohibit race discrimination based on natural hair or hairstyles.” This law will also impact previous efforts to curb discrimination in the state. For example, it will solidify recently introduced human rights guidelines, which called for the protection of citizens’ right to wear natural hair, treated or untreated, in hairstyles such as locs, cornrows, twists, braids, or Bantu knots. The bill is also an amendment to New York state’s Human Rights Law and Dignity for All Students Act, which outlines racial discrimination as “traits historically associated with race, including but not limited to hair texture and protective hairstyles.”
The signing of this law comes on the heels of California’s recently enacted CROWN Act, which made the state the first in the country to ban employers from discriminating against people with natural hair. “By introducing the bill, I wanted to use it as an opportunity to educate my colleagues about the unique experience and opportunities of having black hair. I didn’t want them to see it as a negative,” Los Angeles Democratic senator Holly Mitchell told Glamour. “Because of my natural hair texture, I have the unique opportunity to wear these amazing natural hairstyles.”
Through the bill, Mitchell also aimed to highlight that locs are no less “professional” than straightened hair or a blowout. “Our knowledge and ideas of what’s ‘appropriate,’ what’s ‘professional,’ what’s ‘beautiful,’ are based on a very Eurocentric standard,” she said. “This bill and my mere presence in presenting the bill was going to challenge that.”
New York becoming the second state to pass this type of anti-discrimination law sends a powerful message to women who have faced issues in the workplace because of how they wear their hair. A recent study from Dove found that black women are 50% more likely to be sent home, or to know a black woman who has been sent home from work because of her hair. Which doesn’t even account for the countless microagressions women face when wearing their hair natural in school or at work.
While it’s too soon to tell how cases of discrimination will be handled under these new laws, it’s a vital step in the right direction for workplace inclusion.