Of course, the driving factor of A Star Is Born’s success is the intense chemistry between Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga. As individual actors, they’re both at the top of their game, with Gaga standing toe to toe with her director / co-star in her first leading film role. But whenever they’re on screen together, you can feel how natural it was for the two of them to slip into these characters, and bounce off of each other’s energy. Conversely, Bradley Cooper stands up to Lady Gaga’s vocal talents, delivering a singing voice that’s more impressive than we ever would have imagined. While there’s definitely a vital and impressive supporting cast with the likes of Sam Elliott, Dave Chappelle, Andrew “Dice” Clay and Anthony Ramos, the unquestionable center of this film’s universe is Cooper and Gaga, and they burn with the heat and intensity of a furnace.
Ah, TV. Sometimes it feels like there’s never enough time to catch up on all the shows cluttering your DVR. Other times, you feel like you’ve seen everything already. (I mean, how many more times can one re-watch To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before? Um, don’t answer that…) But we have some good news: Jennifer Garner is here to help. And Alison Brie. And Shay Mitchell.
Yes, we gathered a bunch of television stars to find out not only what series they’ve recently binge-watched, but what they would actually recommend. Never seen The Office before? Time to start. Haven’t gotten on the Killing Eve bandwagon? Let’s fix that. The best part? Aside from frontrunners Atlanta and Ozark, nearly everyone had a different suggestion. So put on your comfiest sweats, order those snacks, and get watching this weekend. Cheers!
PS: Still need more suggestions? Check out our list of fall’s best new TV shows.
When it comes to the controversial nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, men run the show.
President Donald Trump, of course, picked Kavanaugh for the high court. The Senate Judiciary Committee, which has held confirmation hearings on the judge—including testimony from Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused him of sexually assaulting her in the 1980s—is controlled by Republican Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley. And the Senate majority leader is Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell, who’s firmly on Kavanaugh’s side and is driving the chamber toward confirmation as fast as he can.
But a group of women are playing pivotal roles at this divisive moment in U.S. history. Some serve on the Judiciary Committee. Some have staked out positions as nationally recognized champions of women’s rights. Some face a choice between siding with their party or with those protesting it.
Here, in alphabetical order, is a quick guide to some of the Senate women who’ve been in the spotlight (or on the hot seat) in the Kavanaugh controversy, including those whose political futures are definitely worth watching in the run-up to the 2020 race for president.
The GOP controls the Senate by a tiny margin, so any defections put the party in danger of seeing Kavanaugh’s confirmation blow up. Collins, who represents Maine, has been one of the most closely tracked members of the Senate throughout the Kavanaugh debate: She’s a Republican, but she’s also pro-choice.
Before Ford’s claims that Kavanaugh attacked her when they were high school students—which he has categorically denied—Collins was already regularly swarmed by reporters trying to take her temperature on whether she’d vote to confirm the judge to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. Now she’s surrounded not only by the press, but under pressure from both protesters and colleagues who want her to reject Kavanaugh.
Collins supported Trump’s first SCOTUS nominee last year, but that was a very different story: When Neil Gorsuch succeeded the late Justice Antonin Scalia, it was a matter of one conservative replacing another. The balance of the court was unchanged. Kennedy was also nominated by a Republican president, Ronald Reagan, but he ended up a swing justice who sided with liberals in critical cases that upheld abortion protections. Replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh would tilt the high court firmly to the right.
Collins met privately with Kavanaugh before the Ford allegations. She said that she came away with the understanding that the judge considers Roe v. Wade a matter of settled law.
But since Kavanaugh went on the defensive over the assault claims, Collins has come under even more pressure to take a side. She publicly called the allegations “serious” and supported allowing lawyers for Ford and Kavanaugh to question each other during the Judiciary hearings (which didn’t end up happening).
As of Thursday, she had told reporters she considered the FBI probe “very thorough,” but said she hadn’t finished reviewing all the materials. She also hadn’t said how she planned to vote.
The California senator is in a challenging position: She’s the highest-ranking woman on the Judiciary Committee, but she’s a Democrat. (As the majority party, Republicans ultimately control the proceedings.)
Feinstein has faced considerable criticism during the Kavanaugh confirmation process, including the timeline of her actions after receiving a letter from Ford that detailed her allegations of assault. The senator has said she was simply trying to respect Ford’s request for privacy; Republicans have instead accused Feinstein of stalling so she could drop a bombshell on the SCOTUS nominee late in the game and hurt his chances of getting the job.
Some anti-Kavanaugh activists reportedly think Feinstein’s methodical, low-key style just isn’t cutting it as the Republicans are on the verge of getting the nomination to a vote, although the longtime lawmaker has also been praised for being fair.
The New York senator has a record of speaking out against sexual assault, particularly in the military—and she opposed Kavanaugh well before the current scandal engulfed his nomination.
Gillibrand, a Democrat who’s often mentioned as a potential 2020 presidential contender although she hasn’t confirmed those rumors, has flatly suggested Kavanaugh is a hyper-conservative would be a threat to abortion rights and women’s health care. She’s also questioned his past positions on the exercise of presidential power.
In July, well before the news broke of Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh, Gillibrand told Glamour she considered the judge “more dangerous than any previous justice nominee because of his education and his experience and because of the track record he’s laid out about what he intends to do,” adding, “I think he is going to be very destructive to basic civil rights and civil liberties for millions of Americans.”
Thursday night, Gillibrand urged people to change the game by showing up on Election Day.
“If the Senate was 51% women, would SCOTUS nominees look like Brett Kavanaugh, or like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor?” she asked. “Let’s elect record numbers of women so our high offices are held by leaders who’ll do the most good for the most people.”
The former California attorney general has put her prosecutorial skills to work as a member of the Judiciary Committee, peppering Kavanaugh with pointed questions during the confirmation hearings.
Her intensity wasn’t much of a surprise: Harris, a Democrat, got plenty of attention for grilling now-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions during his Judiciary interviews as well.
Harris is only the second black woman elected to the Senate in American history (the first was Sen. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois) and has made a name for herself in public life as a fighter against racial inequity, both inside and outside the criminal justice system—and a lawmaker with a cool head.
Some forecasters have said the combination of passion and compassion Harris has evinced in the political arena, and her calls to elevate the American debate beyond the “mean” tone of the Trump era, could be a blueprint for a potential run for the White House. She’s not tipping her hand on a future campaign just yet.
The Hawaii senator is not a prospective candidate for president—she can’t seek the Oval Office, having been born outside the U.S.—but her standout role as a Kavanaugh interrogator has some people wishing she could.
Hirono, a Democrat who serves on Judiciary, notably asked Kavanaugh well before the Ford allegations surfaced whether he had ever engaged in sexual harassment or assault. (He said he had not.) As the New Yorker noted, Hirono said she posed the question because she “did not want the #MeToo movement to be swept under the rug,” not because she had any heads-up about the coming scandal.
The cancer survivor, who is also the only immigrant currently serving in the Senate, also made a point of asking Kavanaugh about his attitudes toward indigenous peoples—and releasing a 2002 email (which had been marked “confidential”) that included his views on a legal question regarding Native Hawaiians.
Hirono said in the hearings that his views on the status of native peoples should be considered offensive—and not just by Hawaiians. Read on for why that matters in more ways than one…
While a Democrat, Klobuchar, the senior senator from the swing state of Minnesota has been described as somewhat more moderate than some of her colleagues. That might not be in vogue in 2018, when hard-charging liberals (and even some self-identified Democratic socialists) are exciting some midterm voters. The landscape could look different in 2020, when a Trump challenger might try to appeal to Americans on both the left and right of the political spectrum.
Klobuchar is the fourth Democratic woman who serves on Judiciary (all the Republicans are men). She had a memorable question for her male colleagues who sat in opposition to letting the FBI investigate the allegations against Kavanaugh: “What are you hiding?”
At least as memorable: The moment Klobuchar asked Kavanaugh if he’d ever blacked out from drinking, only to have him throw the question back at her. He later apologized to Klobuchar, who said in a CNN interview that she’d been “stunned” by his conduct during the Judiciary hearing.
Klobuchar was also among the Democrats who had off-mic conversations with Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, who ultimately pushed his GOP colleagues to give the FBI more time to look into Kavanaugh’s past before a Senate vote.
Like Collins, Murkowski is a pro-choice Republican woman, and whether she’ll ultimately come down for or against Kavanaugh has been keeping the pundits speculating.
The Alaska senator’s office told the Anchorage Daily News on Thursday that she, like Collins, is reviewing the FBI files—although Murkowski had not gone so far as her Maine counterpart in calling the investigation “thorough.” She has, however, acknowledged that the pressure is on from both sides, and that her office has been flooded with emails and calls about the confirmation.
For Murkowski, however, Hirono’s question to the judge about indigenous peoples may carry extra significance: As the Daily News has reported, Alaska Native organizations that helped her win a big 2010 Senate race consider Kavanaugh a potential danger to tribal authority, are out in force against him, and are making sure Murkowski knows it.
The Massachusetts senator—and possible 2020 contender—isn’t a member of the Judiciary Committee, but she’s been outspoken on opposing the Kavanaugh nomination.
“The fact that Republicans want to go forward treating [Ford] and other women who have come forward as if their claims don’t matter is an insult to every single woman in this country,” she told Glamour in Washington on the day of Ford’s testimony to Judiciary last week. “It is fundamentally wrong.”
Warren was also among the luminaries who protested Kavanaugh on Thursday, telling a rally crowd, “I am angry on behalf of women who have been told to sit down and shut up one time too many.”
There are no bridges left to burn between Trump and Warren: The president has mockingly called her “Pocahontas” in questioning her self-described Native American heritage; Warren has been a steady critic of the administration’s policies, including on federal family planning funding.
While she hasn’t officially committed to challenging Trump, Warren was recently quoted saying she’d take a “hard look” at it after the Nov. 6 midterms.
Celeste Katz is senior politics reporter for Glamour. Send news tips, questions, and comments to firstname.lastname@example.org.
As much as I try to write about new makeup, hair, and skin care products, the allure of a juicy Reddit makeup thread will never subside. I mean, you never know—maybe someone out there figured out a game-changing trick to make every eyeliner glide on like butter, or all mascaras last four months longer. I don’t know if magic exists, but epiphanies certainly do. So when I was absentmindedly scrolling through a thread discussing Redditors’ “aha” moments with makeup, I saw a technique that caught me off guard. People, just like you or me, were putting on translucent powder before their foundation. And raving about it, no less.
It was the craziest thing I’d ever heard in my life, but it also rang a bell. A few weeks prior, I’d been complaining to a friend about my skin’s tendency to make foundation disappear by 4 P.M. She’s an avid Jackie Aina fan, and suggested I get with the picture and try Aina’s sworn-by tip for making foundation last: the same unorthodox method that people were aha-ing about on Reddit. I hate to be left out, and I hate to feel like my work (and foundation) are going to waste, so I was in. Goodbye, everything I thought I knew about foundation. You were never much help to begin with.
The next morning, I dipped a brush into Beautycounter’s Mattifying Powder and swirled it over my face, watching my skin care’s dewy finish disappear before my eyes. I topped it with Becca’s Skin Love Weightless Blur Foundation, and gave the velvety finish a pleased, but skeptical eye. Flash-forward to the clock hitting 4 P.M. When I looked in the mirror, I was caught off guard—foundation was still on my face, even around my red-dotted jawline, where it normally disappears first.
My foundation didn’t look exactly the same as when I walked out the door, though. When I peered closely, I could see the coverage had a slightly dry, dehydrated effect about it. (Something I’ve since learned can be fixed with a mid-day spritz.) Yet foundation was still on my face, and I’d never known that life. After years of trying to find a foundation that would adequately stay put, the answer was in front of me all along. Translucent powder, man.
I repeated the experiment the next day, this time with Joah Beauty Truly Yours Liquid Foundation. The same exact thing happened. I reason that the powder must soak up my face’s oil like a primer, but lay down a dry base instead of primer’s velvety one. Jackie Aina and Reddit user purplesquirrels, I owe you.
I HAVE A MASOCHISTIC need to please bosses, so I’m never more than a few feet from my iPhone (notifications humming at all hours) and I never leave home without a MacBook in tow. Just in case. My manager, who once mentioned pointedly that he has a “perverse respect for workaholics,” recently emailed me a question at 11:11 p.m. When I responded seven minutes later, he shot back: “You = Always On.”
Whether it was a joke or a compliment, I’ll take it. Different generations might debate which technological advance launched the “always on” work culture that keeps us chained to our devices, and who’s most guilty of perpetuating it. As a millennial, I’d argue that it sprang up in the mid-1980s, when doctors first clipped on pagers and Michael Douglas introduced the world to car phones in “Wall Street,” that cautionary tale about work/life balance (which famously declared that “lunch is for wimps”).
Today always-on is the default work setting for most of us. Ubiquitous smartphones, slim computers and innovative apps make every response a snap—quicker, easier, seemingly less painful. It just takes a second, right? But those rapidly accumulating seconds are just technology’s version of death by 1,000 cuts, expanding the workday’s boundaries until it seamlessly blurs with the rest of civilian life.
According to a 2016 study by the Academy of Management, employees tally an average of 8 hours a week answering work-related emails after leaving the office. Echoing that, a 2015 Harris Poll for the American Psychological Association found that 30% of men and 23% of women regularly bring work home. Similar percentages admitted to working on vacation and to bringing “work materials” along on social outings (we hope they don’t mean accordion folders). All of this, many experts in psychology agree, causes stress, ruins sleep habits and cripples our ability to stay active and engaged during actual office hours.
In 2017, France instituted a new labor law that supports a new frontier in human rights, the “Right to Disconnect.” Backed by unions advocating that employees disengage from electronic work communications once free of the office, the law stems from a 2004 French Supreme Court ruling affirming that an employee who is unreachable by cell outside of work can’t be dinged for misconduct.
Similar rights have been extended in Italy and the Philippines, are being explored in Germany and Luxembourg and were proposed in New York City. And in July, the South Korean legislation began limiting weekly work hours to just 52, down from a max of 68. Surprise: America has no legal maximum.
“Always-on culture is weird. It’s not how humans thrive. It’s not how productive people break through to the next level,” said Greg McKeown, author of “Essentialism,” which details his philosophy of confidently saying no to things that don’t benefit you—a “disciplined pursuit of doing less,” but doing it better. “Modern culture now acts upon us so constantly that we start reacting to it rather than acting for ourselves.”
Mr. McKeown argues that being selective about how we spend our time turns it into a valuable commodity to be traded, ultimately earning you respect and making you more productive when you’re “on.” For instance, saying no to aimless meetings frees up your office time to finish tasks, eliminating extra work at home. But many of us still are burdened by FOMO—the fear of missing out, or in this case the fear of missing opportunity, of being seen as less hardworking and less reliable than co-workers and thus expendable. According to a 2016 Harvard Business Review study, 43% of those surveyed “sacrifice or significantly suppress other meaningful aspects of who they are” and give in to always-on.
‘ Always-on is weird. It’s not how humans thrive. It’s not how productive people break through. We have to dismantle it before it dismantles us. ’
So rather than using technology to augment our work, speeding us out the door in 6 hours instead of 10, or cutting down to an ideal four-day workweek, we’ve misused technology to bolster antiquated workaholic habits. Then again, what’s two minutes to draft a quick email so the folks upstairs know they can always count on you?
“We have to dismantle always-on before it dismantles us,” Mr. McKeown warned. How to actually achieve that dismantling is complicated. Much like that electronic cummerbund that promises to zap your stomach into a six-pack but only burns you in the end—financially and in my case literally—there’s no quick fix. While Big Tech brands have put in two decades of yeoman’s work to constantly and persistently connect people across all platforms, at all hours, they’re just now creating systems to help place healthy restrictions on communications.
Google Calendar’s new “Working Hours” function lets you automatically reject colleagues who send invites for meetings or calls outside set time windows, and conspires with your inbox to streamline the crafting of painless “out of office” replies.
Apple’s new iOS 12 features enhanced Do Not Disturb settings, letting you quiet notifications for a set time or even at a set location so incoming communications are withheld until you physically leave your home or favorite dinner spot, depending on your self-imposed parameters. It also lets you toggle on auto-reply texts, which you can customize to keep people at bay. For me, “Sorry, I’m busy but I’ll you shoot you a note when I’m back” gets the message across.
If you have an iPhone, you also have a VIP inbox you’re probably not using, which lets you tweak notifications so your screen only flashes when you receive emails from those you deem worthy—a husband or manager but not Rick in accounting. Just tap the circled “i” next to “VIP” in your mail app to add preferred addresses, and then you can set custom alerts and notifications. That said, it’s often best to turn off most notifications as soon as you download a new app, letting you control when you check your phone and respond to messages rather than reacting immediately to a chiming or rumbling phone.
Harking back to the good old days of AOL when “You’ve Got Mail!” was a thrilling welcome, not an existential crisis, some platforms are adopting AOL Instant Messenger’s red light/green light system that lets people know you’re online. Slack, a powerful and popular workplace communication tool, lets you customize a status so people know when you’re unavailable and what you might be doing. Slack also automatically sets you to “snooze” at 10 p.m., blocking notifications until 8 a.m. (the times can be customized to suit your needs and schedule).
By far the boldest method I’ve heard for shutting out work, however, is refusing to install work email on your phone. If you dare.
While wondering how I might employ these tactics to steal some of my life back, a serendipitously stupid thing happened: An overnight iOS update disabled my iPhone entirely. What started as panic morphed quickly into a feeling of freedom. I couldn’t check emails in the lunch line or be distracted by texts, DMs or gchats. I was utterly unreachable at times and it didn’t seem to matter. And I was more rested and more productive.
I got a new phone later that week, but in that short window I realized the ultimate key to work-life balance was—actually wait. Can you hold on a second? I gotta take this.
I’M ALWAYS ON IT! / A History of Tech’s Invasion of Private Life
Costing a cool $3,995 upon its release, the first commercial cellphone—dubbed the “Brick”—weighed 2.5 pounds, lasted 30 minutes on a 10-hour charge and couldn’t order Seamless. But it made us accessible on the road, transforming work interactions.
Motorola BRAVO Pager
Beepers had existed more than 60 years by the mid-80s, but most were short range for emergency services. Motorola’s Bravo popularized long-distance paging among eager professionals and by 1994 more than 61 million devices chimed insistently world-wide.
Apple PowerBook 100
The first modern laptop had an innovative trackball mouse and slid the keyboard up to the screen, giving traveling businesspeople a place to rest their wrists while punching out spreadsheets. The PowerBook series earned over $8 billion in revenue through 1992.
AOL Instant Messenger
AIM helped millennials learn to type and effectively created the way we all “chat” today, popularizing emojis and modern shorthand (lol!). Users created profiles, curated buddy lists and set away messages. It was social media and text in one.
After innovating pagers, RIM released its first smartphone, nicknamed “Crackberry” due to its addictive nature. Sure, you could make calls or text on its qwerty keyboard but most important was the arrival of push email. Family dinners were never the same.
Email, text, chat, news, voice mail, Twitter , Facebook and Instagram, Fantasy-Football trash talk, all blinking your phone awake. It’s hard to remember what boardroom meetings were like before Apple first pushed out iPhone notifications.
THE DEVIL IS IN THE EMAILS / Films That Reflect Always-On Culture
MOVIE CHARACTERS aren’t immune to the grind. In satires, dramas and comedies, always-on culture has enabled their work-related downward spirals.
The Player (1992) Studio executive Griffin Mill (Tim Robbins) sometimes greenlights, but more often rejects, movie pitches he’s subjected to at glamorously dull Hollywood parties. But real-life drama swamps him when a disgruntled screenwriter sends him threats, including one via mobile fax machine, which drive Mill to murder. When studio security asks if something is wrong, Mill replies no. “Business as usual.”
The Devil Wears Prada (2006) Plucky journalism grad Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) languishes as an assistant to cold fashion editrix Miranda Priestly, who commands Sachs’s every waking moment via her cell. When her co-assistant (Emily Blunt) is hit by a car while prattling on her phone, Sachs is poised to climb the ladder—a job she’s told that “a million girls would kill for”—until she regains her senses and throws herT-Mobile Sidekick in a Paris fountain, exchanging her chic career for a shot at happiness.
Up in the Air (2009) HR consultant Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) spends so many days traveling for work he doesn’t have time to adorn his drab apartment, much less commit to someone. Things look dire, until he meets another hopeless workaholic in an airport and the two turn their always-on condition into a positive, flirting long distance over the (once-revolutionary) BlackBerry Messenger.
Set It Up (2018) Overworked, ambitious assistants Harper and Charlie (Zoey Deutch and Glen Powell) reach a breaking point as long hours and weekend work threaten their personal lives. The two conspire to hook up their bosses, drafting romantic chats in hopes that an upper-management liaison might distract the bosses from torturing the dutiful assistants.
“WE HAD A little sniff that the space could turn into something really lovely,” says Oliver Milburn of the Covent Garden address that was once a chain restaurant and is now Cora Pearl, one of the hottest new tables in London. Milburn and his pals of 20 years, Tim Steel and Tom Mullion, would seem to know what makes a good room: Their previous restaurant, Kitty Fisher’s, opened in 2014 and, with its cozy interior and wood-fired cooking, quickly started drawing in a steady stream of celebrities, politicians and other notables.
[unable to retrieve full-text content]
This past summer Nintendo released Mario Tennis Aces as a sort of hybrid sports-fighting game. It was a breakout sensation for gamers looking for something that wasn’t a first-person shooter, a rogue-like, an action-RPG, or a Dark Souls clone. The game has been receiving some steady updates over the last couple of months, and Nintendo doesn’t seem to have any plans to stop. The latest update for Mario Tennis Aces will see a familiar face make a return to the series, and make her debut for the first time in this particular outing. It’s none other than the pink-skinned, red-bow wearing Birdo, sporting a giant diamond ring and a whole lot of sass.
Modern comic book movie audiences have been trained: Stay in your seats when the end credits roll, because there’s usually a scene or two that tease what’s to come in potential sequels. Sometimes they are used to comedic effect, as when Captain America showed up at the very end of Spider-Man: Homecoming to mock people who waited to watch his scene. Sometimes they are so far out of context, they leave the audiences baffled (looking at you, X-Men: Apocalypse scene). Venom joins the ranks today, dropping a major tease for the possible direction of Venom 2, should that movie ever happen. We tell you what the scene means, as well as what Ruben Fleischer told us about the scene, so read on.
*Obviously, the rest of this article is ALL spoilers for Venom, so if you somehow landed in here without first seeing the movie, bail out now, and come back after you have checked Venom out. *
Before Venom reaches its end credits, Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy), while speaking with his newly reunited girlfriend Anne (Michelle Williams), is teasing an important interview he has locked down. He can’t tell Anne who it’s with, but just notes that it’s important. We don’t figure that we are going to find out, immediately, who it is. The scene basically exists so that Anne can discover that the symbiote survived the final confrontation with Riot, and still lives inside of Eddie. Yes, it looked like Venom sacrificed himself to stop Riot, but some piece of him lived, and he and Eddie will continue to bond.
Movie over? Not quite. Venom has a lengthy end-credits sequence, and it starts with Eddie and Venom driving to San Quentin Prison, located north of San Francisco. Eddie (Tom Hardy) is telling Venom to keep it in check, that this interview is important to HIM, and has nothing to do with the symbiote. But we know, as comic book fans, that won’t be the case for very long.
The scene has a prison guard leading Eddie down to a cell for the interview, warning him that the guy in the cell is totally unredeemable, a mental case and a total psychopath. If you have read any Spider-Man or Venom comics, you know exactly where this is going, even before it’s revealed that the man in the prison cell is Cletus Kasady, the lunatic murderer who’ll go on to become Carnage.
Cletus Kasady is a serial killer. He was introduced in the Amazing Spider-Man comics as a rival host to Eddie Brock, but a man who — unlike Brock — had absolutely NO moral guidelines, and would only use the powers of the symbiote to bring more pain and death to the world. Cletus was modeled after The Joker, was established as a cold-blooded killer from an early age, and only picked up the powers of the symbiote when he happened to share a prison cell with Eddie after Venom lost a fight to Spider-Man. The symbiote left “offspring” in the prison cell, and one of them merged with Kasady. The homicidal Carnage was born.
The on-screen version of Carnage, as is revealed in the Venom end-credits scene, is played by Woody Harrelson, an actor Ruben Fleischer worked with on Zombieland. And yet, when we spoke with Fleischer about casting Harrelson in the role of Carnage, it was a different movie in Woody’s background that had the Venom director convinced that he was perfect for the part. Fleischer tells CinemaBlend:
He was the first person I thought of to play Cletus Kasady. And what will be fun is, if you think about Woody in Natural Born Killers, and that darkness and that menace that he can bring to a serial killer like Cletus Kasady, you know, he can go real dark and explore that. Carnage is going to be… just thinking about Venom pitting off against Carnage is just so exciting. And hopefully fans leave the movie really looking forward to that next one. Because I think also just seeing Tom and Woody go head to head, you know, those are two great actors that I think can really create some exciting scenes.
Woody Harrelson’s version of Cletus Kasady already is locked up. He’s detained in what amounts to a Hannibal Lecter-type cell, where he isn’t exactly restrained, but he isn’t going anywhere. Though, he thinks that he is. After trading some meaningless psychobabble with Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy), luring him closer to the cage as their interview is about to begin, Cletus turns to the camera and promises that as soon as he gets out, there will be carnage.
And the screen cuts to black.
Now, that leaves two major questions unanswered. One, how does the symbiote leave a trace of itself behind in the prison cell to bond with Cletus? At the start of Venom 2, will we see some variation of this classic comic book panel?
But the second question — an even bigger question — is, “Will Venom 2 even happen?” The movie, at the time of publication, is sitting below 30% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, but a strong showing at the box office could signify to Sony that they need to push forward with this character and his universe, to keep selling more toys (naturally), but also to expand the world so that by the time Spider-Man is able to swing back from Marvel Studios, he’ll have Venom, Carnage, Morbius, Black Cat and possibly Kraven the Hunter to play with.
For now, Venom is in theaters. The end-credits sequence sets up Woody Harrelson as Carnage, and we know that Ruben Fleischer really wants to see Harrelson and Tom Hardy going toe-to-toe as actors, and also seeing the Venom symbiote ripping Carnage to shreds. Do YOU want to see that? Now that you have seen Venom, let us know below where you stand on this movie, on the post-credits scene, and on a potential sequel.
Blended From Around The Web
Star Wars is coming to TV in a brand new way with the very first (and super pricy) live-action series, which was recently revealed to be called The Mandalorian. Executive producer Jon Favreau announced the big news via social media, although details beyond the title and premise were scarce. Now, more information has released, and it turns out that Taika Waititi of Thor: Ragnarok and a number of others are on board to bring new stories to that galaxy far, far away.
Fans of Star Wars, get excited! Production has officially begun on the new series, and Taika Waititi will direct an episode for its big premiere on the Disney streaming service. Also directing episodes will be Dave Filoni of Star Wars Rebels and The Clone Wars, Jurassic World star and Solemates director Bryce Dallas Howard, Deborah Chow of Jessica Jones, and Rick Famuyiwa of Dope. As previously announced, Jon Favreau is on board as executive producer and writer. Sharing executive producing duties are Kathleen Kennedy and Colin Wilson on top of Filoni and Favreau.
There’s no news yet as to what will happen in the episodes these directors are set to tackle, but it’s worth noting that these directors have worked on wildly different projects throughout their careers. Both Taika Waititi and Deborah Chow have helmed superhero projects, although for under different banners and with very different tones. And that’s only one example! Despite some criticism of The Last Jedi in the aftermath of The Force Awakens, Star Wars movies are often similar in tone and structure within their trilogies. Is the variety of directors a sign that the series won’t necessarily feel like one big story? Will there be standalone episodes, or will The Mandalorian be completely serialized?
Unfortunately, we can only wait and see at this point. Of the directors who have signed on to helm episodes of The Mandalorian, Dave Filoni is the one with Star Wars saga experience. He’s slated to direct the very first episode of the new show, and his involvement is one of the elements of The Mandalorian that I’m most excited about. Filoni has directed episodes of Star Wars Rebels, will direct new episodes of The Clone Wars, and contributed to Star Wars Resistance.
Not only is Filoni well-versed in Star Wars lore with experience working alongside George Lucas, but his work on Clone Wars and Rebels makes him an expert on all things Mandalorian in current Star Wars canon. Given that The Mandalorian takes place after the fall of the Empire post-Return of the Jedi and before The Force Awakens, it’s also possible that Rebels‘ explosive Mandalorian Sabine Wren could appear in live-action. Why not bring Katee Sackhoff on board as Mandalorian leader Bo-Katan as well?
Only time will tell what’s in store with The Mandalorian. The next Star Wars project coming to the small screen is Star Wars Resistance, which was impacted by Rebels and Clone Wars in some interesting ways. Resistance is also set in the era between Return of the Jedi and The Force Awakens (although much closer to Force Awakens), so perhaps we should keep our eyes peeled for any Mandalorians on Resistance this fall!