Defiance season finale promo
↧
↧
Hockey news: My LJ icon officially becomes irrelevant
Islanders will buy out Rick DiPietro
Originally published: July 1, 2013 9:16 PM
Updated: July 1, 2013 10:27 PM
By ARTHUR STAPLE arthur.staple@newsday.com
![]( "Hosted by imgur.com")
The Rick DiPietro era is over for the Islanders. They will place the former No. 1 overall pick and franchise goaltender on waivers Tuesday for the purpose of buying out the remainder of his contract, Newsday has learned.
DiPietro, 31, will receive a compliance buyout, meaning that the $1.5 million the Islanders owe him for each of the next 16 years will not count against the team's salary cap.
General manager Garth Snow, who informed DiPietro of the buyout Monday night, told Newsday: "It is an extremely tough decision to use the compliance buyout on Rick's contract. His drive to win games and compete at the highest level for the New York Islanders was never questioned. With Rick back at 100 percent health, we wish him nothing but the best as he continues to pursue his career."
The buyout of DiPietro, who did not return messages seeking comment, ends one of the longest, strangest athlete-team relationships in sports history.
Mike Milbury selected DiPietro first overall in the 2000 draft, and the confident teenager from the Boston area immediately jumped into an Islanders uniform.
After bouncing between the NHL and AHL before the 2004-05 lockout, DiPietro became the team's No. 1 goaltender in 2005-06 and a personal favorite of owner Charles Wang. Snow, the new GM, decided to sign DiPietro to an unprecedented 15-year contract, worth $67 million, on Sept. 12, 2006.
But before a full season had elapsed on the new deal, injuries had begun to chip away at DiPietro's skills and confidence. He suffered two concussions at the end of the 2006-07 season and required hip surgery, beginning a long grind of hip and knee problems, several of which required surgery.
He also needed surgery to repair broken facial bones after a brief fight with Penguins goalie Brent Johnson on Feb. 2, 2011. DiPietro played 26 games in 2010-11, more than in any other year after 2007-08. He totaled 50 games in the past five seasons.
He began the abbreviated 2012-13 season in full health as the backup to Evgeni Nabokov but played in only three games before Snow and coach Jack Capuano had seen enough. DiPietro was waived Feb. 22 and sent to Bridgeport, where he played 18 games.
It is believed that Snow informed DiPietro that he would be bought out before the summer began. Snow tried this past week to swap DiPietro's onerous contract for another, to at least bring in a useful player and allow his trade partner to buy out DiPietro. After finding no takers through Sunday's NHL draft, Snow put an end to DiPietro's 13-year run on Long Island.
It is not known whether DiPietro will be able to catch on with another NHL team, or whether he wants to. The Islanders will be paying him until the 2028-29 season, meaning his association with the team will end up spanning nearly 30 years.
Source
This was not going to end well for anyone. It was stupid contract in the first place.
Originally published: July 1, 2013 9:16 PM
Updated: July 1, 2013 10:27 PM
By ARTHUR STAPLE arthur.staple@newsday.com
The Rick DiPietro era is over for the Islanders. They will place the former No. 1 overall pick and franchise goaltender on waivers Tuesday for the purpose of buying out the remainder of his contract, Newsday has learned.
DiPietro, 31, will receive a compliance buyout, meaning that the $1.5 million the Islanders owe him for each of the next 16 years will not count against the team's salary cap.
General manager Garth Snow, who informed DiPietro of the buyout Monday night, told Newsday: "It is an extremely tough decision to use the compliance buyout on Rick's contract. His drive to win games and compete at the highest level for the New York Islanders was never questioned. With Rick back at 100 percent health, we wish him nothing but the best as he continues to pursue his career."
The buyout of DiPietro, who did not return messages seeking comment, ends one of the longest, strangest athlete-team relationships in sports history.
Mike Milbury selected DiPietro first overall in the 2000 draft, and the confident teenager from the Boston area immediately jumped into an Islanders uniform.
After bouncing between the NHL and AHL before the 2004-05 lockout, DiPietro became the team's No. 1 goaltender in 2005-06 and a personal favorite of owner Charles Wang. Snow, the new GM, decided to sign DiPietro to an unprecedented 15-year contract, worth $67 million, on Sept. 12, 2006.
But before a full season had elapsed on the new deal, injuries had begun to chip away at DiPietro's skills and confidence. He suffered two concussions at the end of the 2006-07 season and required hip surgery, beginning a long grind of hip and knee problems, several of which required surgery.
He also needed surgery to repair broken facial bones after a brief fight with Penguins goalie Brent Johnson on Feb. 2, 2011. DiPietro played 26 games in 2010-11, more than in any other year after 2007-08. He totaled 50 games in the past five seasons.
He began the abbreviated 2012-13 season in full health as the backup to Evgeni Nabokov but played in only three games before Snow and coach Jack Capuano had seen enough. DiPietro was waived Feb. 22 and sent to Bridgeport, where he played 18 games.
It is believed that Snow informed DiPietro that he would be bought out before the summer began. Snow tried this past week to swap DiPietro's onerous contract for another, to at least bring in a useful player and allow his trade partner to buy out DiPietro. After finding no takers through Sunday's NHL draft, Snow put an end to DiPietro's 13-year run on Long Island.
It is not known whether DiPietro will be able to catch on with another NHL team, or whether he wants to. The Islanders will be paying him until the 2028-29 season, meaning his association with the team will end up spanning nearly 30 years.
Source
This was not going to end well for anyone. It was stupid contract in the first place.
↧
switched at birth 2x15 promo "Ecce Mono"
↧
We Listen to Indie Bands Online, But Pay to See Madonna Live?
In many ways, it’s never been easier for small-time musicians to break out and build devoted followings; Pandora, Spotify, and iTunes offer tons of obscure music to fans, obliterating the old barrier of the tightly curated record store, while Twitter and Facebook carry even the smallest bands’ promotional messages, nuking advertising and PR costs.
But this sort of disruption has yet to significantly affect the live performance business, according to data newly compiled by a leading rock-and-roll economist. Niche acts apparently retain as tiny a share of concert receipts as they did a decade ago. That apparent stasis is particularly troubling for independent artists given the growing importance to the music business of concerts, which have become a last bastion of big profits as real prices and total sales of recorded music fall under pressure from online file sharing and cheap streaming services.
Over the past two weeks, Princeton economist Alan Krueger has updated concert revenue data underlying his two landmark rockonomics papers from 2004 and 2005 (one a solo act, the other produced as part of a band). The papers showed, among other things, that top artists markedly increased their share of concert revenue over 20 years, with the top 1 percent taking 56 percent of revenue in 2003 versus 26 percent in 1982. The eight-year-old papers garnered fresh attention earlier this month when Krueger, who between gigs chairs the president’s Council of Economic Advisors, cited them during a talk at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame: “Rock and Roll, Economics, and Rebuilding the Middle Class.”
The talk was noted by Krueger’s fellow Princeton economist Paul Krugman, who wondered on his widely read New York Times blog whether technological changes might have diminished superstar musicians’ share of ticket sales in the intervening 10 years. “A lot has happened,” he wrote. “Basically, the music business has been hugely disrupted by the Internet … Radio play matters much less, the audience has fractured, performers can build a following on Pandora and Youtube.”
In short, Krugman wondered whether the concert business would get its own version of The Long Tail, the phenomenon in which the advent of essentially frictionless digital distribution and warehousing magnifies the economic importance of niche creators once excluded from most of the market by scarce shelf space in stores.
Krueger tells Wired this appears not to be the case. From February through June of this year, the top 1 percent of acts garnered 56.3 percent of total concert revenue, versus 56 percent in 2003, based on Krueger’s distillation of a database compiled by concert industry magazine Pollstar, to which Krueger was given access for his earlier studies and current update. (In case you’re wondering, Pollstar says the top grossing musical acts of 2012 were Madonna, Bruce Springsteen, and Tim McGraw.)
“These numbers bounce around from year to year, but I see no evidence that it has become less of a superstar economy since I last published on it,” he says. “I thought the fact that prices for the top acts had continued to grow very quickly supported the idea that inequality hadn’t fallen.”
“I see no evidence that it has become less of a superstar economy since I last published on it.”
Why hasn’t inequality fallen in the concert business? Krueger thinks that the industry remains dominated by superstars thanks to some of the same trends that should theoretically be helping niche indie bands: “Technology and globalization, and an erosion of norms that compessed income and prices” explain continuing superstar dominance, he says. When he talks about norms, Krueger is referring to a taboo against rockers charging as much for tickets as the market will bear, a taboo discussed in his 2004-2005 papers and recent Rock and Roll Hall of Fame speech. Rock performers, along with rappers and all sorts of other musicians, are supposed to be socially conscious artists rather than exploitive capitalists, so jacking up prices hurt their images. Besides, holding ticket prices artificially low also helped to promote CD and record sales. As CD sales fell and online piracy spread, artists stopped worrying so much about their images, and there’s plenty of reason to believe this trend continued well after 2003; from 2003 to 2012, U.S. recorded music revenue fell about 40 percent, according to Recording Industry Association of America numbers.
“I suspect it is the same in movies, despite the ability for people to make and distribute indies and documentaries more easily,” Krueger says. “I doubt Spielberg fears competition from someone making movies with their iPhone.”
Not so fast: Spielberg recently predicted an imminent “massive implosion” in the movie industry thanks to competition from the internet. He might not have been referring to amateur filmmakers shooting on iPhones, but there are reasons to believe competent indie professionals could eventually grow their industry footprint, both in movies and in music. While big names in the concert business have had a lot of headroom to raise ticket prices over the last 20 years, top acts will eventually hit market pricing and not be able to hike ticket prices further. Maybe at that point smaller, internet-centric bands will start taking a larger share of concert receipts, and the live performance industry’s long tail, hidden for years by superstar price hikes, will start showing.
When I asked Krugman why the data seems to show continuing dominance by superstars, he wondered whether niche, long-tail style artists might be performing in small venues that don’t bother reporting to Pollstar, or in festivals with multiple acts, whose reporting can get glitchy. “I have no idea,” Krugman says, “but when you have an anomaly that’s always the first question to ask.” Krueger replies that “small venues are included. More importantly, the universe of coverage hasn’t changed much over the last 10 years. I don’t think it is an anomaly.” (Krueger’s first batch of Pollstar data was based on 232,911 reports encompassing 270,679 performances, and at one point Krueger indicates that the set includes a substantial number of venues with fewer than 2,000 seats; excluding them from one calculation changed the statistical significance of the results. But neither he nor Pollstar has said how many venues Pollstar tracks or given a breakdown of venues by size. Pollstar says on its website that it gets its data “primarily from the agents, managers and promoters,” who tend to be attached to larger acts, so it’s possible the database is an issue.)
Ticketmaster CEO Nathan Hubbard says Krugman is on to something, calling Pollstar’s data “deeply flawed for this study” because it excludes small venues and “is self reported by the individuals who are judged by it. Foxes guarding hen houses!”
Beyond total failure for new technologies, or issues with Pollstar’s reach, there are other possible explanations for continuing superstar dominance of concert revenue, starting with the fact that the long tail is a digital phenomenon and the concert business is primarily a physical one. Services like iTunes and Spotify have brought broadcast royalties and recorded music sales to the internet, but, with a few exceptions on services like Ustream, no one’s selling live performances over the web. That means that a band out of, say, Minnetonka can leverage social networks and online music services to build a nice base of music buyers and fans around the world, but is stuck entirely in the old physical economy when it comes to live performances. Without live-show streaming sales, a band will struggle to translate niche fame into concert revenue, at least outside of the occasional gig in a big market like New York or Los Angeles, where a critical mass of fans can be reliably assembled together for a show. If people can eventually be convinced to pay for concert streams — Ustream is broadcasting Bonnaroo this year for free, but it’s easy to imagine them charging some day — the economic picture could change substantially for indie bands that are huge online but pipsqueaks in the concert business.
source
Wow hipsters need to get over it, people go see Madonna in concert and pay $400 per ticket because she's an icon who has sustained a strong career for 30 years
↧
Under The Dome - 1.03 - Manhunt - Promo
↧
↧
DAVID BOWIE SHOOTING FOR LOUIS VUITTON IN VENICE (?)
↧
Benedict Cumberbatch: I enjoy being considered handsome - bring it on!
Benedict Cumberbatch might find being a sex symbol quite strange but he's definitely not complaining about it.
The Sherlock star, who has been voted The Sun's Sexiest Man for two years running, admits that he's equally flattered and baffled by the attention.
‘I'm still processing this strange misperception,' says Benedict, 36.
‘I suppose I'll have to find a way to deal with the strain. I enjoy being considered handsome, even though I think it's hysterical.'
Benedict, who stars in Star Trek Into Darkness, is happy to be a heartthrob so long as it helps him to get more roles.
‘Work-wise, it builds a momentum, which means I've got the most fantastic opportunities,' the actor tells The Sun.
‘Or at least, doors open to prove myself at the next level, and that attention has been a huge help. As long as it helps me find good roles, my response is, "Bring it on!"'
Source
↧
Gabrielle Union & Dwyane Wade at the BET Awards
↧
LeVar Burton explains his ritual to prevent being shot by police
He’s not exactly known for bad behavior, but even the former host of the children’s show Reading Rainbow fears he will be mistreated by police because of his skin color.
Actor and director LeVar Burton explained Monday on CNN that he follows a particular procedure every time he is stopped by police to avoid a potentially deadly confrontation. He removes his hat and sunglasses, rolls down his window, and puts out his hands to show he is not armed.
“I do that because I live in America,” Burton added.
He said that as a responsible parent, he taught his son to follow the same procedure.
Author Tim Wise, on the other hand, recalled that as a 23-year-old he once locked himself outside of his car. While he was trying to break into his car with a coat-hangar, he was approached by a police officer. Rather than question why Wise was attempting to break into a vehicle, the officer casually informed him he was “breaking into the car the wrong way” and offered to help him.
“The cop was trying to help me break in,” Wise remarked. “Now, there is not a black man in this country, 23 years of age, for whom that would have been the reaction… Basically, what my mom told me was, ‘Be nice to cops.’ She didn’t say, ‘Don’t move your hands because you’re going to get shot.’”
Watch video, uploaded to YouTube by CNN, below:
source
lol @ tim wise's whitesplaining ass interrupting and talking over all the black folk
↧
↧
ANTM: Guys vs. Girls Preview
↧
The 13 Dumbest Band Names in Rock History
It's not easy to pick a band name. After 60 years of rock & roll, everything has been taken. There's the Eagles and the Eagles of Death Metal, the Who and the Guess Who. There's Asia, Europe, Chicago, Boston and Kansas. If you want to pick a color and an animal, there's already White Lion and Whitesnake. If you like the word "wolf," get in line behind Wolfmother, Wolf Parade, We Are Wolves and Howlin' Wolf.
All this said, there's simply no excuse for picking a truly horrid band name, and rock is littered with them. Here are 13 bands with horrible names. Please note we aren't saying these bands suck, just their names. That'll become abundantly clear when you see the last group on the list.
Natalie Portman's Shaved Head
The 2005 movie V for Vendetta wasn't quite the massive box office success the filmmakers were aiming for, but it did introduce the the world to the Guy Fawkes mask commonly used by the activist group Anonymous. It also gave a bunch of high school kids from Seattle a really, really bad idea for a band name. Natalie Portman has no hair in V for Vendetta, so they named their band Natalie Portman's Shaved Head. Against all odds, the band became pretty popular even though they were hobbled by this horrid name. In 2010, they came to their senses and changed their name to Brite Futures.
"We chose our band name on a whim when we were still in high school," they said in a statement. "And 'Natalie Portman’s Shaved Head' has seen us through an unexpectedly amazing four years . . . But now it is summer once again, and time for a change. Also, it has recently come to our attention that our muse Ms. Portman is not so keen on us using her name in ours . . . so we feel it is time to move forward with a new name. We are Brite Futures."
The band broke up two years later. Turns out their futures weren't so brite.
Panic! At the Disco
This Las Vegas emo band is on this list solely because of that oddly placed exclamation mark. It introduced the idea of creative punctuation into the music world. They hit right around the same time as Portugal. The Man, and they certainly paved the way for Fun. They dropped the exclamation mark in 2008 when they released the Beatles-inspired Pretty. Odd. The fans went absolutely bonkers, and the exclamation came back in 2009. Sadly, their large fan base didn't come back, though a faithful cult still remains.
Confrontation Camp
Here's a pro tip for everybody: when you're known for saying viciously anti-Semitic things, naming your band Confrontation Camp probably isn't a good idea. But that's exactly what Public Enemy's Professor Griff named his 2000 side project with Chuck D. For those who don't remember, Griff infamously told the Washington Times in 1989 that "Jews are responsible for the majority of the wickedness in the world." He said he learned about it in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a hoax book (loved by the Nazis) that didn't exactly paint African-Americans in the best light, either. The uproar from his comments caused a huge scandal and (temporarily) got him kicked out of Public Enemy. The whole thing had largely blown over by 2000, and few people raised a fuss when he named his band something that sounds awfully similar to "concentration camp." Still, it probably wasn't the best idea.
Dave Matthews Band
There are probably people with less exciting names in the world than Dave Matthews, but we've yet to hear about them. When Matthews formed a band in 1991, he could have called it anything. He didn't have to name it Dave Matthews Band to let everyone know he was in charge. Trent Reznor (a much cooler name than Dave Matthews) went with Nine Inch Nails, yet everyone knew he was the mastermind behind that group. But Dave Matthews went with the Dave Matthews Band, and forever we're stuck with it. I guess he's smart, though. There's no way anyone can fire him, though we imagine John Geils felt that way once too – until the J. Geils Band fired him last year. Poor guy.
The Beatles
Before you start writing furious comments, stand back and think about this stupid band name. The Beatles is a dumb pun. That's all. They took the idea of naming themselves after an insect like the Crickets, but changed the spelling for a pun on musical beats. It's a simple as that. There's no deep hidden meaning. There's no wisdom here. Just a pun that might have provoked a very mild chuckle back in 1962. We accept it because we've heard it 50,000 times and they're the best group in history, but that doesn't mean they don't have a stupid name.
source
All this said, there's simply no excuse for picking a truly horrid band name, and rock is littered with them. Here are 13 bands with horrible names. Please note we aren't saying these bands suck, just their names. That'll become abundantly clear when you see the last group on the list.
Natalie Portman's Shaved Head
The 2005 movie V for Vendetta wasn't quite the massive box office success the filmmakers were aiming for, but it did introduce the the world to the Guy Fawkes mask commonly used by the activist group Anonymous. It also gave a bunch of high school kids from Seattle a really, really bad idea for a band name. Natalie Portman has no hair in V for Vendetta, so they named their band Natalie Portman's Shaved Head. Against all odds, the band became pretty popular even though they were hobbled by this horrid name. In 2010, they came to their senses and changed their name to Brite Futures.
"We chose our band name on a whim when we were still in high school," they said in a statement. "And 'Natalie Portman’s Shaved Head' has seen us through an unexpectedly amazing four years . . . But now it is summer once again, and time for a change. Also, it has recently come to our attention that our muse Ms. Portman is not so keen on us using her name in ours . . . so we feel it is time to move forward with a new name. We are Brite Futures."
The band broke up two years later. Turns out their futures weren't so brite.
Panic! At the Disco
This Las Vegas emo band is on this list solely because of that oddly placed exclamation mark. It introduced the idea of creative punctuation into the music world. They hit right around the same time as Portugal. The Man, and they certainly paved the way for Fun. They dropped the exclamation mark in 2008 when they released the Beatles-inspired Pretty. Odd. The fans went absolutely bonkers, and the exclamation came back in 2009. Sadly, their large fan base didn't come back, though a faithful cult still remains.
Confrontation Camp
Here's a pro tip for everybody: when you're known for saying viciously anti-Semitic things, naming your band Confrontation Camp probably isn't a good idea. But that's exactly what Public Enemy's Professor Griff named his 2000 side project with Chuck D. For those who don't remember, Griff infamously told the Washington Times in 1989 that "Jews are responsible for the majority of the wickedness in the world." He said he learned about it in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a hoax book (loved by the Nazis) that didn't exactly paint African-Americans in the best light, either. The uproar from his comments caused a huge scandal and (temporarily) got him kicked out of Public Enemy. The whole thing had largely blown over by 2000, and few people raised a fuss when he named his band something that sounds awfully similar to "concentration camp." Still, it probably wasn't the best idea.
Dave Matthews Band
There are probably people with less exciting names in the world than Dave Matthews, but we've yet to hear about them. When Matthews formed a band in 1991, he could have called it anything. He didn't have to name it Dave Matthews Band to let everyone know he was in charge. Trent Reznor (a much cooler name than Dave Matthews) went with Nine Inch Nails, yet everyone knew he was the mastermind behind that group. But Dave Matthews went with the Dave Matthews Band, and forever we're stuck with it. I guess he's smart, though. There's no way anyone can fire him, though we imagine John Geils felt that way once too – until the J. Geils Band fired him last year. Poor guy.
The Beatles
Before you start writing furious comments, stand back and think about this stupid band name. The Beatles is a dumb pun. That's all. They took the idea of naming themselves after an insect like the Crickets, but changed the spelling for a pun on musical beats. It's a simple as that. There's no deep hidden meaning. There's no wisdom here. Just a pun that might have provoked a very mild chuckle back in 1962. We accept it because we've heard it 50,000 times and they're the best group in history, but that doesn't mean they don't have a stupid name.
source
↧
Robin Thicke & Kendrick Lamar – “Give It 2 U”
Robin Thicke’s“Blurred Lines” might be the most inescapable jam we kind of hate ourselves for loving (yes, that’s a real category) of 2013, and he’s following it up with this tune of relatively similar content, “Give It 2 U.” It’s a fairly star-studded track – produced by Dr. Luke, co-written bywill.i.am, featuring a fantastic but too-short verse from Kendrick Lamar, and relatively packed with some of Thicke’s signature eye-rollingly direct propositions (“I got a little gift for you / I got a little Thicke for you” is probably the couplet I feel least gross about typing). Check it out in an effort to inoculate yourself before this one becomes utterly inescapable too.
src
↧
What a drag ... ten smoking hot female stars who can’t resist the cigs
STARS light up Hollywood – as they enjoy a cheeky puff on a cigarette.
Cheryl Cole is the latest celeb to have been snapped enjoying a ciggie in a club as she celebrated her birthday on Sunday.
The 30-year-old Geordie was seen dancing and puffing on a cigarette in Las Vegas where lighting up is still legal in nightspots not serving food.
But the former Girls Aloud star is not the only female star you may not have expected to smoke.
Here we take a look at ten other female stars who've lit up ...
She’s been known for having a smouldering cigarette between her lips on set — but who knew the stunning actress was partial to a puff off-screen too?
The 28-year-old English rose was caught puffing on an unsightly brown cigar as she strolled the streets with a guitar slung across her shoulder.
It looks like she’s taken a leaf out of rock star hubbie James Righton’s book.
She may be a clean-cut star, but this mum-of-two is frequently spotted enjoying the filthy habit.
The Sin City actress reportedly turned to cigarettes to ditch her pregnancy weight after giving birth to daughter Haven in 2011.
A source close to the star said: “She’s been chain smoking lately to keep her appetite at bay. Jessica struggled with an eating disorder in her teens and when she’s under pressure to look good for a part, she can slip back into extreme behaviour.”
Wild child Miley seems to be all about the healthy lifestyle – indulging in yoga sessions and a gluten-free diet.
But this picture reveals the 20-year-old is no stranger to cigarettes, and she’s also been snapped with suspicious-looking roll-ups.
Speaking to Rolling Stone magazine, she said: “I think alcohol is way more dangerous than marijuana — people can be mad at me for saying that, but I don’t care.
“I’ve seen a lot of people spiral down with alcohol, but I’ve never seen that happen with weed. As long as it isn’t illegal, there are far more dangerous things.”
The 37-year-old actress, who rolls her own cigarettes, picked up the habit on the set of Sense and Sensibility when she was 19.
Speaking to Vanity Fair in 2008, the star – who is now pregnant with her third child – said: “I don’t smoke around my kids.
“Like that makes it any better that I smoke at all, because obviously it doesn’t. But I don’t smoke in the house.
“I mean, I had a cigarette this morning, which is because I hadn’t been. Coffee and a cigarette: bingo!”
She famously enjoys a healthy lifestyle and dedicated workout regime, but it seems even Gwynnie has a vice.
The mum-of-two, who recently wrote a healthy eating cookbook, admits she allows herself one cigarette per week.
Speaking to Harper’s Bazaar about her guilty pleasures in April, she said: “My one light American Spirit that I smoke once a week, on Saturday night.”
J Lo takes time out from being a bride on the set of El Cantante to indulge in a quick ciggie.
The singer and actress has previously been snapped lighting up on nights out – but claims she is not a smoker.
The mum-of-two told Cosmopolitan: “I don’t drink—I’ll have a sip, but I’ve never been drunk—and I don’t smoke. I envy people who have those releases.
“They just have a drink or a cigarette, and they feel better. I have to brave it through the whole day on my own.”
the rest at the source
↧
↧
Simon Cowell 'turns down invite to Cheryl Cole's birthday'
Cheryl Cole is said to be "disappointed" after Simon Cowell turned down an invitation to her 30th birthday party in LA.The singer had reportedly hoped to mend their friendship by asking him to attend the £50,000 event, but he is busy filming The X Factor USA in Denver.
Meanwhile, former Girls Aloud bandmates Sarah Harding and Nadine Coyle were apparently not invited to the party, which will be attended by Kimberley Walsh and Nicola Roberts.
"She sent an invitation to Simon as she genuinely wanted him there. He's been a big part of her life and, despite their falling out, she sees him as an old friend who she was very close to once," a source told the Sunday Mirror."She was hoping he'd make it so is a little disappointed he won't be there. It's a real shame but the pair both have massive busy schedules.
"She has put all their differences aside and moved on in her life. The party is going to be one of the most memorable occasions and she carefully chose who she invited. Unfortunately though Simon wasn't able to make it." (The pair fell out when he axed her as a judge on The X Factor USA and replaced her with Nicole Scherzinger.)Boyfriend Tre Holloway, friend and manager will.i.am and her mum Joan Callaghan are all expected to attend tonight's party.Cole recently revealed that she is looking forward to turning 30 as it is "when women are at their most beautiful [and] sexy".
Source
Meanwhile, former Girls Aloud bandmates Sarah Harding and Nadine Coyle were apparently not invited to the party, which will be attended by Kimberley Walsh and Nicola Roberts.
"She sent an invitation to Simon as she genuinely wanted him there. He's been a big part of her life and, despite their falling out, she sees him as an old friend who she was very close to once," a source told the Sunday Mirror."She was hoping he'd make it so is a little disappointed he won't be there. It's a real shame but the pair both have massive busy schedules.
"She has put all their differences aside and moved on in her life. The party is going to be one of the most memorable occasions and she carefully chose who she invited. Unfortunately though Simon wasn't able to make it." (The pair fell out when he axed her as a judge on The X Factor USA and replaced her with Nicole Scherzinger.)Boyfriend Tre Holloway, friend and manager will.i.am and her mum Joan Callaghan are all expected to attend tonight's party.Cole recently revealed that she is looking forward to turning 30 as it is "when women are at their most beautiful [and] sexy".
↧
Michael Jackson enticed "lost boys" into sordid fantasy world hidden from their parents
The “lost boys” lured to Michael Jackson’s Neverland ranch were enticed into a sordid fantasy world hidden from their parents, the Sunday People can reveal. Shocking audio tapes from the singer’s secret FBI file offer a chilling insight into the superstar’s depravity. They reveal how groups of kids would be invited to Jackson’s estate, where he would then isolate his prey. The twisted star would sleep with children in a tepee as well as his bed and was even seen groping two boys.
Jackson’s sick secrets were exposed in a recorded interview with his ex-butler Philip LeMarque and wife Stella, taped on August 28, 1993 – 12 years before the star stood trial accused of molesting children. The charges followed a TV documentary showing the singer holding hands with 13-year-old Gavin Arvizo in 2003. Jacko was acquitted of seven child abuse charges in June 2005.
The couple said Jackson – who used the code name Blue Fox – would watch porn films with young boys in his private bedroom behind a secret wall in a 70-seat Neverland cinema. They claimed the ONLY adult who ever complained about Jackson’s disappearing acts with young boys was screen legend Marlon Brando.
Stella said: “He’d come to the ranch and always see Michael playing, disappear with the children. Michael would never spend time with the adults at the ranch. He said, ‘What the hell is Michael doing with those kids!’’’ She said another famous guest, the late Elizabeth Taylor, “never” complained.
French-born Philip and Stella worked at Neverland in Santa Clara, California, for nine months and were the only live-in staff. The other staff were sent home at 4pm. They were interviewed by a private investigator working for Hollywood sleuth Anthony Pellicano. The tape was among material seized by FBI agents probing Pellicano – who was employed by Jackson to uncover the skeletons in his closet.
The private investigator
The following are excerpts from a copy he made of the recording:
PHILIP: The theatre is like a regular theatre. He’s got 70 seats.
STELLA: And behind the wall, he has two bedrooms. Sometimes he’d be there with the kids. I wanted to take a picture of the bedroom but couldn’t.
PHILIP: He could watch porn.
STELLA: He’d stay with the kids all night long. All night long!
PHILIP: From 7pm until eight the next morning… nine in the morning, they are still up playing around.
PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR: Where are the adults?
PHILIP: The adults are in separate buildings.
STELLA: Boy A came to see Michael… The parents were in the room smoking pot with a five-month-old baby. At the time, he was crazy about Boy A and his little brother.
PHILIP: Michael likes them young. Boy A was getting too old. The first time when Michael saw Boy A in the movie, XXXX XXXX, he told Boy A he wanted to meet him.
PI: Wait a minute. She (a former member of Jackson’s staff) makes deals with the parents?
PHILIP: She makes the deals with the parents to bring everybody… the parents with the kids to the ranch. If there are five kids, then Michael will take the one he wants.
PI: You’re saying (the Jackson staffer) brings a selection of kids for Michael to choose from? Like a pimp?
PHILIP: Yes.
STELLA: If you really like children, you like all of them, boy or girl. Not only one while the others run around.
PHILIP: We saw a little boy and girl running around the ranch at 3am. We were the ones who found them.
PI: Michael gave no attention to those he had no interest in?
PHILIP: Yes, they didn’t know where to go. The ranch is very large. The arcade... Michael invites a whole bunch of kids, boys and girls so it doesn’t sound to be unnatural. Everyone is playing and doing things. This gives Michael the chance to break one of the children away from the rest.
PI: Sounds like he has a plan that he puts in to motion, in stages.
PHILIP: First the children just go on the amusements.
PI: You mean they just play? It’s innocent?
PHILIP: Yes, but as time progresses, the next time, (the staffer) invites only the kids Michael is interested in. The activity goes on mostly in the night.
PI: Where are the damn parents! Jesus Christ!
PHILIP: The parents do their own thing. Michael and the kids sleep in the tepee.
STELLA: And Michael sleeps in the bedroom with the children he loves. That’s true.
PHILIP: There is a stairway inside Michael’s room. It leads to the guest room…no other access …where he says the children sleep, but they never do. The bedroom upstairs …the bedroom is never undone. When Boy A came, Michael told his parents, “Boy A will stay with me.” Michael has warning alarms that go off when someone is walking close to the bedroom.
PI: I want to know about the other kids. I imagine there were a few.
PHILIP: More than a few.
PI: OK, we’ll get to them but tell me what you know about Michael and Boy A.
PHILIP: (Michael) called me at 2am that night to say, “Philip, would you please bring me some French fries?” OK, I get up and I go make him some French fries. So, then I take the two-way radio and you call security and you ask, ‘Where is Blue Fox?’ They say, ‘Oh, he’s in the arcade.’ … I went around the other entrance and entered through there and that’s when I saw Michael groping the kid.
PI: Michael had his hand touching his private parts over the pants?
PHILIP: No, no, no… In the pants.
STELLA: Boy C in the cinema, Michael did the same thing with him… and the mother was two or three rows in the front.
PI: They weren’t watching porn?
STELLA: No but they were kissing.
PI: Like a peck on the cheek?
STELLA: No, like lovers. I saw them. That’s not normal.
PI: And Boy A’s father… You said he didn’t know what was going on?
STELLA: The father is an ***hole. He is only interested in the money.
PHILIP: The father did ask me one time what was happening with Michael and Boy A. Why they were with each other all the time.
STELLA: Michael took an apartment back near the studio. Michael would pick him up in the limo and they would always be together.
PHILIP: He would keep the parents busy doing things around the house. Michael would give the parents things to do and he would treat them like kings! He (a Jackson staffer) would give them whatever they wanted.
STELLA: Well, the mother of the boy from Switzerland was crying and saying, “Why does Michael always want to be with my son to sleep? Why is it I have four other children and why doesn’t he want to spend time with them, if he loves all children?”
PI: What was the mother from Switzerland doing there?
STELLA: Michael sent them tickets.
PHILIP: Michael liked variety. (laughing)
STELLA: Yes. Boy B was there very often, but then he got too old and stopped coming to the ranch.
PHILIP: He would call all the time, but Michael would say, “Tell him I’m not here.” Then he’d smile about it.
PI: A sinister reaction. That’s dark and cold.
PHILIP: Michael and Boy B watched porn together. The boy didn’t want to touch himself and Michael told him he would do it for him.
PI: Did any adults witness this?
STELLA: Yes, (Jackson staffer) saw everything. She told us… Michael always thought everybody was stealing from him.
PI: Maybe it stems from his own guilt… from stealing young boys’ childhoods. Any other weird behaviour or something you want to mention?
PHILIP: Michael would never let the kids look at clocks or know what day it was. He didn’t want anybody to worry about the time because it was never bedtime. Sometimes he’d be up all night with the kids.
The investigator, speaking now said: “I don’t believe the world understood how much power and influence Jackson wielded. He could spend millions to silence anyone – and he did that with Jordie (Chandler). Back then the victims couldn’t speak for themselves. I understand some of their parents were paid money and the kids didn’t know. Now the kids are grown up, they have the chance to speak. I feel that Wade is now taking his chance to speak up.
“I hope it helps his other victims. It might even give them the courage to make a complaint to the police.”
source
wut, my cut's not broken...
↧
Critics no likey The Lone Ranger, but not for the same reason(s) as ONTD
Critics have laid into a $250 million blockbuster remake of '50s TV show The Lone Ranger, calling it "a scrap heap of train wreckage" and "one hot mess".
Reviewers have already savaged the film, with an approval rating of just 38 per cent on review aggregate site Metacritic, and 26 per cent on Rotten Tomatoes.
Critics attacked the film's tone, pace, length, action scenes and directing. In a review for the news agency Associated Press, critic Jake Coyle called it a "runaway train".
"Verbinski's film, stretching hard to both reinvent an out-of-date brand and breathe new life in the Western with a desperate onslaught of bloated set pieces, is a poor locomotive for Depp's eccentric theatrics," he wrote.
"For 2½ hours, the Jerry Bruckheimer-produced Lone Ranger inflates, subverts and distorts the conventions of the Western until, in an interminable climax, the big-budget spectacle finally, exhaustingly collapses in a scrap heap of train wreckage."
Hitfix reviewer Drew McWeeny agreed, calling the Lone Ranger "a misfire on every level".
"Let's be clear: this is a terrible film by any standards. Overlong, with a script that reads like a notes session no one ever organized into something coherent, and totally confused about what audience it supposedly plays to, The Lone Ranger is grim, ugly, and deeply unpleasant."
Time Out New York reviewer Keith Uhlich called the film's over-the-top action scenes "relentless".
"It's all too much and not enough-a succession of disparate, can-you-top-this episodes inelegantly piling up like skidding cars on a freeway. And that's not even taking into account the action scenes.
"Lord, those action scenes: Monotonous, loud and relentless, they're a punishing example of the self-satisfied, digitally augmented ephemera that typifies modern Hollywood moviemaking, and House Bruckheimer in particular."
Louise Keller from the Urban Cinefile website had some kind words to say about Depp's performance:
"The plot is rich and colourful and with a hi-ho Silver, non-stop humour and fast action; there is much to enjoy in the company of the incongruous trio of an in-form Depp, dashing Armie Hammer and a scene stealing white horse."
And Charlie McCollum from the Mercury News gave it 2½ stars, calling it "one hot mess" and saying it was "way too long, incoherent at times, loaded with clumsy dialogue and less than sure-footed in its tone".
But McCollum said it was still entertaining.
"Despite all its not-inconsiderable failings, it's surprisingly entertaining for its two and a half-hour running time. Every time it threatens to go completely off the rails, there's a spectacular action sequence or, more often, a dazzling bit of business from Johnny Depp as Tonto that pulls you back into the film."
Source.
Disney Rides Into Box-Office Ambush With Depp’s ‘Lone Ranger’
Johnny Depp’s “The Lone Ranger,” opening in theaters tomorrow to negative reviews and tough competition, looks poised to become Walt Disney Co’s biggest flop since last year’s $200 million loss from “John Carter.”
The movie, based on the 1930s radio show and 1950s TV series, is the type of project that’s worked well in Hollywood of late. It features well-known characters and a proven star in Depp, with potential for sequels and merchandise sales.
Still, Disney will struggle to turn a profit, after the budget climbed to $225 million and the film earned mostly unfavorable early reviews. The task is more challenging because “The Lone Ranger” opens on a competitive summer weekend, against Universal Pictures’ animated “Despicable Me 2” and holdovers that include “Monsters University,” from Disney’s Pixar, and the zombie thriller “World War Z.”
“It is a huge gamble,” said Doug Creutz, an analyst with Cowen & Co. in San Francisco, who predicts a $100 million write-off for Disney. “You need the film to be really good.”
“‘The Lone Ranger’ is a drag as an action movie,” wrote Alonso Duralde, critic for the industry website The Wrap.com. “It’s not funny in its attempts at self-parody, and it feels like a Western made by people working off a checklist of tropes.”
BoxOffice.com predicts three-day weekend sales of $37 million in the U.S. for “The Lone Ranger,” just $7 million more than “John Carter.”
The film will benefit from the long July 4 holiday weekend in the U.S. It is projected to take in $135 million in its domestic theater run, a sum the studio splits with cinema owners. “John Carter” generated $73.1 million in U.S. cinemas.
“The Lone Ranger” reunites Depp with the team from the “Pirates of Caribbean” films, which overcame initial skepticism to become a top franchise. Producer Jerry Bruckheimer generated a combined $3.7 billion with four “Pirates” movies, according to researcher Box Office Mojo, the first three led by “Lone Ranger” director Gore Verbinski.
Source
↧
My future husband covers Maroon 5's "Love Somebody"
↧
↧
Hilary Duff Filming A New Movie "Flock Of Dudes"
CASTING EXTRAS FOR SAG FEATURE FILM (LOS ANGELES)
SAG COMEDY FILM - Think " HANGOVER" titled "Flock of Dudes"
Featuring RAY LIOTTA (Good Fellas, Identity, Hannibal), BRYAN GREENBERG (Friends with Benefits, Bride Wars, One Tree Hill), HILARY DUFF (A Cinderella Story, Cheaper by the Dozen, The Lizzie Mcguire Movie), SKYLAR ASTIN (Pitch Perfect, 21&Over, Wreck It Ralph), LEA MICHELE (Glee, New Year's Eve, Legends of Oz), HANNAH SIMONE (New Girl, 1600 Penn), ERIC ANDRE (The Intership, The Invention Of Lying), Chris D'Elia (Whitney, Celeste & Jesse forever)
Seeking UNION & NON-UNION men and women ages 21 to 45. Looking for
people to create movement and atmosphere for the leads.
Needing people to portray wedding guests, bar patrons, beach goers, servers, maids,
musicians, bartenders etc. Filming now until the end of July.
Must have reliable transportation - filming in Redondo Beach, Whittier, Hollywood and
other various locations throughout Los Angeles - Must have proper ID and be legal to
work in the United States
*Especially looking for Sag members between the ages of 20-30. May bring headshot and resume between 1:30pm-2:30pm for submission.
Casting Tue. 7/2 and Wed. 7/3
Call 323-468-1125 to be Considered
Source
↧
Who asked for this? Khia to remix Miley's We Can't Stop?
The "My Neck my Back" rapper tweeted this message earlier with artwork for a remix of Miley's We Can't Stop (Trying too hard)
Queen Khia's Twitter
Oh lordt, why.........
↧
Benedict Cumberbatch ‘I’m Not As Good-Looking As James McAvoy…I’m Not Afraid Of Being Heinous’
Benedict Cumberbatch may have been voted Britain’s sexiest man by Sun readers two years in a row, but the actor claims that he finds the attention “hysterical” and thinks he isn’t as good-looking as his costar James McAvoy.
“I’m still processing this strange misperception,” Cumberbatch, 36, said in May, according to the Sun.
“I suppose I’ll have to find a way to deal with the strain. I enjoy being considered handsome, even though I think it’s hysterical.”
“Work-wise, it builds a momentum, which means I’ve got the most fantastic opportunities — or at least, doors open to prove myself at the next level, and that attention has been a huge help,” he added.
“As long as it helps me find good roles, my response is, ‘Bring it on!’”
Cumberbatch added that he thinks some of his costars are better fits for the title, naming his friend and “Neverwhere” radio play costar James McAvoy, 34.
“I read a piece in The New York Times where James McAvoy was quoted as saying, ‘Oh, Benedict doesn’t need to fear the media or his fans or his new profile. He just needs to fear actors who will be looking at him with envy and want to cut his legs off,’” Cumberbatch said.
“Maybe that’s the case, but most of my friends who are actors are just really, really thrilled with what I’ve got. It’s kind of humbling, actually. And it’s nice because I’m not as good-looking as James.”
Now magazine reports that Cumberbatch compared his looks to McAvoy’s in another interview, saying, “I'm aware of the power of looks. I have wanted to play roles that have gone to much better-looking people than me and you think: ‘Oh well, that's the pin-up guy's part...’ for an actor like my friend James McAvoy, who's gorgeous on screen.”
“‘I'm not that. But at least I don't have to worry about taking precious care of my face because it's my commodity,” Cumberbatch added.
“That's a great freedom. I'm not afraid of being heinous for the sake of a part.”
The insecure actor seems to be single but has said he wants to settle down before he’s 40.
Source
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
