After watching the trailer, I don’t have any great hopes for the remake of the 1981 comedy Arthur. Dudley Moore has been replaced as the feckless heir to a fortune by Russell Brand and John Gielgud’s impeccable, if occasionally foul-mouthed butler has changed sex to become Helen Mirren and a nanny.
But watch out for Greta Gerwig in Liza Minnelli’s old role – she was wonderful in the wickedly underrated Greenberg last year and can also be glimpsed in Natalie Portman’s new romcom No Strings Attached.
With a style somewhere between Claudette Colbert and Diane Keaton, Gerwig is smart, wacky, beautiful and slightly astringent. I’d put good money on her being one of the next big things in American indies.
After watching the trailer, I don’t have any great hopes for the remake of the 1981 comedy Arthur. Dudley Moore has been replaced as the feckless heir to a fortune by Russell Brand and John Gielgud’s impeccable, if occasionally foul-mouthed butler has changed sex to become Helen Mirren and a nanny.
But watch out for Greta Gerwig in Liza Minnelli’s old role – she was wonderful in the wickedly underrated Greenberg last year and can also be glimpsed in Natalie Portman’s new romcom No Strings Attached.
With a style somewhere between Claudette Colbert and Diane Keaton, Gerwig is smart, wacky, beautiful and slightly astringent. I’d put good money on her being one of the next big things in American indies.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy should be ashamed. By joining a chorus of Republicans calling for rollbacks to women's health care, environmental protections and support for the poor, McCarthy proved himself to be yet another cowardly politician only capable of serving those able to write a check rather than the entirety of his constituency.
Kern County consistently ranks in the upper tiers of several less-than-admirable lists, including teen pregnancy rates, STD transmission and asthma prevalence. At the same time, we rank poorly on air quality, education and income.
By voting to support the House budget more than a week ago, McCarthy said "yes" to exacerbating the social ills already tearing at the fabric of our county. Funding for low-income patients needing cancer screening, STD testing and treatment, and contraceptives? Cut. Child support for working families? Cut. Environmental protections aimed at cleaning our air and water? Cut.
The livelihoods of many of the residents of Kern County were deemed less important than preserving $4 billion in oil subsidies and implementing a program to provide contraceptives for wild horses. Yes, horses.
Discretionary spending in the U.S. is but a fraction of the total budget. Without addressing the problems of Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending and Social Security, all other actions are tantamount to a political grandstand. By showing that he and his colleagues are unwilling to tackle the big problems and only target the weak, McCarthy proved himself to be yet another cowardly politician uninterested in anyone unable to write a check.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy should be ashamed. By joining a chorus of Republicans calling for rollbacks to women's health care, environmental protections and support for the poor, McCarthy proved himself to be yet another cowardly politician only capable of serving those able to write a check rather than the entirety of his constituency.
Kern County consistently ranks in the upper tiers of several less-than-admirable lists, including teen pregnancy rates, STD transmission and asthma prevalence. At the same time, we rank poorly on air quality, education and income.
By voting to support the House budget more than a week ago, McCarthy said "yes" to exacerbating the social ills already tearing at the fabric of our county. Funding for low-income patients needing cancer screening, STD testing and treatment, and contraceptives? Cut. Child support for working families? Cut. Environmental protections aimed at cleaning our air and water? Cut.
The livelihoods of many of the residents of Kern County were deemed less important than preserving $4 billion in oil subsidies and implementing a program to provide contraceptives for wild horses. Yes, horses.
Discretionary spending in the U.S. is but a fraction of the total budget. Without addressing the problems of Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending and Social Security, all other actions are tantamount to a political grandstand. By showing that he and his colleagues are unwilling to tackle the big problems and only target the weak, McCarthy proved himself to be yet another cowardly politician uninterested in anyone unable to write a check.
Few cities are more practised in the garish arts of public exposure than Los Angeles and at no time of year is this knowledge put to better use than Oscars week.
This year, however, the biggest debates in the runup to Sunday's annual evening of backslapping and schmoozing have revolved around who could do with a bit more recognition.
After Kathryn Bigelow became the first woman to be given the best director award at last year's Oscars, there was hope that a traditionally male-dominated barrier had been broken at last. This hope looked all the more plausible because of the number of critically lauded films released in the wake of her award directed by women, notably Winter's Bone, directed by Deborah Granik, and The Kids are All Right, by Lisa Cholodenko.
Yet while both of these movies have been nominated for best film, and both feature actors who have received nominations, their directors have been ignored.
"Last year Kathryn opened doors for female directors so I was particularly disappointed that Lisa didn't get a nomination," says Celine Rattray, producer of The Kids are All Right.
Notably, the subject matter of Bigelow's film, The Hurt Locker, was war and there was only one woman in the cast, raising the question whether a woman might be able to win a film award, but she has to make a very masculine film to do so.
"I think the nominations this year in general were for flashy movies and maybe The Kids are All Right was just a little too heartfelt," suggests Rattray.
Others have claimed that Bigelow's triumph was not so much the breaking of a ceiling but a mere blip: "After Kathryn Bigelow's supremely satisfying double win for best director and best picture last year, it's particularly disheartening to see Winter's Bone and The Kids are All Right, both made by women, relegated to 'great film—who directed it again?' status," Dana Stevens wrote on Slate.com.
Another demographic notably more absent from this year's nominations are non-Caucasians. Last year Mo'Nique won best supporting actress for the film Precious. This year there is not one non-Caucasian face in any major category, prompting writer John Farr to pen a tribute to Sidney Poitier on The Huffington Post last week in protest against this "mostly Caucasian Oscar year." In the article Farr describes Poitier as "an authentic groundbreaker" but judging by this year's nominations, a lot of old ground remains firmly intact.
One person who is managing to be both underexposed and overexposed is the British artist Banksy, whose film, Exit Through the Gift Shop, has been nominated for Best Documentary Feature. Banksy 's famous aversion to public scrutiny has not only augmented his fame in Britain but has, perhaps inevitably, made him the object of deep fascination to the Hollywood community, enthralled by what they see as his nigh on perverse dislike of being recognised.
Various celebrities, including Will Arnett from the cult TV show Arrested Development, have spent the week putting up photos on Twitter of street art in LA that appears to be made by Banksy, indicating that he is in town. The question of whether he will or won't turn up to the ceremony has arguably made the Best Documentary Feature category the most talked about category at the Oscars this year – a flame that has been fanned by the hemming and hawing of the academy over whether they will allow him to attend in disguise. Initially, Academy president, Tom Sherak, huffed that "if Banksy isn't comfortable showing his face on the Kodak stage, then the Academy isn't comfortable having him on that stage".
But late this week, Sherak changed his mind. Somewhat belatedly, one might think, he claimed to "get" Banksy ("I'm looking at what Banksy's done and that's fun") and told The Hollywood Reporter that if Banksy got up on stage masked "I'm not gonna stand up to stop him."
Yet while the academy issues contradictory and increasingly ridiculous statements, Banksy remains characteristically silent and his spokesperson, Jo Brooks, had only this to say on the artist's attendance: "No comment." Was he even in LA? "No comment."
The only nominee more talked about than the invisible Banksy is the all too visible James Franco, who is fast turning into the Zelig of celebrities, apparently involved in every aspect of American culture. Not content with being both the host of the ceremony and a best actor nominee, this week he opened an art exhibition in LA with director Gus van Sant, entitled Unfinished, as advertised by giant billboards across the city, all emblazoned with Franco's face. And just in case that still is not enough Franco, the actor joined Twitter this week, posting a link to a video of himself as his debut tweet, thereby slaking the thirst of anyone who hadn't seen his face for more than two seconds.
Few cities are more practised in the garish arts of public exposure than Los Angeles and at no time of year is this knowledge put to better use than Oscars week.
This year, however, the biggest debates in the runup to Sunday's annual evening of backslapping and schmoozing have revolved around who could do with a bit more recognition.
After Kathryn Bigelow became the first woman to be given the best director award at last year's Oscars, there was hope that a traditionally male-dominated barrier had been broken at last. This hope looked all the more plausible because of the number of critically lauded films released in the wake of her award directed by women, notably Winter's Bone, directed by Deborah Granik, and The Kids are All Right, by Lisa Cholodenko.
Yet while both of these movies have been nominated for best film, and both feature actors who have received nominations, their directors have been ignored.
"Last year Kathryn opened doors for female directors so I was particularly disappointed that Lisa didn't get a nomination," says Celine Rattray, producer of The Kids are All Right.
Notably, the subject matter of Bigelow's film, The Hurt Locker, was war and there was only one woman in the cast, raising the question whether a woman might be able to win a film award, but she has to make a very masculine film to do so.
"I think the nominations this year in general were for flashy movies and maybe The Kids are All Right was just a little too heartfelt," suggests Rattray.
Others have claimed that Bigelow's triumph was not so much the breaking of a ceiling but a mere blip: "After Kathryn Bigelow's supremely satisfying double win for best director and best picture last year, it's particularly disheartening to see Winter's Bone and The Kids are All Right, both made by women, relegated to 'great film—who directed it again?' status," Dana Stevens wrote on Slate.com.
Another demographic notably more absent from this year's nominations are non-Caucasians. Last year Mo'Nique won best supporting actress for the film Precious. This year there is not one non-Caucasian face in any major category, prompting writer John Farr to pen a tribute to Sidney Poitier on The Huffington Post last week in protest against this "mostly Caucasian Oscar year." In the article Farr describes Poitier as "an authentic groundbreaker" but judging by this year's nominations, a lot of old ground remains firmly intact.
One person who is managing to be both underexposed and overexposed is the British artist Banksy, whose film, Exit Through the Gift Shop, has been nominated for Best Documentary Feature. Banksy 's famous aversion to public scrutiny has not only augmented his fame in Britain but has, perhaps inevitably, made him the object of deep fascination to the Hollywood community, enthralled by what they see as his nigh on perverse dislike of being recognised.
Various celebrities, including Will Arnett from the cult TV show Arrested Development, have spent the week putting up photos on Twitter of street art in LA that appears to be made by Banksy, indicating that he is in town. The question of whether he will or won't turn up to the ceremony has arguably made the Best Documentary Feature category the most talked about category at the Oscars this year – a flame that has been fanned by the hemming and hawing of the academy over whether they will allow him to attend in disguise. Initially, Academy president, Tom Sherak, huffed that "if Banksy isn't comfortable showing his face on the Kodak stage, then the Academy isn't comfortable having him on that stage".
But late this week, Sherak changed his mind. Somewhat belatedly, one might think, he claimed to "get" Banksy ("I'm looking at what Banksy's done and that's fun") and told The Hollywood Reporter that if Banksy got up on stage masked "I'm not gonna stand up to stop him."
Yet while the academy issues contradictory and increasingly ridiculous statements, Banksy remains characteristically silent and his spokesperson, Jo Brooks, had only this to say on the artist's attendance: "No comment." Was he even in LA? "No comment."
The only nominee more talked about than the invisible Banksy is the all too visible James Franco, who is fast turning into the Zelig of celebrities, apparently involved in every aspect of American culture. Not content with being both the host of the ceremony and a best actor nominee, this week he opened an art exhibition in LA with director Gus van Sant, entitled Unfinished, as advertised by giant billboards across the city, all emblazoned with Franco's face. And just in case that still is not enough Franco, the actor joined Twitter this week, posting a link to a video of himself as his debut tweet, thereby slaking the thirst of anyone who hadn't seen his face for more than two seconds.
"Inception" won the Oscar for sound mixing at the 83rd Academy Awards on Sunday night.
Lora Hirschberg, Gary A. Rizzo and Ed Novick received the award for their work on the Christopher Nolan film. The trio was nominated for the same award for "The Dark Knight," also directed by Nolan, two years ago.
"Inception" was competing against "The King's Speech," "Salt," "The Social Network" and "True Grit."
The Academy Awards are taking place at the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood and are being televised live on ABC. We'll carry all the breaking news and reaction here on Awards Tracker.
-- Nardine Saad
Photo: Lora Hirschberg, Ed Novick and Gary A. Rizzo, right, accept the Oscar for best sound mixing for "Inception." Credit: Associated Press.
"Inception" won the Oscar for sound mixing at the 83rd Academy Awards on Sunday night.
Lora Hirschberg, Gary A. Rizzo and Ed Novick received the award for their work on the Christopher Nolan film. The trio was nominated for the same award for "The Dark Knight," also directed by Nolan, two years ago.
"Inception" was competing against "The King's Speech," "Salt," "The Social Network" and "True Grit."
The Academy Awards are taking place at the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood and are being televised live on ABC. We'll carry all the breaking news and reaction here on Awards Tracker.
-- Nardine Saad
Photo: Lora Hirschberg, Ed Novick and Gary A. Rizzo, right, accept the Oscar for best sound mixing for "Inception." Credit: Associated Press.
Kyle Busch handled his Phoenix defeat gracefully on Sunday, even after Jeff Gordon used some rubbing to make the winning pass and deny Busch a three-race weekend sweep.
"I think he was on a mission today, and when Jeff Gordon has a good car and he has the opportunity to beat you, he's going to beat you," Busch said. "There's no doubt about that. He's my hero and I've always watched him and what he's been able to accomplish over the years. It's no surprise that he beat us."
If you don't think that sounds like typical Busch, join the club. But the driver known as "Rowdy" offered plenty of praise for Gordon while good-naturedly noting he barely missed out on repeating the history he achieved at Bristol last summer.
"There's always that one car that's got to ruin the whole weekend," Busch said with a smile, "and it had to be the 24 car."
Perhaps it's because Gordon had a faster car than Busch and would have passed him anyway – even without the nudge that allowed the No. 24 car to take the lead.
"He was gaining on me really good, and I knew he was going to get to me eventually," Busch said. "...He just drifted up a little bit into me and knocked me out of the way.
"But it don't matter. He had a fast enough car. Either way, he (would) have won ... It has nothing to do with how he won."
Busch had bigger problems to worry about than starting a rivalry with Gordon, anyway. He angered Carl Edwards early in the race by trying to a take a spot that didn't belong to him, which triggered a multi-car wreck and damaged Edwards' car.
Though Busch apologized profusely throughout the race, Edwards didn't seem to care. He kept "playing" with Busch by holding him up several times for the rest of the day.
"He was mad, for sure; he was frustrated, definitely," Busch said. "You can see that entirely out there the whole rest of the race. Anytime I got within five car lengths of his rear bumper, he would start checking up early, getting into the corners and slowing down and getting more space between me and the other guys.
"Finally, after about 20 laps of that, he let me go. It was weird. He just he was playing."
Busch said he hoped to speak with Edwards and move beyond the incident, especially given how the two raced one another cleanly in Saturday's Nationwide Series race.
"I made a mistake today – I've admitted that, again and again," Busch said. "Hopefully we can get past this and go on. ... It was just a mistake on my part."
Kyle Busch handled his Phoenix defeat gracefully on Sunday, even after Jeff Gordon used some rubbing to make the winning pass and deny Busch a three-race weekend sweep.
"I think he was on a mission today, and when Jeff Gordon has a good car and he has the opportunity to beat you, he's going to beat you," Busch said. "There's no doubt about that. He's my hero and I've always watched him and what he's been able to accomplish over the years. It's no surprise that he beat us."
If you don't think that sounds like typical Busch, join the club. But the driver known as "Rowdy" offered plenty of praise for Gordon while good-naturedly noting he barely missed out on repeating the history he achieved at Bristol last summer.
"There's always that one car that's got to ruin the whole weekend," Busch said with a smile, "and it had to be the 24 car."
Perhaps it's because Gordon had a faster car than Busch and would have passed him anyway – even without the nudge that allowed the No. 24 car to take the lead.
"He was gaining on me really good, and I knew he was going to get to me eventually," Busch said. "...He just drifted up a little bit into me and knocked me out of the way.
"But it don't matter. He had a fast enough car. Either way, he (would) have won ... It has nothing to do with how he won."
Busch had bigger problems to worry about than starting a rivalry with Gordon, anyway. He angered Carl Edwards early in the race by trying to a take a spot that didn't belong to him, which triggered a multi-car wreck and damaged Edwards' car.
Though Busch apologized profusely throughout the race, Edwards didn't seem to care. He kept "playing" with Busch by holding him up several times for the rest of the day.
"He was mad, for sure; he was frustrated, definitely," Busch said. "You can see that entirely out there the whole rest of the race. Anytime I got within five car lengths of his rear bumper, he would start checking up early, getting into the corners and slowing down and getting more space between me and the other guys.
"Finally, after about 20 laps of that, he let me go. It was weird. He just he was playing."
Busch said he hoped to speak with Edwards and move beyond the incident, especially given how the two raced one another cleanly in Saturday's Nationwide Series race.
"I made a mistake today – I've admitted that, again and again," Busch said. "Hopefully we can get past this and go on. ... It was just a mistake on my part."
The Ultimate Fighter 3 winner has faced many challengers in the UFC and has proven himself as a contender. He is beloved in Great Britain and has many adoring fans; but just one problem when it comes to the fans in North America: they hate him.
Why is he so despised in one side of the world and so beloved on the other? We speculate on why he is both loved and hated and come up with several reasons why.
Why Michael Bisping is loved?
In no uncertain terms, British fight fans love fights whether it is boxing or mix martial arts. What has happened since Michael Bisping winning the Ultimate Fighter is an explosion of interest in MMA and several gyms opening.
What has also occurred is the UFC bringing their brand over to London, England, and introducing a whole lot of fans to the UFC experience. For that, the fans love him and the fact that he is bombastic and unapologetic with his trash talking of his opponents.
In 23 fights, he has 20 wins. So more often than not, Bisping has established himself as a title contender in the 185 pound division. As the face of British MMA, he carries the hope of a nation on his shoulders and carries it with intense pride and passion for his country.
Why is Michael Bisping hated?
What has made Michael Bisping hated in North America started through no fault of his own. After winning the Ultimate Fighter, he was and quite popular. That all changed when he fought Matt Hamill and most observers felt he lost even though the judges awarded him a decision.
That fight happened to be in London, England, and most fans thought if the fight had taken place in North America, that he would not have received a’ “hometown decision.”
It did not help matters that Bisping thought the decision was fair and that the idea of fighting Hamill again was not even a consideration. From there, his trash talking ways and tough guy persona attitude rubbed most fans here in North America the wrong way and most feel as though for someone to talk as tough as he does that he should fight that way.
Although 16 of his 20 wins he has been victorious by KO or submission, in most of his fights he relies on his footwork and speed instead of getting into toe to toe exchanges.
Bisping style is a conservative defensive minded style that is not exactly crowd pleasing. His personality is someone who is unapologetic and he genuinely believes that every loss he has had was a decision that he should have been rewarded (minus the Henderson fight in which he was clearly KO’d).
His trash talk of beloved American fighter Dan Henderson made the dislike for Bisping even more heightened.
Is Michael Bisping a true contender?
Let’s rattle off a list of opponents that he has faced; Akiyama, Leben, Miller, Silva, Henderson, Hamill, Evans, and Kang. Out of that list, he has lost to three (two of which are really light heavyweights in Henderson and Evans.
He is a true contender. His losses have been by close decision as has his wins. He has very good submission defense and his true strength is his ability to box on his toes and display very good ground and pound (ask Denis Kang).
Although he is both hated and liked with fans across the world one thing for sure with Michael Bisping is its good for business. As legendary baseball great Ty cobb would say: “Stadiums would fill across the league just to boo him.’’
The same goes with Bisping in Canada and the United States as fans go to watch him get knocked out. We buy the pay per view in hoping he loses. All in all it’s good for business and when it comes to hating him, business is good
The Ultimate Fighter 3 winner has faced many challengers in the UFC and has proven himself as a contender. He is beloved in Great Britain and has many adoring fans; but just one problem when it comes to the fans in North America: they hate him.
Why is he so despised in one side of the world and so beloved on the other? We speculate on why he is both loved and hated and come up with several reasons why.
Why Michael Bisping is loved?
In no uncertain terms, British fight fans love fights whether it is boxing or mix martial arts. What has happened since Michael Bisping winning the Ultimate Fighter is an explosion of interest in MMA and several gyms opening.
What has also occurred is the UFC bringing their brand over to London, England, and introducing a whole lot of fans to the UFC experience. For that, the fans love him and the fact that he is bombastic and unapologetic with his trash talking of his opponents.
In 23 fights, he has 20 wins. So more often than not, Bisping has established himself as a title contender in the 185 pound division. As the face of British MMA, he carries the hope of a nation on his shoulders and carries it with intense pride and passion for his country.
Why is Michael Bisping hated?
What has made Michael Bisping hated in North America started through no fault of his own. After winning the Ultimate Fighter, he was and quite popular. That all changed when he fought Matt Hamill and most observers felt he lost even though the judges awarded him a decision.
That fight happened to be in London, England, and most fans thought if the fight had taken place in North America, that he would not have received a’ “hometown decision.”
It did not help matters that Bisping thought the decision was fair and that the idea of fighting Hamill again was not even a consideration. From there, his trash talking ways and tough guy persona attitude rubbed most fans here in North America the wrong way and most feel as though for someone to talk as tough as he does that he should fight that way.
Although 16 of his 20 wins he has been victorious by KO or submission, in most of his fights he relies on his footwork and speed instead of getting into toe to toe exchanges.
Bisping style is a conservative defensive minded style that is not exactly crowd pleasing. His personality is someone who is unapologetic and he genuinely believes that every loss he has had was a decision that he should have been rewarded (minus the Henderson fight in which he was clearly KO’d).
His trash talk of beloved American fighter Dan Henderson made the dislike for Bisping even more heightened.
Is Michael Bisping a true contender?
Let’s rattle off a list of opponents that he has faced; Akiyama, Leben, Miller, Silva, Henderson, Hamill, Evans, and Kang. Out of that list, he has lost to three (two of which are really light heavyweights in Henderson and Evans.
He is a true contender. His losses have been by close decision as has his wins. He has very good submission defense and his true strength is his ability to box on his toes and display very good ground and pound (ask Denis Kang).
Although he is both hated and liked with fans across the world one thing for sure with Michael Bisping is its good for business. As legendary baseball great Ty cobb would say: “Stadiums would fill across the league just to boo him.’’
The same goes with Bisping in Canada and the United States as fans go to watch him get knocked out. We buy the pay per view in hoping he loses. All in all it’s good for business and when it comes to hating him, business is good
He is not only a football player. He is an entertainer and an icon.
If that were the case, quarterback Cam Newton might just the perfect player who could make everything right for the Dolphins — a hybrid package of owner-quenching marketability and coach-aiding athletic ability. Too easy, right?
Of course, right.
There’s one considerable problem with that impressive assessment of the NFL Draft’s most intriguing prospect: Newton is the one who said it. About himself.
“I see myself not only as a football player, but an entertainer and icon,” Newton indeed declared during an interview about his latest endorsement deal with Under Armour.
It might not normally be a major issue, but when clumped with the controversies that surrounded a pay-for-play scandal last college football season, it has become an issue for some in NFL circles wondering whether Newton might be an icon … and a headache.
Whether or not the Dolphins were to seriously consider the possibility of drafting Newton (they likely would need to trade up to get him and don’t have much ammunition to do so), it nonetheless illustrates the type of scrutiny that goes into drafting a quarterback.
“To me, it’s huge,” said Falcons general manager Thomas Dimitroff, who invested a third-overall pick in 2008 to select quarterback Matt Ryan. “It was a big part of our interview process with Matt.
“We want him to be the first guy in and the last guy out. We want him to have a presence. We want Matt Ryan to lead the entire team.”
Dimitroff’s homework paid off. But he admits he initially noticed a shaky, nervous Ryan during his first meeting with him at the Scouting Combine three years ago. It’s a warning to all evaluators: Don’t overlook potential flaws — but don’t overanalyze, either.
In the case of this year’s draft, two talented quarterbacks faced a series of badgering questions from hundreds of media members in Indianapolis. As both Newton and Arkansas Ryan Mallett said, the NFL’s 32 teams also put them up to the fire.
“One thing I can say for each an every team is, they keep you on our toes,” Newton said. “I’m eager to know or to try to expect what the next team is going to say or what they are going to have me try to do.”
Mallett is being peppered by teams about recent media allegations of marijuana and cocaine use during college.
He expected as much, even though he said Saturday he would keep those discussions between him and the teams asking him.
Newton, though, wasn’t fully prepared for everything thrown his way.
On Saturday night, ESPN reported Newton became flustered when one assistant coach asked him why he ran a quarterback sneak toward the end of the BCS National Championship rather than take a knee as he was instructed to do.
Sources told the network that Newton became defensive.
A big deal? Again, it’s all in the eyes of the team making the decision to draft him. Newton at least seemed willing to try to explain some of the questions about him — specifically regarding his “icon” comment — during a long media session.
“I understand that my obligation is to be the best possible football player that I can be,” said Newton, reading from a statement. “I know and believe that.”
As teams — including the Dolphins — begin to investigate any potential character concerns surrounding players at a critical position like quarterback, it will be up to many general managers to decide whether they also know and believe Newton.
Because there’s likely to be far less questions about something else — his ability. On Sunday, Newton and Mallett will both run through many drills, throwing passes and demonstrating their foot speed in front of NFL scouts.
Both players have rocket arms. Both players have big-play ability. Both players have the potential to be great NFL football players. But icons? Entertainers? Don’t expect any teams to be drafting based on that.
“You will see me doing everything possible to become the best player I can possibly be,” Newton said.
He is not only a football player. He is an entertainer and an icon.
If that were the case, quarterback Cam Newton might just the perfect player who could make everything right for the Dolphins — a hybrid package of owner-quenching marketability and coach-aiding athletic ability. Too easy, right?
Of course, right.
There’s one considerable problem with that impressive assessment of the NFL Draft’s most intriguing prospect: Newton is the one who said it. About himself.
“I see myself not only as a football player, but an entertainer and icon,” Newton indeed declared during an interview about his latest endorsement deal with Under Armour.
It might not normally be a major issue, but when clumped with the controversies that surrounded a pay-for-play scandal last college football season, it has become an issue for some in NFL circles wondering whether Newton might be an icon … and a headache.
Whether or not the Dolphins were to seriously consider the possibility of drafting Newton (they likely would need to trade up to get him and don’t have much ammunition to do so), it nonetheless illustrates the type of scrutiny that goes into drafting a quarterback.
“To me, it’s huge,” said Falcons general manager Thomas Dimitroff, who invested a third-overall pick in 2008 to select quarterback Matt Ryan. “It was a big part of our interview process with Matt.
“We want him to be the first guy in and the last guy out. We want him to have a presence. We want Matt Ryan to lead the entire team.”
Dimitroff’s homework paid off. But he admits he initially noticed a shaky, nervous Ryan during his first meeting with him at the Scouting Combine three years ago. It’s a warning to all evaluators: Don’t overlook potential flaws — but don’t overanalyze, either.
In the case of this year’s draft, two talented quarterbacks faced a series of badgering questions from hundreds of media members in Indianapolis. As both Newton and Arkansas Ryan Mallett said, the NFL’s 32 teams also put them up to the fire.
“One thing I can say for each an every team is, they keep you on our toes,” Newton said. “I’m eager to know or to try to expect what the next team is going to say or what they are going to have me try to do.”
Mallett is being peppered by teams about recent media allegations of marijuana and cocaine use during college.
He expected as much, even though he said Saturday he would keep those discussions between him and the teams asking him.
Newton, though, wasn’t fully prepared for everything thrown his way.
On Saturday night, ESPN reported Newton became flustered when one assistant coach asked him why he ran a quarterback sneak toward the end of the BCS National Championship rather than take a knee as he was instructed to do.
Sources told the network that Newton became defensive.
A big deal? Again, it’s all in the eyes of the team making the decision to draft him. Newton at least seemed willing to try to explain some of the questions about him — specifically regarding his “icon” comment — during a long media session.
“I understand that my obligation is to be the best possible football player that I can be,” said Newton, reading from a statement. “I know and believe that.”
As teams — including the Dolphins — begin to investigate any potential character concerns surrounding players at a critical position like quarterback, it will be up to many general managers to decide whether they also know and believe Newton.
Because there’s likely to be far less questions about something else — his ability. On Sunday, Newton and Mallett will both run through many drills, throwing passes and demonstrating their foot speed in front of NFL scouts.
Both players have rocket arms. Both players have big-play ability. Both players have the potential to be great NFL football players. But icons? Entertainers? Don’t expect any teams to be drafting based on that.
“You will see me doing everything possible to become the best player I can possibly be,” Newton said.
Top Strikeforce welterweight contender Paul Daley was scheduled to face DEEP welterweight champion Yuya Shirai in Manchester, England on Saturday for the BAMMA welterweight title. The two will now fight in a non-title bout because Daley failed to make the 170-pound limit.
This isn’t the first time Daley has missed weight. He’s made a habit of it recently. At Shark Fights 14, the British striker tipped the scales at 171.75 for a welterweight match up with Jorge Masvidal. He came in at 172-pounds for his UFC 108 bout with Dustin Hazelett. He also missed weight in a pair of Maximum Fighting Championship bouts in 2008 and 2009.
Strikeforce CEO Scott Coker has said if Daley defeats Shirai that he’ll likely face Strikeforce welterweight titleholder Nick Diaz next. There’s been no word on whether missing weight for this fight will affect a potential Strikeforce title shot.
Daley had a three-fight stint in the UFC, defeating Martin Kampmann and Dustin Hazelett before being cut after a loss to Josh Koscheck. Daley punched Koscheck following the fight prompting the UFC to hand him his walking papers.
Top Strikeforce welterweight contender Paul Daley was scheduled to face DEEP welterweight champion Yuya Shirai in Manchester, England on Saturday for the BAMMA welterweight title. The two will now fight in a non-title bout because Daley failed to make the 170-pound limit.
This isn’t the first time Daley has missed weight. He’s made a habit of it recently. At Shark Fights 14, the British striker tipped the scales at 171.75 for a welterweight match up with Jorge Masvidal. He came in at 172-pounds for his UFC 108 bout with Dustin Hazelett. He also missed weight in a pair of Maximum Fighting Championship bouts in 2008 and 2009.
Strikeforce CEO Scott Coker has said if Daley defeats Shirai that he’ll likely face Strikeforce welterweight titleholder Nick Diaz next. There’s been no word on whether missing weight for this fight will affect a potential Strikeforce title shot.
Daley had a three-fight stint in the UFC, defeating Martin Kampmann and Dustin Hazelett before being cut after a loss to Josh Koscheck. Daley punched Koscheck following the fight prompting the UFC to hand him his walking papers.
It had the best of times. It had the worst of times. Naturally, we're talking about Sam Winchester's hair on "Supernatural." Not since Rachel's ever-changing hairstyles on "Friends" has a TV character's follicles caused so much commotion.
Zap2it spent the weekend with the stars of "Supernatural" at Creation Entertainment's Salute to Supernatural event in Los Angeles, where Sam's much-debated coif was finally brought to Jared Padalecki's attention. (Contrary to popular belief, the sideburns can't speak on their own.)
When asked why Sam's hair has changed as much as his personality throughout the six seasons, Padalecki laughs and says, "I don't know. I think it just changed and grew as Sam changed and grew."
When the show first began, Sam was merely a college student at Stanford looking to get into law school and his hair reflected his innocence and youth. "They wanted Dean to have short hair and Sam to have long hair, they really did," he explains. "But the bangs, I think they thought they looked young."
As the seasons wore on and many miles were added to the Impala, Sam's hair grew longer and fans said goodbye to the "Gilmore Girls" era bangs. "I think they wanted me to look a little bit older, because that's younger. Who knows? Maybe it will [go back to how it was before]. I don't know."
We know each and every "Supernatural" fan has their favorite Sam look, so we compiled hairstyles from each season to find, out once and for all, which of Sam's looks is the most popular. (In clockwise order starting on the top left: Season 1, Season 2, Season 3, Season 6, Season 5 and Season 4.)
It had the best of times. It had the worst of times. Naturally, we're talking about Sam Winchester's hair on "Supernatural." Not since Rachel's ever-changing hairstyles on "Friends" has a TV character's follicles caused so much commotion.
Zap2it spent the weekend with the stars of "Supernatural" at Creation Entertainment's Salute to Supernatural event in Los Angeles, where Sam's much-debated coif was finally brought to Jared Padalecki's attention. (Contrary to popular belief, the sideburns can't speak on their own.)
When asked why Sam's hair has changed as much as his personality throughout the six seasons, Padalecki laughs and says, "I don't know. I think it just changed and grew as Sam changed and grew."
When the show first began, Sam was merely a college student at Stanford looking to get into law school and his hair reflected his innocence and youth. "They wanted Dean to have short hair and Sam to have long hair, they really did," he explains. "But the bangs, I think they thought they looked young."
As the seasons wore on and many miles were added to the Impala, Sam's hair grew longer and fans said goodbye to the "Gilmore Girls" era bangs. "I think they wanted me to look a little bit older, because that's younger. Who knows? Maybe it will [go back to how it was before]. I don't know."
We know each and every "Supernatural" fan has their favorite Sam look, so we compiled hairstyles from each season to find, out once and for all, which of Sam's looks is the most popular. (In clockwise order starting on the top left: Season 1, Season 2, Season 3, Season 6, Season 5 and Season 4.)
Diana Ross appeared on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" this afternoon in honor of the talk show host's farewell season, but she didn't come alone. The Supreme diva brought all five of her children — daughters Rhonda Ross Kendrick (her daughter by Berry Gordy Jr.), Tracee Ellis Ross and Chudney Ross, sons Ross Arne Naess and Evan Ross — as well as her first grandchild, Raif Henok Emmanuel Kendrick, Rhonda's son.
The show started with a date flashing across the screen, "Dec. 27, 1964" — the day Oprah saw Ross and the Supremes on "The Ed Sullivan Show." For a 10-year-old Oprah Winfrey to see three young girls who looked like her on television changed her life, she said tearfully.
Ross, a Detroit native and graduate of Cass Technical High School who turns 67 on March 26, looked as glamorous as fans would hope. Her billowing waves of curly hair were only slightly shorter than in the past and she was garbed in an off-the-shoulder black sheath dress accented by a dazzling diamond necklace.
Oprah played old black-and-white videos of the Supremes, asking Ross, "Did you feel then that you'd made it?"
"No, we felt we were still growing, we were just three little black girls from Detroit," Ross confessed. Then later, when did she feel she'd made it?
"Never," Ross insisted. "I've never been that confident."
The singer and her offspring appeared in a video they made in Oprah's honor, which showed them clowning around in a tropical location, pretending to wake up and lip-synching to Ross' song "I Love You." Skewering her glamorous image, Ross appeared in rollers and reading glasses.
The singer revealed her late ex-husband, Norwegian mogul Arne Naess, father of her two sons, was the love of her life. The two had divorced after being married for a dozen years, then Naess died in a climbing accident four years later, in 2004.
It was difficult for her husband that Ross preferred to live in the U.S., while he was in Norway, she said. "But I've never been able to collapse myself totally into a relationship — I've always had to be me."
The two biggest highlights of Ross' career: being nominated for an Academy Award for her role as Billie Holiday in 1972's "Lady Sings the Blues" (co-star Billy Dee Williams was a surprise guest), and meeting South Africa's Nelson Mandela.
She also addressed the oft-repeated story that she imperiously demands to be called "Miss Ross." Ross explained that when she was growing up and first starting out at Motown, it was considered proper for younger people to address their elders that way. "But I don't demand it," she said. "I like it, though."
Son Evan, who has an album coming out in a few months, admitted that people sometimes mistake him for his mother's bodyguard since he often accompanies her to events.
"But I don't know if I could actually do anything if I had to," he joked.
Ross closed out the hour-long show with the transcendent Ashford & Simpson number "Ain't No Mountain High Enough," a song that closed out her reign with the Supremes, just before she went solo in 1970.
Ross is just launching a 17-city tour — no Detroit date, but she was just here in May 2010. Would she ever retire, Oprah asked? "Maybe," Ross said, to protests from the audience. "If my voice changed, if I couldn't sound like myself, I wouldn't want to perform."
Diana Ross appeared on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" this afternoon in honor of the talk show host's farewell season, but she didn't come alone. The Supreme diva brought all five of her children — daughters Rhonda Ross Kendrick (her daughter by Berry Gordy Jr.), Tracee Ellis Ross and Chudney Ross, sons Ross Arne Naess and Evan Ross — as well as her first grandchild, Raif Henok Emmanuel Kendrick, Rhonda's son.
The show started with a date flashing across the screen, "Dec. 27, 1964" — the day Oprah saw Ross and the Supremes on "The Ed Sullivan Show." For a 10-year-old Oprah Winfrey to see three young girls who looked like her on television changed her life, she said tearfully.
Ross, a Detroit native and graduate of Cass Technical High School who turns 67 on March 26, looked as glamorous as fans would hope. Her billowing waves of curly hair were only slightly shorter than in the past and she was garbed in an off-the-shoulder black sheath dress accented by a dazzling diamond necklace.
Oprah played old black-and-white videos of the Supremes, asking Ross, "Did you feel then that you'd made it?"
"No, we felt we were still growing, we were just three little black girls from Detroit," Ross confessed. Then later, when did she feel she'd made it?
"Never," Ross insisted. "I've never been that confident."
The singer and her offspring appeared in a video they made in Oprah's honor, which showed them clowning around in a tropical location, pretending to wake up and lip-synching to Ross' song "I Love You." Skewering her glamorous image, Ross appeared in rollers and reading glasses.
The singer revealed her late ex-husband, Norwegian mogul Arne Naess, father of her two sons, was the love of her life. The two had divorced after being married for a dozen years, then Naess died in a climbing accident four years later, in 2004.
It was difficult for her husband that Ross preferred to live in the U.S., while he was in Norway, she said. "But I've never been able to collapse myself totally into a relationship — I've always had to be me."
The two biggest highlights of Ross' career: being nominated for an Academy Award for her role as Billie Holiday in 1972's "Lady Sings the Blues" (co-star Billy Dee Williams was a surprise guest), and meeting South Africa's Nelson Mandela.
She also addressed the oft-repeated story that she imperiously demands to be called "Miss Ross." Ross explained that when she was growing up and first starting out at Motown, it was considered proper for younger people to address their elders that way. "But I don't demand it," she said. "I like it, though."
Son Evan, who has an album coming out in a few months, admitted that people sometimes mistake him for his mother's bodyguard since he often accompanies her to events.
"But I don't know if I could actually do anything if I had to," he joked.
Ross closed out the hour-long show with the transcendent Ashford & Simpson number "Ain't No Mountain High Enough," a song that closed out her reign with the Supremes, just before she went solo in 1970.
Ross is just launching a 17-city tour — no Detroit date, but she was just here in May 2010. Would she ever retire, Oprah asked? "Maybe," Ross said, to protests from the audience. "If my voice changed, if I couldn't sound like myself, I wouldn't want to perform."
Charlie Sheen's rant heard 'round the Internet already caused the production on 'Two and a Half Men' to shut down, but that's just the beginning of the aftermath.
We all knew that this was going to happen, but we didn't know it was going to happen in such an entertaining way.
As my fellow Squadder Mo Ryan reported yesterday, production on 'Two and a Half Men' was shut down for the season over what CBS called "the totality of Charlie Sheen's statements, conduct and condition," which was likely code for "he's gone off the deep end and we can't deal with it anymore."
Given his latest statements to TMZ and the Alex Jones radio show, many of which were directly aimed at "Chaim Levine," a not-so-subtle and vaguely anti-Semitic reference to producer Chuck Lorre's given name, CBS and Warner Brothers really had no choice.
But the early shutdown of Sheen's mega-hit sitcom leads to a ton of other questions, not the least of which is: Is this the end of 'Two and a Half Men?'
Is this the end for 'Two and a Half Men?'
Unless Sheen completely breaks down -- or worse -- between now and 'Men's' eighth-season start date in July, it doesn't seem like either CBS or Warner Bros. is willing to shut production down completely, and it all comes down to the almighty dollar.
Sheen's contracted through an eighth season; any buyout they may try to negotiate with him would seem like a waste of money, because it would be almost as much as what they'd pay him to do the show. And, within Sheen's latest rants, he's always expressed a willingness to work, as he mentioned in his first interview with Dan Patrick last week. "They said, 'You get ready, we'll get ready," and I got ready, went back and nobody's there."
Besides, the show makes both the network and WB bucketfulls of money; according to Lacey Rose at Forbes, 'Men' was the second only to 'American Idol' in generating advertising revenue in 2010. And Warners is making a mint on the show in syndication and other avenues; even with the show's increased cost in its later seasons, the syndication package gives them incentive to keep the show going.
Could CBS and WB replace Sheen with another star?
It's possible, given how much money the show makes for CBS and Warners. A new star wouldn't be that much more expensive than the $1.2 million per episode that Sheen was making.
And for those who say that no one can replace Sheen on the show, then you're not remembering recent Hollywood history. Sheen himself replaced the very popular Michael J. Fox on 'Spin City' a decade or so ago, when Fox had to bow out due to Parkinson's disease. No one though the show would do well because it was centered around Fox, but the show ended up running two more seasons because the writers managed to figure out how to keep the show going without its star.
The same thing is happening this season as Steve Carell makes his way out of 'The Office.' It may not be the ideal way to produce a show, but where there's a will -- and lots of dollar signs involved -- there's a way.
Will the crew get paid for the unproduced episodes?
Even though the Hollywood Reporter reported that Sheen and the rest of the cast won't be getting paid for the four episodes that ended up being cancelled -- and remember, that was cut from the original eight that was left when Sheen initially went off on his most recent bender -- all of those people are doing just fine. It's the crew that people should worry about.
These are people who make middle-class wages, and they depend on the shows they're working on being in production for them to get paid. Remember when Conan abruptly quit 'The Tonight Show' last year? When he exited, he not only negotiated pay for a lot of his crew, but he paid those who weren't covered by the agreement out of his own pocket.
Sheen's rants indicate that he blames Lorre for shutting down the show -- "That piece of s--t took money out of my pocket, my family's pocket, and, most importantly, my second family -- my crew's pocket," he wrote to TMZ -- so there doesn't seem to be any indication that Sheen is willing to foot the bill for the crew, though there's still a possibility he could do that.
Aside from Sheen being found dead in a Vegas hotel room, the biggest threat to 'Men' continuting is actually the status of the crew. If they don't get paid for a third of the season, as it stands now, they'll have to find work elsewhere. If enough of them move on to other projects, would CBS, Lorre and WB be willing to risk their money-making franchise on a largely new crew?
Is Sheen going to HBO?
Sheen texted Radar Online that he's going to be negotiating a contract with HBO to do a show called 'Sheen's Corner' for what Sheen claims is $5 million per episode.
"It will be epic, all types of guests and we will focus on the truth and the absurd!" he told the Radar reporter in what sounds like more of a show Sheen's conceived in his head rather than an actual show.
HBO has denied that it's in talks with Sheen, but that might mean that they just can't talk because he's still under contract for 'Men.' However, this does seem like there's more than an even chance that 'Sheen's Corner' is more of a hallucinatory fantasy on Sheen's part than an actual show. It could also be Sheen making a sardonic and cryptic joke. But you never know in Hollywood.
What really went on behind the scenes on 'Men?'
Lorre has had to deal with difficult stars before, from Roseanne Barr to Cybill Shepherd to Brett Butler (in fact, he dealt with them all right in a row, an ordeal he's documented and spoken about many times), and Sheen seems like he's part of that group. But for most of 'Men's' run, it seemed like the agita Sheen was giving Lorre was due more to his off-the-set behavior and not the on-the-set divaishness that Lorre experienced with the other three stars. Every report you heard from Lorre and CBS was that Sheen was on-time, professional, did his job and never showed up to work drunk or hung over.
But Sheen's latest rants, where he calls Lorre a "contaminated little maggot," among other insults, makes you wonder what was really going on behind the scenes. This anger for Lorre doesn't seem to come from simple anger over Lorre refusing to restart production. This sounds like some repressed anger and resentment bubbling over, Mel Gibson-style.
This statement in particular, from his call to Alex Jones' radio show, indicates how Sheen has felt about who's the real creative force behind the show: "Last I checked, Chaim, I spent close to the last decade effortlessly and magically converting your tin cans into pure gold. And the gratitude I get is this charlatan chose not to do his job, which is to write."
Is this the end of Lorre's famous vanity cards?
Anyone who's followed Lorre's shows, starting with 'Dharma & Greg,' knows about Lorre's vanity card, shown at the end of every episode of every show he produces. It was usually different almost every time out; some of them would have Lorre's musings on life, some would have a joke, and others would have his ruminations on being part of the television-industrial complex.
But he's also used these vanity cards to take shots at Sheen, including the recent one where he stated how healthy he lives and concluded "If Charlie Sheen outlives me, I'm gonna be really pissed."
Monday night, however, he decided that it was time to stop writing these cards for the time being. "These days it seems like every vanity card is getting scrutinized and criticized by network executives, corporate legal departments and publicity departments, TV journalists and tabloid bloggers," he wrote, saying that for now he'll just post pictures of innocuous parts of his body, like an elbow or his hand.
Lorre's vanity cards were one of the most interesting parts of his shows, and have gained a following of their own, mainly because of the insights they gave into the entertainment business and the psyche of a successful TV producer. Let's hope that Sheen hasn't dissuaded Lorre from abandoning them completely.
Tell us: What questions do you have about the Charlie Sheen mess?
Charlie Sheen's rant heard 'round the Internet already caused the production on 'Two and a Half Men' to shut down, but that's just the beginning of the aftermath.
We all knew that this was going to happen, but we didn't know it was going to happen in such an entertaining way.
As my fellow Squadder Mo Ryan reported yesterday, production on 'Two and a Half Men' was shut down for the season over what CBS called "the totality of Charlie Sheen's statements, conduct and condition," which was likely code for "he's gone off the deep end and we can't deal with it anymore."
Given his latest statements to TMZ and the Alex Jones radio show, many of which were directly aimed at "Chaim Levine," a not-so-subtle and vaguely anti-Semitic reference to producer Chuck Lorre's given name, CBS and Warner Brothers really had no choice.
But the early shutdown of Sheen's mega-hit sitcom leads to a ton of other questions, not the least of which is: Is this the end of 'Two and a Half Men?'
Is this the end for 'Two and a Half Men?'
Unless Sheen completely breaks down -- or worse -- between now and 'Men's' eighth-season start date in July, it doesn't seem like either CBS or Warner Bros. is willing to shut production down completely, and it all comes down to the almighty dollar.
Sheen's contracted through an eighth season; any buyout they may try to negotiate with him would seem like a waste of money, because it would be almost as much as what they'd pay him to do the show. And, within Sheen's latest rants, he's always expressed a willingness to work, as he mentioned in his first interview with Dan Patrick last week. "They said, 'You get ready, we'll get ready," and I got ready, went back and nobody's there."
Besides, the show makes both the network and WB bucketfulls of money; according to Lacey Rose at Forbes, 'Men' was the second only to 'American Idol' in generating advertising revenue in 2010. And Warners is making a mint on the show in syndication and other avenues; even with the show's increased cost in its later seasons, the syndication package gives them incentive to keep the show going.
Could CBS and WB replace Sheen with another star?
It's possible, given how much money the show makes for CBS and Warners. A new star wouldn't be that much more expensive than the $1.2 million per episode that Sheen was making.
And for those who say that no one can replace Sheen on the show, then you're not remembering recent Hollywood history. Sheen himself replaced the very popular Michael J. Fox on 'Spin City' a decade or so ago, when Fox had to bow out due to Parkinson's disease. No one though the show would do well because it was centered around Fox, but the show ended up running two more seasons because the writers managed to figure out how to keep the show going without its star.
The same thing is happening this season as Steve Carell makes his way out of 'The Office.' It may not be the ideal way to produce a show, but where there's a will -- and lots of dollar signs involved -- there's a way.
Will the crew get paid for the unproduced episodes?
Even though the Hollywood Reporter reported that Sheen and the rest of the cast won't be getting paid for the four episodes that ended up being cancelled -- and remember, that was cut from the original eight that was left when Sheen initially went off on his most recent bender -- all of those people are doing just fine. It's the crew that people should worry about.
These are people who make middle-class wages, and they depend on the shows they're working on being in production for them to get paid. Remember when Conan abruptly quit 'The Tonight Show' last year? When he exited, he not only negotiated pay for a lot of his crew, but he paid those who weren't covered by the agreement out of his own pocket.
Sheen's rants indicate that he blames Lorre for shutting down the show -- "That piece of s--t took money out of my pocket, my family's pocket, and, most importantly, my second family -- my crew's pocket," he wrote to TMZ -- so there doesn't seem to be any indication that Sheen is willing to foot the bill for the crew, though there's still a possibility he could do that.
Aside from Sheen being found dead in a Vegas hotel room, the biggest threat to 'Men' continuting is actually the status of the crew. If they don't get paid for a third of the season, as it stands now, they'll have to find work elsewhere. If enough of them move on to other projects, would CBS, Lorre and WB be willing to risk their money-making franchise on a largely new crew?
Is Sheen going to HBO?
Sheen texted Radar Online that he's going to be negotiating a contract with HBO to do a show called 'Sheen's Corner' for what Sheen claims is $5 million per episode.
"It will be epic, all types of guests and we will focus on the truth and the absurd!" he told the Radar reporter in what sounds like more of a show Sheen's conceived in his head rather than an actual show.
HBO has denied that it's in talks with Sheen, but that might mean that they just can't talk because he's still under contract for 'Men.' However, this does seem like there's more than an even chance that 'Sheen's Corner' is more of a hallucinatory fantasy on Sheen's part than an actual show. It could also be Sheen making a sardonic and cryptic joke. But you never know in Hollywood.
What really went on behind the scenes on 'Men?'
Lorre has had to deal with difficult stars before, from Roseanne Barr to Cybill Shepherd to Brett Butler (in fact, he dealt with them all right in a row, an ordeal he's documented and spoken about many times), and Sheen seems like he's part of that group. But for most of 'Men's' run, it seemed like the agita Sheen was giving Lorre was due more to his off-the-set behavior and not the on-the-set divaishness that Lorre experienced with the other three stars. Every report you heard from Lorre and CBS was that Sheen was on-time, professional, did his job and never showed up to work drunk or hung over.
But Sheen's latest rants, where he calls Lorre a "contaminated little maggot," among other insults, makes you wonder what was really going on behind the scenes. This anger for Lorre doesn't seem to come from simple anger over Lorre refusing to restart production. This sounds like some repressed anger and resentment bubbling over, Mel Gibson-style.
This statement in particular, from his call to Alex Jones' radio show, indicates how Sheen has felt about who's the real creative force behind the show: "Last I checked, Chaim, I spent close to the last decade effortlessly and magically converting your tin cans into pure gold. And the gratitude I get is this charlatan chose not to do his job, which is to write."
Is this the end of Lorre's famous vanity cards?
Anyone who's followed Lorre's shows, starting with 'Dharma & Greg,' knows about Lorre's vanity card, shown at the end of every episode of every show he produces. It was usually different almost every time out; some of them would have Lorre's musings on life, some would have a joke, and others would have his ruminations on being part of the television-industrial complex.
But he's also used these vanity cards to take shots at Sheen, including the recent one where he stated how healthy he lives and concluded "If Charlie Sheen outlives me, I'm gonna be really pissed."
Monday night, however, he decided that it was time to stop writing these cards for the time being. "These days it seems like every vanity card is getting scrutinized and criticized by network executives, corporate legal departments and publicity departments, TV journalists and tabloid bloggers," he wrote, saying that for now he'll just post pictures of innocuous parts of his body, like an elbow or his hand.
Lorre's vanity cards were one of the most interesting parts of his shows, and have gained a following of their own, mainly because of the insights they gave into the entertainment business and the psyche of a successful TV producer. Let's hope that Sheen hasn't dissuaded Lorre from abandoning them completely.
Tell us: What questions do you have about the Charlie Sheen mess?
ORLANDO, Fla. -- Kendrick Perkins is a member of the Oklahoma City Thunder today because patience lined up perfectly with the moment Boston knew it was in a bad spot.
Quality big men, especially those still in their mid-20s, rarely get traded. But the Thunder was able to capitalize when the suddenly cost-conscious Celtics realized they would have difficulty re-signing Perkins.
The Jeff Green/Nenad Krstic swap for Perkins/Nate Robinson then became a steal.
Boston is shelling out more than $80 million in player salaries this season. That's more than $20 million over the salary cap and more than $10 million above the luxury tax threshold.
The prospects of a lowered salary cap, and possibly a hard cap, in a renegotiated collective bargaining agreement quite likely would have prevented the Celtics from bringing back Perkins, an unrestricted free agent this summer. With a roster that includes a quartet of All-Stars in Rajon Rondo, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett, Boston's payroll is already upward of $70 million for next season.
Boston's bind was evident in the four-year $22 million extension it recently offered Perkins, a deal Perkins turned down because it would have been far below his market value.
There are other reasons. The Celtics have a pair of O'Neal's, Shaquille and Jermaine, on the roster, so size isn't a problem. And Boston perhaps figured it would need more versatility for another postseason series against teams such as Miami, Chicago and San Antonio rather than a surplus of size for potential matchups with teams like Orlando and the Los Angeles Lakers.
Add it all up, and Perkins became Boston's sacrificial lamb, shipped to Oklahoma City to become the Thunder's long-awaited legitimate center.
But the blockbuster began to crystallize for the Thunder back in the fall.
When Oklahoma City couldn't reach an agreement with Green on an extension to his rookie deal before the Nov. 1 deadline, Green became trade bait. And while the Thunder's front office loved Green's skill set and professionalism, the continued emergence of Serge Ibaka made Green an increasingly intriguing pawn in the search for a bona fide big man.
What's more, the Thunder faced the risk of losing Green altogether in free agency next summer. Green will be a restricted free agent, which would have given the Thunder the right to match any offer. But had another team laid out a high-dollar deal, it would have been the Thunder that was in the bad spot.
Either OKC would have had to decline to match and lose Green or match and flirt with the even more detrimental reality of overpaying for his services. The latter option could have restricted the franchise's ability to lock up Ibaka, Russell Westbrook and James Harden.
It's still unknown how far apart the Thunder and Green's camp were in negotiations. But Thursday's trade is a good indication that management had real questions about whether the team could keep him.
When the opportunity to add a player of Perkins' caliber came along, the deal became a no-brainer.
ORLANDO, Fla. -- Kendrick Perkins is a member of the Oklahoma City Thunder today because patience lined up perfectly with the moment Boston knew it was in a bad spot.
Quality big men, especially those still in their mid-20s, rarely get traded. But the Thunder was able to capitalize when the suddenly cost-conscious Celtics realized they would have difficulty re-signing Perkins.
The Jeff Green/Nenad Krstic swap for Perkins/Nate Robinson then became a steal.
Boston is shelling out more than $80 million in player salaries this season. That's more than $20 million over the salary cap and more than $10 million above the luxury tax threshold.
The prospects of a lowered salary cap, and possibly a hard cap, in a renegotiated collective bargaining agreement quite likely would have prevented the Celtics from bringing back Perkins, an unrestricted free agent this summer. With a roster that includes a quartet of All-Stars in Rajon Rondo, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett, Boston's payroll is already upward of $70 million for next season.
Boston's bind was evident in the four-year $22 million extension it recently offered Perkins, a deal Perkins turned down because it would have been far below his market value.
There are other reasons. The Celtics have a pair of O'Neal's, Shaquille and Jermaine, on the roster, so size isn't a problem. And Boston perhaps figured it would need more versatility for another postseason series against teams such as Miami, Chicago and San Antonio rather than a surplus of size for potential matchups with teams like Orlando and the Los Angeles Lakers.
Add it all up, and Perkins became Boston's sacrificial lamb, shipped to Oklahoma City to become the Thunder's long-awaited legitimate center.
But the blockbuster began to crystallize for the Thunder back in the fall.
When Oklahoma City couldn't reach an agreement with Green on an extension to his rookie deal before the Nov. 1 deadline, Green became trade bait. And while the Thunder's front office loved Green's skill set and professionalism, the continued emergence of Serge Ibaka made Green an increasingly intriguing pawn in the search for a bona fide big man.
What's more, the Thunder faced the risk of losing Green altogether in free agency next summer. Green will be a restricted free agent, which would have given the Thunder the right to match any offer. But had another team laid out a high-dollar deal, it would have been the Thunder that was in the bad spot.
Either OKC would have had to decline to match and lose Green or match and flirt with the even more detrimental reality of overpaying for his services. The latter option could have restricted the franchise's ability to lock up Ibaka, Russell Westbrook and James Harden.
It's still unknown how far apart the Thunder and Green's camp were in negotiations. But Thursday's trade is a good indication that management had real questions about whether the team could keep him.
When the opportunity to add a player of Perkins' caliber came along, the deal became a no-brainer.
The Phoenix Suns second unit has been a sore spot this season after being one of the points of pride through the team's Western Conference Playoff run. A ton of different guys have rotated in and out of the line up and played a variety of roles but the one constant was backup point guard Goran Dragic.
Dragic is -- was -- the visible face of the bench unit. He was the guy who signified the time when team went from the MVP-hands of Steve Nash to someone else.
With Dragic at the wheel, the Suns were a horrible -16.6 in plus/minus. Of course, the Suns were also a +11 when Dragic was on the court with Vince Carter, Channing Frye, Marcin Gortat and Jared Dudley. And the team was -19 when he was on the court with a slightly different group of players that included Hakim Warrick and Josh Childress.
Does that mean Goran Dragic was the source of all the Suns' second unit woes?
With Aaron Brooks stepping in, we are about to find out if the season-long struggles were the result of Dragic's poor play. Or perhaps there were more issues at work that didn't show up quite so glaringly as the contrast between the two-time MVP and the third-year player.
In comes Brooks who won the 2009-10 Most Improved Player award by following up fairly unimpressive rookie and sophomore seasons with a big year as the Houston Rockets starting point guard last season.
Brooks averaged 19.6 points per game and shot 39.8 percent from three. He frequently put up huge nights with 10 games with over 30 points. Of course, like most players, he had his off nights too, including 11 nights with 10 points or less.
What's notable about Brook's "great" season last year -- kind of like Goran Dragic's plus/minus numbers -- were the teammates he played with. He was sharing a lot of court time for most of the season with offensively-challenged players like Chuck Hayes, Trevor Ariza and Shane Battier which gave him plenty of opportunities to score.
Brooks took 16.2 shots per game which is about two fewer than LeBron James and slightly more than Amare Stoudemire. Unfortunately, his shooting efficiency didn't justify that many attempts as he struggled to score in the paint due to his small size and showed little ability to make up for that with a decent mid-range game.
As a point guard, Brooks didn't do much to set up his teammates either. Steve Nash had an assist rate (percent of possessions that ended in assists) of 64.8 last year. Brooks' assist rate was 25.62 which was 39th among point guards who averaged over 25 minutes per game.
Brooks proved last season that given enough chances he could score the ball but he didn't do much to set up his teammates. The Brooks-led Rockets failed to make the playoffs and finished 42-40.
This is the guy the Suns have committed to: a high-volume, shoot-first point guard who had one "decent" NBA season followed by a regression this year where he lost his job to Kyle Lowry and has seen his shooting percentages drop to a career-low 34.6 from the field and 28.4 from three.
Brooks Isn't An Experiment
By giving up a young player with upside along with a first round draft pick, the Suns have made it quite clear that they intend to re-sign Brooks who will be a restricted free agent after this season.
Of course, if Brooks does play well over the next 27 games they risk seeing his market value rise while if he continues to play poorly they will be faced with either signing him anyway or letting him go after giving up two valuable assets to get him for the final part of one season. Kind of pickle, really.
Hopefully, Brooks will come in and give the bench the scoring punch it needs and he will recover some of his game that impressed observers so much last season. If not, the Suns front office will have lost a gamble on a guy with a shaky track record.
The Phoenix Suns second unit has been a sore spot this season after being one of the points of pride through the team's Western Conference Playoff run. A ton of different guys have rotated in and out of the line up and played a variety of roles but the one constant was backup point guard Goran Dragic.
Dragic is -- was -- the visible face of the bench unit. He was the guy who signified the time when team went from the MVP-hands of Steve Nash to someone else.
With Dragic at the wheel, the Suns were a horrible -16.6 in plus/minus. Of course, the Suns were also a +11 when Dragic was on the court with Vince Carter, Channing Frye, Marcin Gortat and Jared Dudley. And the team was -19 when he was on the court with a slightly different group of players that included Hakim Warrick and Josh Childress.
Does that mean Goran Dragic was the source of all the Suns' second unit woes?
With Aaron Brooks stepping in, we are about to find out if the season-long struggles were the result of Dragic's poor play. Or perhaps there were more issues at work that didn't show up quite so glaringly as the contrast between the two-time MVP and the third-year player.
In comes Brooks who won the 2009-10 Most Improved Player award by following up fairly unimpressive rookie and sophomore seasons with a big year as the Houston Rockets starting point guard last season.
Brooks averaged 19.6 points per game and shot 39.8 percent from three. He frequently put up huge nights with 10 games with over 30 points. Of course, like most players, he had his off nights too, including 11 nights with 10 points or less.
What's notable about Brook's "great" season last year -- kind of like Goran Dragic's plus/minus numbers -- were the teammates he played with. He was sharing a lot of court time for most of the season with offensively-challenged players like Chuck Hayes, Trevor Ariza and Shane Battier which gave him plenty of opportunities to score.
Brooks took 16.2 shots per game which is about two fewer than LeBron James and slightly more than Amare Stoudemire. Unfortunately, his shooting efficiency didn't justify that many attempts as he struggled to score in the paint due to his small size and showed little ability to make up for that with a decent mid-range game.
As a point guard, Brooks didn't do much to set up his teammates either. Steve Nash had an assist rate (percent of possessions that ended in assists) of 64.8 last year. Brooks' assist rate was 25.62 which was 39th among point guards who averaged over 25 minutes per game.
Brooks proved last season that given enough chances he could score the ball but he didn't do much to set up his teammates. The Brooks-led Rockets failed to make the playoffs and finished 42-40.
This is the guy the Suns have committed to: a high-volume, shoot-first point guard who had one "decent" NBA season followed by a regression this year where he lost his job to Kyle Lowry and has seen his shooting percentages drop to a career-low 34.6 from the field and 28.4 from three.
Brooks Isn't An Experiment
By giving up a young player with upside along with a first round draft pick, the Suns have made it quite clear that they intend to re-sign Brooks who will be a restricted free agent after this season.
Of course, if Brooks does play well over the next 27 games they risk seeing his market value rise while if he continues to play poorly they will be faced with either signing him anyway or letting him go after giving up two valuable assets to get him for the final part of one season. Kind of pickle, really.
Hopefully, Brooks will come in and give the bench the scoring punch it needs and he will recover some of his game that impressed observers so much last season. If not, the Suns front office will have lost a gamble on a guy with a shaky track record.
Natalie Kenly is the latest woman to woo the heart of Charlie Sheen. She’s not a full-on porn star like most of Charlie’s other girlfriends (at least not that we know of yet) but, don’t get excited, she’s just as trashy as they are – in her own way, of course.
Natalie is often featured in Cali Chronic X Magazine, a mag designed for marijuana enthusiasts. In fact, the brunette beauty is so enthusiastic about her pot that she was crowned “Chronic Girl 2010” – add that to the Wikipedia page, b-tches – oh, wait, she’s not popular enough yet to have her own Wikipedia page.
So how did the fairytale love story of Hollywood’s favorite cocaine-crazed star and his pot-smokin’ goddess start in the first place?
Obviously Charlie saw Natalie on the February 2010 cover of Cali Chronic X and was so taken aback by her that he needed to meet her like he needs his 3:30am cocaine fix. Obviously.
It’s true, kids, every fairytale has a happy ending.