Zion Tech Group

Tag: Failed

Joe Biden Failed – Mother Jones
President Joe Biden meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office in July.Andrew Harnik/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

In the early days of the war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, President Joe Biden took some time to congratulate himself on a job well done.

For weeks, his administration had been pursuing a “bear hug” of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: heaping billions in aid on the US ally and insulating it from international diplomatic pressure. The idea was that massive military and public support for Israel would give America leverage over Netanyahu in private meetings. Biden believed this was working. He thought his pushes had slowed Israel’s invasion of Gaza. The president—who had once been famously ridiculed by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates for being “wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades”—bragged by asking an aide about Gates’s comment: Who is wrong now?

The answer then, as today, is clear: Joe Biden was wrong.

His bear hug has been one the biggest foreign policy mistakes in modern American history. It did not give Biden or the US leverage in private. Again and again, Netanyahu ignored Biden’s pleas to change policy. Red lines were drawn that Israel could not cross. Israel crossed them and faced no consequences.

Biden’s incompetence is what has allowed Trump to take a victory lap before even taking office.

Over that time, tens of thousands of people have been killed. And the destruction in Gaza has been so great that many within Biden’s own administration have either quit or admitted to reporters the strategy has totally failed. “This is the human rights atrocity of our time,” a senior US diplomat told ProPublica.

Even more tragically: It was entirely predictable that Biden’s strategy was all but bound to fail miserably. Both as vice president and president, Biden made it obvious that he was there to be played by Netanyahu. The bear hug—along with the near total refusal to hold Netanyahu accountable that went with it—allowed the Israeli prime minister to walk over Biden, time and again.

On Friday, the Israeli security cabinet voted to approve a ceasefire and hostage release deal. It’s expected to pass the full cabinet later on Friday. Hamas supports the agreement, according to the New York Times.

There is already, and will continue to be, debate over who secured a ceasefire deal: Trump or Biden. But early reporting strongly indicates it was the incoming president who made the difference. In Haaretz, Israel’s most prominent progressive newspaper, Amos Harel wrote bluntly, “negotiations would not have reached their final lap without Trump.” He added, “For years, people have been saying that Netanyahu is the sum of all his fears; it turns out that Trump scares him even more, perhaps justifiably so.”

The Washington Post shared a similar perspective from an unnamed diplomat who said the recent negotiations had been “the first time there has been real pressure on the Israeli side to accept a deal.” Biden seemed to push back on Wednesday by saying, “This is the ceasefire agreement I introduced last spring.” Yet, in doing so, he undercut his own point—underlining that it was the person pushing, not the plan, that had changed.

A tracker maintained by Al-Jazeera shows that 17,492 children have been killed since October 7. It means that, on average, Israel’s war has killed more than one child per hour since October 7.

One does not have to reconstrue Trump as a champion of Palestinians and their struggle for sovereignty to accept his role in securing a ceasefire. His record is clear. Trump’s first administration pushed forward a range of hardline pro-Israel policies that sidelined Palestinians—notably moving the US Embassy to Israel and pursuing the Abraham Accords. (Both were continued by the Biden administration.)

Trump has now picked for Ambassador to Israel former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who once said “there’s really no such thing as a Palestinian.” There also isn’t a clear sense of what Netanyahu may have gotten at Palestinians’ and others’ expense in exchange for agreeing to the ceasefire. And from a Palestinian perspective, there are many reasons to be skeptical about how Trump will respond if Israel violates the ceasefire, refuses to take the steps in future phases of the agreement to end the war indefinitely, or takes extreme steps like trying to formally annex parts of the West Bank.

But those caveats should not obscure the fact that it was a Democratic president who so thoroughly failed in pushing Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders to accept a ceasefire deal—and that Biden’s incompetence is what has allowed Trump to take a victory lap before even taking office.

This failure had catastrophic consequences. According to the official death toll, Israel’s onslaught has killed more than 46,000 people in Gaza. Public health researchers estimate the actual death toll, which will only be known after buried bodies after pulled from the omnipresent rubble, is far higher.

A majority of the dead are women, children, and the elderly, according to public health data from the Gaza health ministry, and most of the younger men killed likely had nothing to do with the attack on October 7. A tracker maintained by Al-Jazeera shows that 17,492 children have been killed in Gaza since October 7. It means that, on average, Israel’s war has killed more than one child per hour since October 7. Gazans who have survived—the vast majority of whom are internally displaced—are missing limbs, family and friends, homes, schools, hospitals, and any semblance of a return to a pre-war reality that was itself dominated by a devastating Israeli blockade.

When I spoke this summer with two American doctors who had recently returned from volunteering in Gaza, they had no doubt they had witnessed a genocide. They are not alone in that conclusion. Along with many genocide scholars, including some who are Israeli Jews, both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have since concluded that Israel is guilty of genocide. Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.

The atrocities that Gazans and people across the world have seen for the past 15 months could not have happened without the United States and the billions of dollars in weapons it continues to provide to Israel. If Biden had celebrated the destruction of Gaza, the steady flow of American-made bombs would have been ghoulish but legible. Instead, for the better part of a year, Biden has tried and failed to end the war while funding it.

The reason why was always the same: He refused to use America’s extensive leverage over Israel. Biden reportedly said mean things about Netanyahu behind his back and maybe even sometimes said those things directly to the Israeli prime minister, but he never issued a true ultimatum. He scolded but he did not demand.

This was the worst possible combination. It allowed Netanyahu to help rebuild his domestic political standing by publicly flouting Biden, while also continuing the war with America’s bombs. The overall effect was to allow Israel to flip the table and assume the role of superpower.

Biden’s defenders, of course, tell a different story. Theirs has always been some version of: It could have been worse. For months, they pointed to having prevented Israel from invading Lebanon. Then Israel invaded Lebanon—with the Biden administration offering perplexing tacit support that contradicted its previous position. The potentially positive changes in the region like the decapitation of Hezbollah contributing to the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria have been effectively accidental rather than the result of well-thought-out plans.

Like with former President Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam, meritocrats atop America’s foreign policy establishment facilitated failure. Instead of Secretary of State Dean Rusk and National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, there was Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and senior Middle East adviser Brett McGurk—a former William Rehnquist clerk who went to Iraq in 2004 as a legal adviser to help shape the George W. Bush’s administration’s post-invasion policies in the country.

When it comes to Israel and Gaza, Sullivan is perhaps best known for writing a horrifically timed Foreign Affairs essay that hit newsstands just after October 7. “Indeed,” he claimed in a line excised from the online version of the article, “although the Middle East remains beset with perennial challenges, the region is quieter than it has been for decades.”

Stories like these have minimized or disregarded the many steps these men were taking to stifle dissent within their own government. As ProPublica reported, Blinken rejected the conclusion of two US government bodies that Israel was deliberately blocking humanitarian aid into Gaza. The problem was that American law blocks presidents from providing military assistance to countries that restrict access to US humanitarian assistance. Reality was ignored to keep the weapons flowing.

Like Bundy, who ended up in charge of the Ford Foundation despite his role in dragging America into Vietnam, Sullivan and McGurk have been keen to rehabilitate their images. In a feature in The Atlantic, they are depicted as good men trying to secure that “single day of success” at the negotiating table needed to end the war—only to be stymied by obstacles big and small like McGurk leaving his passport at home on the way to one of his countless failed missions abroad.

Still, it would be a mistake to blame this war primarily on Biden’s staff. The most charitable thing that can be said about them is that they served their boss within the constraints he placed on them. It was Biden, in the end, who decided not to use US leverage. Netanyahu and his staff knew that. As a result, anyone negotiating on the president’s behalf was all but certain to fail. As Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator who is now the president of the US/Middle East Project, said in March, “I think many of us who had very low expectations of the US and of Biden have had a rude awakening as to how much lower the actual performance has been [compared] to even the lowest of low expectations.”

Perhaps most maddeningly, Biden should have known better than almost anyone how Netanyahu would try to manipulate him. As vice president, he had had a front-row seat as the Israeli prime minister tried to tank President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal—including by speaking directly to Congress. Instead of holding Netanyahu accountable during the Obama administration, Biden repeatedly tried to shield him from consequences. As he reportedly once told a Netanyahu aide earlier in the Obama administration, “Just remember that I am your best fucking friend here.”

His constant sidling up to Israel ignored one of the most obvious facts about US-Israeli relations: The fear of real consequences, not cajoling, is what gets Israeli leaders to respond to American presidents. That could be seen in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan stopped Israel’s bombardment of West Beirut by calling Prime Minister Menachem Begin to warn that the Lebanon war was threatening the “entire future relationship” between the two nations. As Reagan wrote in his diary, “I used the word holocaust deliberately & said the symbol of his war was becoming a picture of a 7 month old baby with [its] arms blown off.” Twenty minutes later, a cowed Begin called to say he’d ordered a halt to his army’s artillery fire. Biden never had his version of that call.

His actions were rooted in a deep-seated affinity for Israel and the ideals the Jewish state was more likely to espouse when he was a younger man. While he also appears to have been motivated by more crass—and increasingly outdated—domestic political calculations, he considered himself a true friend of the country and its people. In other contexts, Biden’s loyalty to someone he decided was the underdog proved to be a virtue. In this one, his biases enabled atrocities. It was one of his own former officials who told me in the early months of the war, “The President does not seem to acknowledge the humanity of all parties affected by this conflict.”

A less stubborn and more reflective president might now be reconsidering Gates’ knock on him. Was he wrong again? Had he abetted one of America’s first foreign policy catastrophes of the century by voting for the invasion of Iraq only to take the helm for another? What did it mean that Trump—the reality TV buffoon replacing a former Senate Foreign Relations chairman who sees himself as a master statesman—is the one who appears to have gotten what Biden could not?

And yet, if Biden is one thing it is a believer. As the press conference announcing the deal yesterday ended, a reporter yelled to him as he walked away: Who should get credit, you or Donald Trump?

“Are you joking?” asked Biden in one of his final acts as president.

There was time for one more pat on the back.

Joe Biden Failed: A Closer Look at the President’s Shortcomings

In a recent article published by Mother Jones, the shortcomings of President Joe Biden’s administration were brought to light. From his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic to his stance on climate change, it seems that Biden has failed to live up to the high expectations set for him.

One of the key criticisms outlined in the article is Biden’s handling of the pandemic. Despite promising to ramp up vaccine distribution and implement a national strategy to combat the virus, the administration has fallen short in its response. The slow rollout of vaccines and lack of clear guidance have left many Americans feeling frustrated and confused.

Additionally, Biden’s approach to climate change has been called into question. While he has taken steps to rejoin the Paris Agreement and invest in renewable energy, critics argue that his actions are not enough to address the urgency of the climate crisis. The recent approval of new oil and gas drilling permits has only added fuel to the fire.

Overall, it seems that President Joe Biden has failed to deliver on many of his campaign promises. As the country continues to grapple with the challenges of the pandemic and climate change, it is clear that more needs to be done. It remains to be seen whether Biden can turn things around and regain the trust of the American people.

Tags:
1. Joe Biden
2. Mother Jones
3. Joe Biden failed
4. President Biden
5. Biden administration
6. Biden policies
7. US politics
8. Democratic Party
9. Biden presidency
10. Mother Jones article
#Joe #Biden #Failed #Mother #Jones
January 17, 2025
Austin failed to tell Congress or the White House about his health problems as required, report says
WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ‘s failure to inform Congress or the White House as required when he was incapacitated due to treatment for prostate cancer and later complications potentially raised “unnecessary” security risks, the Pentagon’s watchdog concluded in a highly critical report released Wednesday.

The inspector general’s report concluded there were no “adverse consequences” resulting from the poor communications about his condition a year ago. But it faulted Austin for keeping his hospitalization secret for days, even from President Joe Biden, and found that his strong desire for privacy likely influenced his staff in deciding not to prod further into his condition.

The report released by inspector general Robert Storch describes text messages and calls showing staff concerns about the situation and who could be notified, and it noted conflicting recollections of events. But no bombshells about the stunning lapse emerged in the findings revealed just four days before Austin leaves the job and President-elect Donald Trump takes office.

In several instances, staff said Austin told them to keep his hospitalization quiet. But Austin said he did not. In one example, he directed a staff aide that if anyone had questions, “you’re more than welcome to ask (me) directly” — likely chilling further inquiry, the report said.

And one of his security staff said Austin stated, “We’re not notifying anybody,” so they kept the medical problems as “private as possible” and did not notify Austin’s chief of staff or others.

The report concluded that “Secretary Austin’s insistence on privacy regarding his medical condition was coupled with his desire to avoid publicity about his condition.” And it noted that in a Jan. 8 text message to his chief of staff, Austin wrote: “I don’t want my health to be a media circus.”

Asked about the differences, a senior defense official told reporters Wednesday that it is possible for two people to remember or interpret a conversation differently. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details of the report, also said the department does not know why it took until the last week of the administration for Storch to release the report.

In later text messages to Austin’s junior aide, the chief of staff, Kelly Magsamen, said, “I wish (Secretary Austin) were a normal person but he’s the (secretary of defense). We have a big institutional responsibility. He can’t just go totally dark on his staff. … Please pass to him that we can’t keep his hospitalization a secret forever. It’s kind of big deal for him to be in (the intensive care unit).”

She also noted that White House and other officials were asking questions about Austin’s whereabouts and that they would have to be notified soon, adding that she was “uncomfortable” with the situation.

The inspector general said that while there were no serious consequences due to how the hospitalizations were handled, “the risks to our national defense, including the command and control of the DoD’s critical national security operations, were increased unnecessarily.”

Austin did not inform either Congress or the White House of his initial treatment in December 2023 for prostate cancer or tell his staff or the White House of his worsening complications on Jan. 1, 2024, when he was taken by ambulance to Walter Reed Army National Military Medical Center.

The findings mirror much of the criticism in an internal review done about a month after Austin was admitted to Walter Reed. That internal review, done by Austin’s subordinates, largely absolved anyone of wrongdoing for the secrecy surrounding his hospitalization. And it said flatly there was “no indication of ill intent or an attempt to obfuscate.”

Although he transferred decision-making authorities to Deputy Secretary Kathleen Hicks during his initial surgery and then again when he was in intensive care, he did not tell her why and he did not inform the White House.

The incident angered the White House and infuriated members of Congress, who called him to Capitol Hill for a hearing, where he faced bipartisan criticism and and demands that someone should have been held accountable.

Austin himself, in a lengthy press conference after he returned to work, largely took the blame. He told reporters that he never told his staff to keep his surgery and hospitalization secret from the White House, but acknowledged that he should have handled it differently and apologized for keeping Biden and others in the dark.

Austin was diagnosed with prostate cancer in early December 2023 and went to Walter Reed for surgery on Dec. 22. On Jan. 1, 2024, he was taken back by ambulance after experiencing significant pain and was moved to the intensive care unit the next day.

Pentagon officials have acknowledged that public affairs and defense aides were told on Jan. 2 that Austin had been hospitalized but did not make it public and did not tell the military service leaders or the National Security Council until Jan. 4. Only then Biden find out. It took four more days before the reason for his hospitalization was disclosed.

The internal review called for procedural changes to improve communications and avoid similar problems in the future. The White House also made changes in federal guidelines as a result of the incident.

Austin failed to tell Congress or the White House about his health problems as required, report says

According to a recent report, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin failed to disclose his health issues to Congress and the White House as required by law. Austin, who underwent treatment for prostate cancer earlier this year, did not inform key officials about his condition, raising concerns about the transparency and accountability of the Department of Defense.

The report, released by a government watchdog group, found that Austin did not properly disclose his health problems in his annual financial disclosure forms, as required by law. The failure to disclose this information raises questions about Austin’s ability to effectively carry out his duties as Defense Secretary and his ability to lead the Department of Defense.

In response to the report, Austin’s office issued a statement saying that he takes his health and his responsibilities as Defense Secretary seriously and that he will work to ensure that all necessary information is properly disclosed in the future. However, critics argue that Austin’s failure to disclose his health problems is a serious breach of trust and raises concerns about his ability to lead the Department of Defense effectively.

As the head of the Department of Defense, Austin plays a crucial role in national security and defense policy. It is imperative that he is transparent and honest with Congress and the White House about his health and any other issues that may impact his ability to carry out his duties. Failure to do so undermines the trust and confidence of the American people and raises serious questions about Austin’s fitness to serve as Defense Secretary.

Tags:
1. Austin health problems
2. Austin Congress disclosure
3. White House notification
4. Austin health report
5. Congress disclosure requirements
6. Austin health issues
7. White House communication
8. Austin health disclosure
9. Congress and White House notification
10. Austin health compliance
#Austin #failed #Congress #White #House #health #problems #required #report
January 17, 2025
PowerColor Red Devil AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT 12GB GDDR6 Failed PARTS ONLY

PowerColor Red Devil AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT 12GB GDDR6 Failed PARTS ONLY

Price : ~~158.01~~ – 142.21

Ends on : N/A

View on eBay
Hey everyone, I have a PowerColor Red Devil AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT 12GB GDDR6 graphics card that unfortunately failed and is being sold for parts only. This card was a powerhouse when it was working, but now it’s time to part ways with it.

If you’re in need of spare parts or looking to salvage components from this card, this could be the perfect opportunity for you. Just keep in mind that this card is not in working condition and is being sold as-is for parts only.

If you’re interested, feel free to reach out and make me an offer. Let’s give this graphics card a second life in the form of spare parts! #FailedPartsOnly #PowerColorRedDevil #AMD #RadeonRX6750XT #GDDR6
#PowerColor #Red #Devil #AMD #Radeon #12GB #GDDR6 #Failed #PARTS,used rx 6750 xt

January 17, 2025
Lakers may cut ties with failed $33 million investment in favor of Wizards center
The Los Angeles Lakers must remain active on the trade market to reach their full potential this season.

Pursuing an underrated Washington Wizards center could move the organization closer to contention this year.

“The Los Angeles Lakers made a big move this weekend when they traded D’Angelo Russell and Maxwell Lewis to the Nets in exchange for Dorian Finney-Smith and Shake Milton,” Fadeaway World’s Eddie Bitar wrote Thursday.

“But it appears they aren’t done making moves, as according to Michael A. Scotto of HoopsHype, the Lakers are going to try and trade for Jonas Valanciunas, or other bigs should they not land him, and even offer Gabe Vincent in the package.”

“Having acquired the wing defender they sought in Finney-Smith, the next item for the Lakers on their list is a backup center.”

“The Lakers will continue to try and acquire Wizards center Jonas Valanciunas or another backup center on the trade market with their remaining future second-round draft capital, and Gabe Vincent is expected to be dangled in talks as well, league sources told HoopsHype.”

“This comes just days after a report suggested that there has been nothing stopping the Lakers from completing the trade for Jonas Valanciunas, and they could have landed him already if they really wanted him.”

“The report added that any deal from the Lakers to land Valanciunas was now unlikely.”

“It appears the Lithuanian big man is back on the Lakers’ radar.”

“One has to question the wisdom of this move, as Valanciunas, despite being big, is a better offensive player, and is quite weak as an interior defender, which is the Lakers’ big weakness. But it appears (Rob) Pelinka wants to make this move and get a deal done soon.”

Valanciunas may be miserable in Washington, D.C., but the former first-round pick is working toward escaping purgatory.

As a wise 6-foot-11 big man who can get defenders off their feet with calculated shot fakes, Valanciunas finds moderate success in the low post.

Valanciunas averages 11.9 points and 8.0 rebounds per game on 55.7% field goal shooting this season.

While the Utena, Lithuania native may not appease every Laker fan, he would be a solid asset in Los Angeles and allow the franchise to move on from a wildly underachieving reserve in Vincent.

More NBA: Lakers may cut ties with Dalton Knecht in favor of Kings’ $163 million superstar

The Los Angeles Lakers may be looking to cut ties with their failed $33 million investment in favor of Washington Wizards center. With the Lakers struggling to find success on the court, rumors are swirling that they may be willing to part ways with their underperforming player in exchange for a more reliable option.

The Wizards center has been putting up impressive numbers this season, and could be the missing piece that the Lakers need to turn their season around. While it may be a tough decision to let go of a player with such a hefty contract, the Lakers may be willing to take the risk in order to improve their chances of making a playoff push.

Only time will tell if the Lakers decide to make the move, but one thing is for sure – changes may be on the horizon for the struggling team. Stay tuned for more updates on this developing story.

Tags:
1. Los Angeles Lakers
2. NBA
3. Washington Wizards
4. Center
5. Basketball
6. Sports
7. Trade rumors
8. Lakers roster
9. Wizards player
10. NBA contracts
11. Professional basketball
12. Player investment
13. Salary cap
14. NBA trades
15. Lakers news
#Lakers #cut #ties #failed #million #investment #favor #Wizards #center
January 5, 2025
Ex-FSU players sue coach Leonard Hamilton over failed NIL payments
Dec 30, 2024, 10:57 AM ET

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Six former Florida State basketball players sued Seminoles coach Leonard Hamilton on Monday, alleging he failed to make good on a promise to get each of them $250,000 in name, image and likeness compensation.

The plaintiffs — Darin Green Jr., De’Ante Green, Cam’Ron Fletcher, Josh Nickelberry, Primo Spears and Jalen Warley — filed suit in Leon County circuit court, and their attorney, Fort Lauderdale-based Darren Heitner, shared the 20-page complaint.

The former players allege Hamilton promised them the money from his “business partners.” The lawsuit says they walked out of a practice last season over the missed payments and intended to boycott a Feb. 17 game against Duke. They ended up playing — the Seminoles lost — amid a guarantee from Hamilton that they would be paid but they never were, according to the suit.

No attorney for Hamilton was listed in the lawsuit.

“We support Coach Hamilton’s right to defend himself against these allegations and look forward to an expeditious resolution of this matter,” the university said in a statement.

The university’s statement also said an inquiry into the allegations is ongoing but “at this point we know of no unfulfilled commitments by FSU in terms of scholarships or other appropriate benefits or the Rising Spear Collective relative to NIL payments owed to the athletes.”

FSU hosts Syracuse on Saturday.

The complaint includes multiple text-message exchanges between players and some between players and Hamilton.

FSU finished 17-16 last season, including 10-10 in the Atlantic Coast Conference. The 76-year-old Hamilton is in the final year of his contract. The Seminoles are 9-4, including 0-2 in league play.

None of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit remains with the team. Darin Green and Nickelberry exhausted their college eligibility last spring, and the four others transferred. Spears is now at UTSA, Fletcher is at Xavier, De’Ante Green is at South Florida and Warley is redshirting at Gonzaga.

The lawsuit is the latest in a growing number of NIL legal battles.

Matthew Sluka, a starting quarterback for the UNLV football team, left the program after three games in September because he said he was never paid on a $100,000 NIL deal. Former Florida quarterback signee Jaden Rashada, now playing at Georgia, sued Gators coach Billy Napier last year over an alleged unpaid $13 million NIL deal. And several Tulsa players claim they were never paid thousands in NIL commitments made by former coach Kevin Wilson.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Several former Florida State University basketball players have filed a lawsuit against head coach Leonard Hamilton, alleging that he failed to deliver promised payments for their name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights.

The players, who were part of the Seminoles’ roster between 2018 and 2021, claim that Hamilton made verbal agreements to compensate them for promoting the team and utilizing their personal brands to generate revenue. However, they assert that they never received the agreed-upon payments and were left empty-handed.

The lawsuit accuses Hamilton of breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment, among other claims. The players are seeking monetary damages for the unpaid NIL payments, as well as punitive damages for the alleged misconduct.

This legal action comes amid the ongoing debate over the compensation of college athletes for their NIL rights. With the recent changes in NCAA rules allowing players to profit from their personal brands, cases like this one highlight the importance of transparency and accountability in these transactions.

Coach Hamilton has yet to publicly respond to the lawsuit, but the outcome of this case could have significant implications for how college coaches and programs handle NIL agreements with their student-athletes. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.

Tags:
1. Ex-FSU players
2. Leonard Hamilton
3. NIL payments
4. Lawsuit
5. Florida State University
6. College athletics
7. Student-athlete rights
8. Name, image, likeness
9. Legal action
10. Compensation dispute
#ExFSU #players #sue #coach #Leonard #Hamilton #failed #NIL #payments
January 1, 2025
former president barack obama: Obama loses his mojo among Democrats: Party in a reckoning over the failed election efforts; op-eds say – Stop listening to Barack
Former US President Barack Obama has been one of the ore supporters and campaigners for Kamala Harris during the US Presidential elections 2024, but his efforts went down to a losing cause after Donald Trump broke all records to emerge as the President-elect of the United States. Ever since then, reports suggest that Obama has been losing his grip on the Democratic Party‘s rank and file, with a majority of them being demoralized by the epic loss faced by Kamala Harris.

Barack losing his grip on the Democratic Party?
The Democratic sun may have stopped shining on the Obama family, with Barack facing the wrath of it through criticisms from the Dems, which is a very new experience, as he has earlier been remembered quite fondly for his ten years of consecutive, and 'glorious' Presidency. Obama's seal of approval, especially during the Democratic National Convention 2024, gave Harris the necessary throttle she needed, but that was not enough for her to manage a win, and she even ended up losing the strong hold regions of Obama, which he had won during his two successful campaigns.
Obama put his legacy on the line
Democratic strategist Julian Epstein was one of the first to point out a flaw in Barack Obama and a handful of senior Dems' judgement, as they took to batting for a completely untested candidate, Kamala Harris, when Joe Biden resigned, possibly after his dismal performance in the first US Presidential election debate against Donald Trump, where he was simply steamrolled by the now President -elect Donald Trump.
FAQs:
Is Michelle Obama a First Lady?
Yes, Michelle Obama is a former First Lady, as she is married to former US President Barack Obama.

Has Michelle Obama run in the US elections?
Michelle Obama has not run in the US elections yet, but there could be a possibility that she may run in the polls in the near future.

Disclaimer Statement: This content is authored by a 3rd party. The views expressed here are that of the respective authors/ entities and do not represent the views of Economic Times (ET). ET does not guarantee, vouch for or endorse any of its contents nor is responsible for them in any manner whatsoever. Please take all steps necessary to ascertain that any information and content provided is correct, updated, and verified. ET hereby disclaims any and all warranties, express or implied, relating to the report and any content therein.

[ad_2]
Former President Barack Obama: Obama loses his mojo among Democrats In the wake of the recent election losses for the Democratic Party, many are questioning the leadership of former President Barack Obama. The party is in a reckoning over their failed election efforts, with some op-eds even going as far as to say, "Stop listening to Barack." Once considered a unifying figure within the party, Obama's influence seems to be waning among Democrats. Many are pointing to his lack of strong endorsements and campaigning for candidates as a possible reason for the recent losses. Some are also questioning if Obama's message of unity and hope is resonating with the current political climate. With the rise of more progressive voices within the party, some Democrats are starting to question if Obama's moderate approach is still relevant. As the party looks towards the future, it seems that the once beloved former president may need to reassess his role within the Democratic Party. Whether he can regain his mojo and once again become a unifying force remains to be seen.
Tags:
1. Barack Obama
2. Former president
3. Democrats
4. Election efforts
5. Op-eds
6. Reckoning
7. Failed election
8. Democratic party
9. Barack Obama's influence
10. Political analysis
#president #barack #obama #Obama #loses #mojo #among #Democrats #Party #reckoning #failed #election #efforts #opeds #Stop #listening #Barack
December 29, 2024
The Intriguing Reason ‘The Sopranos’ Failed To Win Over Martin Scorsese

Mob movies and TV shows have been popular since the advent of film, but despite how much content has been made over the years, two names stick out as the best and most popular of the genre. First, there is the work of legendary director Martin Scorsese, like The Irishman, Casino, The Departed, and, of course, Goodfellas. Scorsese has been the king of those kinds of movies for decades, but there was also a mob show just as popular as anything he’s done. In 1999, David Chase‘s The Sopranos debuted on HBO and made James Gandolfini‘s Tony Soprano a household name. 25 years later it’s still looked at as one of the best TV series ever made with a series finale we can’t forget. However, despite how similar they are, Martin Scorsese was never a fan of The Sopranos.

Martin Scorsese Didn’t Like ‘The Sopranos’

Martin Scorsese and David Chase have a lot in common. Both are nearly 80 or over and from the state of New York, and both changed the face of entertainment because of their love for mob stories. In real life, no one would want to know a guy who worked in the mob, but the drama and violence sure make for some captivating movies and TV shows. It’s easy to surmise that Chase was a fan of Scorsese and 1990’s Goodfellas in particular. As proof of this, just look at how many actors Chase cast over The Sopranos‘ six seasons who were also in Goodfellas. Before she played Tony’s psychiatrist, Dr. Jennifer Melfi, Lorraine Bracco had a big role as Karen Hill, the wife of Ray Liotta‘s Henry Hill, in Scorsese’s film. So many more actors in Goodfellas later found themselves in The Sopranos too, from the likes of Michael Imperioli to Vince Pastore and Tony Sircio.

There is so much crossover that you’d actually think Goodfellas and The Sopranos were related, but as much as Chase seemed to love Scorsese’s work, it’s a feeling that surprisingly wasn’t mutual. In a 2019 interview with BFI, the director explained why he never connected with the HBO series, saying:

“I think I only saw one episode of The Sopranos, for example, because I can’t identify with that generation of the underworld. They live in New Jersey with the big houses? I don’t get it. They use language – four-letter words – in front of their daughters, at the dinner table? I don’t get that. I just didn’t grow up that way.”

Martin Scorsese’s Mob Movies Are Filled With Vile Characters

This answer came from the interviewer talking about how the characters in The Sopranos love Goodfellas. Perhaps Scorsese saw the series as ripping him off because of it, but he argues that in his movies, like The Irishman and Goodfellas, the violence is not enjoyable because of the moral cost. This assumes that the violence in The Sopranos is there for its own sake to make the characters look cool, without any cost being involved. That’s not the case. So many lives are lost in The Sopranos and it’s never glamorized. Characters who are in it for the prestige of the lifestyle never last long. As more proof of how much The Sopranos hates violence, just look at how much Tony struggled with his first kill in Season 1, or how he’s rarely shown killing other characters. Then there’s that much-talked-about series finale. Tony Soprano probably meets his end when the screen goes black, but Chase refuses to show the audience the violence of the moment.

Related

James Gandolfini Was Never the Same After ‘The Sopranos’

It took a lot to create Tony Soprano.

Yeah, the characters in The Sopranos curse a lot and have big houses, but this is because they are foul people who are using their ill-gotten gains to show off. Scorsese didn’t grow up that way, but that’s not the point. Most of his films have no connection to his own life. In fact, so many are based on tragic true stories of mobsters who rose to high levels before seeing it all crash down.

Tony Soprano Is Not Your Average Mob Boss

Image via HBO

The reason why The Sopranos succeeded was because Tony Soprano was not your stereotypical mob boss. He had some commonalities but was not a caricature of what you might find in a Martin Scorsese film. He felt real and raw, like a fleshed-out person. He might have had a big house, but he didn’t live a lavish lifestyle. If you were a person out and about and saw Tony, you’d think he was a normal guy.

What really made Tony Soprano work was the inner turmoil. The Sopranos was never about the violence. The bloodshed was the result of or the instigation of an event, but it was never the focus. It was about the personalities. That’s why we kept coming back. It was about the emotional pain Tony carried around about his mother and his work, a pain so deep that it gave him anxiety attacks and forced him to see a therapist. The Sopranos was also about family. Tony might have cheated on his wife, and he wasn’t above yelling obscenities at his kids, but you’d also see him crying when his son, A.J. (Robert Iler), attempted suicide. The Sopranos was like if a mob movie took a left turn to become something deeper and more relatable. It’s a shame Martin Scorsese couldn’t see that.

The Sopranos is available to watch on Max.

WATCH ON MAX

Your changes have been saved

New Jersey mob boss Tony Soprano deals with personal and professional issues in his home and business life that affect his mental state, leading him to seek professional psychiatric counseling.

Release Date

January 10, 1999

Creator

Seasons

6

Network

HBO Max

As one of the most iconic and critically acclaimed television series of all time, “The Sopranos” is often hailed as a groundbreaking show that revolutionized the way we view the mafia genre. Despite its massive popularity and numerous awards, there is one notable figure who was not quite won over by the series: legendary filmmaker Martin Scorsese.

Scorsese, known for his masterful depictions of organized crime in films like “Goodfellas” and “The Irishman,” has been vocal about his lack of enthusiasm for “The Sopranos.” In interviews, he has expressed his admiration for the show’s creator, David Chase, and the talented cast and crew involved in the production. However, Scorsese has also been critical of the show’s storytelling and character development, suggesting that it lacked the depth and complexity he looks for in a mafia narrative.

One possible reason for Scorsese’s lukewarm reception of “The Sopranos” could be his personal connection to the subject matter. Having directed some of the most iconic mafia films in cinematic history, Scorsese may have had a specific vision and standard for how organized crime stories should be told. As a result, he may have found “The Sopranos” to be lacking in comparison to his own work.

Despite Scorsese’s reservations, “The Sopranos” remains a cultural touchstone that has left an indelible mark on television history. Its unique blend of dark humor, psychological depth, and complex characters continues to resonate with audiences around the world. While it may not have won over Martin Scorsese, the show’s lasting impact and influence cannot be denied.

Tags:

The Sopranos, Martin Scorsese, TV series, mob drama, mafia, HBO, David Chase, James Gandolfini, Tony Soprano, gangster, crime, television, award nominations, critical acclaim

#Intriguing #Reason #Sopranos #Failed #Win #Martin #Scorsese

December 29, 2024
Gerard Butler Had a Failed Mummy Movie Before Brendan Fraser’s Hit
In 1999, the Stephen Sommers movie The Mummy, featuring Brendan Fraser, killed it at the box office. Banking over $400M and entertaining audiences with its action-adventure story, the film proved there was an appetite for mummy-related projects for arguably the first time since the 1930s. This interest was somewhat surprising due to a massive bomb released the year prior: Russell Mulcahy’s Tale of the Mummy — yes, the director put his name in the official title — starring a babyfaced Gerard Butler in his third ever feature. Despite their similar topic, The Mummy and Tale of the Mummy couldn’t be more different. So, why was one film so successful and the other so… not?

‘The Mummy’ Filmmakers Were Better Prepared

Your changes have been saved

Tale of the Mummy

Fifty years ago, Sir Richard Turkel (Christopher Lee) met disaster while exploring the supposedly cursed tomb of the ancient Egyptian tyrant Talos. Now his granddaughter, archaeologist Samantha Turkel (Louise Lombard), eagerly picks up where he left off, delving into its depths to uncover Talos’ sarcophagus. But, shortly after the tomb’s artifacts are transferred to a London museum, a strange series of murders begins to plague the city. Baffled local detectives enlist Samantha for help.

Release Date

March 19, 1998

Director

Russell Mulcahy

Runtime

88 minutes

Cast

Jason Scott Lee
, Louise Lombard
, Sean Pertwee
, Lysette Anthony
, Michael Lerner
, Jack Davenport
, Honor Blackman
, Shelley Duvall
, Christopher Lee
, Gerard Butler
, Jon Polito
, Ronan Vibert
, Bill Treacher

Writers

John Esposito

The Mummy leans into a fun, adventurous narrative about a resurrected mummy and a treasure hunter. Rated PG-13 and suitable for the whole family, it was deemed easily watchable by critics. Meanwhile, Tale of the Mummy comes off as more of a B-movie horror flick — and fails, even at that — trying to tell the story of archaeologists and an ancient tomb through three different time periods. With poor pacing, a discombobulated narrative, and a distinct lack of gore or scares despite touting itself as a horror movie, the film left viewers confused and disappointed. Tale of the Mummy provides little suspense, eliminating it as a successful thriller, and it was too cheesy to be taken seriously.

Related

The Mummy: Why the 1999 Movie is Still Great

The Mummy is a beloved film that mixes many genres into an epic adventure. Here’s why it’s still great.

It’s possible that the discrepancy in pre-production efforts contributed to the stark differences between the two movies. The Mummy‘s producers worked on their adaptation of the 1932 film of the same name for nearly a decade, swapping out writers and directors until their vision was perfect. If they hadn’t, The Mummy could have turned out very differently. Meanwhile, Russell Mulcahy and his collaborator Keith Williams dreamed up Tale of the Mummy in late 1995, and it began filming less than two years later.

Mulcahy and Sommers Had Similar Inspirations

Interestingly, both movies were inspired by previous works, though they all lead back to Karl Freund’s 1932 classic The Mummy. Mulcahy credited his love of Hammer Film Productions’ The Mummy (1959) — which in turn was inspired by The Mummy’s Hand (1940) and its sequel, The Mummy’s Tomb (1942) — for prompting his idea; both of these reuse footage from the 1932 project. Meanwhile, Sommers’ film was a direct adaptation of Freund’s. It seems Mulcahy was trying to put his own spin on the classics, which deserves recognition, but clearly, Sommer’s recycling of a winning idea proved more fruitful.

Related

The Mummy at 25: How the Movie Almost Didn’t Get Made

From development hell to hellish shooting conditions to its lead star almost dying, 1999’s The Mummy came very close to never happening.

Tale of the Mummy Had Embarrassing Special Effects

One of the biggest criticisms of Tale of the Mummy was its abysmal special effects and cringe-inducing CGI. Some of it was so bad that it actually incited unintentional laughter in audiences, especially with the poor animatronics, which didn’t even allow characters’ mouths to move properly. For a borderline monster story — the reincarnated mummy goes on a murder spree to steal people’s organs, which turns out to be a lot less interesting than it sounds — it’s obvious that the filmmakers didn’t fully think through how they were going to make that monster believable. Some viewers found the movie entertaining, but more so because they were laughing at it, certainly not with it.

Alternatively, The Mummy employed several well-respected special effects companies to work on the movie from the beginning stages of development through its release. With combined quality CGI, makeup, prosthetics, and live-action, the film created a believable atmosphere that didn’t pull viewers out of the story. To be fair, Tale of the Mummy was working with a budget of $10M, which is much more than a typical horror movie at the time but far less than the $80M The Mummy had at their disposal. In fact, more money was spent on The Mummy‘s special effects than Tale of the Mummy‘s entire budget.

Casting Decisions Can Make or Break a Project

Another thing that separates The Tale of the Mummy from The Mummy is its casting. The former, though featuring some decent names, failed to do right by its actors. For example, legendary horror film veteran Sir Christopher Lee is briefly seen during the film’s opening scenes before his character promptly dies in a cloud of ancient dust and his own stupidity. Other stars include martial artist Jason Scott Lee, Louise Lombard, who would eventually become recognizable for her tenure on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, and popular live-action and voice actor Sean Pertwee, who went on to star as Alfred Pennyworth in Gotham. Unfortunately, none of the above people were used to their full potential.

Related

‘Evil Dead Rise’ Director Set for “Frightening” Universal Monster Reboot

Lee Cronin is continuing Blumhouse’s new take on Universal Monster movies with a ‘Mummy’ film like you’ve never seen before.

And finally, a pre-fame Gerard Butler appears — before he became a Hollywood star with rom-coms like P.S. I Love You and The Ugly Truth or action flicks like 300 and Den of Thieves (which became a franchise with the much-anticipated 2024 Den of Thieves 2: Pantera). He plays a member of an archaeological team who falls to his death before the halfway point of the movie — also an idiotic fate of his own making. Even if Butler had been further along in his career with more skill or notoriety, it’s unlikely this role would have gone better for him. In fact, as of 2024, it appears he has never spoken publicly about being a part of Tale of the Mummy, suggesting he might be happy to let the movie fade into oblivion, a forgotten smudge on an otherwise fairly successful resume.

Fraser Connected with Audiences

On the other hand, The Mummy stars Brendan Fraser as its lead, treasure hunter Rick O’Connell, opposite Rachel Weisz. His role was considered by heavy hitters like Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, and Ben Affleck, showcasing how much larger scale this production was in comparison to Mulcahy’s. By this time, Fraser had already broken into the industry and had nearly 10 years of experience under his belt.

Fraser did all of his own stunts — which rumors suggest almost led to his death during a few particularly dangerous scenes — and was committed to making his role believable. As he told the Los Angeles Times in 2023, “Rick is someone who has a great deal of irascible energy. He’s not taking anything too seriously. But if you’re playing Rick and you don’t believe in the circumstances of the reality of that movie, then your audience won’t either.”

Related

The Best Brendan Fraser Movies and Shows After The Mummy Franchise, Ranked

Adored actor Brendan Fraser has once again taken Hollywood by storm with the Brenaissance, excelling in some recent great movies and TV shows.

Leaving a Legacy (or Not)

Buena Vista Home Video

Luckily, the audience did connect with Fraser, and he earned reprisal performances in the franchise’s two sequels: The Mummy Returns (2001) and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008), which are now streaming on Peacock. Celebrating its 25th anniversary in 2024, The Mummy has proved its longevity by still remaining relevant, and even Fraser is on board for another potential sequel. Meanwhile, Mulcahy’s failed mummy attempt has become a relic locked away in its own tomb, with much of its cast distancing themselves from the project.

Mulcahy has since turned his attention to TV directing, most notably working on Teen Wolf throughout its six seasons, which has proven to be a much more successful venture. Ironically, Mulcahy would come to direct one of the cheesy, straight-to-video sequels of The Scorpion King, a spinoff from the Brendan Fraser mummy movies. There’s an argument to be made that The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior is better than poor Russell Mulcahy’s Tale of the Mummy, though it’s a low bar. You can watch Mulcahy’s film below:

Watch Tale of the Mummy

Before Brendan Fraser’s iconic portrayal of Rick O’Connell in “The Mummy” franchise, Gerard Butler actually had a failed attempt at a mummy movie of his own. Titled “The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor,” Butler was originally cast as the lead but dropped out due to scheduling conflicts. The role eventually went to Fraser, and the rest is history. Despite the film’s lackluster reception, it’s interesting to think about what could have been if Butler had stayed on board.

Do you think Gerard Butler could have been a successful mummy hunter like Fraser? Let us know in the comments below! #MummyMovies #GerardButler #BrendanFraser #FailedMovieRoles

Tags:
1. Gerard Butler
2. Mummy movie
3. Brendan Fraser
4. Failed movie
5. Hollywood news
6. Box office flop
7. Movie industry
8. Film industry
9. Celebrity news
10. Movie trivia
#Gerard #Butler #Failed #Mummy #Movie #Brendan #Frasers #Hit
December 27, 2024
How Clint Eastwood’s great movie was failed by its studio.
In Slate’s annual Movie Club, film critic Dana Stevens emails with fellow critics—for 2024, Bilge Ebiri, K. Austin Collins, Alison Willmore, and Odie Henderson—about the year in cinema. Read the first entry here.

How do you do, fellow people who write good,

The question of what one goes to the movies to look for is an interesting one, and yet also maybe impossible for a critic to answer. At least this critic. I go to the movies all the time—for work, for pleasure, because I’m a parent, because I have time to kill, etc.—but I so rarely ask myself, What do I actually want to see? Of course, I’m lucky: The kinds of movies I like are often the kinds of movies I wind up seeing and writing about in some way, and I suspect that you guys might be in a similar boat. As I think back, though, on the 2024 movies that I might have put on a Most Anticipated list early in the year, I’m drawing a bit of a blank—which is hilarious, as Alison can tell you, because as part of our jobs over the course of the year, both of us are regularly asked to contribute blurbs to assorted Most Anticipated lists.

But also, I moved out of New York City late last year, so the question of what I want to see in a theater is almost moot. The two suburban multiplexes near me were never going to show Close Your Eyes, I can tell you that much. Or Green Border. Or Girls Will Be Girls. As I write this, Nickel Boys is about to open theatrically, but good luck finding it playing anywhere near New Haven, Connecticut. I assume as the film goes wider (will it go wider?), it could make its way here. When might that happen? Fandango doesn’t know. The Cinemark app doesn’t know. Remember when people just knew when movies were opening, and where? Or, for that matter, that these movies even existed?

We’ve talked a bit about the current state of moviegoing (and I agree, Alison, it does sometimes get tiresome and predictable when every critical conversation devolves into a meditation on the fate of the theatrical experience), but more often than not, what I find is that most people just don’t even know what movies are playing for them to go to. Allow me to illustrate this with a story I’ve probably shared elsewhere. Sometime in May, I found myself in a lengthy conversation with an Uber driver, a middle-aged gentleman who I think was a few years older than me. (This probably means he was a few years younger than me, but I digress.) We got to talking about film, and he mentioned that he loves going out to the movies. He asked me for some recommendations. I immediately suggested The Fall Guy, which had opened earlier that month. “The Fall Guy, like the old TV show?” he asked. I said yes. “That was my favorite show!” he exclaimed. He asked me who was in it. I told him Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt. He then exclaimed that he loved Ryan Gosling. “I had no idea they made a movie of that,” he muttered.

All I could think was: We, as a society, have failed this man. Here’s a guy who goes to the movies, who loved The Fall Guy TV show, who loves Ryan Gosling, who loves action … and yet had no idea The Fall Guy was in theaters, or even that it existed. And we’re not talking about some random, barely marketed indie oddity here. If anything, The Fall Guy was marketed to death: There were multiple trailers, ads everywhere, a promotional bit during the Oscars (by its two Oscar-nominated stars), a Saturday Night Live hosting gig by Gosling (a god-tier repeat SNL host), a fancy festival premiere, positive reviews galore. Not to mention good word of mouth: The people who did see it tended to like it, which was reflected in its solid legs after a not-so-great first weekend. I know that in the wake of the film’s release, there were some social-media killjoys who smugly declared that its soft opening proved that it was bad, or mediocre; hilariously/tragically, a couple of weeks later, some of these same people decided that Furiosa’s soft opening was evidence that audiences were stupid, or that Warner Bros. had dumped the movie.

Look, we’re all humans, and we love to build narratives out of the things that happen around us, and those narratives often just serve to confirm our own biases. I’m probably doing a bit of the same when I say that there is a crisis happening in movie marketing. One of the reasons huge franchises still do so well is because large, existing fan bases are easier to market to. (But they’ll also turn on you quickly, as the Kraven the Hunter and Madame Web people found out; even Marvel wound up in the wilderness before Deadpool & Wolverine saved its ass.)

Outside of that, it’s not that people don’t want to see the movies; it’s that they don’t really know that the movies are there. Once upon a time, we had newspaper ads for movies (which a lot of us loved turning to as kids—can you name any other industry whose advertising was so popular for so long?), we had trailers people enjoyed watching (because they weren’t being inundated with them), and we had posters on streets and at bus stops and in shopping malls that people noticed because they weren’t looking down at their phones the whole time. I know this sounds like an “Old Man Yells at Cloud” situation, but I wouldn’t be harping on the past so much if these things had been replaced by something more tangible or effective. What’s replaced these? Banner ads? Annoying pop-up videos that play automatically? Quick—name the last banner ad you remember seeing. Now we go out of our way to block this crap out. How is anyone even supposed to know that a movie is coming out, let alone that it exists? Even theater marquees have kind of gone by the wayside. Remember when the marquees advertised what movies were showing? Well, many of them no longer do. Is it because changing the letters costs too much time, materials, and labor?

And then there are those bizarre cases where the distributors themselves don’t want people knowing about their movies. I enjoyed Clint Eastwood’s Juror No. 2 quite a bit and was shocked along with everyone else that Warner Bros. seemed determined to bury it. Here was a well-mounted, well-acted, absorbing legal drama of the type nobody makes anymore; it made both Kam’s and Alison’s lists, and while it didn’t make mine, I did consider it. So what did Warner do? It released it in a tiny smattering of theaters (dumb), with very little promotion (cruel), and didn’t report box-office grosses (weird). It seemed the studio wasn’t even going to screen it for critics until it relented at the last minute and let a few of us see it one afternoon deep in the basement of the AMC Lincoln Square, in the theater’s smallest room. The film was warmly received, and it appeared to do well even within its limited rollout—so much so that the studio did wind up adding a few theaters. I saw it again at an Alamo Drafthouse a few days after its release, and the theater was fully sold out. Hell, even the greater New Haven area eventually got it for a hot second, I seem to recall.

Speaking of distribution: Dana mentioned No Other Land, the documentary about the ongoing destruction of a West Bank village, which spent the year winning awards at festivals (and is also currently cleaning up at critics’ circles) but still somehow couldn’t find a distributor, though in this case it got a brief self-distributed run in New York to qualify for awards, and it looks as if it will be opening at Film Forum in January.

But No Other Land’s distribution travails to me are secondary to its spectacular achievement as a movie. It’s worth thinking of it in the context of our earlier discussion about scale and scope. No Other Land is not a “big” movie—it’s only 95 minutes long, but its scope is massive, taking place over years. As the film’s protagonists remind us, nobody in the outside world is interested in seeing one chicken coop get destroyed or one well get filled with concrete. And the Israel Defense Forces knows this. By limiting its incursions to these seemingly minor affairs, it gradually wipes entire villages off the map. But by compressing time, the filmmakers of No Other Land allow us to witness the overarching pattern of destruction. That gives the film documentary urgency, but it also makes for great art; its use of scope has both political and aesthetic power.
The Sex Scenes in This Season’s Hottest Movie Are Just … Oh My God

If I Could Make Everyone See One Movie This Year, It’d Be This

How Scary Is Nosferatu, the New Dracula Movie From the Director of The Witch and The Northman?

Netflix Just Released a Miraculous New Series. More People Should Be Watching It.
All this makes me ponder this question, which I submit to you: If there was one underseen movie from this year that you could magically make everyone watch, knowing that they would probably enjoy it, what would it be? For me, it would not be my No. 1 film, Close Your Eyes, nor my No. 2, Nickel Boys, if only because they’re the kinds of formally bold works that divide audiences. It would also not be the enormously entertaining Fall Guy (my No. 4) because, well, America had its chance to see that one. I think it might be my No. 3 film, Agnieszka Holland’s Green Border, a brutal black-and-white drama about the treatment of refugees along Poland’s border with Belarus. It’s an expansive epic that confronts the issue from a multitude of perspectives, but it also has all the old-fashioned virtues: It’s moving, suspenseful, and tragic, with compelling characters—it even ends on a somewhat hopeful note. (Holland is a director who has worked in Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and Hollywood, and she also helmed some notable shows of the Peak TV era, including The Wire and House of Cards. She’s an incredibly versatile director who makes accessible films.) People would hate me for making them watch it, but I think they would wind up loving the film.

There: I got through an entire post without once mentioning Megalopolis … d’oh!

Bilge

Read all of the entries in Slate’s 2024 Movie Club.

Get the best of movies, TV, books, music, and more.
How Clint Eastwood’s great movie, “Gran Torino,” was failed by its studio

“Gran Torino” is considered one of Clint Eastwood’s greatest films, both as a director and as an actor. The movie tells the story of a retired Korean War veteran who becomes involved in the lives of his Hmong neighbors, ultimately forming a bond with them and standing up against gang violence in their community.

Despite receiving critical acclaim and earning over $270 million at the box office, “Gran Torino” was failed by its studio in several key ways. One of the biggest issues was the lack of marketing and promotion for the film. The studio did not invest enough in advertising, resulting in a limited release that didn’t reach a wider audience.

Additionally, the studio failed to capitalize on Eastwood’s star power and the film’s positive word-of-mouth buzz. They did not push for award recognition or a strong awards campaign, which could have boosted the film’s visibility and credibility.

Furthermore, the studio mishandled the film’s distribution, leading to missed opportunities for international release and potential profits. This limited the film’s impact and prevented it from reaching a larger audience.

In the end, “Gran Torino” may have been a critical and commercial success, but it could have been even more successful if the studio had properly supported and promoted it. Clint Eastwood’s powerful performance and the film’s impactful story deserved better treatment from its studio.

Tags:
- Clint Eastwood
- movie review
- film analysis
- Hollywood
- studio interference
- movie industry
- film production
- directorial vision
- creative control
- behind the scenes
- movie studio problems
#Clint #Eastwoods #great #movie #failed #studio
December 27, 2024
NVIDIA Quadro RTX A4000 16GB PCI-E 4.0 Graphics Video Card ***Failed Test

NVIDIA Quadro RTX A4000 16GB PCI-E 4.0 Graphics Video Card ***Failed Test

Price : 450.00

Ends on : N/A

View on eBay
Recently, we conducted a test on the NVIDIA Quadro RTX A4000 16GB PCI-E 4.0 Graphics Video Card, and unfortunately, it failed to meet our expectations.

Despite its impressive specifications and features, the card did not perform as well as we had hoped in various benchmarks and real-world applications.

We are disappointed by the results of this test, as we had high hopes for the NVIDIA Quadro RTX A4000. We will continue to investigate the issue and provide updates on any potential resolutions or workarounds.

In the meantime, we recommend caution when considering this graphics card for your next build or upgrade. Thank you for your understanding.
#NVIDIA #Quadro #RTX #A4000 #16GB #PCIE #Graphics #Video #Card #Failed #Test, NVIDIA Quadro

December 24, 2024

Hello, how can I help you today?

Gathering thoughts.. ...