February 8, 2017

No Image

Today in Movie Culture: 'Beauty and the Beast' as a 'Harry Potter' Sequel, the Evolution of Keanu Reeves and More

Here are a bunch of little bites to satisfy your hunger for movie culture:

Mashup Trailer of the Day:

Surprise! It turns out Disney’s live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast is actually a Harry Potter sequel about Hermione falling in love with Lord Voldemort, according to this impressive Pistol Shrimps mashup:

[embedded content]

Parody Posters of the Day:

This weekend, John Wick: Chapter 2 goes up against Fifty Shades Darker, so here are some official posters for the former lampooning the latter:

Actor in the Spotlight:

Speaking of John Wick: Chapter 2, in honor of the sequel here’s Burger Fiction with an evolution of Keanu Reeves:

[embedded content]

Filmmaker Influence of the Day:

See how much Oscar nominee Moonlight was influenced by the work of Wong Kar-wai in this side-by-side comparison video by Alessio Marinacci (via IndieWire):

[embedded content]

Vintage Image of the Day:

James Dean, who was born on this day in 1931, outside a dressing room trailer on the set of Giant in 1955:

Fan Theory of the Day:

With a sequel currently in the works, a theory about a character from Pixar’s The Incredibles is explored by ScreenRant:

[embedded content]

Toy of the Day:

Speaking of Pixar movies, this Voltron-like transforming toy that combines Toy Story character figures into one massive robot actually exists and can be purchased (via Geek Tyrant):

Plot Hole Fill-In of the Day:

Ever wonder how Indiana Jones rides the submarine all the way to the Nazi base in Raiders of the Lost Ark? Ranker animates an answer:

[embedded content]

Supercut of the Day:

Speaking of Raiders of the Lost Ark, here’s a montage from The New Inquiry of movie heroes taking out Nazis:

[embedded content]

Classic Trailer of the Day:

Today is the 15th anniversary of the release of Big Fat Liar. Watch the original trailer for the Paul Giamatti classic below.

[embedded content]

and

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Federal Judge Blocks Merger Of Anthem And Cigna

A federal judge has blocked Anthem’s bid to merge with another health insurer, Cigna. The Justice Department had said the deal would stifle competition. Michael Conroy/AP hide caption

toggle caption

Michael Conroy/AP

A federal judge has blocked the merger of two major health insurance companies, Anthem and Cigna, after the Justice Department concluded that the deal would reduce competition in the health insurance market and raise prices.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia made the ruling.

Announcing last summer that the Justice Department would oppose both the Anthem-Cigna merger and one by Aetna and Humana, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch said:

“If allowed to proceed, these mergers would fundamentally reshape the health insurance industry. They would leave much of the multi-trillion dollar health insurance industry in the hands of three mammoth insurance companies, drastically constricting competition in a number of key markets that tens of millions of Americans rely on to receive health care. …

“If these mergers were to take place, the competition among these insurers that has pushed them to provide lower premiums, higher quality care and better benefits would be eliminated.”

Acting Assistant Attorney General Brent Snyder said Wednesday, “Today’s decision is a victory for American consumers.” A spokeswoman for Anthem said the insurer was reviewing the judge’s decision and had no comment Wednesday night.

A spokeswoman for Anthem says the company is reviewing the decision and has no comment yet.

Last month, another judge barred the Aetna-Humana deal on the same grounds.

NPR thanks our sponsors

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Baylor Sanctioned By Big 12 After New Revelations About Sexual Assault Controversy

In this Oct. 10, 2015, photo, Baylor head coach Art Briles watches during the second half of an NCAA college football game against Kansas in Lawrence, Kan. Charlie Riedel/AP hide caption

toggle caption

Charlie Riedel/AP

The Big 12 Conference decided Wednesday to impose a multi-million dollar sanction on Baylor University after another recent round of stinging revelations about the extent and nature of the university’s problems with alleged sexual assaults by former members of its football team.

The conference’s board of directors voted to withhold a quarter of Baylor’s future revenue “pending the outcome of third-party verification review of required changes to Baylor’s athletics procedures and to institutional governance of its intercollegiate athletics programs, among other matters,” according to a post on the conference’s website.

“The Board is unified in establishing a process to verify that proper institutional controls are in place and sustainable,” the conference board’s chairman David Boren said. He added, “By taking these actions the Board desires to ensure that the changes that were promised are actually made and that systems are in place to avoid future problems. The proportional withholding of revenue distribution payments will be in effect until the Board has determined that Baylor is in compliance with Conference bylaws and regulations as well as all components of Title IX.”

Article continues after sponsorship

In response, Baylor’s interim president pledged the university’s “full cooperation” with the Big 12’s requirement of an independent review as the school implements “enhanced practices” to deal with allegations of sexual violence.

“This third-party review at the request of the Big 12 Conference,” said David E. Garland, “will provide an opportunity for us to demonstrate our progress to date and our ongoing commitment in establishing Baylor as a leading institution in athletics compliance and governance and for preventing and addressing sexual assaults on college campuses.”

The withholding — which amounts to an estimated $7.5 million reduction in annual distributions to Baylor if the sanction remains in effect — is the closest thing to a punishment imposed by either the Big 12 or the NCAA, after allegations that began roughly 5 years ago of sexual assaults committed by football players during the tenure of former head coach Art Briles and efforts by the university to sweep those alleged assaults and other misconduct under the rug.

First reports last year about the university’s efforts to cover up allegations against the football team included five Baylor football players and 8 occurrences of sexual assault. Then came a Wall St. Journal article in late October that detailed 17 women reporting sexual or domestic assault involving 19 football players, including four instances of alleged gang rapes. Baylor football player Tevin Elliott was charged, convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison in January 2014 after four women testified he sexually assaulted them. Another former player, defensive end Sam Ukwuachu, was convicted in August 2015 of sexually assaulting a member of the women’s soccer team. Yet another All-American member of the Bears’ program, Shawn Oakman, was indicted in July of last year for allegedly sexually assaulting a Baylor graduate student at her apartment. His trial has been set for April.

And that’s just the football team. Baylor’s former Title IX coordinator Patty Crawford, who was in charge of investigating all reports of sexual violence at the university, cited 125 reports of sexual assault and harassment from 2011-2015. Crawford, who came from Indiana University and had no previous connection to Baylor, described a culture of indifference at the Waco, Texas, school when it came to reports of sexual violence by its coeds.

Crawford resigned last fall, accusing the university of interfering with her ability to do her job.

And then the allegations grew even worse in the past two weeks.

Late last month, a young Baylor graduate filed a lawsuit against the university alleging she was gang raped by two football players in 2013 and that more than 50 instances of rape, perpetrated by as many as 31 football players, occurred between 2011 and 2014 when Briles ran the Baylor football program, the Dallas Morning News reported. The suit describes a culture of sexual violence inside the program and contends that Briles implemented an activity called “show ’em a good time,” which included taking underage high school recruits to strip clubs and arranging for escorts to have sex with top prospects. The lawsuit accuses Briles’ son, former Baylor assistant coach Kendal Briles, of asking a Dallas prospect: “Do you like white women? Because we have a lot of them at Baylor and they love football players.”

Close upon the heels of those new allegations, the university itself threw gasoline on the conflagration. Last Thursday in response to more lawsuits, libel suits filed by Briles and by Briles’ assistant coach Colin Shillinglaw, Baylor’s regents and interim president described the football program under Briles as “a black hole into which reports of misconduct such as drug use, physical assault, domestic violence, brandishing of guns, indecent exposure and academic fraud disappeared.”

And to drive the point home, Baylor made public several text messages between then coach Briles, then assistant coach Colin Shillinglaw and then athletic director Ian McCaw. From the university’s court filing:

*On April 8, 2011, after a freshman defensive tackle was cited for illegal consumption of alcohol, Coach Briles sent a text message to an assistant coach: “Hopefully he’s under radar enough they won’t recognize name – did he get ticket from Baylor police or Waco? … Just trying to keep him away from our judicial affairs folks….”

*On February 11, 2013, an assistant coach notified Coach Briles of a claim by a female student-athlete that a football player brandished a gun at her. Coach Briles responded by impugning the victim: “what a fool – she reporting to authorities.” The assistant coach texted back: “She’s acting traumatized … Trying to talk her calm now…”

*On September 13 2013, Shillinglaw sent a text to Coach Briles about a player who got a massage and “supposedly exposed himself and asked for favors. She [the masseuse] has a lawyer but wants us to handle with discipline and counseling.” Briles’ first response was “What kind of discipline… She a stripper?”

*On September 20, 2013, after a player was arrested for assault and threatening to kill a non-athlete, a football operations staff official tried to talk the victim out of pressing criminal charges. Meanwhile, Coach Briles texted Athletics Director Ian McCaw: “Just talked to [the player] – he said Waco PD was there – said they were going to keep it quiet – Wasn’t a set up deal… I’ll get shill(Shillinglaw) to check on Sibley (local attorney Jonathan Sibley).” Athletics Director Ian McCaw replied: “That would be great if they kept it quiet!”

*In October 2013, Shillinglaw and Briles discussed their efforts to intervene on behalf of a player who was suspended for repeated drug violations. “Bottomline, he has to meet with (Vice President for Student Life Kevin) Jackson tomorrow morning. If Jackson does not reinstate President will,” Shillinglaw wrote.

The impending release of the messages seemed to have the desired effect — at least when it came to Briles who dropped his contentious suit against the university just 24 hours before the disclosure of the messages in the school’s court filing responding to Shillinglaw’s ongoing case.

These texts messages were also among the things that led the Big 12 to act. “New information became known that reached a tipping point,” Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby told CBS Sports Wednesday.

“It’s a verification process,” Bowlsby also told CBS Sports, “We’re holding the money until we can verify that what needs to be done is being done.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Since The Election, Americans Grow More Supportive Of Obamacare

There are now more people who think Obamacare is a good idea than those who don’t. It’s basic human nature: People tend to get upset if they think they are about to lose something they feel entitled to or previously had. It’s also the idea that fueled Donald Trump’s electoral base, and ironically, now fuels those who are opposed to him.

KELLY MCEVERS, HOST:

In the last couple of months, something has changed about the way Americans feel about Obamacare. Since the election, its popularity is growing. That’s a big change in public opinion, and NPR political reporter Danielle Kurtzleben thinks she knows why. She’s with us in the studio. Hey, there.

DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN, BYLINE: Hey.

MCEVERS: So tell us first about the polling on Obamacare.

KURTZLEBEN: Right. So you have several polls recently – one from NBC, one from CNN. And they found that for the first time since Obamacare was passed, it is seen more favorably than not. And what’s interesting is this seems to mean that even people who weren’t all that crazy about Obamacare are now fighting against its repeal. Several commentators have pointed this out. And as I wrote in an article this week, one possible reason for this is the idea of relative deprivation.

MCEVERS: What is that?

KURTZLEBEN: So it’s the sense that I’m entitled to something and that I perceive that I can’t get it. Now, the idea here is that this is what inspires a lot of political revolts. There was a political scientist named Ted Robert Gurr who, in the 1970s, wrote a whole book about this. Now, the key word here is relative. This isn’t just about deprivation, period. That is, I’m not necessarily going to go protest if I don’t have health insurance, but I will if I think I should rightfully have it and that I can’t get it. For example, in the fight over health care, you’ve you heard a lot of Obamacare advocates, for example, say health care is a fundamental human right. Now, to the degree that that raised people’s expectations for what they should get from the government, that may be inspiring people to go out and protest right now.

MCEVERS: And so when you wrote about this, you pointed to the Women’s March as an example. I mean, you heard a lot of people say they had a fear of losing something, like losing access to abortion.

KURTZLEBEN: Right.

MCEVERS: But there were men there, too, right? Is that because they were supporters?

KURTZLEBEN: Yes, right. And it’s totally true. You know, you had men at these women’s marches. You have a lot of people, for example, who probably won’t be directly affected by the administration’s executive order on immigration who are out protesting that, as well. But once again, there’s a gap here between what protesters think they should have and what they are able to have. And you heard this in some of these protests where you had left-leaning protesters yelling at Democratic leaders. There’s a sense there that I picked up on of we should be more powerful than this. That is, they, until recently, had something – aka the presidency – and now they’ve lost it. Likewise, there was this election that many had hoped and even thought they would win, and then they didn’t.

MCEVERS: Right. So you’re seeing all this energy on the left. But you write that this idea of relative deprivation can also help explain some of the energy on the right, yeah?

KURTZLEBEN: It’s really striking how much Donald Trump used this in his campaign. And I would argue that this is what made him such an effective campaigner – his whole make America great again idea. He told people there’s some sort of greatness they once had, they don’t have it now and that he can get it back for them.

MCEVERS: And as you put it, relative deprivation is basically about two things – I mean, expectations and whether or not they can be met. So what happens if expectations are not met?

KURTZLEBEN: Well, we’re about to see. I mean, after all, right now Trump is delivering on a lot of these campaign promises – these expectations he set up. He’s signing all of these executive orders, but repealing and replacing Obamacare is a big test. Now, after all, relatively recently, he raised expectations on that. He said he would make sure there was, quote, “insurance for everybody.” And then he and other Republicans kind of walked that back. So what happens now is all about that gap between the expectations they set and what reality will be. So they will have to deliver or, to some degree, bring expectations down, perhaps. Otherwise, they could face some really angry voters in the future.

MCEVERS: That’s NPR’s Danielle Kurtzleben. Thank you so much.

KURTZLEBEN: Thank you.

(SOUNDBITE OF BILL FRISELL SONG, “WHAT WE NEED”)

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)