From the get-go, analysts were saying that the Trump administration’s case against the AT&T/Time Warner merger was quite unusual. The government usually tries to block horizontal mergers, but not this time. The Justice Dept.’s attempt to block this particular merger was, of course, driven by Donald Trump‘s antagonistic attitude toward CNN. “AT&T owns the pipes and the wires, Time Warner owns the content,” etc. The merger will enable the two giants to “enhance each other,” as the argument does. And now Trump has lost. The deal has been approved without conditions.

Yesterday Deadline‘s Mike Fleming reported that Ben Affleck and director Gavin O’Connor are “circling” The Has-Been, a Hoosiers-like basketball coach drama with elements that reflect Affleck’s own personal history.

Written by Brad Ingelsby, The Has-Been would star Affleck as “a former basketball all-star who has lost his wife and family foundation in a struggle with addiction” — an echo of what Affleck himself has been going through. Affleck’s character “attempts to regain his soul and salvation by becoming the coach of a disparate, ethnically mixed high school basketball team at his alma mater.”

If they want to really tell an Affleck tale they’ll set the high school in the Boston area, no?

The Has-Been might “happen on a fast-track” via Warner Bros., Fleming wrote. Affleck would produce along with Jennifer Todd, Mark Ciardi, Gordon Grey, O’Connor and Inglesby.

Fans of Hoosiers will recall a similar personal-struggle plotline. A basketball coach with a spotty past (Gene Hackman) trying to overcome personal demons and get back in the game. Working with a high-school team, having to overcome various forms of resistance, having to summon all of his inner resources and discipline, etc.

The other Hoosiers echo, of course, is Dennis Hopper‘s performance as the town drunk, which led to a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nom.

Affleck’s most recent film is J.C. Chandor‘s Triple Frontier, which began shooting on 3.19.18. The drug-trafficking drama costars Oscar Isaac, Adria Arjona, Charlie Hunnam, Garrett Hedlund and Pedro Pascal.

I never understood the speculation that Dexter Fletcher, who took over as director of Bohemian Rhapsody last December in the wake of Bryan Singer‘s firing, might wind up with the final “directed by” credit.

Fletcher finished the Queen biopic over the course of 16 days last January, but Singer oversaw pre-production from July to September 2017 and then directed principal photography from mid September ’17 until late November, or roughly 10 weeks. How could the contribution of a two-week guy be credited more highly than a ten-week guy, not counting pre-production?

Not surprisingly, Bohemian Rhapsody producer Graham King has told Empire magazine that the directing credit will go to Singer, not Fletcher.

(l.) Bohemian Rhapsody director Bryan Singer; (r.) fill-in director Dexter Fletcher.

 From Collider‘s Adam Chitwood, quoting King’s Empire statement:

“Bryan Singer is the credited director of the film. Basically, Bryan had some personal issues going on. He wanted to hiatus the movie to deal with them, and the movie had to get finished. That was what it came down to…it wasn’t about reinventing the wheel. We needed someone who would have some creative freedom, but work inside a box. [Fletcher] did us a real favor.”

The undercurrent in the Singer removal involved concerns about inappropriate off-screen behavior a la Kevin Spacey. Everyone was presuming that some kind of allegation would blow up in the wake of Singer’s dismissal, which happened because he left the set after friction with star Rami Malek and other cast members. A sexual assault lawsuit against Singer was filed on 12.7.17. It pointed to an alleged incident that happened in 2003.

A vaguely creepy fake trailer, smoothly narrated and assembled by Team Trump, was shown yesterday to Kim Jong Un as an incentive for North Korea to de-nuclearize and generally behave in a more peaceful and constructive fashion.

“Destiny Pictures presents a story of opportunity. A new story, a new beginning. A story about a special moment in time, when an absolute ruler is presented with one chance which may never be repeated. What will he choose? To show vision and leadership? Or not?

“Featuring President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un…in a meeting to remake history. To shine in the sun. One moment, one choice, what if? The future remains to be written.”

On one level Trump offering Kim a chance to improve his country’s financial health — to “advance his country and be part of a new world…shake the hand of peace and enjoy prosperity like he has never seen…a great life or more isolation?” — is a practical, constructive approach. In the darkest hours of the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson offered a similar carrot-and-stick appeal to North Vietnam, “a massive TVA-style development project for North Vietnam if Hanoi renounced its efforts to reunify the country by force.”

On another level Trump’s fake video — basically a sales pitch — reminds me on some level of that weird video shown to Warren Beatty‘s journalist character, Joe Frady, in Alan Pakula‘s The Parallax View. [After the jump.]

I’ve become so accustomed to the idea of Ben Affleck not playing the dual titular role in Matt Reeves‘ The Batman that it looks like up to me. So that Deadline report about The Batman “likely” being a reboot sans Affleck….I feel like I’ve been digesting this story for at least a year if not longer. The wheels seem to be grinding awfully slowly on the Warner Bros. lot.

And seriously, a Batman “reboot”? Another one? What more could possibly be said at this point? What could Reeves’ film possibly do and where could it go? The franchise has been milked so dry there’s nothing left to suck on.

The only concept that interests me is “take away the grandiose wealth” — i.e., Bruce Wayne, Wayne Manor, Alfred, Morgan Freeman‘s Q-like character. And make Batman into a guy who’s only worth maybe $4 or $5 million — comfortable but not flamboyantly rich, dedicated to his mission but occasionally skating on thin financial ice, so to speak. Maybe a guy with poor social skills, a guy who made some bad investments a few years back and now the chickens are coming home to roost. He’s not above washing the Batmobile himself, and every so often he brings in a sworn-to-secrecy mechanic for a tune-up or a tire-change or replacing the clutch.

I was feeling feeling vaguely shitty about Monday’s Donald Trump–Kim Jong-Un summit in Singapore. Mainly because I couldn’t think of anything negative to say except for the standard line about Trump and Kim feeling a certain rapport because in their own ways they’re both anti-Democratic brutalists. Trump isn’t in Kim’s league, of course, but for a Democratically elected American president he’s quite the smug bully, quite the Berlusconi, quite toxic.

I guess I’m grumpy because Trump is going to rise in the polls from this. I guess we all knew that going in. It’s dispiriting.

The only happy bone I could find came from journalist-author Richard Engel, shared earlier today on MSNBC: “There are other South Koreans who are a lot more skeptical. They say this is about show, this is just a photo-op, that the two leaders each want to get something out of this and it’s about optics instead of real diplomacy.”

Alec Baldwin‘s Jack Ryan never existed. Ditto Harrison Ford‘s, Ben Affleck‘s and Chris Pine‘s. Or they all did, in a sense, and John Krasinski‘s is simply the New Ryan on the Block. Except it’s the same old legend, the same old routine. Jack is a CIA cubicle guy, a reader, an analyst, a dweeb. “Get on the plane!” When the CIA needs someone smart and resourceful to investigate terrorist baddies in a race to prevent a global attack, they go to one guy. Eight one-hour segments starting on 8.31. Directed by Morten Tyldum (Passengers, Imitation Game) and costarring Abbie Cornish, Timothy Hutton and Peter Fonda.

I’ve never had much interest in the fanatical anger that hardcore Star Wars fans have been venting since The Last Jedi popped last December, and especially (I guess) since the tanking of Solo.

And I’ve never felt anything but loathing for the haters who went after poor Kelly Marie Tran (i.e, “Rose Tico”), who handled herself pretty well in The Last Jedi, I thought. She’s a good actress who rose to the occasion.

But I was struck just now by a comment posted this morning (6.11) in a Deadline thread. By a guy named “James 1701.” (I think.) It seems to lay out all the basic beefs. I don’t give a damn about this stuff, but please read and comment — I’m curious what the HE crowd thinks. In fact, try reading some of the other comments first — they offer context.

“Not a hate bandwagon. It’s totally legit. Force Awakens was alright but forgettable. Not a great movie and they forgot to include any character development, backstory explanation, or originality. It introduced a Mary Sue for the main character and some ridiculous SJW ideals for everyone [else]. It murdered a beloved character [Han Solo] with no build-up or reason whatsoever, and it completely omitted the most popular character in the entire franchise. The other new characters were just straight-up awful and the main bad guy is an email.”

Kylo Ren is “an email”? I’ve never called anyone or anything that, but it’s kinda funny.

Back to James1701: “Rogue One continued this trend but was added a Darth Vader scene and a tie-in to A New Hope.

“The Last Jedi was horrendous and made The Force Awakens [seem] even worse. More character assassination, less back-story, more SJW bullshit, and it just killed off the most popular character while making him look like a fool.

“And then Solo followed in these footsteps.

“Rian Johnson, Kathleen Kennedy, Jar-Jar Abrams and the rest of Disney have crapped all over fans, insulting then and calling them racist and idiots. They’ve quite literally just killed the just successful movie franchise of all times. They honestly shouldn’t even make Episode 9. They should just start over and redo episode 7 with a totally new creative team and pretend The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi never happened.”

Soon after last weekend’s news of Anthony Bourdain‘s suicide, a friend sent me a 6.5 Daily Mail story about Asia Argento hanging the previous weekend with journalist Hugo Clement in Rome. There was a suggestion that Argento’s seeming infidelity might have acted as a “trigger” incident that affected Bourdain in a negative way. A People piece is suggesting something along these lines.

I immediately dismissed it. No semi-mature person, even one grappling with depression, offs themselves over this kind of thing. Bourdain seemed way too wise and seasoned to act like a broken-hearted teenager. Or maybe Bourdain and Argento had a fluid relationship that allowed for occasional dalliances with other people. Who knows?

Apparently some people have been talking about the Argento-Clement thing because a few hours ago Rose McGowan released an open letter about the Bourdain-Argento relationship — a letter intended to dissuade people from coming to the wrong conclusion.

“I write these truths because I have been asked to,” McGowan began. “I know so many around the world thought of Anthony Bourdain as a friend and when a friend dies, it hurts. Many of these people who lost their ‘friend’ are wanting to lash out and blame. You must not sink to that level. Suicide is a horrible choice, but it is that person’s choice.

“Anthony and Asia had a free relationship,” McGowan explained. “They loved without borders of traditional relationships, and they established the parameters of their relationship early on. Asia is a free bird, and so was Anthony. Was. Such a terrible word to write. I’ve heard from many that the past two years they were together were some of his happiest and that should give us all solace.

“When Anthony met Asia, it was instant chemistry. They laughed, they loved and he was her rock during the hardships of this last year. Anthony was open with his demons, he even wrote a book about them. And through a lot of this last year, Asia did want the pain to stop. But here’s the thing, over their time together, thankfully, she did the work to get help, so she could stay alive and live another day for her and her children.

“Anthony’s depression didn’t let him, he put down his armor, and that was very much his choice. His decision, not hers. His depression won.”

In Incredibles 2, the Parr family (Mr. Incredible, Elastigirl, Violet, Dash, Jack-Jack) bunks for a few weeks at the “Safari Court Motel”, a ’50s-looking place with a neon sign. Except many well-travelled Los Angeleno will tell you it’s a real, actual place, three or four blocks from Disney Studios. Located at 1911 W. Olive Ave (between Lamer and Parish Place), the Safari Inn — no “court” in the name — was also where Clarence and Alabama stayed in Tony Scott and Quentin Tarantino‘s True Romance (’93).

Now for the bad news: The neon palm tree and swimming pool are still there, but indoors the Safari is nothing close to a “gorgeously retro motel,” as Hollywood Reporter critic Todd McCarthy described it today. Having visited there a couple of years ago, I can tell you it’s bland and corporate and sorely lacking in ’50s character. Built in 1955, the place was bought and apparently “upgraded” by Coast Hotels sometime within the last decade. Trust me — the funky-retro place you may remember from True Romance (i.e., the motel where James Gandolfini and Patricia Arquette had their big fight) is no more.

The Safari Inn was reportedly also seen in Ron Howard‘s Apollo 13 and has been featured in several TV series.

Critics usually give animated features a pass if they can. Especially Disney/Pixar product. It’s safer and simpler to just wave the bull through. Mainly because they don’t want to sound mean or grumpy when it comes to well-funded family fare. Hence the 97% Rotten Tomatoes score for a Disney/Pixar sequel that is clearly, obviously not as good as the 2004 original.

It therefore takes a certain degree of courage to stand up to a film like Incredibles 2, and so HE offers a salute to Variety‘s Owen Gleiberman and Chicago Tribune critic Michael Phillips.

Gleiberman: “Incredibles 2 offers a puckishly high-spirited but slightly strenuous replay of the original film’s tale of a superhero family working to prove its relevance. What was organic, and even obsessive, in the first outing comes off as pat and elaborate formula here. The new movie, energized as it is, too often feels like warmed-over sloppy seconds.

“In the years since the ’04 original, the cult of the superhero has all but taken over the culture, which is one reason why Incredibles 2 was likely greenlit. So it feels a little off-kilter to realize that superheroes, in Incredibles 2, are still illegal, and that the Parrs are living like refugees, holed up in the Safari Court Motel. As a concept, the reset never fully gels. It’s a convoluted way of rehashing the first film (with less pizzazz) instead of building something new on top of it.

“Each story point hits us with its overly calculated ‘relevance.’ Bob’s awkwardness as a nurturer in the brave new world of dads-as-homemakers; Helen’s proud post-feminist advancement over her husband; the ominous threat of whatever comes through the computer screen — it’s all a bit too thought out, and maybe a tad behind the curve.”

Phillips: “Incredibles 2 is the 14-years-later sequel, again from Disney-Pixar, again from writer-director Bird. It’s just okay, which is somehow a little less than okay, considering the artistic heights the studio has scaled at its peak.