Quantcast
Channel: TV
Viewing all 7868 articles
Browse latest View live

10 tech gadgets that’ll take your living room to the next level

$
0
0

The Insider Picks team writes about stuff we think you'll like. Business Insider has affiliate partnerships so we may get a share of the revenue from your purchase.

The living room is a place for relaxation, but there’s a growing number of gadgets that aim to make it even more convenient. Whether you plan on throwing a few parties or Netflix binging alone, here’s some gear we like for anyone’s lounge.


Vizio E48-C2 ($399.99)

vizio e48 c2 hdtvA living room is for living, and there’s no better way to live than to sit in front of a television all day. Joking aside, the TV is the centerpiece of any home theater, so you might as well make yours a good one. Thankfully, if you aren’t satisfied with your current set, you can find a fairly high quality one for less than $500 nowadays.

Vizio’s carved out a reputation for providing great pictures on the cheap, and its newest E series of HDTVs only furthers that standing. This 48-inch model is a particularly great value: It doesn’t have the most vibrant screen in this range, but it’s very close, and it puts that panel in a much larger display than most similarly-priced options.

Vizio E48-C2 48-inch 1080p Smart LED TV, $399.99, available at Best Buy.


Logitech Harmony 650 ($60)

logitech harmony 650Shelling out the cash for a universal remote might seem wasteful at first, but the second you don’t have to fiddle with seven different controllers to get your home theater working, they feel like it's worth it. Logitech’s Harmony line is the gold standard in this category, and the Harmony 650 in particular is its best mix of price and utility.

Newer, more expensive models like the Logitech Home Control look better and integrate with more smart devices, but for half the price, the Harmony 650 gives you a more comfortable design, the ability to control up to eight devices at once, and very few worries about your gadgets being incompatible. Instead of swapping between two remotes to control a speaker and Blu-ray player, you can simply hit the “Listen to music” and “Watch a movie” buttons and go from there. It’s just convenient.  

Logitech Harmony 650 Remote Control, $60 available at Amazon.


Logitech K830 Illuminated Living Room Wireless Keyboard ($99.99)

logitech k830 keyboardNavigating any device hooked up to your TV with a traditional TV remote isn’t the most intuitive solution. Anyone who’s ever had to use a d-pad to slowly move from one letter to the next when searching for a show should get the idea.

You can get around that sluggishness, though, by picking up a keyboard made specifically for Internet-connected TVs. The Logitech K830 connects over Bluetooth Smart, and includes a built-in touchpad, automatic backlight, and a few handy hotkeys for controlling any Windows- or Android-based devices hooked up to your set. It’ll make getting around any PC-connected TV less of a chore. If you want a cheaper option, though, try the older $25 Logitech K400.

Logitech Illuminated K830 Wireless Keyboard, $99.99, available at Amazon.


Roku 2 ($69.75)

Roku 2We’ve sung its praises before, but if you’re in the market for a set-top box, the newest Roku 2 is the best you can buy. Roku’s app selection, search function, and overall interface are second to none, and the Roku 2 is just as speedy as its step-up sibling, the Roku 3. Its included remote is dumber than the one that comes with that box, but since it gives the same breadth of content and general ease of use for $20-30 less, it’s a better buy. For an inexpensive, if comparatively limited, option, try the Google Chromecast.

Roku 2 Streaming Media Player (2015 model), $69.75, available at Amazon.


Sony PlayStation 4 ($349.99)

sony playstation 4You may not need a Roku if you enjoy gaming, since consoles like the PlayStation 4 support many of the same streaming apps. We highlighted Microsoft’s Xbox One in our media streamer guide for being a better all-around entertainment hub, but if games are your concern, we’d go with Sony’s machine. Its exclusives are more appealing than the Xbox’s, it’s more future-proof than Nintendo’s Wii U, and its more popular than both, meaning you’re more likely to have friends to play with.

Sony PlayStation 4 (500 GB, The Nathan Drake Collection Bundle), $349.99, available at Amazon.


Monoprice 108250 2-Way Bookshelf Speakers ($36.96)

monoprice bookshelf speakersNaturally, grabbing a good pair of bookshelf speakers will liven up the sound of your living room setup. Monoprice is no stranger to providing great audio at affordable prices, but its 2-Way Bookshelf Speakers are a particularly wonderful value, providing a clean, highly detailed sound for the money.

You can’t expect audiophile-grade performance from ultra-budget speakers like these — they aren’t all that adept with bass, for instance — but they’re an excellent value for less than $50. For a still affordable step up, go with the clearer and more stylish Pioneer SP-BS22.

Monoprice 108250 2-Way Bookshelf Speakers, $36.96, available at Amazon.


Amazon Echo ($179.99)

amazon echoThe Amazon Echo is like a Siri for the living room. On the surface, it’s a just okay Bluetooth speaker, but start talking to "Alexa," the AI assistant at the heart of the device, and it can do much, much more. Like Siri (or Google Now, or Cortana), it can jot down dictated notes, set alarms, tell you the weather, read you audiobooks, schedule appointments, add items to a to-do list, or just tell you random bits of information, among a few dozen other tasks.

The Echo is better at comprehending your requests than those other assistants, though, and it can connect with various other smart devices in your home, like a Sonos speaker or Philips Hue light. If you’re working on building a smart home, it can be the center of it. It’ll be more useful if you’re already invested in Amazon, and we’d like it to be a little bit cheaper, but the Echo works very well for what it is, and it’s getting more useful with every update. It feels futuristic.

Amazon Echo, $179.99, available at Amazon.


Flux Bluetooth Smart LED Light Bulb ($30.95)

flux smart bulbSmart light bulbs can come off as gimmicky, but when used right, taking control of your lighting can save energy, help you sleep easier, and make you more focused when needed. And yes, they’re fun for parties.

The Philips Hue line is still the best of this category, but it’s prohibitively expensive for many who aren’t constantly fiddling with their lights. For a more accessible option, this Flux bulb is adjustable through your smartphone in much the same way, and comes with stellar Amazon reviews. (Though its app is much less polished.) If you’d like a more portable light, the Philips Hue Go isn’t as pricey as its bulb-based brethren.

Flux Bluetooth Smart LED Bulb, $30.95, available at Amazon.


TP-Link Archer C9 ($137.81)

tp link archer c9Having a reliable Internet connection will keep all of your connected devices going, and the TP-Link Archer C9 is more than capable of providing it. It gets fast WiFi speeds over 802.11ac that can handle multiple devices at once, has good range through its trio of antennas, and comes with plenty of ports for supporting wired and wireless connections simultaneously. It’s a great mid-tier router at a good price.

If that’s too much for you to spend on a router, though, TP-Link’s Archer C7 stays close enough for $30 less, even if it’s a couple steps down performance-wise and isn’t as easy to configure.

TP-Link Archer C9 Dual Band Wireless Gigabit Router, $137.81, available at Amazon.


Belkin 6-Outlet Commercial Surge Protector ($8.45)

belkin 6 outlet surge protectorFinally, you’re going to need something to plug all of this stuff into. This 6-outlet power strip from Belkin does what it needs to do for about $10, and has great user feedback to boot. It works fine as a surge protector for most people, too, though if you want to further protect your gear from blowing up with an unwanted voltage spike, you can try Belkin’s more advanced 12-outlet protector. Either way, you can never have too many outlets.

Belkin 6-Outlet Commercial Surge Protector (8 Feet), $8.45, available at Amazon.


 

SEE ALSO: Bluetooth accessories have come a long way — here are our current favorites

READ THIS: 10 great-looking headphones for the music enthusiast on your list

MORE GIFTS: The best tech stocking stuffers

Join the conversation about this story »


Lionsgate is reportedly restarting talks to acquire Starz

$
0
0

lionsgate

It looks like talks of Lionsgate picking up Starz are back on the table.

Bloomberg reports that Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., which owns the Hollywood studio Lionsgate, has restarted conversations about a possible acquisition of the premium cable channel.

Discussions between advisers for both parties are reportedly in the "early" stage, and might not turn into anything solid.

Lionsgate is reporting earnings Thursday and is said to be focusing on Starz after that.

Talks of an acquisition previously surfaced in 2014, but it reportedly didn't go through because of Starz's valuation. Nevertheless, the channel company swapped 4.5 percent of its stock for 3.4 percent of Lionsgate's outstanding shares last year. John Malone, the billionaire owner of Starz, sits on Lionsgate's board because of the deal.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: If there's one movie you should watch before the Oscars, this is it

Les Moonves in as CBS Chairman after Sumner Redstone steps down

$
0
0

les moonves cbs

CBS Corporation has named Leslie Moonves its new chairman after Sumner Redstone has resigned from the post, according to a release on Wednesday.

The CBS Board of Directors elected Moonves to the position with a unanimous vote.

Redstone, 92 and in declining health, has been named Chairman Emeritus, CBS Corporation.

Shari E. Redstone, Sumner Redstone’s daughter, will continue to serve as vice chair of the CBS Board, a position she has held since 2005.

“I am honored to accept the chairmanship of this great company,” Moonves said in a statement.

“I want to thank Sumner for his guidance and strong support over all these years," he continued. "It has meant the world to me. I am particularly grateful that Shari Redstone has agreed to continue in her role as vice chair of the company. Her business acumen and knowledge of the media space remain very important to me as we move forward, and I greatly appreciate her support and invaluable counsel. I would also like to thank our excellent board of directors, who have contributed so significantly to our success. The people of CBS have achieved much together and I believe the best is yet to come.”

Sumner Redstone arrives at the premiere of Moonves, who served as CBS Corp.'s president and chief executive officer, oversaw the breadth of the company's entertainment properties, including CBS, The CW, Showtime Networks, and the CBS TV stations.

Meanwhile, Redstone served as chairman of the board of both CBS Corporation and Viacom, which he assumed after the separation of Viacom into two publicly traded companies in January 2006.

Redstone is the controlling shareholder of both companies.

As for the future of Redstone at Viacom, which he also chairs, reports say the Viacom board expects to replace him as chair as well.

SEE ALSO: CBS's 'Rush Hour' defends itself against accusations of racial stereotyping

SEE ALSO: What happens behind the scenes of CBS daytime talk show 'The Talk' from start to finish

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: CBS CEO Les Moonves explains why your future cable bill could be as low as $30 a month

Here's how Larry David ended up doing his brilliant Bernie Sanders impression on 'Saturday Night Live'

$
0
0

18 larry david bernie sanders.w1200.h630 998x524

One of the highlights of watching “Saturday Night Live” during the current election season is witnessing Larry David’s spot-on portrayal of Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders.

The performance is certain to go down as another amazing political spoof from “SNL.”

And it sounds like David didn’t need much convincing to do it.

In a recent interview with Vulture, “SNL” co-head writer Rob Klein said that everything was finalized in a matter of minutes during two conversations happening in different parts of Manhattan.

“While we were watching the debate, [writer] Sarah [Schneider] said, ‘Larry David should really play Bernie Sanders,'” Klein said.

Across town, “SNL” creator Lorne Michaels was having dinner with the host that week, Tracy Morgan, when someone said to Michaels, “Hey, you should really get Larry David to play Bernie Sanders. It’s like the same guy.” Michaels got back from dinner and answered a call from David’s agent saying that the "Curb Your Enthusiasm" star wanted to play Bernie Sanders.

“We were all there in a late-night meeting, and within, like, 10 minutes, it went from ‘Oh, that would be so funny if it were Larry David,’ to ‘Larry David is on the phone with Lorne making a hotel reservation.’ It was pretty great,” Klein explained.

And though it might seem like all David had to do was throw on a suit and be "himself" to play Sanders, according to Klein, he spent some time watching Sanders to play the part.

“I did see him watching the event with Hillary and Bernie in Maryland,” Klein said. “People were hanging out in the room while he was watching it, and I remember… he was really getting into the subtleties of Bernie Sanders’ voice and mannerisms.”

David is the host of “SNL” this week, so expect some great Sanders material this Saturday.

Watch David’s first appearance on “SNL” as Sanders below:

 

SEE ALSO: 'People v. O.J. Simpson' star Cuba Gooding, Jr. explains why movie stars are flocking to TV

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch Tina Fey take on Sarah Palin's Trump endorsement speech on SNL

How Vice's new cable network plans to revolutionize TV and bring back millennials

$
0
0

Getty Images vice viceland shane smith

In just a few short weeks, Vice will finally have a television playland — something it has been working on for a few years now.

On February 29, Viceland lauches with the goal of bringing millennials back to TV or squeezing out the final millions who found their way to the aging machine and converting them to users of the media brand's other platforms.

Why TV when its millennial audience is dipping in viewership? Vice co-creator Shane Smith wasn't going to miss out on the money Vice could be making now, because, as he put it, "75% of the world's advertising budget" is still being used on TV.

"Why don't I get that 75% while all these other guys who don't know what the f--k they're doing are getting it?" he asked the Hollywood Reporter in a new cover interview laden with profanity.

The Viceland deal is full of new ideas, but network partner A+E sees it as a worthy gamble since the channel it's transitioning, H2, wasn't doing well anyway.

In many ways, Viceland is not following the standard protocol for a TV network. And, that's the intention.

Here are five ways Viceland is breaking the TV industry's rules:

SEE ALSO: What happens behind the scenes of a hit NBC show as it airs live

SEE ALSO: The 6 biggest things that will shake up the TV industry in 2016

1. Vice is setting up a cable network without pouring millions of dollars into it and wrangling for distribution.

Vice will replace A+E 's low-rated cable network H2. Instantly, it doesn't have to spend millions for a position on the dial and it takes over H2's distribution of about 70 million homes.



2. A+E has little to lose with Viceland.

A+E has handed over a low-rated cable network. If Vice can improve on H2's numbers, great! As BTIG analyst Rich Greenfield told THR, "In success, they create something far more meaningful than H2. And at worst, they revert to an H2 strategy in two years."



3. Cable TV viewers aren't necessarily the end goal.

Smith knows that his target audience is shrinking on traditional TV. A recent Pew Research Center study found that 19% of 18-to-29-year-olds are cord cutters (they've dropped cable or satellite TV subscriptions), while another 16% have never even signed up for a traditional pay TV package. And as that group continues to move from TV to other platforms, Vice is waiting. "Guess what? I'm in online," Smith told THR. "I'm in mobile!"

"We saw an opening, and for us it's about brands that will survive regardless of the platform," A+E Networks CEO Nancy Dubuc said, "and Vice is the Holy Grail."



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Jimmy Fallon mocks Donald Trump's loss with impression: He's a 'huge No. 2'

$
0
0

jimmy fallon as donald trump nbc

Jimmy Fallon couldn't help but dust off his Donald Trump impersonation after the presidential candidate took second place at the Iowa caucus earlier this week.

"I'm here today because the people of Iowa have wisely named me the winner and champion of second place," Fallon says as Trump.

The real-estate mogul lost to Ted Cruz in Iowa. Famous for his spin, Trump said on Tuesday that he's happy with second place and that the media wasn't giving him proper credit for the accomplishment.

What does Fallon's Trump say? 

jimmy fallon as donald trump nbc ag

"Think about it: Two is bigger than one. One plus one is two. So basically, I won twice."

He then launched into several examples of why two is better than one, including "Toy Story 2," R2-D2, the twins on ABC's "The Bachelor," and "the minion that has two eyes."

Trump is so proud of placing second, according to Fallon's take, he wants us all to see him and think, "Huge No. 2."

Watch the hilarious sketch below:

 

SEE ALSO: Stephen Colbert throws his own debate with dueling Donald Trumps

SEE ALSO: The 'Force Awakens' cast joined Jimmy Fallon and The Roots to sing a joyous 'Star Wars' music medley

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: All of the top polls called Iowa wrong

Channing Tatum remembers his 'worst' audition ever for 'Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift'

$
0
0

channing tatum jimmy kimmel

He may have landed roles in hit films like "21 Jump Street" and "The Hateful Eight," but model-turned-actor Channing Tatum has had terrible audition experiences.

During an appearance on "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" Wednesday night, Tatum said his worst audition was for the third "The Fast and the Furious" film, "Tokyo Drift."

“I stopped in the middle of the audition, and I was like, ‘I think we’re done, right? This is terrible.’” Tatum said.

When asked why he stopped, Tatum said, "I blocked it out so I don’t remember the specifics, but it was a combination of probably me being just bad, not remembering the lines, totally freaked out. I was probably sweating a lot. They didn’t even try to stop me.”

Tatum said he initially auditioned for the role because he wanted to go to Tokyo "very badly." 

Vin Diesel announced Wednesday that three more "Fast and Furious" films are planned through 2021. Tatum is currently starring in the Coen brothers' "Hail, Caesar!" 

Watch Tatum talk about his audition below:

 

SEE ALSO: 'Hail, Caesar!' is the ultimate Coen brothers movie — enjoyable and infuriating

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Hollywood's new power couple were both nominated for Oscars

Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman elected chairman as Sumner Redstone steps down

$
0
0

Philippe Dauman Viacom

Amid opposition, Philippe Dauman has been elected chairman of Viacom, Inc., replacing Sumner Redstone, according to a release on Thursday.

Dauman has been the Chief Executive Officer and President of Viacom, Inc. since September 5, 2006.

Redstone, 92 and in declining health, will assume a chairman emeritus position with the board.

"Philippe has been instrumental with Sumner in every aspect of Viacom's success for nearly 30 years and most recently as CEO has taken on the tough task of navigating our future in a time of unprecedented innovation and disruption,"said William Schwartz, Chairman of the Governance and Nominating Committee of Viacom's Board of Directors.

"He has laid out a strategic long-term vision for the company that we fully endorse," Schwartz continued. "We have complete confidence that his dedication to Viacom, his global experience, and his determination to further our culture of creativity and innovation will continue to serve the interests of all shareholders and build long-term value."

On Wednesday, following the election of Les Moonves to CBS Corp. chairman, Shari Redstone, Sumner's daughter and vice chairman of Viacom, suggested the board go with someone more independent than Dauman.

Sumner Redstone arrives at the premiere of “It is my firm belief that whomever may succeed my father as Chair at each company should be someone who is not a Trustee of my father’s trust or otherwise intertwined in Redstone family matters, but rather a leader with an independent voice,” Shari Redstone said.

Les Moonves, the CBS Corporation's CEO who was elected chairman on Wednesday, was considered the top candidate for the Viacom chair, as well.

As reports of a change at the top of Viacom broke on Wednesday, its stocks dramatically rose.

Viacom has been under the spotlight from analysts and its own investors for poor executive management. With brands like MTV, VH1, BET, and Nickelodeon under its umbrella, the media company has had a ratings and a brand decline as the top entertainment destination for youth and pop culture.

On the movie side, Paramount films haven't been seen as competitive with those of other major studios.

Although Redstone's health and capability of serving in the dual Viacom and CBS roles have been under suspicion for years, a recent court case has shed light on the matter.  The media mogul’s former girlfriend Manuela Herzer is suing in LA court to be reinstated as his health-care agent. While corporate reps have assured the public that Redstone is in full control of his faculties, Herzer alleges he's "a living ghost" and can't even sign his name.

SEE ALSO: Les Moonves in as CBS Chairman after Sumner Redstone steps down

SEE ALSO: How Vice's new cable network plans to revolutionize TV and bring back millennials

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: CBS CEO Les Moonves explains why your future cable bill could be as low as $30 a month


A bomb threat seeking 'justice' for Steven Avery of 'Making a Murderer' turned up no bombs

$
0
0

Steven Avery making a murderer fox 5

The Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department, which figured prominently in Netflix's "Making a Murderer," received bomb threats on Wednesday night that caused a lot of chaos.

A person called the station and said that there were bombs planted throughout the building and the parking lot, TMZ reported.

The caller also demanded justice for Steven Avery, the local resident who some believe was framed for murder by officers from the department.

As a result of the call, officers cleared out the building and the parking lot. After searching for about two hours, they had found no explosives and said all was clear.

A second bomb threat was called in later that night. But again, there were no explosives found.

Manitowoc County in Wisconsin has seen a lot of activity relating to Avery since Netflix premiered the "Making a Murderer" docuseries in December. In addition to the media, tourists have been making their way to the Avery auto salvage yard to take photos.

making a murderer steven avery propertyLast week, 50 to 80 people protested on the steps of the county's courthouse.

Many residents have become angry about the attention given to their town for a case they feel was closed in 2007 when Steven Avery and his then-teen nephew Brendan Dassey were convicted for the murder of photographer Teresa Halbach.

"Making a Murderer" follows Avery and Dassey's trials, as well as the controversial theory that local police planted evidence to point to Avery after he was exonerated for another crime for which he served 18 years. At the time of the investigation into Halbach's murder, Avery was in the midst of a$36 million civil case against the county, which included the officers involved in the wrongful conviction.

SEE ALSO: Steven Avery's brother offers new evidence that could help the 'Making a Murderer' convict

SEE ALSO: 'Making a Murderer' defense attorney says blood vial evidence could still prove Steven Avery was framed

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The lawyer from 'Making A Murderer' describes what's wrong with America's criminal justice system

Mountain Dew’s first Super Bowl ad in over 15 years is the stuff of nightmares

$
0
0

Mountain Dew will be airing its first Super Bowl ad in over 15 years this Sunday.

The consensus? It’s strange. Really, really strange.

The ad showcases a monstrous Frankenstein-like creature dubbed PuppyMonkeyBaby, with a baby's legs, a monkey's torso, and a puppy's head.

Look at it: 

puppymonkeybabymountain dew puppymonkeybabyIf that's not enough, the humanoid starts uttering, "PuppyMonkeyBaby" as it dances around a living room floor before licking a man's face. 

puppy monkey baby

It's all to promote a new Mountain Dew beverage called Kickstart, which combines "DEW, real fruit juice, and a kick of caffeine." The message here is supposed to be that the combination of three "awesome" things (like a puppy, monkey, and baby) is better than one. 

puppy monkey baby

However, if Kickstart tastes anything how PuppyMonkeyBaby looks, I may pass.

mountain dew super bowl ad

If you think PuppyMonkeyBaby sounds terrifying, you're not alone.

Here's how fans are reacting to the ad on YouTube:

mountain dew ad reactionsmountain dew ad comments 

The nightmare comment was quite common:

mountain dew ad reactions

mountain dew ad contentmountain dew ad comment

Super Bowl ads are all about creating the most memorable commercials. If Mountain Dew was aiming for something to get people to start talking, they succeeded.

Check out the ad below:

 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The stadium for the Super Bowl is a $1.2 billion high tech wonder

Why Louis C.K. debuted a secret TV show online and is charging fans $5 for the first episode

$
0
0

Louie season 4 stand up comedian comic Louis CK

Louis C.K. surprised fans last weekend when he released a new web series called "Horace and Pete" on his website for $5.

In addition to C.K., the series stars Steve Buscemi, Jessica Lange, Aidy Bryant, and Edie Falco.

Nearly a week later, the comedian is offering a bit more of an explanation behind the secret web show he's been working on.

horace and peteC.K., who is producing, directing, writing, distributing, and financing the series on his own, sent out an email to fans explaining a little bit more about the show and why he released it without alerting the press. It's all about keeping the mystery in tact.

"Part of the idea behind launching it on the site was to create a show in a new way and to provide it to you directly and immediately, without the usual promotion, banner ads, billboards, and clips that tell you what the show feels and looks like before you get to see it for yourself," writes C.K.

The comedian went on to say that he's still in the process of making more episodes.

And the reason he's charging $5 for the premiere episode? He says it's expensive to make, and he's footing the bill himself.

"Well, the dirty unmovable fact is that this show is f---ing expensive," says C.K. "But Horace and Pete is a full-on TV production with four broadcast cameras, two beautiful sets, and a state-of-the-art control room, and a very talented and skilled crew, and a hall-of-fame cast. Every second the cameras are rolling, money is shooting out of my a--hole like your mother’s worst diarrhea. (Yes there are less upsetting metaphors I could be using, but I just think that one is the sharpest and most concise)."

"Basically this is a hand-made, one-guy-paid-for-it version of a thing that is usually made by a giant corporation," he continued. "Now, I’m not complaining about this at all. I’m just telling you the facts. I charged five dollars because I need to recoup some of the cost in order for us to stay in production."

The second episode will cost $2 while the remaining episodes will cost $3.

The next episode of "Horace and Pete" will be available on C.K.'s site Saturday morning.

Here's Louis C.K.'s full note below to fans:

Hello friend guy lady or other,

Some of you are aware that, last Saturday, I launched a new series on my site louisck.net called “Horace and Pete." I’m writing now to tell you some stuff about it …

Horace and Pete is a new show that I am producing, directing, writing, distributing, and financing on my own.  I have an amazing cast: Steve Buscemi, Edie Falco, Alan Alda, Jessica Lange, Aidy Bryant, Steven Wright, Kurt Metzger, and other guest stars. Also, Paul Simon wrote and performed the theme song, which is beautiful.

The response to episode one has been great so far and there are more coming. We are making them now and having a lot of fun doing it.

Part of the idea behind launching it on the site was to create a show in a new way and to provide it to you directly and immediately, without the usual promotion, banner ads, billboards, and clips that tell you what the show feels and looks like before you get to see it for yourself. As a writer, there’s always a weird feeing that as you unfold the story and reveal the characters and the tone, you always know that the audience will never get the benefit of seeing it the way you wrote it because they always know so much before they watch it. And as a TV watcher, I’m always delighted when I can see a thing without knowing anything about it because of the promotion. So making this show and just posting it out of the blue gave me the rare opportunity to give you that experience of discovery.

Also, because we are shooting this show in a multi-camera format with an emphasis on a live feeling, we are able to post it very soon after each episode is shot. So I’m making this show as you’re watching it.  

Okay so let’s talk for a minute about the five dollars of it all. If you’re on this email list then you’re probably aware that I always make an effort to make the work I do on my own as cheap as possible and as painless as possible to get. That’s why my specials are five dollars and that’s why I sold tickets to my last big tour here on the site, with our own ticketing service at a flat price with no ticket charges and we have worked hard to keep my tickets out of the hands of scalpers.  

So why the dirty f---balls did I charge you five dollars for Horace and Pete, where most TV shows you buy online are 3 dollars or less? Well, the dirty unmovable fact is that this show is f---ing expensive. 

The standup specials are much more containable. It’s one guy on a stage in a theater and in most cases, the cost of the tickets that the live audience paid [for] was enough to finance the filming.  

But Horace and Pete is a full on TV production with four broadcast cameras, two beautiful sets, and a state of the art control room, and a very talented and skilled crew, and a hall-of-fame cast. Every second the cameras are rolling, money is shooting out of my a--hole like your mother’s worst diarrhea. (Yes there are less upsetting metaphors I could be using but I just think that one is the sharpest and most concise). Basically this is a hand-made, one-guy-paid-for-it version of a thing that is usually made by a giant corporation.

Now, I’m not complaining about this at all. I’m just telling you the facts. I charged five dollars because I need to recoup some of the cost in order for us to stay in production.  

Also, it’s interesting. The value of any set amount of money is mercurial (I’m showing off because I just learned that word. It means it changes and shifts a lot). Some people say “Five dollars is a cup of coffee." Some people say “Hey! Five dollars??  What the f--k!” Some people say “What are you guys talking about?” Some people say “Nothing. Don’t enter a conversation in the middle."

Anyway, I’m leaving the first episode at 5 dollars. I'm lowering the next episode to two dollars and the rest will be three dollars after that. I hope you feel that’s fair. If you don’t, please tell everyone in the world.  

Meanwhile, we’re going to keep making "Horace and Pete." We’re going to keep telling you the story.  

I sincerely hope that you enjoy it. I’ll write you again later and tell you more about it. It’s fun to talk about. But for now I want to shut up and not ruin the experience of you just watching the show. 

Here’s the link for the website. Enjoy episode two of Horace and Pete. We’re shooting it now. You’ll get it on Saturday morning. 

This person, 

Louis C.K.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Jerry Seinfeld interviewed President Obama and it was hilarious

Netflix renews 'Orange Is the New Black' for 3 more seasons

$
0
0

orange is the new black

The inmates of  "Orange Is the New Black" are returning to Netflix for three additional seasons. 

Creator and executive producer Jenji Kohan will stay on for seasons five, six, and seven of the Lionsgate-produced show.

“Three more years! Not quite a political term, but still plenty of time to do some interesting things," Kohan said in a statement. "In some cultures, ‘May you lead an interesting life,’ is a curse, but I don't live in those cultures. Here's to keeping it interesting. Thanks Netflix! Both thanks and you're welcome Lionsgate! And kudos and gratitude to the stellar cast and crew and writers and producers and editors and musicians and mixers and shleppers... with whom I have the pride and honor of crafting this show. Three more years! Three more years!”

Netflix's vice president of original content, Cindy Holland, said: "Jenji and her team have produced a phenomenal and impactful series that is both funny and dramatic, outrageous and heartfelt. Audiences around the world have come to love the ladies and men of 'Orange is the New Black,' and we are eager to see where three more seasons will take them.” 

"We’re proud to continue our long-standing relationships with Netflix and the incredibly talented Jenji Kohan," Lionsgate TV group chairman Kevin Beggs added. "Jenji’s brilliant creative vision and a truly amazing cast have catapulted 'Orange Is the New Black' to the forefront of the platinum age of television, and we’re pleased that 'Orange' fans around the world will be rewarded with another three seasons."

The fourth season premieres June 17 on Netflix. Watch the teaser trailer below:

 

SEE ALSO: Why Louis C.K. debuted a secret TV show online and is charging fans $5 for the first episode

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Hollywood's new power couple were both nominated for Oscars

The same actor has played the same character on 10 different TV shows and 4 different networks

$
0
0

Over the course of 23 years, actor Richard Belzer has played Detective John Munch on 10 different TV shows. You might know him best from "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit," but chances are you've seen him in many other places as well.

Story by Ian Phillips and editing by A.C. Fowler

Follow INSIDER on Facebook
Follow INSIDER on YouTube

Join the conversation about this story »

Fox News' Megyn Kelly says she can't go on Twitter because of her 'surreal' Donald Trump feud

$
0
0

megyn kelly donald trump jimmy fallon nbc

Donald Trump's ongoing feud with Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly came to a head last week when the real-estate mogul skipped the last debate.

On Thursday night, Kelly appeared on Jimmy Fallon's "The Tonight Show" and tried to make sense of it all.

"He said it was about me, then he said it was about a statement my boss put out, then he said it was about a gum wrapper on the floor," she joked. "There were a lot of reasons that he gave, so I don't know exactly why he didn't show up. But he did not show in the end."

The feud goes all the way back to the first debate of the election season last August, which Fox News hosted and Kelly helped moderate. In the debate, she pointed out that Trump has a history of referring to women in derogatory terms and asked, "Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?" He later complained that she was unfair in asking him tougher questions than the other candidates.

Kelly told Fallon that Fox gave all the candidates tough questions and considers that part of her job.

megyn kelly donald trump fallon nbc side eye

“They want George Washington’s job. And I’m a member of the press and we’re supposed to press, and see if they’re worthy,” she said.

After placing second in Iowa, Trump publicly mused that it may have been a mistake to skip the debate right before the caucus. Fox News is set to host another Republican debate in March. It remains to be seen if Trump holds a grudge against Kelly or has learned his lesson.

But Kelly isn't holding her breath: “We never anticipated anybody would react to the questions in that particular way,” she said. “But you of sort of keep your head down, and shoulders back, and try to forge forward.”

The fallout with Trump has changed things for her a "little," though.

"I can no longer go on Twitter," she said. "It's been a surreal six months."

She and viewers also got a fun, impromptu Trump impression from Fallon.

Watch the interview below:

SEE ALSO: Jimmy Fallon mocks Donald Trump's loss with impression: He's a 'huge No. 2'

SEE ALSO: Stephen Colbert throws his own debate with dueling Donald Trumps

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Cruz: Trump would nuke Denmark

Steven Avery's new lawyer is using this forensic test to show he's innocent

$
0
0

steven avery arrest 2 making a murderer netflix

Steven Avery's new attorney, Kathleen Zellner, has said she's looking to science to prove the "Making a Murderer" subject innocent — but she has been pretty quiet about exactly how.

Now we know at least one test that could prove significant.

Zellner is testing Steven's home and property for minute traces of blood using a chemical called luminol, Steven's brother Earl Avery told "Access Hollywood." "They sprayed the whole house," he said.

Luminol glows when it detects the iron found inside red blood cells and remains effective when used at a crime scene years after the crime was committed there.

"The degradation that happens in a blood sample over time doesn't affect the iron. So a luminol test can be used on very old, very dried blood samples and still give a very good positive," criminal justice professor Nathan Lents, who is not involved in the Avery case, told the TV show.

"In fact, it actually gets better over time because some of the agents that would interfere with the signal get degraded, but the iron doesn't," he continued. "Iron doesn't go anywhere."

luminol bloody shoe

During Avery's trial, the prosecution alleged that Steven and his then-teen nephew Brendan Dassey tortured and raped photographer Teresa Halbach in Steven's room, and said she was shot in the head in the garage. If all that actually happened, the events probably left traces of blood for luminol to detect — even if the scene was cleaned up.

How does this help Steven? If no blood is detected by the test, then it provides reason to believe that Halbach wasn't killed in his home. If blood is found, then it will need to be tested to try to find out whose it is.

Earl is optimistic about Zellner. "Hopefully she does better than the last two," he said, comparing Zellner to Steven's previous lawyers, Dean Strang and Jerry Buting, who are prominently featured in "Making a Murderer."

"They probably did a good job, but look at where [Steven] is," Earl added. 

Steven and Dassey are both serving life sentences for Halbach's murder.

SEE ALSO: A bomb threat seeking 'justice' for Steven Avery of 'Making a Murderer' turned up no bombs

SEE ALSO: Steven Avery's brother says the convict apologized for naming him in the Teresa Halbach murder

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The lawyer from 'Making A Murderer' describes what's wrong with America's criminal justice system


The best shows to binge-watch right now according to TV stars

$
0
0

Making a Murderer

Stars really are just like us — which includes sitting on their couches and endlessly consuming new TV shows they heard were great.

Celebrities haven't escaped this new national pastime. And who would expect them to? According to a 2015 TiVo survey, about 9 out of 10 people are regularly binge-viewing at least three episodes of a program in one sitting.

TV and film stars often count themselves among the biggest entertainment fans out there. Not only that, but watching a lot of programming in spurts could be considered homework for them — at the very least it's helping to sharpen their craft.

Business Insider asked several stars — from Jane Fonda to Donald Glover and Rami Malek ("Mr. Robot") — what they're binge-watching these days.

Here's what they said they're obsessively keeping up with:

SEE ALSO: See how the amazing cast of 'American Crime Story' transformed to bring the O.J. Simpson trial back to life

SEE ALSO: What happens behind the scenes of a hit NBC show as it airs live

"'The Profit.' I love that guy."—Jake Johnson, "New Girl" (Fox)



"I just binge-watched 'Getting On.'"—Sarah Paulson, "The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story" (FX)



"'Fargo.'"—Rami Malek, "Mr. Robot" (USA Network)



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

'Making a Murderer' subject Steven Avery's sons speak out about whether they think he's guilty

$
0
0

steven avery sons crime watch daily

Steven Avery's sons are all grown up and speaking out about their father's murder conviction.

In their first television interview, the "Making a Murderer" convict's twin sons opened up and showed different takes on the crime that sent their father to prison for a life sentence.

"No, I don’t think he did," Bill Avery answered when the show "Crime Watch Daily" asked if he thinks his father killed Teresa Halbach, a photographer who was allegedly last seen alive on Steven's property in 2005.

Bill Avery's brother isn't so certain. "I have no idea," Steven Avery, Jr. said of his father's potential innocence. "I mean, only one person can answer that and that is Teresa. But she can’t answer it no more."

Steven divorced the boys' mother, Lori Mathiesen, while serving prison time for the rape of a female jogger, before being exonerated in 2003. His ex-wife and children became estranged from him after that.

"I just see him as a complete stranger," Bill told the TV show. "I know that he’s my father, but I grew up without a father for so long that it just kind of feels like I don’t have [one]."

And as for being thrust back into the spotlight with the popularity of Netflix's "Making a Murderer," which documents Steven's murder trial, one twin has mixed feelings.

"It sucks having everything out in the open like that," Steven Jr. said. "At the same point, it’s good because a lot of people see a little bit of a bigger picture."

Watch a preview of the interviews with Steven Avery's sons below:

SEE ALSO: Steven Avery's new lawyer is using this forensic test to show he's innocent

SEE ALSO: A bomb threat seeking 'justice' for Steven Avery of 'Making a Murderer' turned up no bombs

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Steven Avery's defense attorney admits doubts about his innocence

Here's why Samantha Bee didn't want Jon Stewart's hosting job on 'The Daily Show'

$
0
0

Getty Image samantha bee

Samantha Bee didn't want Jon Stewart's job.

In the rush to replace Stewart, Comedy Central reportedly gave offers to many people. Amy Schumer, Amy Poehler, and even Louis CK were allegedly asked to take over "The Daily Show," but none was interested. Many thought longtime correspondent Bee should've had a crack at the job. But she had other plans.

According to the host of her own new late-night show on TBS, she and her husband, Jason Jones (who was also floated as a potential Stewart replacement), hadn't known Stewart was leaving. And they had another iron in the fire: They were waiting to hear if their pilot, "The Detour," was being picked up to series by TBS.

"When [Jon Stewart] announced [he was leaving], that was the week that they greenlit ['The Detour']," Bee said in a new interview with the Los Angeles Times.

"It all kind of happened at the same time. We knew we'd leave just because it was time for us to leave anyway," she continued. "We'd been there for a long time. There was a week where we probably felt forlorn and scared, where we went, 'What's the next step? What are we going to do? Hopefully this will get picked up, but there's no guarantee.' Then, within a very small space of time, everything changed and then the direction was clear."

Getty Images samantha bee jason jones jon stewartEven if the timing had been different, Bee says she wouldn't have been interested in replacing Stewart. She and Jones have three children and family would've had to take a backseat if that had happened.

"As I'm sensing the difficulty of putting a show on once a week, I'm really not envious of having to do it four days a week," Bee said. "There's no mistaking the fact that Jon did it incredibly, but by the end he was exhausted. There's no part of me that wants to do it four days a week and never was. My family life is the most important thing to me. I think it would've destroyed that, so it was not a big consideration."

Bee's new show, "Full Frontal," begins on Monday, February 8, on TBS. It will include a mix of comedic commentary, interviews, and field reports ("The Detour" is also set to premiere at some point in 2016). And Bee isn't worried about the competition.

"I'm not really thinking too much about what other people are doing because I think that we inherently have a unique voice," she said. "The people I have around me have unique voices. We have stories we want to tell in our own way. I don't think we're going to cross streams with the other shows too much."

SEE ALSO: The best shows to binge-watch right now according to TV stars

SEE ALSO: Jon Stewart just signed a big production deal with HBO

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's why Golden Globe winner Oscar Isaac is the best actor of our generation

I watched all 49 Super Bowl games in 49 days — here's what I learned about America's favorite sports competition

$
0
0

AP_7601180131The game’s enduring popularity is simultaneously obvious and confounding. It’s obvious because, well, why wouldn’t the Super Bowl be popular?

Football is America’s favorite sport, gambling on football is America’s favorite pastime, and both football and gambling only get better when augmented by friends, beer, and nachos.

Even those souls who care little for sport can find something to like in the pageantry and parties, or, at the very least, in knowing that the Monday following the game is itself a tacit holiday: “Go-to-Work-Late-and-Hungover-if-You-Go-to-Work-at-All Day.”

And, yet, no other major sporting championship consistently falls as flat as does the Super Bowl. A football novice might walk away from a Super Bowl party impressed by the size of the crowd, entertained by the various commercials, or bloated from beer and bean dip. But she probably won’t walk away from the game a newly anointed football fan.

Was it ever worth watching? Has the Big Game always been more Big than Game? In honor of the event’s golden anniversary, I decided to take a deep, deep dive into the game’s history and find out. Over the past two months, aided by the good folks at YouTube and its less-scrupulous overseas equivalents, I have watched all 49 previous Super Bowls—roughly 160 hours worth of football, salesmanship, injury timeouts, and increasingly intense computer-generated graphics.

I’ve spent most of my leisure time and a good chunk of my work weeks squinting at postcard-size videos on my laptop, hoping to peer inside the soul of the Super Bowl, or at least get some laughs at the expense of Garo Yepremian. (Regarding the latter: Mission accomplished!)

I did not always finish watching every game—I admit to bailing out early from some of the blowouts; to tabbing over to other websites during boring stretches; and to occasionally leaving the game playing in one room while I went to have a beer in another. But I watched enough so that—with the possible exceptions of John Madden, the guy from Stump the Schwab, and the surviving members of the “Never Miss a Super Bowl Club”—I now probably know as much about the Super Bowl as anyone in the world.

So, in case you were wondering: Tom Landry is the best Super Bowl coach ever. The Pittsburgh Steelers are the best Super Bowl franchise ever. Jerry Rice and Lynn Swann are the best Super Bowl receivers ever. Doug Williams is the best Super Bowl quarterback ever. Roger Craig is the best Super Bowl running back ever. John Madden is the best Super Bowl commentator ever. “Elvis Presto” is the best Super Bowl halftime performer ever.

And the answer to the above question about whether the game was ever worth watching is this: Except for a handful of times, not really, no.

Before getting into the more disappointing aspects of the Super Bowl—and what America’s national obsession with such a mediocre product says about us—let me briefly discuss the aforementioned Super Bowl legends. When I describe them as the best, I don’t mean the most statistically accomplished, or athletically gifted, or frequently victorious individuals. I simply mean the person or entity whose Super Bowl performances consistently offered the most joy.

Tom Landry, for example, wasn’t the winningest coach in Super Bowl history, but he had the most style—and it wasn’t just the hat! His general finesse and fondness for trick plays improved every Super Bowl he coached in. (For example, in the Cowboys’ first offensive series in Super Bowl XIII he called for a convoluted reverse. The play didn’t work—Drew Pearson fumbled and lost the football—but how can any fan not love the audacity of such a call?)

I watched every single down of every single Steelers Super Bowl, because the Steelers play football as if it were an episode of American Gladiators; I nearly broke into spontaneous applause when, near the end of that same Cowboys-Steelers contest, Pittsburgh’s Mike Wagner hit Pearson in midair, and then lifted him up by his crumpled body and carried him backward and upside down by the torso for five yards.

Rice and Swann are simply the most delightful receivers in Super Bowl history, on top of being generally accepted as the most talented. See for yourself:

 

Roger Craig, the high-stepping 49er, might not be the most accomplished Super Bowl running back ever, but it is impossible to watch him run, his knees up to his abdomen, and not love him way more than Emmitt Smith.

Doug Williams only appeared in one Super Bowl, but it was a great Super Bowl—maybe the greatest—and his was the ultimate underdog performance.

And then there’s Madden. The most rewarding part of this entire assignment was the chance to become reacquainted with the best football commentator of my or any lifetime. Madden is the only color man in the history of the Super Bowl whose remarks seemed like a joyful, funny conversation rather than a lecture. I laughed out loud at least once per game when Madden was in the booth.

Take this moment, from Super Bowl XXXI, when he for some reason decided to narrate an aerial shot of the Superdome: “So that’s what, if you’re not in here watching the game, if you were outside, like just flying around, that’s what it would look like to you. If you’re watching the game from up here, you would go, ‘Oh, well, that’s … pretty good, I guess. I have no idea what’s going on inside.’ ” Another example: In Super Bowl XL, after a miked-up Jerome Bettis greeted his teammate Willie Parker with an enthusiastic “AAAAAHHHH!,” Madden chimed in with “That’s what you say to a guy after he makes a long run for a touchdown in the Super Bowl: AAHHH!” And then he giggled. I love John Madden.

John Madden and the other bests made the Super Bowl fun. Most of the time, though, the Super Bowl is anything but. In terms of rewatchability, old Super Bowls exist on the same level as the Ernestmovies, except that the Ernest movies at least have the good sense to end after 90 minutes. It’s not just that the footage is often grainy, and that in older broadcasts the absence of modern staples like the on-screen score, time clock, and yellow first-down line are disorienting.

It’s not just that it is boring to watch a four-hour game filled with pauses when you know how it’s going to turn out, you have no real sense of what happened in the preceding season, and you’re yoked to some squawking blowhard announcer who is not John Madden.

t’s more that the Super Bowl does not often exemplify those characteristics that make American football such a good game rather than just an impressive spectacle. For example: The Super Bowl is always played in good weather, when everybody knows that the best football games are played in horrible weather. This is a small complaint. Here’s a bigger one: More often than not, the Super Bowl is a messy, mistake-laden blowout. The average margin of victory across 49 Super Bowls is approximately 14 points.

For every amazing catch or tackle or sequence of plays in Super Bowl history, there are countless other ugly moments, like Broncos quarterback Craig Morton tossing four interceptions before halftime in Super Bowl XII; or the Minnesota Vikings’ failure to score a single first-half point in any of their four Super Bowl appearances between 1970 and 1977; or the excruciating first quarter of Super Bowl XXVI between Washington and the Buffalo Bills, featuring the opening kickoff having to be rekicked because Bills kicker Brad Daluiso “misunderstood the referee’s signal”—the Buffalo Bills, everyone!—a botched hold leading to a missed field goal, and two interceptions.

I’m a Bears fan, and all I remembered about Super Bowl XLI—the rare bad-weather Super Bowl!—was that Devin Hester returned the opening kickoff for a touchdown; watching it again, I quickly remembered how awful a football game it was: The Bears lost three fumbles total, and Rex Grossman threw two interceptions in the fourth quarter

Not only is the game itself usually played poorly, it is often devoid of drama. Only three teams have ever overcome even a 10-point deficit to win the Super Bowl: New England in Super Bowl XLIX, New Orleans in Super Bowl XLIV, and Washington in Super Bowl XXII. “This has the makings of the Super Bowl we’ve been waiting 22 years for,” an excited Al Michaels said during Washington’s comeback in Super Bowl XXII, meaning that the world waited nearly a quarter century for the Big Game to live up to its hype.

I want to talk about Super Bowl XXII, in which Washington beat Denver 42–10. It might not be widely acknowledged as the best Super Bowl ever, but it is my favorite. It’s certainly the most anomalous Super Bowl ever played. Denver, led by their golden boy quarterback John Elway, was supposed to win. Washington’s quarterback was the journeyman Doug Williams, who had only started two games that year; its running back the unaccomplished rookie Timmy Smith had started zero games and scored zero touchdowns.

On the Broncos’ first offensive snap of the game, Elway tossed a bomb deep downfield to Ricky Nattiel for a touchdown. At the time it was the fastest touchdown in Super Bowl history. “No team has won game after trailing by more than 7 points at any time during game,” read an on-screen graphic. “Not only that, they’ve never caught up in the history of the Super Bowl!” the announcer said. Washington looked terrible. The game was all but settled.

And then it wasn’t. Williams came back into the game after being knocked out on a sack and threw an 80-yard pass to Ricky Sanders on his first play of the second quarter. On Washington’s next possession, Williams hit Gary Clark for a 27-yard touchdown. Then Smith ran for a 58-yard score; then Williams threw another touchdown pass, and then still another. By the end of the second quarter, Washington had scored 35 unanswered points, Elway had been intercepted twice, and Williams—the first black quarterback to ever start a Super Bowl game—had posted the all-around most impressive single-quarter performance in football history.

Doug Williams

Greg Howard at Deadspin has written eloquently about the broader meaning of Williams’ performance, of a black athlete displaying such dominance at a position that blacks were dissuaded from playing and for a team that was the last in the NFL to integrate its roster.

“It was always thought that blacks couldn’t be quarterbacks, that they lacked the intelligence and charisma to lead a team,” Howard wrote. “What [Williams] did was make the fantasy lives of a lot of people just a little bit richer, a little less impoverished. What Doug Williams offered, there in the heart of rugged, smash mouth, corporate-approved Americana, was possibility.”

This sort of thing never happens. Super Bowl gameplay, even when it is tense and captivating, almost never feels significant. Take Super Bowl XLII, played between Tom Brady’s New England Patriots and Eli Manning’s New York Giants, for an example. The game was tight until the end, featuring multiple lead changes in the fourth quarter and an all-time great play in David Tyree’s helmet-assisted circus catch with a minute remaining. It’s regularly listed as one of the greatest Super Bowls ever. I respectfully disagree.

The game was close, and exciting, but it wasn’t great. There’s no larger drama in a game between two mirror-image quarterbacks and two large-market teams accustomed to victory. Brady versus (either) Manning is sort of like the Cola Wars: Both sides are basically the same, they don’t really need your support, and they’ll both be around for years irrespective of any single outcome in their ongoing duel.

That fourth-quarter exchange was the climax of an action film, maybe, but there was actual drama and beauty and meaning and possibility in the suddenness with which the unheralded Williams so completely overwhelmed Elway. Brady versus either Manning is an exercise not in possibility, but in inevitability.

Drama and beauty and meaning—while rare in the Super Bowl—have been found in failure, too. The Buffalo Bills became a punch line thanks to their four consecutive Super Bowl losses from 1991 to 1994, but to me the Bills are the most important Super Bowl franchise in history. Their consecutive losses, escalating in futility and desperation, were significant, creating drama and storylines that transcended the constraints of any individual game. The way in which they failed is significant, too. The Bills were arguably the last major Super Bowl team with any flair, with the possible exception of Kurt Warner’s St. Louis Rams.

Jim KellyThey ran a unique fast-paced no-huddle offense in which quarterback Jim Kelly read the defense at the line of scrimmage and called the play accordingly.

This offense was enough to get them to the Super Bowl, but never to win it. In their first attempt, Super Bowl XXV, the Bills and coach Marv Levy met their polar opposites in the New York Giants and coach Bill Parcells. For his part, the Big Tuna actively rejected flair and fun in favor of a joyless game plan that controlled the clock, limited big plays, and took the ball out of the Bills’ hands.

The Bills lost to the Giants that year. Kelly threw four interceptions the next year as the Bills lost again. In Super Bowls XXVII and XXVIII, the Bills lost handily to the Cowboys and pocket passer Troy Aikman. By the end of the Bills era, the Super Bowl had changed, and aspiring champions resolved to do the opposite of what the Bills had done: minimize mistakes. Stand in the pocket and throw the ball. Don’t try anything risky. Don’t be stupid.

I’ve heard it said that we’re living in the golden age of the Super Bowl right now. If you just look at the box scores, maybe that’s true. But it’s hard to come to that conclusion if you look at the game holistically. Since 2001, with the single exception of the Oakland Raiders in Super Bowl XXXVII, the AFC has been exclusively represented in the Super Bowl by either the New England Patriots, the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Baltimore Ravens, or whatever team Peyton Manning is playing for.

Unless you’re a fan of one of the teams, it’s been hard to have any sort of rooting interest in the more recent games, even when they were close. I think it’s because the players on both sides are so polished that you can’t really differentiate between them. As bad as the Super Bowl games have always been—especially in an earlier era—there was at least more character to them back in the day.

The Super Bowl teams from the 1970s and 1980s all had their own distinct personalities: the Landry Cowboys, the Bradshaw Steelers, the Joe Montana 49ers, the Ditka Bears. There has only been one Super Bowl team in recent memory with anything resembling a personal style: the surly, complaining Seattle Seahawks, who have made a cottage industry out of calling fans’ attention to the fact that the modern game is bland and that the NFL is stupid.

AP_7601180396They’re not wrong. All the outside-the-lines NFL drama in recent years has been the sort of stuff that ought to make any thinking person reject the game: the domestic violence cases, the chronic traumatic encephalopathy revelations, the smarminess of commissioner Roger Goodell and his minions, their maddening efforts to make an inherently unsafe game “safe.” What are we celebrating when we watch the Super Bowl? After watching all of these games, it seems to me that we are actually watching the triumph of money over good sense—living proof that if you spend enough cash on something, you can make it matter to the world, even though the world has every reason to recoil.

The Super Bowl and all the attendant hype is a successful effort to pretend that all these other complicating factors don’t exist, don’t matter; to pretend that the rockets on the rocket belts aren’t fueled by hydrogen peroxide, that the pigeons aren’t going to end up shitting on everything; to pretend that professional football is action without consequence, an image without a negative. The Super Bowl began as a rich man’s vanity project. Fifty years later, in many ways it still is.

So why are we still watching it? Is it stupid habit? Is it a sense of obligation? Are we hooked to the crude sybaritism of the annual Super Bowl party? Are we addicts who like combining all of our various drugs—watching football (even bad football), drinking, eating, gambling—into one big, glorious binge to help numb the midwinter blues, like railroad hobos guzzling cheap Tokay wine?

I have one theory. In 1912, the sociologist Émile Durkheim described a phenomenon he called “collective effervescence”: the moments in which members of a community, catalyzed by some overwhelming ritual observance, become of one mind. Durkheim was referring specifically to religious experience, and the collective effervescence of a faith community united in worship, but the concept transfers to all sorts of settings and is particularly useful in helping to understand sporting manias. Just as the ties that bind us to faith seem to defy rational explanation, so do those that bind us to teams, or sporting events.

I can’t rationally explain why I am a Bears fan, for example. I can’t rationally explain why I watch football every week, or why I enjoy watching games in person. The Bears have been more often bad than good for as long as I’ve been alive, and the games themselves rarely give me any great pleasure. All I can say is that collective effervescence can uplift whether or not the proximate cause of said effervescence tends to fall flat. So perhaps it’s as simple as this: The Super Bowl is significant because it’s the Super Bowl, a yearly call to quorum, an event that is big enough to briefly unite us and meaningless enough to not immediately tear us apart.

Cam NewtonI also can’t rationally explain why I’m going to watch the Super Bowl this weekend. I can try, sure. I can talk about how the Peyton Manning–Cam Newton matchup is the most disparate quarterback contest we’ve seen in years, how Ron Rivera is a clever coach, how I was in Denver once and liked it. I can say that Newton has as much fun as any player in football, that Manning’s precision passing can still drop jaws, that Super Bowl 50 might actually be that rare game that is tense and fun and maybe even good.

say this knowing that I don’t believe it. I know that Peyton Manning is currently a man-shaped box marked “FRAGILE, DO NOT DROP,” that America’s ruddy racists will be watching Cam Newton and waiting in the hope that he fails, that announcers Jim Nantz and Phil Simms will disappoint. I know that I’ll lose money betting on that damn box thing that you play on Super Bowl Sunday, that I’ll gorge myself on corn chips and chicken fingers, that I’ll drink too much and feel bad about it on Monday.

And I know that you’ll have much the same experience, whoever you are, wherever you are. And I guess that’s the thing to look forward to.

SEE ALSO: The most popular Super Bowl recipes, according to the Internet

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Brooklyn's rainbow bagel store is selling Super Bowl-themed bagels for game day

Margot Robbie accidentally gave someone a misspelled 'Suicide Squad' tattoo

$
0
0

margot robbie suicide squad tattoo late show

In case you didn't know, Margot Robbie does tattoos. But you may not want one from her.

The actress appeared alongside "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" costar Tina Fey on Stephen Colbert's post-Super Bowl "Late Show" and revealed that she had inked about 26 tattoos.

"At first, I really had to beg people," Robbie said. "And then it became a thing. People ask me now."

Both Fey and Colbert said they'd get a tattoo from Robbie. That was until she revealed that she once misspelled one. "A good time to be pretty," Fey quipped.

Turns out that some of the crew on the shoot for "Suicide Squad," in which Robbie plays Batman nemesis Harley Quinn, got tattoos in honor of the movie. But they were giving it a creative spelling.

"Everyone was spelling it 'S-K-W-A-D,'" Robbie explained. "But I went straight from the 'S' to the 'W.'"

"'Swad'?" a bewildered Fey asked.

margot robbie tina fey suicide squad tattoo stephen colbert late show cbs

That was enough for Colbert to change his mind about getting inked by Robbie. Hopefully, her victim – one of the cast assistants – has a sense of humor. Robbie posted the following joke on Instagram:

Open for business!

A photo posted by @margotrobbie on Aug 18, 2015 at 9:07pm PDT on

Watch her explain the mistake below:

SEE ALSO: Stephen Colbert throws his own debate with dueling Donald Trumps

SEE ALSO: Stephen Colbert explains why he thinks Donald Trump doesn't really want to be president at all

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here are the 4 best ads of Super Bowl 50

Viewing all 7868 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images