It’s impossible for Mr. Skin to be everywhere at once, so sometimes he turns to his friends on the internet to bring you the latest Skin approved stories from around the web! Ex on the Beach star Kayleigh Morris flashes her fun bags in public ( taxidrivermovie.com ) Marisa Papen is naked and trying to make it ( drunkenstepfather.com ) Liziane Soares makes for one sextastic Santa Claus ( egotasticallstars.com ) Anissa Kate is a sexy topless club girl ( boobieblog.com ) Christina Milian slips a nip on Extra while in Times Square ( thenipslip.com ) The Gods of Geek Mythology: Jeff Goldblum ( doubleviking.com ) Fun bags + hand bras = Maximum Enjoyment ( steakwood.com ) Miranda Kerr will keep you warm all winter long ( fleshbot.com )
Blac Chyna Forgives Tyga Hacked or nah ??? Just when we thought things between Blac Chyna and Tyga couldn’t get any uglier the pair seem to have worked out their differences. On Friday Chyna tweeted that she’d forgiven her baby daddy and was over the drama… Wonder why she didn’t @ him though? Meanwhile, although Tyga has not responded on social media he did post this pic of King Cairo hanging out with Breezy’s daughter Royalty: Right around the time that Chyna posted this King selfie Now y’all know we’re glad Chyna and Tyga appear to be back to peacefully co-parenting BUT we can’t help but wonder if Kylie being out of town might be helping this reconciliation along. What do you guys think? Hit the flip for more videos of King and Tyga Instagram/WENN
Spike Lee Defends Controversial “Chiraq” Movie Title Spike Lee is Ray Charles to the critiques… Via HuffingtonPost Movie director Spike Lee, known for films that deal frankly with racial issues, appeared in Chicago on Thursday to defend his planned movie about the city, after its reported title, “Chiraq,” was criticized by local politicians. Speaking at a South Side church and surrounded by African-American mothers carrying pictures of children killed in street violence, Lee said artists hold up a mirror to society and are not afraid to tell the truth. “We have to stop the madness,” Lee said. “This is insane.” He said people who know nothing about it have been expressing opinions about the film. Lee referred to the movie’s “so-called title,” but did not say if “Chiraq” would be the title and did not take questions. “Chiraq” is street slang that compares the nation’s third largest city to the war zones of the Middle East. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, and local alderman Anthony Beale have expressed concern over the title, with Beale calling it “insulting.” Chicago recorded 407 murders in 2014, far ahead of the 328 recorded in the larger city of New York. Chicago has long fought a reputation for violence, enhanced by the mythology surrounding Prohibition-era gangster Al Capone. Many criticized Spike for negatively affecting Chicago’s tourism by releasing a film with such an intimidating title. Lee said he was not concerned about Chicago politics or tourism. “This is not about Chicago losing business,” Lee said. Referring to the grieving mothers around him, Lee said, “No one wants to be a member of this club right here.” Lee cited news reports that 14 people had been shot in the city the day before, with three killed. How do you feel about the term “Chiraq”? Is it the “reflection of society” as Spike claims, or is it a pejorative term for a city that has the blood of black people running in the streets?
Spike Lee Defends Controversial “Chiraq” Movie Title Spike Lee is Ray Charles to the critiques… Via HuffingtonPost Movie director Spike Lee, known for films that deal frankly with racial issues, appeared in Chicago on Thursday to defend his planned movie about the city, after its reported title, “Chiraq,” was criticized by local politicians. Speaking at a South Side church and surrounded by African-American mothers carrying pictures of children killed in street violence, Lee said artists hold up a mirror to society and are not afraid to tell the truth. “We have to stop the madness,” Lee said. “This is insane.” He said people who know nothing about it have been expressing opinions about the film. Lee referred to the movie’s “so-called title,” but did not say if “Chiraq” would be the title and did not take questions. “Chiraq” is street slang that compares the nation’s third largest city to the war zones of the Middle East. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, and local alderman Anthony Beale have expressed concern over the title, with Beale calling it “insulting.” Chicago recorded 407 murders in 2014, far ahead of the 328 recorded in the larger city of New York. Chicago has long fought a reputation for violence, enhanced by the mythology surrounding Prohibition-era gangster Al Capone. Many criticized Spike for negatively affecting Chicago’s tourism by releasing a film with such an intimidating title. Lee said he was not concerned about Chicago politics or tourism. “This is not about Chicago losing business,” Lee said. Referring to the grieving mothers around him, Lee said, “No one wants to be a member of this club right here.” Lee cited news reports that 14 people had been shot in the city the day before, with three killed. How do you feel about the term “Chiraq”? Is it the “reflection of society” as Spike claims, or is it a pejorative term for a city that has the blood of black people running in the streets?
Jason Blum had produced a dozen projects before he hit upon 2007’s sleeper phenomenon Paranormal Activity , a micro-indie horror pic with no stars that in turn became the model for Blumhouse Productions, his own genre-leaning multimedia label. Fast forward just five years and Paranormal Activity 4 is set to continue the series’ low-budget thrills (with webcam technology!) next week, while the Blum-produced Sinister , about a writer (Ethan Hawke) contending with a house haunted by insidious forces, opens today. (For a third new venture, The Blumhouse of Horrors, Blum & Co. take over a historic theater in downtown Los Angeles. More info here .) Movieline caught up with the man behind many of the most profitable — and cost-effective — horror hits in recent memory for a peek behind the curtain: What’s the Blum secret to success? What was it that first interested you in Sinister , these filmmakers, and this story – and given your past horror projects, how do you think it fits into your portfolio? I’m super happy with the movie. I think it works because very simply [writer C. Robert] Cargill and [director Scott Derrickson] did a terrific job on it. They first pitched it to me a year and a half ago and the movie they first described to me in my office and the movie you’ll see are very close, they’re virtually the same thing. All I did was give these guys the creative freedom to make what they wanted to make. Your name has been so closely associated with the Paranormal Activity franchise and its success – how do you feel about being known for these particular films? I love genre movies. I’ve made a handful of other ones in addition to the Paranormal movies, and my favorite thing about what Paranormal allowed our company to do is that the company is based on this idea of betting on yourself. That’s what Oren Peli did on Paranormal Activity , that’s what James Wan did on Insidious , and that’s what Scott and Cargill did on Sinister . It’s given birth to all these movies and I’m really pleased that our company is associated with them. I’m really interested in genre, but I’m also doing TV shows and a haunted house in L.A. Having Paranormal and it allowing my company to expand in all things genre, I feel really lucky. Has the Paranormal franchise gotten a bad rap, a reputation it doesn’t deserve? It’s been so successful and the more these sequels charge on the more complaints you hear about found footage, or sequel fever, and all that. I’m sort of proud of the way the franchise has evolved. We’ve taken directors with very specific visions – Kip Williams was a real art house director and Henry and Rel who did 3 and 4 did Catfish . All the directors of the sequels of Paranormal , none of them had ever done genre movies before. And not that we would do that or not do that specifically going forward, but I feel that’s kept it fresh. The way each sequel has built on what’s come before and evolved the mythology has been fresh, but how much can you keep innovating? How much more difficult does it then become to find a new angle for the next one? The cool thing about Paranormal is now we have a real built-in mythology, of the demon and the family that the demon has upset, so it allows for a lot of places to go. And obviously technology changes so fast, so found footage can shift. Paranormal Activity 4 uses Skype webchat technology, which is new to movies – but it was also used recently in V/H/S . I did see that in V/H/S . It’s an interesting coincidence, that both of these films picked up on that same emerging technology at the same time. Sure. And I think I’ve seen it in some other movies too. I think because Skype is becoming so much more prevalent and you’re looking at someone else on a screen it’s going to work its way into movies and TV shows in all different ways, which I think is really cool. Where do you go from there? In this franchise alone you’ve gone through film, video, home movies, now Skype – are cell phone cameras and iPads and the rearview camera on my Prius next? I hope so! I think surveillance, and cameras are so prevalent everywhere that it allows for different possibilities for found footage. I wish I could see the future but I can’t, but I do think that cameras are everywhere now, and they’re so inexpensive. That’s a great thing. I read an interview where someone said “It’s a shame that anyone can make a movie now” and I feel the exact opposite. It’s much less cost-prohibitive… and to answer your question, that will allow Paranormal hopefully to grow and be different each time out. You came across Paranormal Activity early on, and that was a case in which the film was almost curated and then brought into the mainstream consciousness. The idea of discovering a micro-budget independent film and having that platform to bring it to audiences, is that a formula that’s easy to replicate — and is that even your plan at this stage? A hundred percent. I saw Paranormal as a rough cut, but I felt my job on Paranormal and my job on Sinister weren’t wildly different. I’m proud of Sinister because Scott and Cargill did a great job on the movie and I set up a framework for them to make what they wanted to make. They gave me the idea and I figured out how to get it out into the world. Oren did the same thing. I don’t have any aspirations to be a writer or director; I really like identifying a story or a pitch, whether it’s a script or a rough cut of a movie that resonates with me, and trying to get it out into the world. That’s what our company does and that’s what, personally, I’m passionate about. That’s kind of our mission. This is a big question, but: What is the state of horror cinema now, in your eyes? The realm of independent horror and studio-released mainstream horror are divided, with independent original stories balancing against studio-released sequels and remakes. Where do you feel you stand in the grand scheme of it all? I feel the state of horror cinema is the same as it’s been for the last ten or 20 years. When there’s a great horror movie, people are like, “Horror’s back!” And when there’s a series of not so good ones, “Horror’s dead.” I think it’s all about the quality. When there are one or two good horror movies in a row, people come out interested again. I think our company’s specific role is that we straddle both of those worlds. We make all of our movies independently – with the exception of the sequels of Paranormal – but Sinister , Insidious , and the first Paranormal Activity were made completely outside of the studio system but then distribution is through the studio system. Paranormal Activity was the model for what my company does, from that experience. For me, and I can’t speak to other people, it’s the best of both worlds. We get to make these movies with the director’s vision and a singular vision, and to me that’s the definition of an independently made film – it’s one person’s vision. The movies that our company is involved with have the director’s vision, and then we get the great benefit of studio distribution – which no one has figured out a way to compete with. Maybe in five years someone will but at the moment it’s virtually impossible to compete with the studios in terms of distribution. You’ve used the word “independent” to describe your films, but when I think of indie horror I think of the You’re Next and V/H/S filmmakers. They seem to be in a separate camp within the world of indie horror, while you tend to bring in directors from outside the genre community and work with studios. Do you see that as a distinct separation? From a consumer’s point of view I don’t think there’s a separation. You’re Next is going to come out wide from Lionsgate. I loved the movie, I think it’s a terrific movie. I think it’s a very commercial movie. It’s going to be released by a studio and was made independently, so I don’t think from a consumer’s perspective it’s radically different from the movies we’re doing. You have identified something; we tend to work with directors who have a few movies under their belt. You’re opening a haunted house attraction in L.A. – The Blumhouse of Horrors. Where did that concept come from? It’s a great extension of what we’re doing in movies and TV – almost all of our movies shoot in L.A. and we work with the same crews, so we approached the haunted house as if it was a movie production. We got a big crew of people who’ve been prepping for about as long as it takes to prep a movie and we took over a building in downtown L.A. It’s going to be a really cool live experience that’s scary, and hopefully great. That sounds like a clever extension of horror culture, taking it off the screen. But horror cinema has been going increasingly meta in recent years – look at Cabin in the Woods , for example – and it already feels like the serpent is eating its tail. What happens after horror comes all the way full circle ? Boy, I wish I had the answer to that. I just love that people are into it and I’m just really passionate about exploring all different media to scare people, whether it’s a haunted house or a reality show or a scripted show or a movie, it’s a really fun, creative place to be playing in. But what eventually happens… your guess is as good as mine. Follow Jen Yamato on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .
Jason Blum had produced a dozen projects before he hit upon 2007’s sleeper phenomenon Paranormal Activity , a micro-indie horror pic with no stars that in turn became the model for Blumhouse Productions, his own genre-leaning multimedia label. Fast forward just five years and Paranormal Activity 4 is set to continue the series’ low-budget thrills (with webcam technology!) next week, while the Blum-produced Sinister , about a writer (Ethan Hawke) contending with a house haunted by insidious forces, opens today. (For a third new venture, The Blumhouse of Horrors, Blum & Co. take over a historic theater in downtown Los Angeles. More info here .) Movieline caught up with the man behind many of the most profitable — and cost-effective — horror hits in recent memory for a peek behind the curtain: What’s the Blum secret to success? What was it that first interested you in Sinister , these filmmakers, and this story – and given your past horror projects, how do you think it fits into your portfolio? I’m super happy with the movie. I think it works because very simply [writer C. Robert] Cargill and [director Scott Derrickson] did a terrific job on it. They first pitched it to me a year and a half ago and the movie they first described to me in my office and the movie you’ll see are very close, they’re virtually the same thing. All I did was give these guys the creative freedom to make what they wanted to make. Your name has been so closely associated with the Paranormal Activity franchise and its success – how do you feel about being known for these particular films? I love genre movies. I’ve made a handful of other ones in addition to the Paranormal movies, and my favorite thing about what Paranormal allowed our company to do is that the company is based on this idea of betting on yourself. That’s what Oren Peli did on Paranormal Activity , that’s what James Wan did on Insidious , and that’s what Scott and Cargill did on Sinister . It’s given birth to all these movies and I’m really pleased that our company is associated with them. I’m really interested in genre, but I’m also doing TV shows and a haunted house in L.A. Having Paranormal and it allowing my company to expand in all things genre, I feel really lucky. Has the Paranormal franchise gotten a bad rap, a reputation it doesn’t deserve? It’s been so successful and the more these sequels charge on the more complaints you hear about found footage, or sequel fever, and all that. I’m sort of proud of the way the franchise has evolved. We’ve taken directors with very specific visions – Kip Williams was a real art house director and Henry and Rel who did 3 and 4 did Catfish . All the directors of the sequels of Paranormal , none of them had ever done genre movies before. And not that we would do that or not do that specifically going forward, but I feel that’s kept it fresh. The way each sequel has built on what’s come before and evolved the mythology has been fresh, but how much can you keep innovating? How much more difficult does it then become to find a new angle for the next one? The cool thing about Paranormal is now we have a real built-in mythology, of the demon and the family that the demon has upset, so it allows for a lot of places to go. And obviously technology changes so fast, so found footage can shift. Paranormal Activity 4 uses Skype webchat technology, which is new to movies – but it was also used recently in V/H/S . I did see that in V/H/S . It’s an interesting coincidence, that both of these films picked up on that same emerging technology at the same time. Sure. And I think I’ve seen it in some other movies too. I think because Skype is becoming so much more prevalent and you’re looking at someone else on a screen it’s going to work its way into movies and TV shows in all different ways, which I think is really cool. Where do you go from there? In this franchise alone you’ve gone through film, video, home movies, now Skype – are cell phone cameras and iPads and the rearview camera on my Prius next? I hope so! I think surveillance, and cameras are so prevalent everywhere that it allows for different possibilities for found footage. I wish I could see the future but I can’t, but I do think that cameras are everywhere now, and they’re so inexpensive. That’s a great thing. I read an interview where someone said “It’s a shame that anyone can make a movie now” and I feel the exact opposite. It’s much less cost-prohibitive… and to answer your question, that will allow Paranormal hopefully to grow and be different each time out. You came across Paranormal Activity early on, and that was a case in which the film was almost curated and then brought into the mainstream consciousness. The idea of discovering a micro-budget independent film and having that platform to bring it to audiences, is that a formula that’s easy to replicate — and is that even your plan at this stage? A hundred percent. I saw Paranormal as a rough cut, but I felt my job on Paranormal and my job on Sinister weren’t wildly different. I’m proud of Sinister because Scott and Cargill did a great job on the movie and I set up a framework for them to make what they wanted to make. They gave me the idea and I figured out how to get it out into the world. Oren did the same thing. I don’t have any aspirations to be a writer or director; I really like identifying a story or a pitch, whether it’s a script or a rough cut of a movie that resonates with me, and trying to get it out into the world. That’s what our company does and that’s what, personally, I’m passionate about. That’s kind of our mission. This is a big question, but: What is the state of horror cinema now, in your eyes? The realm of independent horror and studio-released mainstream horror are divided, with independent original stories balancing against studio-released sequels and remakes. Where do you feel you stand in the grand scheme of it all? I feel the state of horror cinema is the same as it’s been for the last ten or 20 years. When there’s a great horror movie, people are like, “Horror’s back!” And when there’s a series of not so good ones, “Horror’s dead.” I think it’s all about the quality. When there are one or two good horror movies in a row, people come out interested again. I think our company’s specific role is that we straddle both of those worlds. We make all of our movies independently – with the exception of the sequels of Paranormal – but Sinister , Insidious , and the first Paranormal Activity were made completely outside of the studio system but then distribution is through the studio system. Paranormal Activity was the model for what my company does, from that experience. For me, and I can’t speak to other people, it’s the best of both worlds. We get to make these movies with the director’s vision and a singular vision, and to me that’s the definition of an independently made film – it’s one person’s vision. The movies that our company is involved with have the director’s vision, and then we get the great benefit of studio distribution – which no one has figured out a way to compete with. Maybe in five years someone will but at the moment it’s virtually impossible to compete with the studios in terms of distribution. You’ve used the word “independent” to describe your films, but when I think of indie horror I think of the You’re Next and V/H/S filmmakers. They seem to be in a separate camp within the world of indie horror, while you tend to bring in directors from outside the genre community and work with studios. Do you see that as a distinct separation? From a consumer’s point of view I don’t think there’s a separation. You’re Next is going to come out wide from Lionsgate. I loved the movie, I think it’s a terrific movie. I think it’s a very commercial movie. It’s going to be released by a studio and was made independently, so I don’t think from a consumer’s perspective it’s radically different from the movies we’re doing. You have identified something; we tend to work with directors who have a few movies under their belt. You’re opening a haunted house attraction in L.A. – The Blumhouse of Horrors. Where did that concept come from? It’s a great extension of what we’re doing in movies and TV – almost all of our movies shoot in L.A. and we work with the same crews, so we approached the haunted house as if it was a movie production. We got a big crew of people who’ve been prepping for about as long as it takes to prep a movie and we took over a building in downtown L.A. It’s going to be a really cool live experience that’s scary, and hopefully great. That sounds like a clever extension of horror culture, taking it off the screen. But horror cinema has been going increasingly meta in recent years – look at Cabin in the Woods , for example – and it already feels like the serpent is eating its tail. What happens after horror comes all the way full circle ? Boy, I wish I had the answer to that. I just love that people are into it and I’m just really passionate about exploring all different media to scare people, whether it’s a haunted house or a reality show or a scripted show or a movie, it’s a really fun, creative place to be playing in. But what eventually happens… your guess is as good as mine. Follow Jen Yamato on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .
Magic Mike has already scored just under $78 million at the box office since its release in late June and the production budget was only $7 million. Minus the marketing budget, the stripper feature has likely already packaged a hefty sum. But never mind the money, there’s plenty of skin to be had, so why not let the strip show go on? Actors flexing their hot bods is a winning formula, and Tatum teased recently that another round of Magic Mike is in the early stages. In a Twitter interview with Glamour magazine, Tatum said this when asked about a possible Magic Mike 2 : “Yes, yes and yes! We’re working on the concept now. We want to flip the script and make it bigger.” Bigger? hmmm… Tatum didn’t provide much more in the way of details including whether director Steven Soderbergh has signed on for the follow-up or if co-stars Alex Pettyfer, Matthew McConaughey, Joe Manganiello and the rest of the cast will be donning the thong for a second round. He did offer up some insight in the making of the first Mike , however, saying that wearing a thong in front of people is “awkward,” adding, “I don’t know how you girls do it.” He also said in the Twitter back-and-forth that Joe Manganiello’s body was the most impressive. “He looks like he’s from Spartan blood!” said Tatum, referring to the war-waging city from Greek antiquity. He also said Manganiello and McConaughey were “a toss up” in the top stripping talent category. Tatum also shared that during McConaughey’s dance, the build-up was so intense that some women in the audience took matters into their own hands. “The women lost their minds and ripped his thong off,” he said. DVD extra anyone? In non-related Tatum news, it was revealed yesterday that Tatum is in negotiations to star and produce a film about 1970s-era daredevil Evel Knievel. “I did a belly flop from a really high bridge,” Tatum offered up when asked about the biggest stunt he’s pulled off. “That was one of the more painful things I’ve done!” [Source: Glamour ]
“Best Director is a nomination I can see for Beasts ; it looks and plays like no other movie you’ll see this year. But Best Actress? Remember, it’s not like throwing a 13-year-old or even a talented 9-year-old up against four adults. The kid you’re seeing onscreen is 6. And yeah, comparing actresses is always apples and oranges, but with the other four, whoever they end up being, we’ll be able to talk about their performances and not the fact that they were bribed with candy on long days, or had their lines rewritten because long words were too hard to say, or were filmed without being aware of it in the hope that natural moments would be captured. Well, maybe the candy thing happens with adults. But to quote the star herself , ‘I didn’t even know about acting. That was just me.’ Also: Telling a kid that young that now her job is to go be interviewed by a lot of grown-ups and have her picture taken so that she can win a prize? Ugh. Yecch. Gross.” [ Grantland ]
After creating a public persona with at least as much swagger as the character with whom he’s most strongly identified — Star Trek ’s Captain Kirk — it came as little surprise that the first thing William Shatner said at the beginning of Movieline’s interview for his new documentary was an explicit statement of purpose. “My film Get a Life is debuting July 28th on EPIX,” he said without being asked. “We’re going to show it at Comic-Con on Saturday – and we’re all excited about it.” Shatner is, deservedly, an icon: 45-plus years after first playing Kirk, he’s more beloved than ever, in great part because he has wholeheartedly embraced the adulation of hundreds of thousands of Trek fans. But in naming his documentary after the 1986 Saturday Night Live skit in which he jokingly challenged Trekkies to find something else to do with their time, he demonstrates that he’s not above a little self-satire, especially when it’s those fans who have continued to keep his career alive. That said, neither is he beyond some passing exasperation over hearing the same questions over and over again – evidenced most strongly when he’s finally asked something new. Shatner spoke to Movieline Wednesday morning from Kentucky, where he’s tending to his own obsession – horse breeding. While trying to get at what has made Star Trek such an enduring property, the actor revealed how he came to terms with being James T. Kirk, reflected on how the questions brought up in his first directorial effort, Star Trek V , were oddly answered 23 years later in Get a Life , and explained why fans probably shouldn’t ask him too many questions about Trek mythology. When you first started to examine why people continue to celebrate Star Trek , how in-depth did you intend to get? Was this meant to be sort of a reward for fans’ devotion or a video essay for you to try and understand it? Well, that’s exactly right. You know, the process of making a documentary is one of discovery, and like writing a story, you follow a lead and that leads you to something else and then by the time you finish, the story is nothing like you expected. And that’s the discovery I made – what you see happening to me on film is happening to me on film. I had no idea what to expect, and what I saw, my face reflected the astonishment of these various truths that came out that made it a far deeper experience than I ever thought of. How quickly did the examination become so existential? Was that something you saw in fans’ responses, or did that largely come from your conversation with the Joseph Campbell expert? That’s exactly right – from the fans’ responses, which led me to other fans that had a deeper understanding of what we were looking at, and then it just became exploration. And then bewilderment, and then wonderment! And it was something that was totally unexpected, and I expect that will be the audience’s experience as well – a totally unexpected observation of why people go to conventions, and about what the enduring fascination has been. So that’s the fascination, and that’s the secret behind the endurance of Star Trek – it has become part of the mythology of this culture. And nobody that I knew had a valid answer when I asked, “What do you think is the reason for the endurance of Star Trek , and why do you think people devote their lives to it, so much money and time, and bring their children to it?” The various answers I gave – science-fiction, the story, the appeal of the fact that we exist 300 years from now, all of those are part of it, but the real answer is more mystical than that. At what point did you decide to have that conversation with the Joseph Campbell expert? When I met him, the more I talked to him, the more fascinated I became, and so I decided to get a real setting and sit down and do a real interview. I’ve had some fun doing interviews in the past on television, and brought that experience to bear on him – and there was this whole philosophy laid out in front of me that put the whole documentary to a cohesive whole that I never expected. And had I not had it, it would be that much less. At what point did you really embrace or accept the fandom that your role as Kirk inspired? Quite a while ago. Over the years and talking to 10,000 people on an ad-lib basis, it kind of hones your skills for entertaining an audience in an [improvisational] way. And I began to use those experiences as a way of being an actor in front of an audience, and evolve stories and anecdotes that appeal to them. I wrote some books about it and ended up doing a one-man show about it last year – and we’ll be going out again this year – that exists because I’ve stood in front of large audiences not knowing what the next word coming out of my mouth was going to be. So I embraced the audiences a long time ago and sought to entertain them in various ways – this being one of them, the observation of what they are actually doing. How much are you able to apply the values and characteristics that fans see in Kirk into other creative ventures – to capitalize on the qualities that they seem to respond to? Well, the series appeals on a high moral level, that [Gene] Roddenberry engendered, and they’re universals – people are good, eventually people will be good, the evolvement of man is towards the positive, life will exist and we’ll work our way out of these problems. All of the positive aspects of life are there, and for me that certainly is a personal philosophy. How much at this point do you really know about Star Trek ? Can you go toe to toe with these fans and trade minutiae? No, no, no – I know nothing. My wife has to remind me of my name every so often. You know, it’s 40 years ago – why would I remember? It was a three-year job and then it was over, and then that was it. And then people began to remind me of what I had done. Which episode or part of the Trek world do you get asked about the most, and which do you find they ask about least, or seldom mention? There are many, many general questions, the likes of which you’re asking, and so, yeah, they’re just about what you think they are – your favorite episode, the philosophy, and why it has remained. Those questions still exist. But we sought in the documentary to bring this to another level to show these people – some in need, some in joy – but everybody being attracted to the Star Trek ideals, and yearning – that’s a word I haven’t used before – yearning for them to be true. And hoping, and living for that moment when the beauty that man can exude will be real and paramount. That’s what I think all of these people are looking for. What thing in your life gives you the same kind of passion – the fandom – that people show to Trek ? Well, right now I’m talking to you from Kentucky, where I’m competing for horses, in the horse world that I exist in for a large part of my life other than as an actor. My wife and I are totally involved in horses, and that is one of our great passions. And it’s interesting that I’m talking to you about Star Trek from another area of my life that makes me feel equally good. So in the way your fans know the mythology of the series, you would know the geneology of horses, maybe. Yes, exactly – you’re exactly right. The details of the horses are comparable to the details people ask me about Star Trek , only I think I’m far more knowledgeable about the horses than I am about Star Trek . Star Trek V , which you directed, confronted questions of faith and identity, and in retrospect it almost feels like you’re addressing the subtext of that film in this documentary. What an interesting observation. My God, man – that’s pure intelligence. My respect for you has increased enormously. That’s a wild conclusion, and yes, I agree with you. Had I known what I know now – because I had so many troubles and problems with getting the story for the search for God that Paramount wouldn’t let me make and Roddenberry wouldn’t let me make – I would have had more ammunition to convince them that the story I wanted to tell, and the story they forced me to tell made one or two compromises too many. That’s the lesson I learned on Star Trek V : When do you stand your ground and when do you compromise? We’re looking at that in our government right now, and that’s the problem with our government – everybody is standing on principle. Looking at that film and Get a Life as bookends, do you feel like you were asking questions then that you’re maybe finding answers for now? That’s right, man – you are absolutely right. I wanted to ask the question, if you were able to take a spaceship and find God, what would you find? And if you found the opposite, a fallen angel, what would you find? That’s the question I wanted to ask. That was going through my mind. Eric Van Lustbader used to write novels about an American in Japan and didn’t fit in in Japan, I wanted him to write that movie because he would have been the perfect guy to understand the philosophical questions being asked and put them into action. And the studio and Van Lustbader fought over the book right, and Van Lustbader never got to write the movie – which I think was a blow to what I would have liked to have done. So I never did accomplish in Star Trek V what I wanted to, but in this documentary, exploring those questions – where do we go, what do we do, what is mythology, what were the Greeks thinking when they made up those mythological beings, and what were they looking for. All of those questions that belonged to the universalities of man, those were some of the questions I wanted to ask in Star Trek V . And science-fiction allows us to do that because science-fiction is, in effect, the search for God. Absolutely. And that’s really all I have time to talk to you for. It’s a shame because your questions are now approaching unique – uniqueness. But I don’t have time for you. Todd Gilchrist is a Los Angeles-based film critic and entertainment journalist for a variety of online and print publications. You can follow his work via Twitter at @mtgilchrist . Read more from Comic-Con 2012 here. Follow Movieline on Twitter .
Hot dudes and with asses in air… A few thongs and strippers galore. A party in Miami, Key West or Palm Springs? Nahh… It’s Magic Mike of course and the latest trailer shows off a bit of skin courtesy of Channing Tatum, Alex Pettyfer, Matthew McConaughey — the resident hotties who will hold court in their sexiest in Steven Soderbergh’s latest film. There was a time in the not too distant past that Soderbergh said he was ” retiring ” from filmmaking, but things clearly changed and he found inspiration to continue. Good for him, since most ladies (and some gentlemen) will likely enjoy the show. By the way, there are more ass and skin scenes with Matthew McConaughey — and even a little bondage — to be had in Lee Daniels’ new film, The Paperboy , which premiered in Cannes last month . But back to Magic Mike … the story revolves around a male stripper who teaches a younger performer how to party, pick up women, and make easy money. “They also had to be able to do what we needed them to do and willing to do what we needed them to do,” Soderbergh told Indiewire back in January about making the film. “But I mean, we got really lucky. All these guys were great and have brought something specific to the movie. There’s nothing like shared potential humiliation to bond.” We can’t agree more… And what do you think of the fleshy teases? Check it out… Magic Mike hits theaters on June 29.
