Showing posts with label Cinéma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cinéma. Show all posts
Tom Cruisehas not seen with his daughter Suri in three years, Gossip Cop can confirm. In fact, we have been consistently right about their relationship over the years while tabloids have wrongly reported about made-up father-daughter reunions. That’s why we would like to congratulate OK! for finally getting it mostly right this week.
On the cover on its new magazine is a photo of Katie Holmesand Suri with the headline, “Their Life Without Tom.” Inside its pages are some accurate points, and a few completely off-base statements. Let’s not forget, this is the same tabloid Gossip Cop has repeatedly corrected for its untrue narratives about Holmes and Jamie Foxx. A little more than two months ago, we busted the publication when it ran an inaccurate cover story that alleged apregnant Holmes called off her wedding to Foxx.
None of that was true. Nor was the March cover that falsely claimed Holmes and Foxx were having a baby girl together, or a January cover that wrongly blared, “Wedding & A Baby” for Holmes and Foxx. Curiously, just about one year ago to the date, it was actually OK! that mistakenly reported Cruise had a secret “meeting” with Suri for three hours in an apartment belonging to “someone in his management team,” where he gave his daughter “a big teddy bear as the two embraced and then played hide-and-seek and read stories.” As Gossip Copexclusively noted then, that get-together never, ever happened.
The magazine’s story this week, however, has some more accurate reporting. Most notably, it’s right about Cruise not having seen Suri in years.
Allow Gossip Cop to separate what’s fact and what’s fiction. Not only hasn’t Cruise seen Suri in three-plus years, but we can exclusively report he has not even contacted his daughter in that time. According to one of our sources, “There’s been no communication at all.” 
We're sorry, this video cannot be played from your current location.
Gossip Cop was told there were times when the actor, who can jet anywhere he wants, was just a few states away from Suri and never tried to see her, let alone contact her. When other tabloids, such as In Touch, published a number of erroneous articles in the past about Cruise seeking custody of Suri, an insider expressed to Gossip Cop, “It’s crazy people are focusing on [Cruise] looking for more custody when he hasn’t even attempted to contact [his daughter] in years.”
In January, for example, Gossip Cop debunked an absurd cover story from that publication which alleged the Mission: Impossible star had “ruined” Holmes’ wedding plans with Foxx because there was the specter of Cruise attempting to “get more custodyand try[ing] to sway Suri over to Scientology.” In addition to the falsity of In Touch’s assertion that Foxx and Holmes were planning a “secret wedding,” an impeccable source revealed to Gossip Cop back then, “Trying to get custody? How about seeing [Suri] first?”
Should Cruise reestablish contact with Suri, Gossip Cop will happily report on it. We reached out to reps for both Cruise and Holmes and neither has responded to our investigation.
And the beef goes on. Just a day after Vin Diesel confronted Dwayne Johnson aboutdisparaging comments he made on social media, reportedly about him, Vin wrapped his final scene of their movie "Fast 8" and left, even though he's a producer of the film.
The feud is "not resolved," TMZ reported on Wednesday.
Vin reportedly wrapped his final scenes for the popular franchise's latest film around 1 am on Wednesday. To add another layer to the beef, some of those final scenes were with The Rock.
"Almost as soon as the director called cut Vin gathered everyone and said he was leaving," TMZ said, adding that Vin thinks of himself as a father figure on the set. "During his speech he said, 'Daddy's gone.'"
The studio did clear him to leave before he did so.
According to reports, the set has been tense, to say the least, ever since Dwayne used his Instagram to call out his male co-stars.
"Some conduct themselves as stand up men and true professionals, while others don't," he said in a lengthy post this week. "The ones that don't are too chicken s--- to do anything about it anyway. Candy a--es."
It was later reported that Vin was at the center of The Rock's ire.
"Vin went to Rock's trailer and demanded to know why he was talking trash," TMZ said. "The two spoke privately inside but we're told they did not squash their beef."
One source said the fight is all about big egos.
Insiders have pointed out that Dwayne took a subtle shot at Vin during his HBO show "Ballers," as well, when he says he is "bigger and better looking" than his frenemy.
The Rock will finish shooting "Fast 8" on Thursday, whereas the film is set to wrap next week.
Even though Dwayne was entirely complimentary about his female co-stars in his rant, many of them are upset with him for his post, as are many of the men.
"This is a hell of a way to end [filming,]" a source said.
Many assumed that the Rock, who always seems to be a professional, would offer an apology for the fiasco. That has not been the case. 
Catfights, fistfights, name-calling, lawsuits ... you name it, it's happened behind the scenes of some of our favorite TV shows and movies. Even the most family-friendly shows have seen their fair share of drama, including "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air."After three seasons, the original Aunt Viv, played by Janet Hubert, was replaced by actress Daphne Reid due to growing tensions with star Will Smith. Janet's hatred toward the lovable actor has endured: She told TMZ in 2011, "There will never be a reunion ... as I will never do anything with an a------ like Will Smith. He is still an egomaniac and has not grown up. This constant reunion thing will never ever happen in my lifetime unless there is an apology, which he doesn't know the word." Keep reading to check out more BTS feuds...

Although the last instalments of the mutant saga were widely praised, X-Men: Apocalypse has lost the plot, writes Nicholas Barber.
So far this spring, two different superhero team-up blockbusters – Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Captain America: Civil War – have acknowledged the devastation that follows whenever super-powered goodies and baddies get together to compare capes. But the third one, X-Men: Apocalypse, ignores this topic completely. The series’ favourite villain, Magneto (Michael Fassbender), uses his metal manipulation to levitate and disintegrate famous buildings all over the world, presumably killing thousands of innocents in the process. But when the two-and-a-half-hour film eventually reaches its happy ending, no one mentions the destruction or the slaughter. The supposedly noble Professor Xavier (James McAvoy) even parts from Magneto with a jovial cry of, “Goodbye, old friend.” The little matter of civilisation being flattened is given less emphasis than Xavier going bald.
Maybe it’s a mistake to take such a daft film so seriously, but the X-Men series has, up until now, led the way in intertwining superheroic fisticuffs with real-world issues. The groundbreaking first film, X-Men (2000), established that mutants were a feared and oppressed minority, thus allowing it to ponder questions of social cohesion and violent resistance well before Captain America got around to them.
The series ran out of steam with its third instalment, X-Men: The Last Stand (2006), but X-Men: First Class (2011) revived it cleverly by jumping back to the founding of Professor Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters in the 1960s. And then the franchise hit its high point with the time-warping X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014), which deftly linked the original trilogy to the civil-rights battles of the 1970s. It was exciting, then, when the director and writer of Days of Future Past, Bryan Singer and Simon Kinberg, reunited for Apocalypse. But in their senseless and uninvolving new sequel, the series’ former wit, resonance and internal logic seem to have been lost in all the swirling clouds of computer-generated dust. 
The series’ former wit, resonance and internal logic seem to have been lost
It’s the kind of film which makes you feel sorry for the many, many actors it squeezes in. Jennifer Lawrence, as the increasingly Katniss Everdeen-like Mystique, is glum from start to finish, but Oscar Isaac has a right to be even gloomier. Weighed down by prosthetic make-up and rubber armour, he looks as if he couldn’t decide between dressing up as Star Wars’ Emperor and Doctor Who’s Davros, so he put on both costumes at once.
Unwanted mutation
Isaac plays the shuffling, snarling Apocalypse, a mutant megalomaniac who was on the verge of ruling the world in 3600BC when he was buried under a pyramid by the people of ancient Egypt. When he finally digs his way out of the rubble in 1984, his resurrection is witnessed by the CIA’s Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne), so she is able to brief her old flame, Professor Xavier. Apocalypse, she tells him, has been around since time immemorial. Whenever he pops up, he always has four helpers – four horsemen, if you will – and he always causes a major disaster.
Olivia Munn’s superpower is to stand around in a leotard and thigh boots while the men do the talking
Considering that Apocalypse has been underground for the past five-and-a-half millennia, you may wonder which earlier disasters he could have been responsible for, and how MacTaggert could possibly know about them, but perhaps she is an expert in Neolithic history as well as a crack CIA agent. The point is that he is up and about again, and he has decided, on a whim, to rid the planet of everything that was built while he was out of action.
Before that, however, he has to gather his latest quartet of mutant sidekicks, although why he doesn’t opt for a different number is never explained. Co-incidentally, he meets his first candidate almost as soon as he surfaces: Storm (Alexandra Shipp), the weather controller played by Halle Berry in the original X-Men trilogy. In her younger 1980s incarnation, Storm is a teenaged urchin who can nonetheless discuss sociology in three languages. “You can’t go around killing people,” she warns Apocalypse, shortly before agreeing to work for him, anyway. “There are systems in place for that kind of thing.” (Amazingly, those aren’t the worst lines of dialogue in the film.)
Next, there is Psylocke (Olivia Munn), whose superpower is to stand around in a leotard and thigh boots while the men do the talking. Horseman number three is the winged Angel (Ben Hardy), who has even less to contribute. And number four is Magneto, who has been living incognito in Poland since the events of Days of Future Past, and has now settled down with a wife and daughter. You can probably guess what happens to them.
Like rabbits
Apocalypse’s globe-trotting recruitment drive takes an inordinate amount of time, but he isn’t the only character in the film who is intent on meeting new people. Mystique rescues the teleporting Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee) from a Berlin cage-fighting club. Scott Summers (Tye Sheridan), aka Cyclops, enrolls in Xavier’s school, where he bumps into the psychic Jean Grey (Sophie Turner). And so it goes on. A recurring weakness of recent superhero films is that the plots keep being interrupted so that yet more characters can be introduced. X-Men: Apocalypse takes things a step further. For much of its running time, there is no plot to interrupt: all it has to offer are introductions to more and more characters, which is why so few of them make any impression. Cutting between Cairo, Berlin and Xavier’s school, most of the film feels like a prologue – a “previously-on-the-X-Men” recap that you have to sit through before you get to the story.
The characters do some jumping and flying, while looking suspiciously as if they are hanging from digitally-erased wire
There are two sustained action sequences, though. One is a blatant retread of the Days of Future Past set piece in which Quicksilver (Evan Peters) zips around so speedily that the rest of the world freezes – but how exactly can he shove people through windows at 1000-mph without turning their bones to powder? The other sequence has Colonel Stryker (Josh Helman) capturing various X-Men (while leaving behind various others), an interlude that is included solely to shoehorn in Wolverine (Hugh Jackman). But maybe it isn’t Wolverine at all. In the other X-Men films, the character was a super-strong brawler with miraculous healing abilities, but in this one he is invulnerable: soldiers fire hundreds of bullets at him at point-blank range, and he isn’t even scratched.
There is a lot of this nonsense to endure before you get to the inevitable fight between Team Apocalypse and Team Xavier, and when you do, it’s hardly worth the wait. The characters do some jumping and flying, while looking suspiciously as if they are hanging from digitally-erased wires. Some of those characters switch allegiance at the last minute, just as their counterparts did in Avengers: Age of Ultron. The clouds of computer-generated dust keep swirling. And, ultimately, the fight is won not by the team which is bravest or most cunning, but the one which has the deadliest powers at its disposal. It’s not the most edifying of messages.
Back at the School for Gifted Youngsters, the Youngsters use their telekinetic gifts to repair some damage that’s been done to the school. But what about Tower Bridge, Brooklyn Bridge and the other landmarks which have been disintegrated by Xavier’s mass-murdering buddy Magneto? Apparently, they’re humanity’s problem – and no X-Men film has been less interested in humanity than this one.

I’m going to begin with two things:
1. I am a huge Game of Thrones fan. I read the books, I have a GoT inspired tattoo, and I make a religious effort to watch the show on Sunday nights. (#HouseStarkForever)
2. You need to stop reading right here if you don’t want last night’s episode spoiled for you. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Last night’s episode of Game of Thrones (Season 6, Episode 5) showed us more secrets from the Realm, including more of Bran’s gift, how the white walkers were formed, and what really happened to Hodor.
With George R.R. Martin not finishing a book from his beloved A Song of Ice and Fire series since 2011, fans of the series have been wanting to learn more about Hodor for many years since it still hasn’t been explained in the books or TV show. In a few episodes this season, we were able to see that Hodor used to have a vocabulary that consisted of full sentences, as opposed to only verbalizing the word “hodor.”
Michael A. Ventrella is a writer that spoke to Martin multiple times at convention back in 2014 where they were both guest authors, and he predicted what the word “hodor” actually meant. Ventrella wrote an article about his conversation with Martin back in April 2014. After running into each other frequently in an elevator in the hotel where they were staying, the final conversation went like this:
Ventrella:  I finally figured out why you have a character named “Hodor.”
Martin:  Oh?
Ventrella:  I was thinking about your comment about wanting to be an elevator operator.  It’s clear to me now that “Hodor” is short for “Hold the door.”
Martin:  (laughing)  You don’t know how close to the truth you are!
image via sbnation
image via sbnation
It might just be me, but my mind is blown after reading about this. How in the world did Ventrella come up with this theory? And does anyone else besides me believe that Hodor will somehow live through his current situation? I can’t bear to think of both Summer (Bran’s direwolf) and Hodor dying to save the Stark boy, but then I have to remind myself that he isGeorge R.R. Martin.

For a decade, extreme sports enthusiasts who wanted to capture their amazing hobbies on camera have championed one brand - GoPro.
Resilient, compact and powerful, GoPro kit has become synonymous with extreme sports photography, just like Red Bull has on the marketing side. In the past twelve months, however, times have gotten tough for the one-time king. Sales are down, stock prices are plummeting and consumer confidence is at an all-time low - why?

“There are only so many base jumpers in the world”

To answer that, we have to go back to 2005 when the original GoPro Hero was launched. There were few products on the market that had the required toughness, waterproofing and portability for extreme filming. Mobile phones could also take pictures and record video but to be brutally honest, the quality at the time was atrocious, and the majority of people were unwilling to risk damaging their expensive smartphones.
The Original GoPro
The Original GoPro
An untapped market was ripe for the taking, and GoPro did just that. By 2010, with the advent of the HD Hero, GoPro’s reported sales of over 20 million cameras had blasted the competition out of the water and seized 70% of the action camera market in the US alone. By 2013 they had grabbed 45% of the of the overall U.S camcorder market. By 2014 Youtube users had posted around 2.8 years of video proudly featuring GoPro in the titles of videos that together garnered over 1 billion views. The future was looking bright for the fledgling company, but things soon started to take a downward turn.
A statement made by GoPro President Tony Bates earlier this year gives a clue as to why. “There are only so many base jumpers in the world,” he said. It is fair to say that by 2014 GoPro had reached near-total saturation with the ‘dedicated sports enthusiasts’ the company lists as its root audience in its Sec-1 filing . The company realised far too late that it needed to aggressively target consumers outside of the extreme sports video capture market and pursue other uses for its gear. In the same document GoPro proposes trying to woo music artists, celebrities, and events to drastically change their image.
The GoPro Hero4
The GoPro Hero4
What’s more, even though GoPro patented a lot of its tech, this was not enough to stop rival companies with similar products stealing its customers, particularly cheap Chinese knock-offs.
To add to their woes, existing GoPro customers didn’t really need new cameras. GoPro’s products did as advertised - they were incredibly resistant to damage and the footage they produced was so good that users may never have felt the need to replace or upgrade them. There are subtle hints dropped throughout their 2014 Sec 1 filing that GoPro anticipated that they did “not expect to continue to grow in the future at the same rate as we have in the past”.


Targeting a different market segment in July 2015, GoPro released the Hero 4 Session. With a simplified interface, it was intended to target the average consumer who felt intimidated by the traditional GoPro setup. The Session was designed to be user-friendly and scoop up even more of the bottom end of the consumer camera market that GoPro had struck gold in. And it bombed.
Even after slashing the price repeatedly from US$399 all the way down to an affordable US$199, abysmal sales of the Session cost GoPro US$40 million in lost revenue. Things got so desperate that in December 2015, the Chief Executive of GoPro, Nick Woodman, made a cringeworthy appearance on shopping channel QVC in order to boost sales. The Session’s failure to shift units certainly contributed to the company laying off of 7% of its staff in January.
The GoPro Session
The GoPro Session
Reeling from this blow, GoPro countered. Understanding how essential diversification and innovation was going to be for its survival, it already had several projects in the pipeline. In November 2015, it announced that it would be producing its own series of drones. In April 2016 it launched a developer scheme to place GoPro cameras in products from 100 different companies including BMW and Fisher Price. The purchase of two editing apps (Replay and Splice) was also completed, with the intention of improving its much-maligned editing software. In another heavily publicised announcement in the same month, GoPro hired Apple veteran Danny Coster as its Vice President of Design, which led to a 20% spike in share prices. Things were finally looking up for investors, and the company appeared to be turning a corner.
However, the relief was only temporary. When GoPro released its sales figures for Q1 2016, losses stood at US$107.5 million and the company’s revenue had plummeted a devastating 49% from US$363.1 million to US$121.4 million in a single quarter. Its share prices soon followed suit, tumbling to US$12, an 88% decrease from GoPro’s highs of US$94 per share in 2014.

The company followed this earthquake with the announcement that it would delay the release of its first drone unit, codenamed ‘Karma’, from June 2016 until the Christmas period, explaining that the wait would be worthwhile due to the drone’s unique features. Unfortunately, GoPro was unable to reveal any of these features, prompting more questions from investors.
The Karma delay was also met with utter bafflement by the photography and drone communities. The drone market is already at capacity in terms of manufacturers, with Chinese company DJI holding 45% of the US market share. This is indicative of the overall problem GoPro faces, relying too heavily and for too long on its original concept, it is now late to the party on multiple fronts.
The GoPro Omni
The GoPro Omni
Similarly, GoPro’s Omni camera kit (which was announced in April) for VR recording, will face competition from products already on the market such as Samsung’s Project Beyond. To make matters worse, GoPro is even being challenged on its home turf. LG introduced its LG Action Cam LTE in May 2016, which will allow users to livestream their footage, something that no existing GoPro product can do. This is the kind of product innovation that GoPro desperately needs right now, and it's being introduced by competitors with little or no foothold in the market.

"We do not expect to continue to grow in the future at the same rate as we have in the past”

GoPro is now standing on the precipice of collapse unless it shakes things up fast. Flailing as it is, new schemes such as the developers program are a sign that GoPro understands that it must evolve or die. If GoPro means to evolve, though, it needs to do it fast. Unless the company can produce something truly revelatory (which hasn’t happened for many a year), it will shed fans and sales figures rapidly.
The GoPro Mobile App
The GoPro Mobile App
The technology just isn’t innovative enough compared to their competitors, some which (like LG) weren’t even competitors until a very short time ago. They also have to concede that the future of GoPro likely isn’t as a titan standing alone, but as a collaborator with larger, more sellable brands. To reiterate its own point, GoPro has simply run out of base jumpers.

/SaladeTomateOignon
Add caption


Le Myope” is a DIY camera (if you can call it a camera) that doesn’t take pictures, it simply finds similar ones online. The device is essentially a Raspberry Pi computer linked up to Google reverse image search. As ridiculous as it sounds, we have to admit that asking “why are you taking this picture? It’s already on the Internet!” has an element of adorable charm.







The device was created by Salade Tomate Oignon (that's Tomato and Onion Salad...no we don’t get it either), a peculiar Parisian artist and crafter with a selection of equally interesting and eclectic projects on their site.
The name of the device 'Le Myope', is humorously called so because it means short-sighted in French. As STO describes, it uses "the most advanced algorithms based on machine learning and computer vision," which may not always function as you’d like it to.



“Even more imprecise than a blurry Polaroid picture or a filter-abused Instagram shot.”

Simply point Le Myope at your target just like a regular camera, but when you press the shutter button, instead of snapping a shot you’ll receive a picture of the closest Google search result for the image you would have taken.
This means that when you use it in a popular place for photo snapping, such as a popular tourist attraction, you’ll likely get something close to an exact match. However, if you use it in a remote place you’ll get "random, roughly similar pictures from all over the internet!" Say you take a picture of a tree, you’ll certainly get a picture of a tree, but it may look quite different to the one that’s in front of you. It may even be from the other side of the globe.
Although it’s difficult to see many use cases for the device (aside from ensuring your shot is 100% original), it’s a delightful little side project and the specs and instructions for building it are available for free on STO’s website. In its description, the device is pitched as “even more imprecise than a blurry Polaroid picture or a filter-abused Instagram shot.” STO certainly knows his audience, we’ll give him that.
b:include data='blog' name='google-analytics'/>