Oscar nominations 2016: JHU film expert discusses the Academy's picks, predicts the winners

Q+A with Linda DeLibero, director of Program in Film and Media Studies

Earlier this morning, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced thenominees for the 88th annual Academy Awards, selections that drew the usual mix of praise and ire.

The Hub caught up with Linda DeLibero, director of the Program in Film and Media Studies at Johns Hopkins University, to talk about the Oscars nominations, who she thinks will win on Feb. 28, and who got seriously snubbed.

What are your thoughts on the Oscar nominations?

Not too many surprises in this crop of nominees, except that once again, it is going to be notorious for being an all-white nomination field.

Straight Outta Compton got a nod for Best Original Screenplay, but that's about it.

That's it. No nod for Ryan Coogler, the director ofCreed, or Michael B. Jordan or Idris Elba in the acting categories. Some people expected that Straight Outta Compton would get a nomination for Best Picture. They could have expanded that category to two more nominations and they chose not to, so I think people will be talking about that.

Do you think the lack of diversity in the categories will affect viewership of the awards ceremony?

I think there will be protests, but if there are, that will probably up the chances that viewership will be higher. Controversy always breeds attention. If I was in the industry and I were black or Latino, I would probably snub the awards.

I don't understand it. Creed could have been given a nod. It was critically acclaimed and did great at the box office. Ryan Coogler is clearly a force to be reckoned with—he's an indie director who took mainstream material that everybody thought was bound for failure, and it turned out to be a crowd-pleaser that was interesting and well-made. Why not acknowledge that?

I think a lot of people should be angry about this continued trend of all the lip service that Hollywood pays to diversity. It's not happening in the way it should. It kind of goes up and down, "Maybe next year," but who knows. Things may change, but they only seem to change temporarily and then they go back to the default mode.

What else could affect the viewership of the ceremony?

More Star Wars: The Force Awakens nods would have increased the chances of having an audience for the awards, but they clearly didn't seem to care about that. Some people were hoping that Star Wars would get some nominations that weren't limited to technical categories, and that didn't happen. So there were some smaller surprises, but otherwise nothing. I don't think anything was too shocking.

What are your thoughts on the nominations?

This has been a banner year for Hollywood film. At the box office, Star Wars made this an unprecedented year, and beyond that there were other films, like Jurassic World this summer, that did phenomenally well. A lot of the expected blockbusters—not all of them performed well, but it didn't really matter. Last year, the main nominees for Best Picture were Boyhood and Birdman, and people complained about the fact that those films did no box office business, and they were critically acclaimed but audiences did not go out to see them. Here, you have a field of films that are critically acclaimed and are doing pretty well at the box office. The Revenant—which is critically acclaimed and has a really good shot at winning—is doing great at the box office.

This is the thing that always concerns me because these nominees are a bellwether of what might happen with the offbeat, indie films. A lot of studio producers want to make money, but there are a lot of people in the industry who want to make great films, and to make what some people call aspirational films that both perform well and do something more than blow up cars and buildings. This year, it seems to me that movies like Spotlight and The Big Short, and The Revenant in particular, are Hollywood films that are studio-produced and have big stars in them and yet they'rereally good movies. So that I find heartening.

It's not surprising that some of the films that have been critically hailed this year didn't get any acknowledgment from the Academy. Films like Tangerine and Diary of a Teenage Girl. There have been times when I thought "Ten films nominated? That's ridiculous, there weren't 10 good films out there," but in the last couple of years, that has not actually been the case. There has been a surfeit of films that stand up very well and are the kind of motion pictures that will last over the long term and that drew audiences. So I'm thinking with these other categories—Best Actor and Actress, and Director—those categories need to be made a little bit bigger, too, or more flexible, because there are people I thought deserved a nomination that didn't get in.

But I'm excited that there are films in the category where I wouldn't know which to choose. I've seen all the films nominated for Best Picture, and I would have a hard time making that decision.The Martian was not one of my favorite films. It was popular, and a good film, but not a great film. Director Ridley Scott got snubbed, which I thought was kind of interesting. But boy, what a great category. They're all films I would see more than once.

There is an issue with getting smaller films seen and in front of audiences. There are a lot of problems with distribution. It's the next big puzzle to solve. But the studios are making good films and so far, for this year, those films are being seen and they're making money. Now, they're making modest amounts of money. Spotlight, for example, is not a blockbuster, but I think its numbers are better than, say, Birdman from last year. I don't care about the money, but a lot of people do and those numbers determine what films get made in the future, so it's something you have to pay a lot of attention to.

Speaking of distribution—Netflix did something surprising (to me at least) when they released Beasts of No Nation simultaneously in theaters and on Netflix. Do you think that decision to distribute in an unconventional way affected their Oscar nods?

Yeah, I do. It's a peculiar vision, and it certainly didn't pay off in terms of theatrical release. It did nothing in theaters. It's making all of its money through streaming. I just don't think that's going to be a viable way to pursue these kinds of nominations. I think they're probably going back and saying "If we want to make prestige material, there's nothing that says we have to make it a motion picture." Television content is just as noteworthy and critically acclaimed as theatrical releases. They did that so that they could be considered for the Oscar, but I don't know if you'll see that strategy again. It didn't work at the box office and it didn't help to net them any awards.

What do you think of the nominees in the Best Actor in a Lead Role category?

I think Leonardo DiCaprio deserves to win this year. Some people think Michael Fassbender is a top contender, but I did not care for him as Steve Jobs. I thought he was miscast. He was brilliant in the role, but in a lot of ways it hijacked the film. It was distracting. With Eddie Redmayne, you know, men who play women usually have a very good chance at winning, but I didn't think The Danish Girl was that great of a movie. Matt Damon in The Martian was likable but it was a low-key performance. Bryan Cranston in Trumbo is maybe the biggest competition for DiCaprio, but I'm looking at that field thinking there's no way he's going to lose. They'll give it to him just for the hell he went through for the role.

What about Best Actress in a Leading Role? We've got Jennifer Lawrence nominated for her work in Joy, and that's the only nomination that the film garnered.

Yeah, the movie got bad reviews and didn't do well at the box office. Her performance was the only thing noteworthy in it. I think she's been frequenting these awards so often that I don't think she has a chance. And I think it's the same with Cate Blanchett in Carol. I haven't seen 45 Years yet because it hasn't been released here, but Charlotte Rampling has had a long and distinguished career, and I wouldn't be sad if she won. But I think the race is going to be between Brie Larson from Room and Saoirse Ronan from Brooklyn. I'm really hoping that Brie Larson wins. She was spectacular: it's a great performance in a really affecting role. The roles in both Brooklyn and inRoom are emotionally wrenching, but I think Brie Larson's role is just a little bit more so, and she might have the edge.

What about Best Actor in a Supporting Role?

It's just ridiculous! Though I think Sylvester Stallone may have the advantage.

What makes you say that?

It's a comeback of sorts. This would be the first time that an actor would win for a reprise of a previous Oscar-winning role, so there's definitely sentiment there. Possibly the strongest contender would be Mark Rylance from Bridge of Spies because he just surprised so many people and came out of nowhere with a remarkable performance that lifted the film into another category. But that's not to take anything away from Christian Bale, who was amazing. Tom Hardy, Mark Ruffalo—and you could probably think of several other performances over the course of the year that could have easily been in there and been contenders. That's going to be an interesting category to watch. It's a really tough category.

And Best Actress in a Supporting Role?

I don't think Rachel McAdams should be in there. Alicia Vikander did not have a supporting role. Rooney Mara's is not a supporting role. I have a soft spot for Jennifer Jason Leigh. I'm not a big fan of Kate Winslet's performance in Steve Jobs, but she won the Golden Globe so that may have some influence. That category also seems to me to be a little bit up for grabs. I honestly can't predict that one.

What about the Best Director category?

I have to say of all the films this year, the most surprising and thrilling one for me was Mad Max: Fury Road. I just thought it was an absolutely brilliant film in all ways. And the fact that George Miller came back after all these years and revived the franchise in a way that was so smart and different and thrilling ... I would give it to him.

But look at Adam McKay, who directed The Big Short. The guy who directed Anchorman comes out with this inventive, imaginative take on 2008. He took Michael Lewis' material and turned it into spectacular filmmaking. That's quite a coup. And I don't think he cares whether he wins or not because his career has just shot off in a completely different and wonderful direction.

Alejandro Iñárritu might have had the inside track, but he's already been a winner. Lenny Abramson was kind of a surprise, but I thought Room was a magnificent adaptation. I thought the movie was better than the book. And Spotlight … they're all really great feats of direction. Really strong category.

Other thoughts?

Tarantino got shafted for original screenplay. That was a movie that disappointed a lot of people and tanked at the box office. A lot of people are sort of fed up with him and he's mired in controversy. But both the Adapted and Original Screenplay categories are really strong. I think the adaptations of Room and The Big Short really demonstrate great skill at adapting written, un-cinematic material which earns a nod for both of them.

Carol was a movie that was kind of dissed. I think it reflects the idea "We're tired of your arty films." But I think that movie is a very stylish film, a very beautiful film, and skillful, but it wasn't one of my favorites. A little bit overly stylish.

The other thing that I was really upset about is that The Revenant wasn't nominated for its musical score, which I thought was absolutely spectacular, but obviously too different. I was kind of looking out for that.

I have to say: Film is not dead. Movies are not dead. They're alive, and they could be better, but I always think everybody cares desperately about this stuff and most people don't. At least not to the extent that I do.

US freezes new coal mine permits in environmental review

Washington - The US government announced Friday a freeze on issuing permits for new coal mines on government land, in a review of the environmental impact of federal coal policy.

The move could amount to a fresh hit on struggling US coal producers but advance Barack Obama administration's commitment to fighting climate change.

The Department of the Interior said the review and freeze are to ensure that the government's coal program "is properly structured to provide a fair return to taxpayers and reflect its impacts on the environment, while continuing to help meet our energy needs."

The review, the first in three decades, will examine how leases issued to private companies to mine coal on public lands are issued and managed.

The reassessment will include examining the impacts on the environment and public health of coal production from federal lands, the Interior Department said.

"We have an obligation to current and future generations to ensure the federal coal program delivers a fair return to American taxpayers and takes into account its impacts on climate change," said Interior Secretary Sally Jewell.

"Even as our nation transitions to cleaner energy sources, building on smart policies and progress already underway, we know that coal will continue to be an important domestic energy source in the years ahead," she said in a statement.

The Interior Department oversees about 570 million acres (230 million hectares) of coal lands which can be leased by miners. About 40 percent of US coal output comes from these lands.

- 'Invest in the future' -

The announcement came three days after Obama, in his annual State of the Union address, pledged to overhaul federal energy policy with an eye on fighting climate change.

"Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future -- especially in communities that rely on fossil fuels," he said.

"That's why I'm going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet."

The move comes as the US coal industry continues to shrink due to the rise in large, cheap supplies of natural gas which has been more favored for power generation.
In recent years, some two dozen coal companies have shut down. Last week, the second largest mining company, Arch Coal, filed for bankruptcy reorganization and there are fears that the largest, Peabody Energy, could do the same as it struggles under a huge debt load.

Environmental groups applauded the new policy.

"This is a historic decision that greatly improves the world's chances of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change," said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth.

"With this decision President Obama sent a clear signal to coal companies and their investors that the days of dumping their pollution onto the American public are ending."

But Republican politicians and the mining industry blasted the move as aiming to wreck the coal industry.

National Mining Association president Hal Quinn said leasing procedures already take a decade or more so no moratorium is needed, and added that it cuts off "the source of the lowest-cost and most reliable electricity keeping America's lights on and people working."

Senator Mike Enzi called the new policy "an economic assault" on Wyoming, a key coal state.

"The president decided a long time ago he wanted to destroy the coal industry and this is about wanting to make coal more expensive and less accessible." — Agence France-Presse

T.J. Dillashaw vs. Dominick Cruz more than just a UFC title fight

T.J. Dillashaw will defend his UFC bantamweight title belt Sunday night against former champion Dominick Cruz as part of UFC Fight Night in Boston. But a possible fight against Team Alpha Male leader Urijah Faber looms larger than ever since Dillashaw and Faber had a public falling out last fall.

The Sacramento fighters, and former good friends and training partners, had vowed never to meet in the octagon unless the UFC paid them “hundreds of millions, or a billion dollars,” Faber once joked. But if Dillashaw (13-2) beats Cruz (20-1) on Sunday, a match against Faber (33-8) later this year would be very intriguing – and potentially very lucrative. Think UFC 200-something at the new Golden 1 Center downtown.

Faber took Dillashaw under his Team Alpha Male wing in 2009, less than a year after Dillashaw had graduated from Fullerton State, where he wrestled. In 2013, Faber made former UFC fighter Duane Ludwig the head striking coach at Team Alpha Male, and Ludwig revitalized the team, turning the group that includes title hopefuls Joseph Benavidez and Chad Mendes and Lance Palmer, a former World Series of Fighting featherweight champ, from great wrestlers with average standup prowess to devastating punchers. Less than a year later, Dillashaw became Team Alpha Male’s first UFC champion.

But Ludwig and Faber feuded, and Ludwig returned to Colorado. Last fall, Dillashaw left Team Alpha Male and began training with Ludwig’s Elevation Fight Team.

“I actually got a lot of my (former) teammates coming out here to train with me,” Dillashaw said. “Joseph Benavidez is actually with me right now. Lance Palmer has been coming out. I’m still training with a lot of the guys; it’s just not at Ultimate Fitness. Urijah is the one that put a stop to that. They’ve been coming out to Colorado to train with Duane and to get some training with me, and come out and check it out and realize how good the training is.”




Faber said Dillashaw was paid by Elevation Fight Team to leave Team Alpha Male and claims Dillashaw tried to play both sides. And when Faber told Dillashaw he couldn’t, Faber said Dillashaw took it hard.

“That was his dilemma,” Faber said from Boston, where he’ll be sitting near the octagon. “He wanted to be paid, which is a selfish way to look at it. To be at the top, and have four teammates working for title fights alongside you, and then pull that … I’m not happy about any of it.”

Dillashaw trained in both Sacramento and Colorado for his last camp, which led to a dominating win in July over Brazil’s Renan Barao, whose belt he took in May 2014 in one of the biggest upsets in UFC history. Dillashaw said he planned to do the same, but Faber told him he couldn’t train at Ultimate Fitness.

“I feel like I built great relationships with guys out there and some teammates and have done my part to be a good team player,” Dillashaw said by phone from Denver. “My plan was to go back and forth, but that’s not the case anymore. I’m going to have to be full time out here. I got family (in Angels Camp), and (Sacramento) is home, too, so I’ll always be back and forth.

“It’s just a little ridiculous that I’m getting crap for changing camps when it happens all the time, when guys are trying to better themselves and their career by going to a new team or a new coach. It happens every day in this sport, and all of a sudden it’s a big deal. So it’s a little ridiculous, and you’ve just got to kind of laugh it off.”

Faber isn’t laughing.

“T.J. made his decision, and I made mine, bottom line,” Faber said. “T.J. is still crying about it. But, hey man, suck it up.”

Faber is the only fighter to beat the oft-injured Cruz, with a submission in 2007, but Cruz got revenge with a unanimous decision in 2011. Cruz, who has fought just once in the last four years, also has two tough wins over Benavidez.

Dillashaw said he’s using video of those fights to try to gain an edge against Cruz.

“Yeah, it’s definitely helped me prepare, and helping those guys prepare for their fights and knowing what I would have done in those situations,” Dillashaw said. “You definitely take things from everyone’s fight, and Joseph had a very close split-decision fight and just didn’t take him down here and there.”

Cruz said he’s excited to show he’s back in championship form after multiple knee injuries and a groin injury led to the UFC stripping him of the title. One tool Cruz always has used is his mouth, and that hasn’t changed in the lead-up to Sunday’s fight.

“You can shine up a turd, but it still stinks, and that’s T.J. Dillashaw,” Cruz said. “He’s still an Alpha Male guy; he’s still got those guys training with him. He’s still one of them. He’s still a jock. He’s still a meathead. He’s still not that bright, and he still uses a lot of the fundamentals that those guys use. That’s what built him up into this sport, so he’s going to have a lot of those things. He’s still an Alpha Male guy in my eyes. But just because he’s not with them – that’s just Faber cutting him off to try to make money.”

Faber said Cruz has it all wrong again.

“I’d like to punch Cruz in the mouth anytime anywhere, for free,” Faber said. “He’s lucky he’s still being mentioned in this sport.”

Faber, 36, said fighting Dillashaw to help welcome Golden 1 Center would be epic. But there’s one condition.

“I don’t want to fight T.J. unless he has the belt,” Faber said. “I didn’t want any of this (controversy). I’m still in control of my journey, and I still want to prove that I’m the best ever in this weight class.”

If Cruz’s trash talking is getting to Dillashaw, he doesn’t show it. It’s not that Dillashaw doesn’t have strong opinions about Faber and the split with Team Alpha Male, or about Cruz. The shy, humble fighter from Angels Camp always has wanted his abilities on the mat and in the octagon to speak for him.

On Sunday night, either Cruz or Dillashaw will have the last word.

“It’s funny that Dominick always can say that I don’t talk crap because I’m not very smart, when I’m the one that’s got the college degree and went to school,” Dillashaw said in a rare barbed retort. “I’m a martial artist, and I was showing respect. I’m not one of those guys who’s going to do the Conor McGregor thing and talk a bunch of crap to make money. I want to look back on my career and know that I made the right choices, and that I portrayed myself the way I want to be portrayed. I’m not going to look like a jackass while doing it.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/sports/article55019635.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/sports/article55019635.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/sports/article55019635.html#storylink=cpy

Police officer shot in the vest at Southfield Marriott hotel

SOUTHFIELD, Mich. (WXYZ) - Police are at the Southfield Marriott hotel where, sources say, a police officer was shot in the vest.

It happened in the back parking lot of the hotel on Northwestern Highway.

We are told the vest stopped the round and the officer was not hurt. Officials are not saying what department he is with.

The FBI, Michigan State Police and Southfield Police are all on scene.

Sources say the officer, who is from a suburban department, was part of a FBI child exploitation task force. Police say they are investigating human trafficking, with extra operations in place because of the North American International Auto Show.

The suspect who shot at the officer is dead at the scene.

Police say the suspect struggled with the officer over a weapon, before the suspect shot the officer in the chest area.

Our sources say the suspect then shot himself in the head with the officer's gun.

7 Action News has a crew on the scene.

Funding Lifts Uber China Unit's Valuation to $8 Billion, but Profits Absent

Uber Technologies Inc's China unit boosted its valuation to $8 billion (roughly Rs. 53,908 crores) after it raised more than $1 billion (roughly Rs. 6,738 crores) in its latest funding round, although the US ride-hailing app is not yet profitable in the mainland due to intense competition.

Uber and its larger China rival, Didi Kuaidi, have spent heavily to subsidize rides to gain market share, betting on China's Internet-linked transport market becoming the world's biggest.

Travis Kalanick, CEO of Uber Technologies, told reporters in the Chinese capital on Friday he recognizes that spending on subsidies is "how you win" in China and that the company aims to beat Didi Kuaidi by spending subsidies more efficiently.

"I worry about it every day," he said, regarding the heavy spending on subsidies. Uber currently operates in 22 cities in China but Kalanick said it does not turn a profit in any city.

Didi Kuaidi, backed by Chinese Internet heavyweights Alibaba Group Holding Ltd and Tencent Holdings Ltd, has the country's biggest market share of car-hailing apps.

Uber China's recently-closed Series B fundraising brought in "well over $1 billion", Kalanick said. A spokeswoman for Uber said the series had raised over $1.2 billion but declined to give an exact figure.

"I thought we did remarkably well especially given some of the macro trends that were going on," Kalanick said.

In September, Kalanick had said the unit had already raised $1.2 billion. The CEO did not comment on Friday on precisely how much had been raised in the four months since then. Before the latest fundraising, Uber's China unit was valued at $7 billion (roughly Rs. 47,169 crores).

Kalanick warned that the market for fundraising would calm down at some point and the current high spending on subsidies cannot continue forever.

Uber's profits in other markets can be invested in Uber China and that income will eventually become a more important source of investment than fundraising, he said.

Maher: I want a presidential appearance for birthday

PASADENA, Calif. (AP) — Bill Maher is hoping for a visit from President Barack Obama for his 60th birthday.

The HBO "Real Time" host said he's launching a petition campaign for his fans to urge the White House to schedule a presidential appearance on his show. He said Friday that it wouldn't bother him if not for the fact that "this president has done virtually every other show in the known universe."

He referenced Obama appearances with comic Zach Galifianakis on "Between Two Ferns," giving his NCAA basketball tournament picks on ESPN and talking about hair on "Live with Kelly and Michael."

Maher, who turns 60 on Wednesday, said he couldn't understand why efforts to get the president on have borne no fruit, pointing out that he agrees with Obama on most things.

"There could be no better audience for this president," Maher said. "Our viewers are informed, they're engaged, and they're smart enough to steal cable."

HBO said it will link to a petition on the network's home page, hoping to get enough signatures to compel a White House response.

Chef Gordon Ramsay's acerbic tone typically inspires tears and fear from cooks on the Fox competition "Hell's Kitchen."

So former Longman and Eagle line cook Kristin Barone looked nervous when she went to present her signature dish of grilled pork tenderloin and fried brussels sprouts to Ramsay in the show's Season 15 premiere, which airs 8 p.m. Friday.

"First of all, who got you into food? Where did that influence come from?," Ramsay asked as he began to try her food.

"Um, my probation officer," responded Barone, who lives in Lakeview.

"Hold on, why were you on probation?," Ramsay asked.

"Um, numerous things," said Barone, 29.

"Seriously?" Ramsay asked.

"I started cooking because I was on house arrest," Barone later admitted in a confessional in the premiere. (She wouldn't disclose the reason for her arrest to the Tribune.)

Barone is one of 18 cooks competing to be the head chef at BLT Steak at Bally's hotel and casino in Las Vegas, a position that comes with a $250,000 salary.

Barone, who hails from Grand Rapids, Mich., said she decided to audition a few years ago after watching the show with her family. She was working as a cook at Gather in Ravenswood and thought the long hours at the restaurant would prepare her for the "Hell's Kitchen" challenges.

But nothing could ready her for working with Ramsay.

"It's scary. It's really scary. Gordon Ramsay is not the most approachable-seeming chef. He can be terrifying," Barone told the Tribune by phone.

The show has a reputation for casting chefs that struggle with simple tasks, which is reinforced in the premiere, when the announcer promises that "this group of chefs is the most unstable, unpredictable, imbalanced group 'Hell's Kitchen' has ever seen and they're driving everyone mad."

Barone, who attended the Illinois Institute of Art in the Loop, said it's a misconception that the show is full of terrible cooks. Ramsay's intimidation causes some contestants to scramble as they figure out how to carry out his orders, she said.

Barone said she found the show's signature dinner-service challenges to be difficult but she treated the opportunity like "the longest job interview I ever had."

She is the only contestant from the Chicago area on the show this season. Former Woodstock resident Scott Commings, who makes an appearance in Friday's episode, won Season 12 of the show in 2014. Barone said her years working in Chicago helped carry her through taping.

"Chicago girls, we got (guts). It's a rat race out here," Barone said. "For female chefs especially, we're hard workers. We're not just Chicago people with a funny accent."

After filming the show months ago, Barone returned to Chicago to be a line cook at Longman and Eagle in Logan Square, a position she left last year.

She plans to host a premiere watch party from 7 to 10 p.m. Friday at Citizen Bar, 364 W. Erie St.

"I think I'm definitely one to watch. I represent what a sous chef is. I stayed humble. I stood up for myself and I really stayed true to my style of cooking," Barone said.

Mavericks Come From Behind To Beat Bulls 83-77

CHICAGO (AP) — Dirk  scored 21 points to lead the Dallas Mavericks to an 83-77 victory over the Chicago Bulls on Friday night.

Nowitzki hit a 3-pointer with 2:15 to play to put the Mavericks up 79-72 after the teams had traded the lead most of the fourth quarter. Jimmy Butler missed two 3-pointers in the final 12 seconds as the Bulls tried to rally.

Deron Williams had 18 points for the Mavericks and Zaza Pachulia grabbed 10 rebounds.

Derrick Rose, back in the lineup after missing one game with knee pain, led the Bulls with 18 points. Pau Gasol added 17 points and Taj Gibson had 11 rebounds.

Chicago’s Joakim Noah left the game after separating his left shoulder with just under 10 minutes to play in the second quarter.

Ubisoft Finally Announces When The Division's Closed Beta Begins

The Division recently got done with a closed alpha test, a secretive affair where participants weren’t allowed to share any footage from the game. Now, we’re heading into a larger beta test, and Ubisoft has just announced the dates.

The beta weekend will run from the 29^th to the 31^st of January for PS4 and PC players. Xbox One players who pre-order the game will get a one-day head start on the 28^th, because that’s how things work these days.

After the sort of strange alpha test where all the public got to see was really poor quality leaked footage, the beta should give a wider audience a better sense of how The Division will play ahead of its March 8^th release.

Some fans are complaining about the length of the beta already, saying that three or four days isn’t really enough, and they’d prefer a week instead. For my part, I think weekend-long betas are actually perfect, as run for too long, and you can burn players out before the game is even released. This has happened to me with a number of games from Titanfall to Battlefront, where I play so much beta, that by the time the game itself rolls around, my interest has mostly waned.

But The Division is a different sort of game. As I’ve recently discussed, it’s a potential Destiny competitor with an open world full of loot and co-op missions. Like the original Destiny beta, expect this test to give only a slice of what you’ll see in the full game, unlike other multiplayer-only titles which can more or less give the whole experience away. If you’re burned out after three days or a week ofThe Division, that’s a bad sign for its longer term health.

It’s been noted that this beta isn’t really a “beta,” but more or less a glorified stress test and early preview. That’s probably true, but that’s really how “betas” work these days with most AAA games. While there are games that remain in true “beta” for long periods of time (many Steam games, Blizzard games like Hearthstone and Overwatch), these micro-beta “tests” are really just advertising for the game. I mean, they’re trading beta access for pre-orders, after all.

This may annoy many fans, but it poses a risk for the publisher as well. When you debut your game early, you have to have enough confidence in it that the word of mouth will be positive enough to build up hype for the final product. I’ve seen some games where betas seem to do the opposite (Evolve comes to mind), so you can risk turn consumers off once they finally get their hands on the game. Even with a pre-order stipulation to access a beta, those are easy enough to cancel if you don’t like what you see.

I’ve actually heard pretty good things about The Division from those who played the alpha, and I really do hope it manages to compete with Destiny on some level, as that mostly uncharted genre has plenty of room for expansion, and competition will drive all the games in it to be better.

You can register for The Division beta here if you want to get on the regular waitlist. Usually, a few will trickle in over the first few days, and then the beta will open for a bigger stress test by granting everyone access, usually on the last day. And of course, if you want to guarantee your code, you can pre-order, and again, Xbox gets in a day early because…reasons.

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

'Transformers' director Michael Bay tackles Benghazi — and the result is sound and fury signifying nothing

Have no fear Hillary Clinton. Michael Bay is not guilty of using his new blast of mind-numbing noise, 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, as a battle cry against your shot at the Democratic presidential nomination. He's leaving that to Bernie Sanders. Clinton's name is never mentioned in this telling of the siege on a diplomatic outpost that occurred under her watch as Secretary of State. Still, enough blame is implied to make 13 Hours Donald Trump's early pick for movie of the year.

This is Bay's cinematic celebration of the six brave American security operators on the ground on Sept. 11, 2012, when an attack by Islamic militants ended four American lives in Benghazi, Libya. Clumsily adapted by a tin-eared Chuck Hogan from Mitchell Zuckoff's 2014 nonfiction bestseller, the movie effectively captures the frenzy of the ambush. That's pretty much it for the good news. The rest is pure Bay, as when he borrows a trick from his abysmal Pearl Harbor and shoots a scene of real-life tragedy from the point of view of a bomb. The director of a trilogy of Transformers twaddle still gets more jacked up by machines than people.

And yet this time a bit of humanity peeks through the din in the form of several solid actors. John Krasinski as Jack Silva and James Badge Dale as Tyrone "Rone" Woods bring a distinct human touch to the roles of former Navy SEALs now hired for $150,000 a year by the CIA's Global Response Staff to protect U.S. intelligence operatives and diplomats in an unsecured Benghazi compound. These guys not only have to contend with liberal wussies at home, but also condescending CIA elitists (Bay hates pencil pushers). In the words of the local CIA chief (David Costabile), mysteriously named Bob: "You're hired help, act the part." Bob is also criminally indecisive about giving the order to move on the CIA Annex a mile away and rescue U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens (Matt Letscher), who died of smoke inhalation.

Is there any hard evidence that anyone — Clinton, Obama, our boy Bob — ever issued a "stand-down" order? The film both exploits and dodges the issue. I'm being generous to say that the script barely sketches in the other GRS operatives, including Mark "Oz" Geist (Max Martini), Kris "Tanto" Paronto (Pablo Schreiber), John "Tig" Tiegen (Dominic Fumusa) and Dave "Boon" Benton (David Denman). Their phone-home flashbacks are the stuff of crass tearjerking. And Bay, whose name on a movie should serve as a leper's bell to all those who think they're getting the "true" story, keeps jacking up the shootouts, firebombs, vehicle chases and a bus explosion that you won't find in Zuckoff's book. (Said bus doesn’t transform into a killing machine with dialogue, which is Bay's one concession to subtlety.) There is a complex, compelling subject to be examined here that the director ignores. Facts bore Bay so he beats them into the submission to avoid his greatest fear: a dozing audience. Hoping to capitalize on the box-office bonanza of two previous rah-rah military movies that opened wide in January — Lone Survivor and American Sniper — Bay keeps blowing shit up for a punishing two hours and 24 minutes.

Is there an audience for this? Sadly, yes. There’s nothing wrong with a movie that cheers American heroes. But this one does so by reducing everything else to cardboard, its Libyan villains merely faceless aliens in need of vanquishing. Several critics have given 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi a pass, citing Bay's skill at action engineering. It's his failure at everything else that makes this movie as hard to endure as it is impossible to believe. #helpme

Colbert texted Olivia Munn's mom about fake-engagement

It's Internet 101: Don't believe everything you read online.

Unfortunately, as Olivia Munn revealed to Stephen Colbert on Thursday night's Late Show, her mom doesn't quite get that much of the celebrity news posted online is speculative, faulty, or just plain lies.

So she shared with Colbert their highly entertaining text thread, where her mom congratulates her on her "engagement" to Aaron Rogers, then when that turns out to be false, congratulates her on her upcoming appearances on Kelly and Michaeland "Colberto."

Obviously, Colbert absolutely loved this adorable rendering of his name, so he took the liberty of texting Olivia Munn's mom back with his own message of engagement congratulations. Her mom was not amused. (And based on her reaction of "Noooooo!" neither was Olivia.)

Chipotle’s Health Crisis Shows Fresh Food Comes at a Price

CHIPOTLE IS IN crisis. For months, a series of health scares have sent its stock tumbling, stalled sales, and triggered a federal investigation. On Feb. 8, the company said, it will close all its restaurants so employees can learn about the gravity of its foodborne illness outbreak. This week, company executives appeared at an investor conference in Florida in a bid to soothe unnerved shareholders, if not customers, and acknowledged 2016 would be a “messy” year for earnings. It helped. Shares in the company, once a darling of Wall Street, rebounded more than 12 percent andappear to be holding steady.

But investors, restaurant analysts, and food safety experts say Chipotle’s woes won’t disappear anytime soon. When it comes to the logistics of food safety, the company still has a lot to understand, and a lot to prove. As it turns out, when your business model is built on the premise of serving fresh food—often with a promise that it is ethically grown and sourced—your supply chain becomes much more complex. And more complexity means more risk.

“The more complicated your supply chain is, the more opportunity you have to introduce problems,” says Melinda Wilkins, director of the online master of science in food safety at Michigan State University. “[Chipotle’s] food sourcing is a laudable effort—and it’s what customers want. But they’re probably walking a fine line between offering fresh, local ingredients and decentralized food preparation and the risk of introducing foodborne pathogens because it is such a complicated food chain.”

Outbreak(s)

In a testament to the fierce brand loyalty that Chipotle has fostered among customers, the first indications that there might be a food safety issue at its restaurants had little impact on share prices. In July, five people in the Seattle area contracted E. coli after eating at a local Chipotle. The cases drew little attention, and Chipotle shares closed at a record high of $757.77 on August 5—a mind-boggling increase from the company’s initial public offering price of $22 in 2006—and stayed high through October. At its peak, Chipotle was worth $24 billion.

The joy was short-lived. In August, more than 200 customers and employees at a Chipotle in Simi Valley, California, contracted norovirus—the leading cause of illness from contaminated food in the US. (Last week, Chipotle announced that a federal grand jury in California had subpoenaed the chain, ordering it to produce documents related to the Simi Valley outbreak.) A salmonella outbreak in Minnesota sickened 64 people in August and September; tomatoes served at 22 Chipotle outlets in the area were blamed. In October and November,dozens of E. coli cases sprouted in Washington, New York, Maryland, Oregon, Ohio, Illinois, Kansas and Oklahoma. Then norovirus hit more than 140 Boston College students in Massachusetts, including the men’s basketball team.

All told, health officials blame contaminated Chipotle food withsickening about 500 people in 13 states. Suddenly, customers weren’t feeling quite so loyal. Same-store salesshrank by 30 percent in December compared to the same time a year earlier. (“Future sales trends may be significantly influenced by further developments,” the company warned.) Even considering the company’s most recent stock bump, shares have fallen about 40 percent, cutting the company’s value by more than $10 billion.

What’s more, Chipotle still doesn’t know which ingredients caused most of these widespread contaminations. That may not be entirely its fault; multi-state foodborne outbreaks are notoriously hard to solve. The problem may be less any kind of specific neglect on Chipotle’s part. The cause may run, instead, to something more basic: the type of food Chipotle promises at the scale it offers simply carries more inherent risk.

“They’re more at risk than, say, a McDonald’s or a Taco Bell,” Wilkins says. “[Those chains] go with big, commercial sourcing and standardized product.”

Having a centralized food source makes quality control easier, since the supply is exposed to fewer outside elements. While that may not seem like the healthiest option, it makes fast-food chains cheap, efficient, and less risky—and it’s an edge Chipotle doesn’t have. The company, for its part, has said it has in its 22 years “never seen a series of incidents like this before.”

“During that whole time, all of our food safety and food handling practices were within industry standards,” Chris Arnold, a Chipotle spokesman, says. “These incidents have shown us what we need to do better in that area, and that is exactly what we are doing.”

The new food safety plan Chipotle drafted in response to the crisis includes what the company calls high-resolution, DNA-based testing of fresh meat and produce at the supplier level before the ingredients enter Chipotle’s supply system; changes to food handling and preparation procedures; and enhanced food training. “This plan should reduce the risk of similar risks to a level as near zero as is possible,” Arnold says.

But according to Wilkins at Michigan State University, it’s unclear that Chipotle’s internal practices were the problem in the first place. Given the nature of the Chipotle model, its food supply chain probably introduces more complicating factors.

Wilkins says contamination often happens with produce—and that can take place in the field, in processing facilities, or during handling at restaurants. In any case, it can be difficult to trace, and harder still when the company is constantly tweaking its procedures to get at just the right balance between taste and cost without compromising on ethical ingredients sourcing. For instance,The Wall Street Journalreports that at one point Chipotle employees shifted from pre-chopped tomatoes shipped in plastic bags to tomatoes diced on-site because they “tasted better.” After the contamination scandal, tomatoes will again arrive pre-packaged.

With Chipotle’s plan for rehabilitation is in place, the next step will be seeing whether that will truly help the ailing food chain weather the storm.

Survival of the Safest

Can Chipotle survive the scandal? John Stanton, a professor of food marketing at St. Joseph’s University, thinks the chain can rebound, albeit slowly. He points to the loyalty of the customers as one edge the company has over the competition. “They’ve made themselves special, different from the likes of, say, Taco Bell,” he says. “I don’t think there will be a lot of Chipotle consumers switching to Taco Bell because of this.”

But Stephen Anderson, a restaurant analyst at Maxim Group who was at the Chipotle investor conference, says that he thinks customer loyalty has taken a significant hit, at least in the near term. Anderson says that while the mood at the conference was one of long-term optimism, the bad headlines and lawsuits loom large over the company. “Those risks still have to be factored in,” he says.

Wilkins, for her part, says she thinks the question of whether the company will get past the debacle in a competitive market will be something that’s ultimately decided by what consumers are ultimately willing to pay for. Increasing oversight of the supply chain will likely come at a cost to Chipotle, and someone will have to pay it. “Consumers may need to put their money where their mouth is,” she says. “If you want organic, locally sourced, and all of this new age of ‘knowing your food,’ it is going to cost more.”

Wal-Mart to close 5 Tennessee stores

Wal-Mart will close Neighborhood Market stores in East Nashville, Dover

Retail behemoth Wal-Mart plans to close five stores in Tennessee this month as part of a broader plan to shutter 269 locations worldwide and focus on the company’s Supercenters and e-commerce business.

The Neighborhood Market at 1220 Gallatin Ave. in East Nashville is included in the list of closures, along with “Express” format stores in Chapel Hill, Loretto, Cornersville and a Neighborhood Market in Dover, which is less than 70 miles northwest of Nashville.

The stores will close Jan. 28.

The Neighborhood Market in East Nashville is a half mile north of ALDI and Kroger stores. It’s about 10 miles north of a Wal-Mart store at 2421 Powell Ave. and about six miles south of the Wal-Mart Supercenter at 3468 Dickerson Pike.

Wal-Mart’s exit will leave a retail vacancy in East Nashville at a time when several national grocery chains, including Publix and Whole Foods, are rumored to be circling the local real estate market.

The impacted stores represent less than 1 percent of Wal-Mart's global square footage and revenue and were selected based on financial performance and how well the locations align with the company’s long-term plans, the company said in a statement. Wal-Mart has nearly 11,600 stores worldwide.

The move represents a shift in focus for the world's largest retailer by revenue, which plans to invest in its e-commerce business, raise wages for entry-level employees and expand in-store pickup for customers' online orders, a service that launched in fall 2015 in the Nashville area. It shows an increased effort on competing with online shopping rival Amazon.

“Actively managing our portfolio of assets is essential to maintaining a healthy business,” Doug McMillon, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. CEO, said in a statement. “Closing stores is never an easy decision, but it is necessary to keep the company strong and positioned for the future. It’s important to remember that we’ll open well more than 300 stores around the world next year.”

The new stores slated to open in the U.S. will include 50 to 60 Supercenters, 85 to 95 Neighborhood Markets and seven to 10 Sam’s Clubs.

Norm of the North: EW review

Norm of the North

Genre: animation, Adventure, Comedy; Starring: Rob Schneider, Heather Graham, Bill Nighy, Ken Jeong; Director: Trevor Wall; Release Date Wide: 01/15/2016; Runtime (in minutes): 86; MPAA Rating: PG From Happy Feet to Ice Age, the Arctic has long been fertile ground for animated adventures, and ice obsession peaked in 2013 with Frozen. Norm of the North, which stars Rob Schneider as the titular polar bear, is a completely unnecessary addition to that already lengthy list, cobbled together from the pieces of far more successful (and considerably funnier) films.

As the misfit heir to an Arctic kingdom, Norm spends his days failing to hunt seals and gloomily declaring things like, “Who needs a bear with too much care and not enough scare?” He finds his calling through his unique ability to communicate with humans, which comes in handy when real estate developers roll into town with the hope of turning the Arctic into a subdivision. Single mom Vera (Heather Graham) is heading up the marketing, and whether or not her adorably brainy daughter gets into private school relies entirely on an alumni recommendation from her real estate tycoon boss (Ken Jeong), a caricature of a villain whose only defining features are his passion for his cash and his greasy ponytail.

The animation already looks dated, and it feels as lazy as the bland narrative, which finds Norm traveling to New York City to try stop construction on his home. Norm’s lemming sidekicks, the kind of cuddly, dialogue-free companions who function as blatant Minions ripoffs, feel like a metaphor for the entire movie: there to hopefully launch a franchise first and actually provide some comic relief second. D

10 Cloverfield Lane is JJ Abrams best kept secret

Twitter lit up last night around midnight on the East Coast with talk ofCloverfield 2. It didn’t take long for it to start trending, but a quick Google search at that time didn’t net much other than pings of a random title that reads more like an address in Santa Monica, 10 Cloverfield Lane. What did it all mean?

It wasn’t long until speculation that a sequel to the 2008 horror was being created. First there were tweets from moviegoers at the first screenings of Michael Bay’s new Benghazi-pic 13 Hours, and then the confirmation came by way of shaky cellphone video from those moviegoers.

The teaser starts out like any slice of life film: a family playing with the old jukebox, playing games, playing with puzzles, playing at making house. Because it’s all a nasty facade. You realize this is not a beautiful house, they are in a fallout shelter. And this is not someone’s beautiful wife, she is a prisoner. And at her first chance to escape, well. The beauty of anything with the name Cloverfield in it (or not, just a date) is we don’t know what happens next.

The title screen pops up, 10 Cloverfield Lane. Followed by the writers (Josh Campbell and Matthew Stuecken) and director (Dan Trachtenberg). Then the release date appears: 3-11-16.

How could a movie that had so much hype surrounding it the first time, with loyal fans dying for a sequel, suddenly drop out of nowhere and is coming out in less than two months? That means the thing has been filmed in near secret this whole time.

While that seems impossible, a quick IMDB check of the director’s name, Dan Trachtenberg, reveals he has one film coming out this year, really the only feature film to his name: Valencia. According to IMDB (which as of 11PM PST, the title has been updated to 10 Cloverfield Lane), the plot is about a young woman who wakes up from a car accident and finds herself trapped in the basement of a man who claims he saved her, after a chemical attack has left the world outside uninhabitable. And go figure, Valencia/10 Cloverfield Lane stars Mary Elizabeth Winsted, John Goodman, and John Gallagher Jr, all of whom we see in that trailer.

Why call it Valencia to start with, though? Originally, Cloverfield was just the working title for the film, a title that wasn’t even the original code name for it. It was supposed to be Cloverdale, but writer Drew Goddard heard it as “Cloverfield,” a street in Santa Monica where Abrams worked off of at the time, and it just sort of stuck all the way to the actual title of the film. Movies use working titles all the time to keep rabid fans off their trail — sometimes they are successful.

Putting on a director and writers with no ties to the original goes a long way in helping keep a project like this under wraps. Abrams wanted this to be Hollywood’s best kept secret and he pulled it off as seamlessly as he did reinvigorating Star Wars.