Steve Pond's Blog, page 2041
December 13, 2019
How ‘Runaways’ Got Caught in the Middle of Marvel TV’s Corporate Restructuring
As Marvel TV undergoes a seismic change, the third and last season of “Runaways” serves as a cautionary tale of what happens when a TV series becomes the victim of corporate maneuvering.
Two months ago, the TV arm of the comic book powerhouse, which had been led separately by Jeph Loeb, was moved under Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios. One month later, Hulu announced that “Runaways” would end with its third season, which dropped all 10 episodes on Friday. At the time, an individual with knowledge of the streaming service’s decision to end the Marvel series told TheWrap that creatively, the series had “come to a natural ending point” and that Hulu felt this was “the right way and time” to complete the Runaways’ journey.
But Joshua Schwartz and Stephanie Savage, who led “Runaways” as its showrunners, told TheWrap that the decision to end the Hulu series wasn’t entirely up to them.
“I think it was just a realistic assessment of when it felt like the show might be wrapping up,” Schwartz said on the reasoning for ending the show after three seasons. “Sometimes, these things are out of your control.”
Also Read: Marvel TV to Cut Staff, End Future Development as Unit Moves Under Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios
While neither Schwartz nor Savage said the call came from Feige to end “Runaways,” they hinted that the corporate maneuverings from above played a role.
“A lot of times when you’re making a television series, continuing is not always necessarily up to you. You can ascribe whatever factor you’d like to that,” Schwartz continued. “We just wanted to make sure that, should it play out that way, we were prepared to have an ending that would be very satisfying.”
Savage added: “It’s definitely the case that in this new world of streaming, what used to be a five-season, 22-episode arc, is much more often a, 10-episode a season, three-season arc. That just seems to be more and more the norm.”
Questions about Marvel TV’s future under Feige had been swirling for the past few months. The move gave Feige even more outsized power than he already had and weakened the standing of Marvel Entertainment CEO Ike Perlmutter, who previously oversaw not only Marvel TV, but also had creative oversight of publishing and animation.
Also Read: Why ESPN+ Needs 'Monday Night Football' to Play a Bigger Part in Disney's Streaming Future
The first shoe to drop came not too long after, when TheWrap reported that longtime Marvel TV head Jeph Loeb would be leaving in the coming weeks. On Tuesday, TheWrap reported that Marvel TV would be formally integrated into Marvel Studios and that all future development would be stopped. Karim Zreik, senior vice president of current programming, and production, and members of his team, will move over to Marvel Studios. Those changes left only the four animated series that Marvel TV was developing for Hulu, the live-action “Helstrom,” and the final season of “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.,” the first TV series based within the MCU, airs on ABC next summer.
The integration of Marvel TV under Marvel Studios will include layoffs as a result, both in the immediate future and long term, once development on all current Marvel TV shows is completed. The move effectively shutters the division — though the Marvel TV name may still continue.
Even though “Runaways” become a casualty of a corporate restructuring, Marvel has many reasons for wanting to finally align Marvel TV with Marvel Studios, which had previously been wholly separate. It was built into the corporate org chart: Feige reports directly to Disney Studios chairman Alan Horn, instead of Perlmutter, who controlled Marvel TV.
Feige is the architect of the MCU, which has earned billions for Disney and even toppled “Avatar” earlier this year, when “Avengers: Endgame” became the highest-grossing film of all time. The next phase of the MCU, which begins next spring with May’s “Black Widow,” will include shows on Disney+, the month-old streaming service from Disney.
Also Read: Disney+: How Bob Iger Is Betting His Company's Future on Your Nostalgia
Marvel Studios is on the hook for eight shows, many of which will star characters from the films. The first of them, “Falcon and The Winter Soldier,” will see Anthony Mackie and Sebastian Stan reprise their big screen roles, with other series starring Paul Bettany, Elizabeth Olsen, Tom Hiddleston and Jeremy Renner coming over the next two years. Disney+ will also be used as a vehicle for introducing new MCU characters like Ms. Marvel, She-Hulk and Kate Bishop, who becomes the new Hawkeye.
The goal is to recreate the big-screen experience for home streaming, in a more cohesive way than the MCU ever did with ABC or Netflix. But that also means that Marvel Studios will have to produce more content than ever before.
In 2020, Marvel Studios will be putting out “Black Widow,” “The Eternals” and “Falcon and The Winter Soldier.” In 2021, Marvel Studios’ roster will include three films — “Shang-Chi,” “Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness” and “Thor: Love and Thunder” — as well as four Disney+ shows. That doesn’t even include a third “Spider-Man” film that Marvel is co-producing with Sony.
Feige, who is also developing a “Star Wars” film for Disney, needed some reinforcements. Marvel TV provides that, even if it had to shed some weight.
Related stories from TheWrap:
'Eternals': Marvel Debuts First Footage at Comic Con Experience Brazil
Hulu's Animated Marvel TV Series 'Tigra and Dazzler' Fires Showrunner and Entire Writing Staff
13 Cursed Movies for Friday the 13th, From ‘Poltergeist’ to ‘The Crow’ (Photos)
Happy Friday the 13th. Making movies proves that Murphy’s Law is a real and horrifying thing. These 13 films were struck by chaos, misfortune — and in some cases even death, during their production. Some became massive blunders while others became cult favorites famous for their notorious development.
Over the course of the making of the Poltergeist trilogy, four cast members died. The most shocking was 12-year-old Heather O’Rourke, who died of septic shock at age 12.
No one was seriously hurt during filming of The Omen. but chaos seemed to surround everyone involved. Star Gregory Peck and screenwriter David Seltzer had their flights struck by lightning on way to filming. Director Richard Donner‘s hotel was bombed by the IRA, and members of the crew were caught in a car crash.
Francis Ford Coppola was tempting fate when he decided to film Apocalypse Now during monsoon season. Big mistake. The monsoon destroyed multiple sets, Martin Sheen suffered a heart attack during filming, and Coppola was so stressed he reportedly threatened to kill himself.
“The Exorcist” is one of the most infamous cursed movies of all time. Nine people died during the shoot, and it is said that a fire destroyed large portions of the set. The story of the film’s production is just as eerie as that of the film itself.
“Fitzcarraldo”
Dysentery. Injuries. Fights among the crew. Nothing seemed to go right during the filming of “Fitzcarraldo.” The story concerns hauling a boat over a hill, which the crew literally accomplished, but not without the same nightmarish difficulty as is depicted in the film. And in the end, director Werner Herzog looked as mad and overly driven as its hero. Check out the documentary “Burden of Dreams” for more.
“The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers”
Bad luck ran amok in Middle Earth during the filming of “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.” DVD interviews revealed that multiple actors and stuntmen suffered injuries while shooting the film’s elaborate fight sequences. The worst was Viggo Mortensen, who broke his toe and chipped his tooth while filming.
Related stories from TheWrap:
'Friday the 13th' Series Director Once Pitched 'Cheech and Chong Meets Jason'
'Happy Death Day' Review: 'Groundhog Day' Meets 'Friday the 13th' in Repetitive Slasher Comedy
13 Horror Movies to Stream on Netflix for Friday the 13th (Photos)
December 12, 2019
Trevor Noah Examines How Much He Thinks the Trumps Are ‘A–holes’ – and It’s a Lot (Video)
On Thursday’s “The Daily Show,” Trevor Noah conducted a deep dive to answer the question of just how much he thinks the Trump family are jerks in a segment appropriately called “Look at These A–holes.”
First, Noah looked at news from earlier in the day, when Donald Trump tweeted insults at Time’s 16-year-old Person of the Year, Greta Thunberg. “Just try to imagine any other president doing something like this. Imagine FDR doing a fireside chat, where he just goes in on Shirley Temple,” Noah said. “He’s like ‘My Fellow Americans, this little girl can’t dance for s—. She’s got worse moves than I do and my legs don’t work.'”
Noah then talked about Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., whom he called “A–hole Jr.” It was reported this week that Donald Jr. recently traveled to Mongolia to hunt an endangered species of sheep. One of the weirder details is that he used a laser sight during the hunt.
Also Read: Fox News' Chris Wallace Accuses Trump of 'Direct Sustained Assault on Freedom of the Press'
“This is an animal so peaceful, literally just thinking about them makes us fall asleep, and he’s coming at them like it’s a raid on Bin Laden?” Noah joked. “You killed a sheep. You basically went hunting in a nursery rhyme.” Noah also jokingly referred to Trump Jr. as “Little Bo Creep.”
Then Noah talked about the astonishing news this week that Donald Trump was fined $2 million because he stole money from his own charity to pay off legal disputes, cover campaign expenses and even buy a painting of himself. “This family is so cartoonishly villainous, they even do charity like a–holes,” Noah quipped.
Finally, Noah noted that in addition to the fine, Trump’s children have been ordered to take a course on how not to embezzle from charities. Then he rolled a parody of what that class might look like with a video starring Ronny Chieng, in which Chieng offered this advice:
“Don’t steal from a f—ing charity, a–holes!”
Watch it below:
Let’s put aside our political differences and remember that, impeached or not, Trump is an asshole ???? pic.twitter.com/udYd7IBI2e
— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) December 13, 2019
Related stories from TheWrap:
Colbert Explains How Trump Impeachment Is Like a Questionable Oscars Winner (Video)
Stephen Colbert Finds a Sexy Angle to the Trump Impeachment Hearings That You Can't Un-See (Video)
Trevor Noah Finds Silver Lining for Trump After Articles of Impeachment (Video)
Colbert Explains How Trump Impeachment Is Like a Questionable Oscars Winner (Video)
Stephen Colbert is, unsurprisingly, still talking about the Donald Trump impeachment proceedings, and he’s still pretty stoked about the whole thing. But on Thursday’s episode of “The Late Show,” he found an aspect of the whole thing that he kind of agrees with Trump about — sort of.
During his monologue, Colbert first brought up how the impeachment drama has Trump feeling “distracted and unfocused,” according to CNN. “Yes, ‘distracted and unfocused,’ unlike the old laser-focused Donald Trump,” Colbert joked.
Colbert demonstrated the laser focus with his Trump impression. “‘My fellow Americans, I come to you tonight to announce that American ground forces are HEY there’s a guy I know!'” he said in character as POTUS. “‘Anyway, China give me dirt on Joe Biden bing bing bing bing bong bong, flush your toilet 13 times goodnight!'”
Also Read: Samantha Bee Trolls Stephen Miller With Fake Wedding Registry to Raise Money for Refugees
That’s when he sort of found common ground with Trump. Colbert brought up how according to CNN, one of Trump’s advisers said, “Frankly, I think he’s a little surprised it’s the Ukraine thing that’s done it.”
“Yeah me too,” Colbert interjected. “After all the shady deals he’s been involved in over the years he gets tripped up by a phone call? Trump getting impeached for Ukraine is like Paul Newman winning an Oscar for ‘The Color of Money.” He definitely deserves it, but it should have happened way, way before this.”
For the record, we think Newman was pretty great in “The Color of Money.'” Otherwise, point taken, Colbert. Watch the whole thing below:
TONIGHT: Impeachment is throwing Trump off his game. #LSSC pic.twitter.com/HmW0zICI6a
— The Late Show (@colbertlateshow) December 13, 2019
Related stories from TheWrap:
Fox News' Chris Wallace Accuses Trump of 'Direct Sustained Assault on Freedom of the Press'
Stephen Colbert Finds a Sexy Angle to the Trump Impeachment Hearings That You Can't Un-See (Video)
Trevor Noah Finds Silver Lining for Trump After Articles of Impeachment (Video)
The Case for Netflix to Start Selling Ads (Hint: Negative Cash Flow)
It’s a question people have been asking around the less exciting water coolers for years: How does Netflix make money?
The fact is that the streaming giant doesn’t — yet.
In its most recent third-quarter earnings report, Netflix reported $5.2 billion in revenue and $665 million in net revenue, but its free cash flow — the cash left over after paying for the expenses and expenditures to run the business — was -$551 million (yes, negative $551 million). Just for a comparison, in Disney’s most recent quarter the company reported free cash flow of $409 million, which was down, in part, thanks to its acquisition of Fox’s film and TV assets.
“In the second half of 2019, equity investors became more skittish about companies that don’t make money,” Needham analyst Laura Martin wrote this week in a note to investors, downgrading Netflix’s stock to underperform. “Profitability and positive free cash flow represent lower risks for investors in the event of an unforeseen market disruption. An elongated reliance on capital markets will be perceived as an investment negative by Netflix investors.”
Also Read: Move Over, Amazon Prime Video: Disney+ Jumps Ahead on Mobile Devices But Still Far Behind Netflix
Netflix is, for the moment, swimming in debt. By last count, Netflix’s total liabilities, including long-term debt, totaled $24.1 billion, according to its most recent quarterly report.
The company has spent billions of dollars to achieve its first-mover advantage, positioning itself as the leader in direct-to-consumer streaming. And for a while it was the only major player — but not any more. While Netflix holds a massive lead in the streaming space with its 158.3 billion global subscribers, newcomers like Disney+ and Apple+, not to mention forthcoming services from Warner Bros. and NBCUniversal, are challenging both with content and, in many cases, cheaper monthly fees.
The streaming giant has historically held the belief that competition is good and that there’s enough room in the increasingly competitive landscape for more than one platform to be successful. In September, however, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings told Variety that “it’s a whole new world” once Apple and Disney launch their streaming services.
Macquarie analyst Tim Nollen wrote in a note in Octover that he only expected a modest impact on churn as a result of Disney+ and Apple+, but Martin has much bigger concerns.
Also Read: 'The Irishman' Was Watched 26.4 Million Times in Its First Week, Netflix's Ted Sarandos Says
“We project Netflix will lose 4 million U.S. subs in 2020 at its premium priced tier of $9-$16 per month,” Martin wrote in her note to investors. “We believe Netflix must add a second, lower priced, service to compete with Disney+, Apple+, Hulu, CBS All Access and Peacock, each of which have $5-$7 per month choices.
“Losing U.S. subs would be disastrous for Netflix from a free cash flow point of view because each U.S. subscriber generates an average of nearly 3x more profit contribution than each international subscriber,” Martin continued.
So if Netflix lost even 4 million subscribers in the U.S., the company’s 2020 profit contribution would drop by roughly $260 million per year, by Martin’s estimate, worsening its negative free cash flow and increasing its dependence on capital markets for funding.
Also Read: Netflix Saves NYC's Historic Paris Theatre From Closure
Netflix leadership has said repeatedly that they don’t plan to institute an ad-based model, but that may be the best option to achieve an additional income stream. The lion’s share of all of Netflix’s revenue comes from its subscription business, but the U.S. market has been reaching a peak for years and the international opportunities are getting crowded.
Compounding matters for Netflix, it may not be as easy to turn to another time-tested way to boost revenue — hiking prices on subscribers. The monthly cost, especially compared to upstarts like Disney+, is already one of the reasons Martin gives for the estimated 4 million loss in subscribers. In addition Netflix blamed an unprecedented second-quarter drop in U.S. subscribers on a subscription hike earlier this year.
“Netflix’s balance sheet cannot withstand larger cash losses,” Martin wrote in her note. “We believe that the best business solution to Netflix’s biggest valuation risk is to introduce a $5-$7 per month service tier, with adverting generating the remaining $5-7 per month to retain the $13 per month U.S. revenue metric. Several successful SVOD services offer this hybrid model. “
In a letter to shareholders back in July, Netflix doubled (tripled?) down on its opposition to an ad-supported model, saying that being ad-free “remains a deep part of our brand proposition… We believe we will have a more valuable business in the long term by staying out of competing for ad revenue and instead entirely focusing on competing for viewer satisfaction.”
Also Read: How Hollywood's Streaming Era Has Changed the Game for Short Films
The company’s comments came amid months of speculation about whether the streamer would give in to the need for ad revenue. TheWrap, in July, wrote that there was certainly a path for Netflix to implement an ad-supported model.
“Netflix needs a way to grow its U.S. revenue in ways beyond just raising the subscription price,” Brian Frons, former president of ABC Daytime and current UCLA lecturer, told TheWrap at the time. “One wonders why they would not add an ad-supported model.”
While another revenue stream seems, at this point, to be a near necessity, it’s also possible that shoehorning ads into the service might not be a simple fix. “In our survey work, the No. 1 reason that U.S. consumers subscribe to Netflix is that it is commercial free,” MoffettNathanson analyst Michael Nathanson said in an email. “They’d be insane to do it. Probably better to try it in other markets where consumer spending on premium video is less robust.”
Sean Burch contributed to this report.
‘The Thin Place’ Theater Review: Lucas Hnath Conjures a Seance Worth Attending
At the beginning of Lucas Hnath’s new play, “The Thin Place,” the main character, Hilda, explains the title. She says it’s like visiting an aquarium and seeing an octopus press itself up against the glass, except the octopus and the glass aren’t there. In an essay in the play’s program, Hnath describes “the thin place” as a spot on a street where “trees were said to walk there at night.”
I don’t know what either Hnath or his character Hilda are talking about. But I did come away with a couple of ideas regarding what the thin place can be, both of which made me glad I’d seen the play, which opened Thursday at Off Broadway’s Playwrights Horizons.
Les Waters directs “The Thin Place” with the house lights up throughout most of the 90-minute production. Mark Barton’s lighting puts about as much light on us in the audience as he does the actors on stage. It’s a harsh, alienating effect, but right from the get-go, it establishes what a thin place it is, that space between the actors and us.
Also Read: 'Judgment Day' Theater Review: Christopher Shinn Adapts a Story the Nazis Banned
The other and far more wondrous thin place is the aura around the face of Emily Cass McDonnell, the actor who plays Hilda and achieves the miracle of conveying the temperature of her thoughts without saying a word. The drama of “The Thin Place” occurs around the edges of what is spoken. It’s a thin place, indeed.
Hilda attends a séance led by a medium named Linda (the enigmatic Randy Danson), an older woman who turns out not to be everything Hilda had hoped after their first few ghost fests. When the two women have established a friendship of sorts, Linda invites Hilda to a party with two other close friends, Jerry (the effectively crass Triney Sandoval) and Sylvia (the slightly less crass Kelly McAndrew).
The intimate wine-laced get-together takes Hilda’s opinion of Linda to another place. Jerry and Sylvia’s lively banter with Linda — very different from Hilda’s far more introspective one-on-ones with her close friend — quickly turns the newcomer to this group into the outsider. There’s a long stretch where Hilda says nothing, and McDonnell rivets us with her silent sense of betrayal. Anyone who has been the loner at a party will relate.
Also Read: 'One in Two' Theater Review: Donja R Love Brings Absurdity to the Black Queer Experience
When Hilda finally does rejoin the conversation, Hnath gives the character a humdinger of a monologue about her dead mother. McDonnell reduces her voice to a thin (it’s the best word) sliver of a sound that irritates but eventually lulls with a quivering sing-song effect.
Hnath’s four characters all want something from each other. And Hilda especially doesn’t get what she wants from Linda, whose response to her maternal tale reflects how literally the world has been pulled out from under her. Together they travel to a place where the trees stand still, and where something happens that is both creepy and far more ordinary.
The opening moments of “The Thin Place,” with the lights up and McDonnell’s Hilda on stage to deliver a long monologue about her less-than-exciting life, is a study in how to make a theatergoer start checking his or her watch in under 10 minutes. That alienation technique is purely intentional. Once Linda arrives to sit alongside Hilda, Hnath’s language creates real suspense, and is soon saturated with unexpected turns of phrase that compel us to pay attention. It helps, too, that Linda is a medium and her séance is worth attending.
Related stories from TheWrap:
'Judgment Day' Theater Review: Christopher Shinn Adapts a Story the Nazis Banned
'One in Two' Theater Review: Donja R Love Brings Absurdity to the Black Queer Experience
NBCUniversal CEO Steve Burke to Step Down in 2020
NBCUniversal CEO Steve Burke is preparing to step down from his post once his current contract expires in August 2020, according to media reports.
A representative for NBCUniversal had no comment on the reports.
NBCUniversal Film and Entertainment chairman Jeff Shell, who was promoted to that role in January, is considered the leading contender to succeed Burke as CEO. Another potential candidate is Mark Lazarus, who currently serves as chairman of NBCUniversal Broadcast, Cable, Sports and News.
Also Read: NBCUniversal CEO Explains Why Upcoming Streaming Service Peacock Is Not Netflix
A Comcast veteran since 1998, Burke was named chief executive of NBCUniversal shortly after Comcast acquired the media company from General Electric in a 2011 deal worth $30 billion. Prior to Comcast, Burke served in various roles at The Walt Disney Company, including as president of ABC Broadcasting.
The 61-year-old executive’s exit comes at a key moment for the company, as it looks to venture into the increasingly crowded direct-to-consumer space with the launch of its ad-supported streaming service Peacock this spring.
Burke earned $39.9 million last year, a decrease of more than $6 million from his 2017 compensation, according to an SEC filing in April. Brian Roberts, chairman and CEO of NBCUniversal’s parent company, Comcast, pulled down $35 million in 2018, up from $32.5 million the year before.
Shell has long been considered to be Burke’s most likely successor, having been with the Comcast since 2004. Back in January, he and Lazarus both saw their duties expanded under Burke. Shell, then chairman of Universal Filmed Entertainment Group, added oversight of NBC Entertainment, Telemundo, and NBCU’s international operations. Lazarus, head of NBC’s sports operations, took over control of the company’s cable operations.
Variety first reported the news.
Related stories from TheWrap:
NBCUniversal CEO Steve Burke to Step Down in 2020
NBCUniversal President of Strategy Dave Howe to Leave Company After 18 Years
NBCUniversal Merges Domestic and International Operations; Kevin MacLellan to Exit
Does ‘Jumanji: The Next Level’ Have a Post-Credits Scene?
We’re heading back to the game of “Jumanji” this week as Dwayne Johnson’s “Jumanji: The Next Level” is hitting theaters.
The last “Jumanji” movie, “Welcome to the Jungle,” was a surprise huge hit back in 2017 when it opened against the first weekend of “Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” more than holding its own against that juggernaut as it pulled in $400 million domestic and nearly a billion dollars overall.
So unless the new flick straight up bombs, which is unlikely, it looks like this franchise will be with us for a while. Which begs the question: does “Jumanji: The Next Level” follow in the footsteps of so many franchise movies the past few years by teasing the future of the series with an extra scene during or after the credits? Does this movie have a mid- or post-credits scene?
The answer is yes — there is a bonus scene, which comes fairly early in the credits. There is not, however, anything extra at the very end of the credits.
From this point on, we’re gonna do some spoiler talk. Specifically, we’re going to tell you what’s in the extra scene.
Also Read: 'Jumanji: The Next Level' Film Review: Second Go-Round Offers Some Familiar Fun
The movie ends with the friends sitting at Nora’s cafe, after they just completed another round in the game. At the beginning of the film, Spencer’s mom, played by Marin Hinkle, says she’s waiting for someone to come repair the heater that of course is broken during the cold winter months. He never shows up — that is, until after the credits have started rolling. And it’s none other than Lamorne Morris, who has worked with director Jake Kasdan on “New Girl.”
He comes to fix the broken heater, and is led into the basement do start the repair. There, he sees the broken game console. He’s an avid gamer, he explains, so he is drawn to the console.
Fade to where the gang is sitting at the cafe, and a stampede of ostriches runs past them. The ostriches were a big part of the game this time around — so needless to say, Morris’ character might’ve reopened the portal once again.
Also Read: Kevin Hart Says First Goal After Serious Car Accident Was 'Wiping My Ass' (Video)
Whether Kasdan is leaving it up to you to decide what happens, or whether this means we can expect a third film (or fourth, should you count the original “Jumanji” starring Robin Williams), is left totally open-ended.
“It felt to me that that gave us both a jumping off point for a cool movie we’d want to see, and also, if that didn’t happen, I would be comfortable with the story ending there,” Kasdan tells TheWrap. “Because once again, while I thought it was worth it to seed an idea, I also thought that it was really important that this movie finish itself, and that we get to the end of the story we’re telling.”
So there you have it, folks. Just stay seated.
“Jumanji: The Next Level” stars Johnson, Kevin Hart, Jack Black, Karen Gillan, Awkwafina, Danny DeVito, Danny Glover and Awkwafina, and will hit theaters this Friday.
Related stories from TheWrap:
ICE Theaters Launches First U.S. Location With Release of 'Jumanji: The Next Level'
20 Essential Movie and TV Scrooges Through the Years, From Alastair Sim to Bill Murray (Photos)
In 2018, Charles Dickens’ classic novella “A Christmas Carol” turns 175, but its utility as a springboard for movie and TV adaptations shows no signs of slowing down. It’s a classic story of regret and redemption, and its lead character Ebenezer Scrooge offers an arc from misery and cruelty to love and kindness that’s catnip for any actor or actress. (I watched a sleighful of Scrooges for my book “Have Yourself a Movie Little Christmas” and am doing you the service of keeping the Barbie and “All Dogs Go to Heaven” versions off this list.)
Here’s a look at 20 performers who have put their own unique spin on “Bah! Humbug!”
Seymour Hicks, “Scrooge” (1935): There were a few silent versions, but this was the screen’s first talking Scrooge, in a version that’s early-talkie through and through, from the technical limitations (the camera doesn’t move much, and there’s not even an attempt to show Marley’s ghost) to the big, theatrical performances, Hicks’ included.
Reginald Owen, “A Christmas Carol” (1938): Owen was best known for comedy, so there’s a sprightliness to his take on the role, even though his Ebenezer is certainly a crabby old skinflint for much of the film. This 69-minute feature from MGM is a good non-animated starter version for kids.
Alastair Sim, “A Christmas Carol” (US)/”Scrooge” (UK) (1951): Generally acknowledged to be the greatest of the screen Scrooges, and he deserves the reputation. There’s a real commitment to the role’s extremes of both wickedness and joy, and Sim is never less that magnetic in the role. (It helps that this is, overall, a terrific adaptation.)
Basil Rathbone, “The Stingiest Man in Town” (1956): This made-for-TV musical version rarely surfaces these days, and that’s a pity, particularly since Rathbone’s patented brand of hammy villainy suits the character so very well. If you can’t find this one, check out Rathbone’s equally Scrooge-y turn in the Christmas-set comedy “We’re No Angels” (1955).
Mister Magoo (voiced by Jim Backus), “Mister Magoo’s Christmas Carol” (1962): Even though the character of Mister Magoo was kindly (if terribly near-sighted), the producers of this very first animated holiday program produced for television wanted his name value, so the set-up is that Magoo is playing Scrooge onstage in a Broadway musical (with songs by the legendary Jule Styne); the results are delightful.
Albert Finney, “Scrooge” (1970): A personal favorite, at least partly because Finney is one of the only actors to play the character both as a young man and as the craggy old coot he later becomes. Seeing him start out full of vitality before becoming stooped with greed makes the story all the more poignant.
Henry Winkler, “An American Christmas Carol” (1979): This version transposes the story from Victorian England to Depression-era America, and while the old-age makeup isn’t the most convincing, Winkler successfully puts a Yankee stamp on this most British of characters. (Not to be confused with the dreadful 2008 right-wing propaganda piece, “An American Carol.”)
Scrooge McDuck (voiced by Alan Young), “Mickey’s Christmas Carol” (1983): Well, talk about a performer who was born to play the role. McDuck works his trademark Scottish-cheapskate-isms into what has become a favorite version for generations of kids who grew up watching it.
George C. Scott, “A Christmas Carol” (1984): This lush made-for-TV version (directed by Clive Donner, who edited the Alastair Sim version) is anchored by a fearsome and funny turn by Scott, who seems to delight in Scrooge’s penny-pinchery more than most. Where other performers shout, he traffics more in quiet menace.
Bill Murray, “Scrooged” (1988): As network exec Frank Cross, Murray oversees vulgar and idiotic holiday-themed programming while ignoring his family and overworking his put-upon assistant (played by Alfre Woodard). There’s no middle ground on this broad performance; either it works for you — and for many, it does — or you’ll change channels.
Michael Caine, “The Muppet Christmas Carol” (1992): Caine makes for a fearsome old skinflint, and what makes the performance work is that he never behaves as though there’s anything strange about the fact that his co-stars are a frog and several mice and a bear and a pig and a…whatever Gonzo is.
Susan Lucci, “Ebbie” (1995): The “Scrooge is a ruthless career woman” sub-genre starts here, and Lucci is one of the best at playing a heartless climber faced with learning some hard lessons at Christmastime. Her performance as a cold-hearted department-store magnate is one of the TV movie’s strongest assets.
Cicely Tyson, “Ms. Scrooge” (1997): You would think that an actress as formidable as Tyson would take to the role of cruel moneylender Ebenita Scrooge like a goose to stuffing, particularly since she’s reteamed with John Korty, who directed her in “The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman.” Alas, she overplays (and sounds jarringly like W.C. Fields).
Patrick Stewart, “A Christmas Carol” (1999): Onstage, Stewart played all the roles, but in this made-for-cable film he’s a younger (but no less meaner) Scrooge than usual. His delight in rolling Dickens’ original dialogue around in his mouth is infectious.
Vanessa Williams, “A Diva’s Christmas Carol” (2000): This playful transposition of the story into the world of turn-of-the-21st-century pop — the Ghost of Christmas Future is an unflattering episode of VH1’s “Behind the Music” — benefits greatly from Williams’ delightful hauteur as the titular diva.
Tori Spelling, “A Carol Christmas” (2003): You might be shocked to learn that Spelling is surprisingly effective as the host of a tacky daytime talk show who gets knocked down a peg after visits from ghosts played by William Shatner and Gary Coleman. This movie’s tongue may be firmly in cheek, but its heart is in the right place.
Kelsey Grammer, “A Christmas Carol: The Musical” (2004): This made-for-TV production must have looked good on paper, between Grammer’s mellifluous hambonery to a talented supporting cast (Jane Krakowski, Jason Alexander, Jesse L. Martin) to original songs by Alan Menken and Lynn Ahrens, but it never coalesces. And neither does Grammer’s performance.
Jim Carrey, “Disney’s A Christmas Carol” (2009): The rubbery faces and dead eyes of director Robert Zemeckis’ motion-capture characters don’t help matters much here, and neither does Carrey overacting as broadly here as he did playing another iconic holiday villain in “How the Grinch Stole Christmas.” (Too much to be contained by just one character, Carrey also plays the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future.)
Emmanuelle Vaugier, “It’s Christmas, Carol!” (2012): The phrase, “Well, she’s no Tori Spelling” isn’t uttered too often, but it’s a fair critique of Vaugier’s fairly featureless performance in a TV-movie so low-budget that the late Carrie Fisher’s Marley-esque character has to take on all the ghost duties single-handedly.
Christopher Plummer, “The Man Who Invented Christmas” (2017): In this fairly tedious movie about the writing of “A Christmas Carol,” Scrooge mainly hangs around to harangue Dickens (Dan Stevens) over how long it’s taking him to finish the story. But Plummer is so delectably diabolical that you’ll wish someone would just build a straightforward adaptation around him.
Related stories from TheWrap:
'The Man Who Invented Christmas' Film Review: Scrooge's Origin Story Is a Bit of a Humbug
Ice Cube to Put His Spin on Scrooge in Universal's 'Humbug'
Did Disney's 'Uncle Scrooge' Inspire WB's 'Inception'?
Bill Maher Shows Donald Trump an Alternative Reality ala 'A Christmas Carol' (Video)
‘Seberg’ Film Review: Kristen Stewart Captures the Spirit of a Martyred Icon
Pop culture creates goddesses only to offer them up for sacrifice, and over the course of her career, Kristen Stewart has no doubt gotten close enough to that pyre to smell the brimstone. So she’s a natural to play Jean Seberg in “Seberg,” about the Iowa girl who became an international movie star, only to be targeted and ultimately destroyed by the FBI because of her affiliation with the Black Panthers.
And while “Seberg” is rarely as great as its lead actress, the film does shed light on a tragic corner of American history that’s not discussed nearly enough — the U.S. citizens who had their lives shattered by J. Edgar Hoover’s secret COINTELPRO (counter-intelligence program) surveillance that targeted anyone the FBI considered “subversive,” be they Vietnam War protesters, black or indigenous activists, even environmentalists.
Jean Seberg’s life comes with its own built-in metaphor: She began her screen career being literally set on fire by director Otto Preminger on the set of “Saint Joan” and ended her life after being torched by Hoover. (It’s a similar trajectory explored by Mark Rappaport in his brilliant essay film “From the Journals of Jean Seberg,” a movie long overdue for a Blu-ray release.)
Also Read: 'Charlie's Angels' Film Review: Kristen Stewart and Company Make Reboot All About Sisterhood
We see Stewart recreate iconic moments from “Saint Joan” and from Jean-Luc Godard’s “Breathless” — the movie that made Seberg an icon — but “Seberg” director Benedict Andrews (“Una”) and screenwriters Joe Shrapnel and Anna Waterhouse (“The Aftermath”) focus on 1968-1971, when Seberg’s affair with activist Hakim Jamal (Anthony Mackie) put her in Hoover’s crosshairs. (And in case we missed that, the script uses the word “crosshairs” multiple times.)
The writers also focus on FBI agent Jack Solomon (Jack O’Connell), newly transferred to Los Angeles and assigned to spy on Jamal alongside Carl (Vince Vaughn), mainly so “Seberg” can give us a literal good-cop/bad-cop scenario: Solomon’s conscience is increasingly plagued over the Bureau’s ratf–king of Seberg (which includes planting a fake gossip item about her being pregnant with Jamal’s baby, which was published by columnist Joyce Haber — may her legacy always be tainted). Carl, seemingly channeling Michael Shannon’s character in “The Shape of Water,” is reactionary, racist, and abusive to his wife and daughter. It’s a phony and contrived scenario; if any FBI agent acted like Solomon, the film doesn’t present it in a believable way, and it’s ultimately a distraction from what should be the central story.
Also Read: 5 Reasons 'Charlie's Angels' Tanked at the Box Office - And Why Elizabeth Banks Isn't Fazed
“Seberg” most finds its footing when it focuses on Jean herself. We empathize as she wends her way through a Hollywood that sticks her in misguided productions like “Paint Your Wagon,” bonds with Hakim’s wife Dorothy (the brilliant Zazie Beetz) — who later tells off Jean once the FBI has made the affair public — and becomes increasingly paranoid about surveillance, and rightly so, even though her concerns are mostly shrugged off by her oblivious husband, Romain Gary (played by Yvan Attal, “Munich”). (Alas, the movie doesn’t really know what to do with Margaret Qualley, as Jack’s med-student wife.)
Stewart never attempts to completely impersonate Jean Seberg — she eschews the late actress’ flat Midwestern vowels — but at certain points in the film, and at certain angles, she’s a dead ringer. What Stewart does capture, more importantly, is the spark in Seberg’s eyes; she also knows how to turn off that spark, which adds additional heartbreak to the later scenes of a despairing, suicidal Seberg.
Watch Video: Kristen Stewart Takes a Deep Dive in Trailer for Fox Horror Movie 'Underwater'
Costume designer Michael Wilkinson (“Aladdin”) and set decorator Christy McIrwin (“mid90s”) capture a sense of late-’60s chic without getting too campy about it, and the talented Rachel Morrison (“Black Panther”) knows exactly how to turn the Los Angeles sun into a warm glow or a harsh glare when necessary. And while director Andrews, most known for his stage work, doesn’t always know how to lift this story beyond banal biopic choices, he’s certainly tapped into something special with Stewart, who continues to reveal new layers with each film.
“Seberg” leaves a lot on the floor, even with its focus on only a handful of years — the actress’ affair with Clint Eastwood during the chaotic shoot of “Paint Your Wagon,” for instance, is never mentioned — but it’s a fitting tribute to a woman whose life was undone over her desire to make a difference.
Related stories from TheWrap:
'Charlie's Angels' Film Review: Kristen Stewart and Company Make Reboot All About Sisterhood
Kristen Stewart Takes a Deep Dive in Trailer for Fox Horror Movie 'Underwater' (Video)
Steve Pond's Blog
