Month: June 2021

James Corden’s late-night talk show has a number of segments and bits that keep it in the mainstream pop culture landscape, but one is apparently looking at changes after complaints about cultural insensitivity. Corden was interviewed by Howard Stern earlier in the month and announced that his show’s “Spill Your Guts” segment would undergo an overhaul after users on social media pointed out issues with the nature of the segment’s use of ethnic foods.

The AV Club spotted the interview where Corden admitted the segment would be changing its perspective. The “Spill Your Guts” segment featured Corden asking celebrities pointed questions that would require tricky answers, with the alternative option of eating an unfamiliar food item instead of answering. But the segment struck many as troublesome, as highlighted by a viral TikTok video posted by Kim Saira, which pointed out that many of the foods described as “disgusting” were actually traditional Asian delicacies. The video featured a reaction to Corden’s segment with fellow late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, who said “wow, it all looks so terrible.” That video sparked a Change.org petition that netted more than 45,000 signatures in the days that followed.

“In the wake of the constant Asian hate crimes that have continuously been occurring, not only is this segment incredibly culturally offensive and insensitive, but it also encourages anti-Asian racism,” Saira said in the petition. “So many Asian Americans are consistently bullied and mocked for their native foods, and this segment amplifies and encourages it.”

Corden heard about the petition and responded, telling Stern, “We heard that story, and the next time we do that bit we absolutely won’t involve or use any of those foods. As you said at the start, our show is a show about joy and light and love, we don’t want to make a show to upset anybody.”

Corden said the segment will instead now focus on “fattening, diet-destroying” foods rather than foods from other cultures and parts of the world.

[via AV Club]

Through the whole #FreeBritney movement, one figure close to Britney Spears who has been publicly silent about the situation is her sister, Jamie Lynn Spears. Now, finally, Jamie Lynn has taken a moment to show support for sister and explain why it has taken so long for her to do so.

Jamie Lynn shared a video on her Instagram Story today in which she speaks to the camera and starts, “Hey everybody, I just want to take a second to address a few things. The only reason I haven’t before is because I felt like until my sister was able speak for herself and say what she felt she needed to say publicly, that it wasn’t my place and it wasn’t the right thing to do. But now that she’s very clearly spoken and said what she needed to say, I feel like I can follow her lead and say what I feel I need to say.”

From there, she goes on to note that she doesn’t have a financial interest in what Britney does with her career, saying, “I don’t care if she wants to run away to the rain forest and have a zillion babies in the middle of nowhere, or if she wants to come back and dominate the world the way she has so many times before, because I have nothing to gain or lose either way.”

She also explained that her support for Britney has been in private, noting, “Maybe I didn’t support her the way the public would like me to, with a hashtag on a public platform. But I can assure that I have supported my sister long before there was a hashtag, and I’ll support her long after.”

Watch the video above and read a full transcript of it below.

“Hey everybody, I just want to take a second to address a few things. The only reason I haven’t before is because I felt like until my sister was able speak for herself and say what she felt she needed to say publicly, that it wasn’t my place and it wasn’t the right thing to do. But now that she’s very clearly spoken and said what she needed to say, I feel like I can follow her lead and say what I feel I need to say.

I think it’s extremely clear that since the day I was born that I’ve only loved, adored, and supported my sister. This is my freakin’ big sister before any of this bullsh*t. I don’t care if she wants to run away to the rain forest and have a zillion babies in the middle of nowhere, or if she wants to come back and dominate the world the way she has so many times before, because I have nothing to gain or lose either way. This situation does not affect me either way because I am only her sister who is only concerned about her happiness.

I’ve made a very conscious choice in my life to only participate in her life as her sister. […] Maybe I didn’t support her the way the public would like me to, with a hashtag on a public platform. But I can assure that I have supported my sister long before there was a hashtag, and I’ll support her long after. Note that. I mean, I’ve worked since I was 9 years old, I’ve paid my own frickin’ bills since I was 10 years old. Not that I owe the public anything because my sister knows I love and support her. That’s the only person I owe anything to. I’m not my family — I am my own person and I am speaking for myself.

I’m so proud of her for using her voice. I am so proud of her for requesting new counsel, like I told her to do many years ago. Oh, not on a big public platform, but just in a personal conversation between two sisters. So I’m very proud she’s taking that step.

If any of the conservatorship is flying to Mars or whatever the hell else she wants to do to be happy, I support that, 100 percent. Because I support my sister. I love my sister, always have, always will, as long as she’s happy. So, let’s keep praying, that’s all.”

Space Jam: A New Legacy has a stated mission of trying to create a movie that is able to stand on its own, while also paying homage to the original — not as a sequel but a reboot with LeBron James in the Michael Jordan role. That is a tricky needle to thread, and it’ll be interesting to see what the response to the movie is when it releases on July 16 in theaters and on HBO Max.

The premise is generally the same, with LeBron leading the Tune Squad against an evil alien/cyber squad of players with the skills of some of the NBA and WNBA’s best (this time called the Goon Squad rather than the Monstars). How they get to that game is different, though, and seems to have a bit more of a plot beyond “Michael Jordan gets sucked down a golf hole to help save the Looney Tunes.” Still, part of the reason to make a second Space Jam is to play into the nostalgia aspect, as it’s the 25th anniversary of the original that was for many of a certain age a childhood favorite.

They’re banking on the 30-something crowd to come watch along with kids being introduced to the franchise for the first time, and the merchandise around the movie is likewise straddling the line of leaning into nostalgia while trying to make something new. On the new side, there’s the LeBron 19, which Nike unveiled recently and James will debut in the film. On the nostalgia side, McDonald’s partnered with Diamond Supply Co. for a line of retro-inspired merch for the new movie, in honor of the original Space Jam Happy Meals with a shirt and sweatshirt as well as a jersey and shorts combo.

They are very clearly 90’s inspired from the style but updated with the look from the new movie. The collection will release on July 3 at 9 a.m. PT on Diamond Supply Co.’s website and store in L.A.

There are only so many ways to introduce a post about BTS’s “Butter” being the No. 1 song in the US. That’s been happening a lot lately, so let’s just get right to it: On the Billboard Hot 100 chart dated July 3, “Butter” is the top song for the fifth week.

Of the 54 songs that have ever debuted in the top spot on the Hot 100, “Butter” is just the 11th to spend at least its first five weeks at No. 1. The last song to do that is another recent hit, Olivia Rodrigo’s “Drivers License.”

On a related note, the song has also sold at least 100,000 downloads in each of its first five weeks. The last song that pull that off was Luis Fonsi, Daddy Yankee, and Justin Bieber’s “Despacito,” which did it for 12 consecutive weeks from May to August 2017.

Elsewhere in the top 10 are a bunch of familiar songs, including some former No. 1 singles: Rodrigo’s “Good 4 U” (now at No. 1); Justin Bieber, Daniel Caesar, and Giveon’s “Peaches” (No. 5); Silk Sonic (Bruno Mars and Anderson .Paak)’s “Leave The Door Open” (No. 6), The Weeknd and Ariana Grande’s “Save Your Tears” (No. 7), and Lil Nas X’s “Montero (Call Me By Your Name)” (No. 8).”

Some artists covered here are Warner Music artists. Uproxx is an independent subsidiary of Warner Music Group.

On Monday morning’s The View, Meghan McCain launched into a passionate rant praising Mumford & Son banjo player Winston Marshall’s decision to leave the band because he no longer wants to “self-censor” himself. Marshall had been on a leave of absence from the band after he tweeted support for controversial right-wing journalist Andy Ngo’s book, Unmasked, which accused Antifa of having a “radical plan to destroy democracy.”

Naturally, Meghan opened her remarks by criticizing The View for describing Ngo as a far right journalist and trotting out the usual conservative talking points about Antifa burning cities like Portland and Seattle. She painted Ngo as an intrepid reporter worthy of being labeled “brave” by Marshall, who she admired for “self-canceling” himself to protect the band. According to McCain, the 33-year-old Marshall represents a new line of thinking amongst millennial that independent thought and free speech are more important than money or careers. McCain also says she feels this way herself, which isn’t that bold of a statement coming from a millionaire daytime talk show host whose mother is a heiress to one of the largest beer fortunes in America.

You can see McCain’s defense of Marshall at the 2:00 mark:

In a Medium post written by Marshall, he explained that his decision to leave the band was to protect his bandmates from having to deal with any ensuing controversy from him speaking openly. “I could remain and continue to self-censor but it will erode my sense of integrity. Gnaw my conscience. I’ve already felt that beginning,” Marshall wrote. “The only way forward for me is to leave the band. I hope in distancing myself from them I am able to speak my mind without them suffering the consequences.”

(Via The View on Twitter)

Even a casual follower of the news over the last few years is likely to have encountered stories about research showing that digital technologies like social media and smartphones are harming young people’s mental health. Rates of depression and suicide among young people have risen steadily since the mid-2000s, around the time that the first smartphones and social media platforms were being released. These technologies have become ubiquitous, and young people’s distress has continued to increase since then.

Many articles in the popular and academic press assert that digital technology is to blame. Some experts, including those recently featured in stories by major news outlets, state that excessive use of digital technology is clearly linked to psychological distress in young people. To deny this connection, according to a prominent proponent of the link, is akin to denying the link between human activity and climate change.

In an effort to protect young people from the harms of digital tech, some politicians have introduced legislation that would, among other things, automatically limit users’ time spent on a social media platform to 30 minutes a day. If the evidence is so definitive that digital technology is harming America’s youth in such substantial ways, then reducing young people’s use of these devices could be one of the most important public health interventions in American history.

There’s just one problem: The evidence for a link between time spent using technology and mental health is fatally flawed.

---

Know thyself – easier said than done

Absent from the discussion about the putative harms of digital tech is the fact that practically all academic studies in this area have used highly flawed self-report measures. These measures typically ask people to give their best guesses about how often they used digital technologies over the past week or month or even year. The problem is that people are terrible at estimating their digital technology use, and there’s evidence that people who are psychologically distressed are even worse at it. This is understandable because it’s very hard to pay attention to and accurately recall something that you do frequently and habitually.

Researchers have recently begun to expose the discrepancy between self-reported and actual technology use, including for Facebook, smartphones and the internet. My colleagues and I carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of discrepancies between actual and self-reported digital media use and found that self-reported use is rarely an accurate reflection of actual use.

This has enormous implications. Although measurement isn’t a sexy topic, it forms the foundation of scientific research. Simply put, to make conclusions – and subsequent recommendations – about something you’re studying, you must ensure you’re measuring the thing you’re intending to measure. If your measures are defective, then your data is untrustworthy. And if the measures are more inaccurate for certain people – like young people or those with depression – then the data is even more untrustworthy. This is the case for the majority of research into the effects of technology use over the past 15 years.

Imagine that everything known about the COVID-19 pandemic was based on people giving their best guesses about whether they have the virus, instead of highly reliable medical tests. Now imagine that people who actually have the virus are more likely to misdiagnose themselves. The consequences of relying on this unreliable measure would be far-reaching. The health effects of the virus, how it’s spreading, how to combat it – practically every bit of information gathered about the virus would be tainted. And the resources expended based on this flawed information would be largely wasted.

The uncomfortable truth is that shoddy measurement, as well as other methodological issues including inconsistent ways of conceiving of different types of digital tech use and research design that falls short of establishing a causal connection, is widespread. This means that the putative link between digital technology and psychological distress remains inconclusive.

Social media has a lot to answer for, but in terms of time spent on them, the mental health of young people might not belong on the list.
images.theconversation.com

In my own research as a doctoral student in social work, I found that the link between digital technology use and mental health was stronger when self-report measures were used than when objective measures were used. An example of an objective measure is Apple’s “Screen Time” application, which automatically tracks device use. And when I used these objective measures to track digital technology use among young adults over time, I found that increased use was not associated with increased depression, anxiety or suicidal thoughts. In fact, those who used their smartphones more frequently reported lower levels of depression and anxiety.

From believer to skeptic

That the link between digital tech use and psychological distress is inconclusive would have come as a big surprise to me five years ago. I was shocked by the levels of depression and thoughts of suicide among the students I treated when I worked as a mental health therapist at a college counseling center. I, like most people, accepted the conventional narrative that all these smartphones and social media were harming young people.

Wanting to investigate this further, I left clinical practice for a Ph.D. program so I could research why these technologies were harmful and what could be done to prevent these harms. As I dove into the scientific literature and conducted studies of my own, I came to realize that the link between digital technology and well-being was much more convoluted than the typical narrative portrayed by popular media. The scientific literature was a mess of contradiction: Some studies found harmful effects, others found beneficial effects and still others found no effects. The reasons for this inconsistency are many, but flawed measurement is at the top of the list.

This is unfortunate, not just because it represents a huge waste of time and resources, or because the narrative that these technologies are harmful to young people has been widely popularized and it’s hard to get the cat back in the bag, but also because it forces me to agree with Mark Zuckerberg.

Getting at the truth

Now, this doesn’t mean that any amount or kind of digital technology use is fine. It’s fairly clear that certain aspects, such as cyber-victimization and exposure to harmful online content, can be damaging to young people. But simply taking tech away from them may not fix the problem, and some researchers suggest it may actually do more harm than good.

Whether, how and for whom digital tech use is harmful is likely much more complicated than the picture often presented in popular media. However, the reality is likely to remain unclear until more reliable evidence comes in.

Craig J.R. Sewall is a Postdoctoral Scholar of Child and Adolescent Mental Health at the University of Pittsburgh.

This article first appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Dexter had some good seasons, but only one unquestionably great season. That would be season four, where Dexter Morgan, played by Michael C. Hall, learns how to have a healthy work (forensic technician for the Miami Metro Police Department) / life (murdering people) balance from Arthur Miller, better known as the Trinity Killer. John Lithgow won an Emmy for playing the canny serial killer, and although — spoiler alert — he died in the season finale (although not before murdering Dexter’s wife, Rita), the actor will somehow reprise his role in the upcoming Showtime revival.

Deadline reports that Lithgow “is set to make a short but decisive appearance in the Michael C. Hall-led revival coming from Showtime this fall… Which begs the question: How will Lithgow’s Arthur Mitchell will return? Details are scant, but scribes on the Clyde Phillips-showrun 10-episode limited series have concocted a pathway for the Trinity Killer to come back that works within the larger Dexter narrative.” Lithgow’s cameo is only expected to take a day of filming, so he can quickly go back to screaming about gremlins, or whatever he does in his free time.

It’s unclear who else will return from the original run, outside of Hall and Lithgow. Julie Benz (Rita) won’t be back, but Jennifer Carpenter (Debra) was reportedly spotted on set. There’s also been speculation that lil’ Harrison, the “cereal spiller” himself, will show up. We’ll find out later this year when the Dexter limited series debuts on Showtime.

(Via Deadline)

The easiest way to discuss the Fast & Furious franchise, to the extent an easy way exists, is to break the nine films into three separate but connected trilogies.

FILMS I-III: Let’s race some cars and take down local bad guys

Stealing DVD players and doing battle with Southern California crime families. Jetting off to Miami and stumbling into an undercover operation run by Eva Mendes. Introducing all-new cast members and sending them to Tokyo to drift with Bow Wow and a mysterious figure named Han who dies before the end of the movie. It feels a little crazy to say even though it makes sense in context, but these movies are damn-near straightforward and simple. Most of the action is tethered to reality. A reasonable argument can be made that the wildest thing that happens in any of them is Tyrese wearing cut-off button-up dress shirts throughout an entire feature film. But the returns start to diminish quickly this way. Things can get watered down and repetitive. Changes need to be made. And so…

FILMS IV-VI: Let’s do some heists and cheat death a little

Han is back despite dying in the third movie. The entire timeline has folded itself into a bright orange origami Honda. There are fuel heists in the Dominican Republic and vault heists in Rio and The Rock and Gal Gadot are here now, at least temporarily. Michelle Rodriguez dies in a car explosion in the fourth movie and then turns up alive with amnesia in the sixth movie, which ends with Vin Diesel driving a car through the nose of an exploding airplane after Gal Gadot falls to her death on the runway. A mid-credits scene reveals that Han’s death in the third movie was actually revenge for the events of the sixth movie and was caused by Jason Statham, who is also in these movies now as a villain. It becomes clear that the secret to success is the size. Things must press forward and grow at all times, regardless of reason or the laws of gravity. This is the way. And so…

FILM VII-IX: Let’s… screw it, let’s just do everything

Cars are flying through the air, both between Abu Dhabi skyscrapers and out of cargo planes, sometimes with parachutes. The Rock and Jason Statham are good guys now, kind of, but are also spun-off into their own franchise due to plot congestion and/or on-set beef. There’s a submarine. Academy Award winners Helen Mirren and Charlize Theron are in the franchise now, both as crime bosses. There is barely any street racing anymore, with brief exceptions made when someone needs to gain entrance to some new underground culture that will assist in the theft of a device that will thwart evildoers and/or save the world. Kurt Russell is introduced as a mysterious government official named, I swear to God, Mr. Nobody. Ludacris, who started the franchise as a Miami mechanic and jet ski race officiant, is now one of the world’s premier computer hackers and physicists. It’s a whole thing.

And this paragraph barely even touches on the events of F9, the latest and largest of these increasingly massive movies. Let’s switch from paragraph to a list to hit the highlights here:

— Han is alive as a result of some Mr. Nobody-related shenanigans, making him the second major character to “die” in a car explosion only to turn up alive a few movies later

— Ludacris and Tyrese go to space in a rocket-powered Pontiac built in part by Bow Wow

— Helen Mirren shows up for about five minutes to pull off a diamond heist in London, evade police in a neon sports car, and drop off Vin Diesel at a massive mansion party attended exclusively by whiskey-sipping international criminals and supermodels in tiny white dresses who dance on or near expensive cars

— Everyone is shockingly proficient at the use of high-powered magnets in high-speed chases through many cities they are visiting for the first time

— Vin Diesel’s character has a younger brother played by John Cena who is a bigtime spy who went rogue and started working with a weasel financier with daddy issues

— Multiple characters watch a parent (or parents, plural) blow up in a car explosion during one of the literal half-dozen flashbacks that take place

— Vin Diesel, as he is nearly drowning, has a vision that reveals his father’s death was not actually the sole fault of his brother

— Charlize Theron spends about 80 percent of the movie imprisoned inside a toilet-less clear box while sporting a stylish bowl cut and red leather pants, which, while certainly not the biggest logical leap the movie asks us to make, can’t be comfortable

It’s all, to understate things to a ridiculous degree, a lot. It is so much, honestly, all the time, in so many different and occasionally hilarious ways. It would be really fun to take someone who has never seen these movies and then show them only the first and the ninth and have them try to guess how any of the things happened that got us all from one place to another. Secret siblings, faked deaths, amnesia, associates getting murdered and their murderers getting invited to the barbecue anyway. It’s all kind of like what I think would happen if some sort of accounting error funneled $500 million into the budget of a daytime soap opera. Which I would also support. Let Susan Lucci fly a stealth bomber. See what I care.

And, to be extremely clear about all of this, I think it’s great. It’s delightful. Right around the time the franchise kicked off the third trilogy, everyone involved seemed to realize that its many plot holes and questionable developments were more like features instead of bugs. They presented opportunities. They gave everyone involved a chance to go back and make everything bigger and wilder and more ridiculous. Han’s death went from a Tokyo street racing casualty to an elaborate revenge plot carried out by a dirty spy to a ruse concocted by a secretive government official with an unlimited budget. The legend of Dominic Toretto beating a guy with a wrench now involves both his father’s death while throwing a race and his younger brother’s abandonment issues that led to that younger brother also going to work for the secretive government official. Tyrese is now the voice of reason who expresses disbelief at it all on behalf of the audience. It’s the equivalent of digging yourself into a hole with a shovel and trying to blast yourself out of it by strapping dynamite to your back, and, yes, I’m a little shocked no character in these movies has attempted this. Yet.

All of which makes for a wonderful way to spend two or three hours in a theater on a hot Saturday in June. These are not movies you are meant to think about much, at least not beyond the extent we are doing here, just admiring the open audacity of them as a whole. I don’t even think most of them are meant to be rewatched on cable or a streaming service more than once or twice, with the possible exception of Fast Five, the midpoint of the franchise where it found the sweet spot and delivered a legitimately classic action movie. This isn’t a Mission: Impossible situation, or even a John Wick one, where the movies have artistic merit and performances and a somewhat linear story that at least tries to adhere to its own mythology. This whole thing is like an order of cheese fries: a delicious treat when fresh that contains zero nutritional value whatsoever and becomes a soggy gross mess when reheated in a microwave at a later point in time.

Which, again, is fine. It’s a blast. (Cheese fries are great!) Because while you could, I suppose, exit the theater and harumph your way through a “so you’re telling me that Paul Walker’s character, Brian O’Conner, an actual trained law enforcement officer, who is still alive in the franchise’s universe, would just stay home with the kid while his wife and best friends risk their lives to battle cyberterrorists who want to destabilize the entire world as we know it” rant if you want and just get all dismissive and disdainful about it all, if I really can’t talk you out of it. But it’s a lot more fun to picture him at that barbecue at the end, Corona in one hand and a child in the other, big bemused smile on his face, as Ludacris and Tyrese explain to him that they just got back from outer space. That’s the vibe you should be looking for here. Just have a seat and enjoy the cheese fries, people. You can start eating healthy again tomorrow.

The story on Cyberpunk 2077 is well told by this point. It was a highly anticipated game that was teased as early as 2012, but a chaotic development process led to a game that was nowhere close to ready at launch. After multiple delays, and a worldwide pandemic, the game was allowed to launch in a state that was very clearly not ready to be played. The glitches were legendary with most of them ranging from funny to extremely frustrating.

However, one ridiculous glitch in a playthrough is a memory forever. Multiple game-breaking bugs throughout the experience are a problem and created massive player frustration. That frustration eventually led to players demanding refunds. When CD Projekt obliged, the game was pulled from PlayStation stores indefinitely. So yeah to say the game was an absolute disaster at launch would be an understatement. It was a colossal failure.

It’s been six months since then and multiple patches have been pushed through. The game is back in the PlayStation store, which has a lot of people asking a simple question. Is the game actually playable now? If you trust the word of CD Projekt CEO Adam Kiciński, then yes. During a WSE Innovation Day conference, Kiciński stated that the game is playable and at a “satisfying level” for players.

Via VideoGamesChronicle:

“We have reached a satisfying level in this regard,” the CEO said regarding the current stability and performance of the game.

“We have also been working on improving the overall quality, which we are also quite happy about. Of course, we also removed bugs and visual glitches and we will continue to do that,” he said. “Over time, we will also be introducing improvements to the general game systems that players have highlighted.”

With the game finally back on the PlayStation Store, and Microsoft recently announcing that no questions asked refunds will be ending soon, it definitely seems like Sony and Microsoft agree that the game is at a satisfactory level. Of course, what does satisfactory in this context mean? It means that the game is actually playable and probably won’t crash a PlayStation 4 or Xbox One. This doesn’t mean that the games are bug-free. What this also means is that, had the developer of the game had time to fix Cyberpunk instead of letting it launch the way it did, the current state of the game is probably what it would have looked like at launch. Use your best judgment when deciding if you want to get back on the Cyberpunk 2077 train.

For the past year, rumors about certain fan-favorite gaming icons getting their very own television series have been circulating, and a (since removed) Buzzfeed report has added some serious fuel to the fire. According to the report, both Spyro the Dragon and Crash Bandicoot series are currently in the works over at Apple TV+. Both shows are scheduled to hit the streaming service by 2022, with the upcoming Crash Bandicoot series coming as early as this September.

Based on the report, the Crash Bandicoot series — apparently titled The Adventures of Crash Bandicoot — has already been greenlit for two seasons. Each episode of the show will be divided into three segments, similarly to other children’s sketch comedy cartoons such as the recently revived Animaniacs. Peter Hannan and Monique Beatty, known for their work on Nickelodeon shows CatDog and Invader Zim respectively, will serve as the show’s producers. The Adventures of Crash Bandicoot is said to be coming to Apple+ TV this September.

The upcoming Spyro series, Spyro the Dragon’s Guide to Treasure Hunting, is seemingly quite a bit further out and does not yet have any names attached. However, the Buzzfeed report claims that whereas The Adventure of Crash Bandicoot will follow a more traditional cartoon format, Spyro the Dragon’s Guide to Treasure Hunting will be a 30-minute animated series that is “serial in nature.”

This news follows the recent and very successful revival of both of these game series. However, while both these series’ original trilogies were remade for modern consoles, only Crash Bandicoot has a new game — 2020’s Crash Bandicoot 4: It’s About Time. Only time will tell when a new Spyro entry, and these upcoming shows, will make their way onto our television screens. As of right now, Apple has neither confirmed or denied Buzzfeed’s report.