Another day, another story of an organization speaking out against gay people – and getting their ass handed to them by celebrities. The latest is Chick-fil-A, whose President said in a recent interview that they support “the biblical definition of the family unit.” They support it so much that they’ve given millions of dollars to anti-gay Christian groups. This news has come out before, but last year Chick-fil-A tried to smooth everything over by issuing a press release that they weren’t anti-gay and had “no agenda against anyone. At the heart and soul of our company, we are a family business that serves and values all people regardless of their beliefs or opinions.” He also called for “civility in dialogue with others who may have different beliefs,” which was a decent way to handle it. Their President’s new interview clarifies that they do support “traditional” marriage and a lot of people are saying they will no longer eat there.

“Office” star Ed Helms is officially boycotting Chick-fil-A … claiming the restaurant chain’s anti-gay stance has caused him to lose his appetite.

Helms is responding to a statement issued by Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy … who recently told a Christian publication that when it comes to accusations his company is actively opposed to gay marriage, Chick-fil-A is “guilty as charged.”

Cathy claims his chicken people support the “biblical definition of the family unit.” In fact, Chick-fil-A reportedly donated nearly $2 million towards religious groups that oppose gay marriage in 2010 alone.

The comments clearly didn’t sit well with Helms … who tweeted, “Chick-Fil-A doesn’t like gay people? So lame. Hate to think what they do to the gay chickens! Lost a loyal fan.”

Helms ain’t alone … the gay rights campaign NOH8 — supported by stars like Miley Cyrus, Lindsay Lohan and the Kardashians — has also called for a Chick-fil-A boycott.

[From TMZ]

I’m torn about this story. On one hand I agree that people have the right to believe whatever they want about issues like this. When they give a lot of money to groups that work to deny basic rights to people, and when they come out publicly to say that they support denying those rights, I have the choice as a consumer to take my business elsewhere. It’s a shame because Chick-fil-A has decent food, great indoor playgrounds and a nice, family-friendly atmosphere. If that atmosphere wasn’t exclusionary I might be able to enjoy it there. At least Chick-fil-A doesn’t have a policy against serving same sex couples. They’ll take their money but they want us to know that they don’t think they should have the same rights as other couples.

You can see what people are saying about this story, and add a comment on Chick-fil-A’s Facebook page.

I finally gave in and rented The Hangover 2 over the holidays. It was funnier and a lot raunchier than I expected, but all of the criticism I’ve heard about the movie rang true: it felt old and stale and it had the exact same plot as the first one. The last forty five minutes dragged, and there were more plot holes than I could be bothered to figure out. Despite low critic approval, the film cleaned up at the box office. It grossed $254 million domestically and over $327 million worldwide, to make over a half billion gross. The original Hangover did better domestically, but wasn’t as strong overseas. It grossed $467 million.

It’s been established that the Hangover is a strong franchise, and like every other franchise it’s going to be run into the ground until every drop of money is squeezed out of it. There’s a third movie in the works, and the stars are supposedly negotiating for $15 million each. That’s not upfront – that’s a percentage of the backend which they’re likely to get. They each made a reported $1 million for the first movie and $5 million for the second.

Dealmaking on the studio’s third installment in the raunchy comedy franchise is wrapping up after dragging on for months due in part to the salary demands of its three stars. Sources close to the negotiations say Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis and Ed Helms are asking for $15 million each (against backend) to reprise their roles, and they now are likely to get it.

That’s a big raise from 2009’s The Hangover, which was made for about $35 million and paid the headliners under $1 million each (Cooper made the most because he had the biggest name recognition at the time). When the R-rated bachelor-party comedy unexpectedly grossed $467 million worldwide, the studio found itself without talent deals for a sequel. Negotiations were heated for The Hangover Part II, released last May, with the three principals each scoring around $5 million, according to a source, plus back-end compensation that raised their haul into the mid-teens (and counting) when the movie grossed $581 million worldwide.

For the third film, the lead actors, all represented in negotiations by CAA (with agent Jason Heyman taking the lead) and are presenting a united front. (In fact, CAA also reps writer-director Todd Phillips and writer Craig Mazin.)

Warners hopes the next film, a Los Angeles-based story that will deviate from the forgotten-debauchery formula of the first movies, can shoot this summer and be ready for a Memorial Day 2013 release.

That would be great news for Warners, which is saying goodbye to two of its major franchises—Harry Potter, the final installment of which opened last July, and Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies, which the director says will end with this July’s The Dark Knight Rises. In addition, two movies that were on the fast-track for high-profile releases in 2013— Akira and Arthur & Lancelot—have been put on hold as the studio tries to reconcile budgetary issues. All of which increases the urgency to put a third Hangover on the fast track.
“It’ll happen,” says one insider. “It’s a proven commodity, which is rare these days.”

[From The Hollywood Reporter via ONTD]

Well I guess if the movies are cleaning up that the stars should get a piece of that. It still sounds like an exorbitant amount of money. Doesn’t it seem like they marginalized Justin Bartha’s role in this film just for this purpose? Like they knew they couldn’t afford more than three big stars? Or maybe Bartha was absent for the first film, so he was absent for the second because they didn’t want to mess up the buddy dynamic between the three leads.

I really hope that they do mess with the formula this time and serve up something that’s slightly more fresh than the second one. We don’t need yet another lost weekend, but you kind of know that’s what you’re getting. You know what this means? Alan, Zach Galifianakis’ character, might get married next. He’s the only one left who is still single, and for good reason. They could try and switch it up and have someone get divorced or have the guys have to watch their kids alone for the weekend. No, they really shouldn’t involve any kids in this mess. That prop baby in the first movie was enough.

Kaiser covered the Hangover II trailer (above) when it first came out last week. It looked funny as hell, but like they used the exact same plot device as last time: guys go out to celebrate an upcoming wedding, wake up the next day beat to hell and have to figure out what happened the day before. Ed Helms finds himself with a tattoo on his face instead of a missing tooth, they have a little monkey to tag along with them instead of a baby, and a guy goes missing and they have to find him. As many of you pointed out in the comments: if it ain’t broke… Still, you would hope that they would mix it up a little, but why mess with a good formula when there’s so much money at stake?

Like the first movie, this trailer has some shocking moments and things that could potentially be considered offensive. That’s what made the original (and let’s face it, probably the best) Hangover so much fun. Only Warner Brothers claims not to have run this trailer by the powers that be at the MPAA, who freaked out and made the decision to pull it after it was run during Source Code showings on April 1st. Source Code is PG-13. Slashfilm had the notice below informing theater owners that they were no longer to air the trailer even with R rated movies.

The Hollywood Reporter has the news that the trailer was pulled probably due to a scene where a monkey licks on a bottle from a guy’s pants (that’s at 2:15 in the trailer above.) Warner Brothers takes responsibility for not running it by the MPAA first, but that’s probably not the case at all. JoBlo notes that of course the trailer has the green MPAA “approved for all audiences” notice at the beginning, and adds that they probably didn’t pull it until people complained.

In one offending scene, Zach Galifianakis’ character encourages a monkey to bite a bottle he’s shoved under an old man’s sarong.

Warner Bros. has pulled the first trailer for The Hangover Part II from theaters after failing to vet the spot properly with the Motion Picture Assn. of America, which makes sure movie advertising isn’t out of sync with the ratings system.
The MPAA asked Warners to rectify the situation after the trailer—complete with a monkey made to perform a simulated sexual act—debuted in front Summit Entertainment’s Source Code on April 1. Source Code is rated PG-13; while Hangover II is rated R.

“In our haste to meet the placement schedule for this trailer, we failed to properly vet the final version with the MPAA. We acted immediately to correct the mistake and removed the trailer from screens,” Warner Bros. said in a brief statement.

But the trailer is apparently too racy to play even in front of R-rated films. Insiders said Warners is making several tweaks to the trailer before it goes back into theaters on April 15, playing in front of the R-rated Sream 4. The online trailer also will change.

Warners wouldn’t discuss what’s being tweaked, but insiders say the scene featuring the monkey nibbling on an old man’s “wenis” is a likely target.

Hangover II opens in theaters on May 26.

[From The Hollywood Reporter]

Well maybe this trailer should have been rated with a red band for “restricted audiences” and only shown before R movies. I get that it could be offensive to some, but that’s not the filmmakers fault. If the MPAA viewed this and approved it, it’s on them. This will only increase the buzz for this film, which is sure to be a hit even if it’s a pale derivative of the original. Hell I’ll probably see it.