Taking too long? Close loading screen.
Connect with us

Entertainment

Brian Austin Green Candidly Weighs In on Co-Parenting With Megan Fox

Published

on

Related: Brian Austin Green Shares Cryptic Post Amid Megan Fox Split Rumors

For Megan Fox and Brian Austin Green, co-parenting is going “as well as it can.”

That’s how the actor described his and his famous ex’s current parenting dynamic, just a few months after he personally confirmed the news of their separation in May. The two, who had been together on and off for more than a decade, are parents to sons Noah, 7, Bodhi, 6 and Journey, 3. Green is also dad to 18-year-old Kassius with Vanessa Marcil.

“There’s no rule book to it,” Green said of co-parenting with Fox on a new episode of the Hollywood Raw podcast. “There’s no way of doing it right or doing it wrong. We’re learning as we go. The important thing for us is just communicating as much as we can.”

Their new family dynamic has also meant being realistic about what their youngsters are experiencing.

“I think for us…the realization of that we can’t take the view that it won’t affect the kids, because it will,” he noted. “I think it’s up to us, and parents in general, how it affects your kids…whether it’s a really negative experience for them or it’s ok and they feel safe in it and they feel loved…and they feel like, you know, everyone still loves and respects everyone, things are just different. But, it’s not bad different, it’s just different.”

photos

Megan Fox & Brian Austin Green: Romance Rewind

As for his longtime other half, Green had nothing but considerate and kind words for Fox. “I wish Megan the absolute best in everything,” the actor said. “I want her to be completely happy for her and for the kids. That’s super important.”

“Nobody wants to be around somebody that’s unhappy because nothing good comes out of that,” Green acknowledged. “That’s a terrible situation, but we’re taking it day by day and this is insane. This happened at an unfortunate time that nobody could have predicted with quarantine and the virus and all of that, where the news cycle is a bit bigger than we were prepared for or are used to, but it is what it is…You roll with the punches.”

Charley Gallay/WireImage

The Beverly Hills, 90210 alum also revealed that he did not find out about his ex’s new romance with Machine Gun Kelly by reading about it “or anything like that.”

“I found out in my own way,” he told podcast hosts Dax Holt and Adam Glyn. “That’s as much detail as I’ll give you on that one.”

Now, as their separate personal lives make headlines, don’t expect either star to keep up with what the other is doing.

“I try and not read anything and not look at anything and not involve myself in it,” Green said. “Kust keep my head down and do what I do and focus on the kids and all of that and I know she’s gonna do the same thing.”

He also defended her against current criticism over her parenting while she’s away. “Everybody’s judgmental right now because she’s out of the country working and she’s not around,” he addressed. “This is what we do. We travel and we work and it’s no different now than it’s been before, except that we are no longer together. This is what we’ve been doing for 15 years. We’ve been traveling and working.”

“When one person is traveling and working, the other one will step in and take care of things at home and take care of the kids and this situation is no different,” Green further explained. “It’s not for lack of caring. Megan loves her kids and would do anything for them and has and will continue to.”

Splash News

As for his current relationship status, he set the record straight after photos emerged of him out on separate occasions with Tina Louise and Courtney Stodden in June. During the podcast interview, he noted he met both women on Instagram and had no idea who Stodden was prior.

“I’ve been single this whole time,” the actor said. “I’m open to meeting somebody. My focus honestly right now is on myself and healing with all of this and my kids and them experiencing it the best way that they can. I can’t really put a label on what I’m doing…What I’m doing compared to how its been portrayed are two completely different things.”

Green explained that he has behaved much like other people who date. “Some people use dating apps. They talk to multiple people. They go on multiple dates. They spend time with people until you feel a connection with somebody and then something builds from there,” he said. “What’s unfortunate for me in this situation is I’ll literally go on one date with somebody, not even a date, just like meet somebody, have lunch and all of sudden it’s written as like, ‘Oh, his new fling’ and ‘Ooh he’s playing two women at the same time.'”

read

Look Back at Megan Fox and Brian Austin Green’s Relationship Highs and Lows

“No,” he countered. “I literally spent one time with each of these women. I’m not playing anybody…My life is just much more under a microscope than somebody else’s.”

The star also highlighted how paparazzi photos and resulting reports can misconstrue how often he actually went out. “It’s not like I have spent an active week going out and seeing somebody,” he said.

However, he also finds criticism for going out with multiple women unfair. “When I hear that complaint or that comparison of like, ‘Oh, he’s talking to multiple women,’ it’s like…’Yeah? Isn’t that dating?’…It doesn’t mean I’m a s—ty person. That’s what you’re supposed to do. You’re supposed to meet people and experience life.”

Green continued, “When you start finding commonalities with somebody, then it becomes something bigger. But, you have to be willing to get out there and put yourself out there. But, I get judged for it, I think, unfairly.”

Source : E!News Read More

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Entertainment

Netflix is developing a live action ‘Assassin’s Creed’ show

Published

on

Netflix announced this morning that it’s partnering with Ubisoft to adapt the game publisher’s “Assassin’s Creed” franchise into a live action series.

The franchise jumps around in history, telling the story of a secret society of assassins with “genetic memory” and their centuries-long battle the knights templar. It has sold 155 million games worldwide and was also turned into a nearly incomprehensible 2016 film starring Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard, which underperformed at the box office.

The companies say that they’re currently looking for a showrunner. Jason Altman and Danielle Kreinik of Ubisoft’s film and television division will serve as executive producers. (In addition to working on adaptations of Ubisoft’s intellectual property, the publisher is also involved in the Apple TV+ industry comedy “Mythic Quest.”)

“We’re excited to partner with Ubisoft and bring to life the rich, multilayered storytelling that Assassin’s Creed is beloved for,” said Netflix’s vice president of original series Peter Friedlander in a statement. “From its breathtaking historical worlds and massive global appeal as one of the best selling video game franchises of all time, we are committed to carefully crafting epic and thrilling entertainment based on this distinct IP and provide a deeper dive for fans and our members around the world to enjoy.”

It sounds like there could be follow-up shows as well, with the announcement saying that Netflix and Ubisoft will “tap into the iconic video game’s trove of dynamic stories with global mass appeal for adaptations of live action, animated, and anime series.”

Netflix recently placed an eight-episode order for “Resident Evil,” another video game franchise that was previously adapted for the big screen. And it also had a big hit with its adaptation of “The Witcher,” which is based on a fantasy book series that was popularized via video games.

Source

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Original Content podcast: ‘Lovecraft Country’ is gloriously bonkers

Published

on

As we tried to recap the first season of HBO’s “Lovecraft Country,” one thing became clear: The show is pretty nuts.

The story begins by sending Atticus “Tic” Freeman (Jonathan Majors), his friend Leti Lewis (Jurnee Smolett) and his uncle George (Courtney B. Vance) on a road trip across mid-’50s America in search of Tic’s missing father. You might assume that the search will occupy the entire season, or take even longer than that; instead, the initial storyline is wrapped up quickly.

And while there’s a story running through the whole season, most of the episodes are relatively self-contained, offering their own versions on various horror and science fiction tropes. There’s a haunted house episode, an Indiana Jones episode, a time travel episode and more.

The show isn’t perfect — the writing can be clunky, the special effects cheesy and cheap-looking. But at its best, it does an impressive job of mixing increasingly outlandish plots, creepy monsters (with plentiful gore) and a healthy dose of politics.

After all, “Lovecraft Country” (adapted form a book by Matt Ruff) is named after notoriously racist horror writer H.P. Lovecraft, but it focuses almost entirely on Black characters, making the case that old genres can be reinvigorated with diverse casts and a rethinking of political assumptions.

In addition to reviewing the show, the latest episode of the Original Content podcast also includes a discussion of Netflix earnings, the new season of “The Bachelorette” and the end of Quibi.

You can listen in the player below, subscribe using Apple Podcasts or find us in your podcast player of choice. If you like the show, please let us know by leaving a review on Apple. You can also follow us on Twitter or send us feedback directly. (Or suggest shows and movies for us to review!)

And if you’d like to skip ahead, here’s how the episode breaks down:
0:00 Intro
0:36 Netflix discussion
3:18 “The Bachelorette”
6:30 Quibi
14:35 “Lovecraft Country” review
31:32 “Lovecraft Country” spoiler discussion

Source

Continue Reading

Entertainment

The short, strange life of Quibi

Published

on

“All that is left now is to offer a profound apology for disappointing you and, ultimately, for letting you down,” Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman wrote, closing out an open letter posted to Medium. “We cannot thank you enough for being there with us, and for us, every step of the way.”

With that, the founding executives confirmed the rumors and put Quibi to bed, a little more than six months after launching the service.

Starting a business is an impossibly difficult task under nearly any conditions, but even in a world that’s littered with high-profile failures, the streaming service’s swan song was remarkable for both its dramatically brief lifespan and the amount of money the company managed to raise (and spend) during that time.

A month ahead of its commercial launch, Quibi announced that it had raised another $750 million. That second round of funding brought the yet-to-launch streaming service’s funding up to $1.75 billion — roughly the same as the gross domestic product of Belize, give or take $100 million.

“We concluded a very successful second raise which will provide Quibi with a strong cash runway,” CFO Ambereen Toubassy told the press at the time. “This round of $750 million gives us tremendous flexibility and the financial wherewithal to build content and technology that consumers embrace.”

Quibi’s second funding round brought the yet-to-launch streaming service’s funding up to $1.75 billion — roughly the same as the gross domestic product of Belize, give or take $100 million.

From a financial perspective, Quibi had reason to be hopeful. Its fundraising ambitions were matched only by the aggressiveness with which it planned to spend that money. At the beginning of the year, Whitman touted the company’s plans to spend up to $100,000 per minute of programming — $6 million per hour. The executive proudly contrasted the jaw-dropping sum to the estimated $500 to $5,000 an hour spent by YouTube creators.

For Whitman and Katzenberg — best known for their respective reigns at HP and Disney — money was key to success in an already crowded marketplace. $1 billion was a drop in the bucket compared to the $17.3 billion Netflix was expected to spend on original content in 2020, but it was a start.

Following in the footsteps of Apple, who had also recently announced plans to spend $1 billion to launch its own fledgling streaming service, the company was enlisting A-List talent, from Steven Spielberg, Guillermo del Toro and Ridley Scott to Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer Lopez and LeBron James. If your name carried any sort of clout in Hollywood boardrooms, Quibi would happily cut you a check, seemingly regardless of content specifics.

Quibi’s strategy primarily defined itself by itself by its constraints. In hopes of attracting younger millennial and Gen Z, the company’s content would be not just mobile-first, but mobile-only. There would be no smart TV app, no Chromecast or AirPlay compatibility. Pricing, while low compared to the competition, was similarly off-putting. After a 90-day free trial, $4.99 got you an ad-supported subscription. And boy howdy, were there ads. Ads upon ads. Ads all the way down. Paying another $3 a month would make them go away.

Technological constraints and Terms of Service fine print forbade screen shots — a fundamental understanding of how content goes viral in 2020 (though, to be fair, one shared with other competing streaming services). Amusingly, the inability to share content led to videos like this one of director Sam Raimi’s perplexingly earnest “The Golden Arm.”

It features a built-on laugh track from viewers as Emmy winner Rachel Brosnahan lies in a hospital bed after refusing to remove a golden prosthetic. It’s an allegory, surely, but not one intentionally played for laughs. Many of the videos that did ultimately make the rounds on social media were regarded as a curiosity — strange artifacts from a nascent streaming service that made little sense on paper.

Most notable of all, however, were the “quick bites” that gave the service its confusingly pronounced name. Each program would be served in 5-10 minute chunks. The list included films acquired by the service, sliced up into “chapters.” Notably, the service didn’t actually purchase the content outright; instead, rights were set to revert to their creators after seven years. Meanwhile, after two years, content partners were able to “reassemble” the chunks back into a movie for distribution.

Source

Continue Reading

Trending