Taking too long? Close loading screen.
Connect with us


Jana Duggar, 30, Pokes Fun At Herself For Still Being Single While 8 Of Her Siblings Are Already Married — Pic



How is this possible? The eldest Duggar daughter Jana is still single at the age of 30, despite seven of her younger siblings having married and started families. Now she’s pointing out how she’s available.

With more and more millennials waiting to get married and start a family, 30 is considered normal to be single and without kids. Unless you’re a member of the Duggar family. Jana Duggar hit the milestone age in January, and unlike seven of her younger siblings, she’s yet to find the right person to court, kiss, wed and start having babies with. Jana a made fun of her single status in a hilarious new Instagram photo in her quest to find Mr. Right

Jana could be seen holding up a sign above her head that read, “Please form single line here,” with an arrow pointing down at her. The eldest Duggar daughter looked so pretty wearing her long hair down and a big smile across her face, showing her sense of humor about not having a husband. She made it seem that she was looking, using a megaphone emoji in the caption as if she wanted to shout her being single and available to the world.

Jana has shot down rumors in the past that she’s not waiting for the right guy. In April 2019 she responded to rumors that she and BFF Laura DeMasie, were more than just close pals. “No. And I would like to stop that rumor. I have no interest in girls that way whatsoever,” she said in response to a comment on one of her Instagram pics. Jana added, “I have ‘courted’ or ‘dated’ a few guys, but so far nothing has gone into a serious relationship. Just continuing to wait and pray for the right guy to come along.”

For the Duggar kids, courting, getting married and starting a family as soon as they become adults is par for the course. But fans let Jana know that waiting for the right man is perfectly fine, while others told her she didn’t need a husband to be complete. Fan @_ashley.west applauded Jana, commenting, “Yesss girl! Know your worth and never settle!” with applause emojis, while @emmysmine shared, “Don’t think you need a man to be complete . You can stay single and be just as happy.” User xkatherine.mariex empathized with Jana, telling her, “Same age as you girl! We in this together…Gods Timing not ours!!”

Jana Duggar
Eldest Duggar family daughter Jana Duggar is seen here in an undated photo from TLC. Photo credit: TLC.

Deeply devout Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar‘s extreme procreation made them famous thanks to the TLC show, 19 Kids and Counting, documenting their massive brood. The show was cancelled in 2015 after oldest son Josh, 32, was involved in a series of scandals. But the older Duggar children’s lives are still documented in Counting On which has chronicled the marriages and births of Jana’s siblings Jessa, Jill, Jinger, Joy-Anna, Joseph, Josiah and John-David.

John David, 30, is Jana’s biological twin and married Abbie Burnett, 28, on November 3, 2018. They have a one-year-old daughter Grace. Jill, 29, married Derick Dillard, 31, on June 21, 2014 and they have two sons. Jessa, 27, tied the knot with Ben Seewald on November 1, 2014 and they have three children. Jinger, 26, married Jeremy Vuolo, 32, on November 5, 2016 and have one daughter and another baby on the way in Nov. 2020.

Joseph, 25, married Kendra Caldwell, 22, on September 8, 2017 and they already have both a son and daughter. Josiah, 23, wed Lauren Swanson, 21, on June 30, 2018 and they have one daughter. Joy-Anna, 22, tied the knot with Austin Forsyth, 26, on May 26, 2017 and they have one son and a daughter on the way. So Jana actually stands out as being unique with her single status among her siblings! As fan @mstookeyrn encouraged Jana in her comments, “I’m 35 and still single. I’m not settling and I’m happy in my life until he comes around.” Preach!

Source : Hollywood Life Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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


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



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.


Continue Reading


Original Content podcast: ‘Lovecraft Country’ is gloriously bonkers



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


Continue Reading


The short, strange life of Quibi



“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.


Continue Reading