Connect with us


The Morning Watch: Making of ‘The Dark Knight Trilogy’, ’50 First Dates’ in 2020 & More



The Morning Watch is a recurring feature that highlights a handful of noteworthy videos from around the web. They could be video essays, fanmade productions, featurettes, short films, hilarious sketches, or just anything that has to do with our favorite movies and TV shows.

In this edition, check out the making of Christopher Nolan‘s The Dark Knight Trilogy with over an hour of footage from behind the scenes. Plus, watch as Drew Barrymore and Adam Sandler reboot 50 First Dates in the hellscape of a year that is 2020. And finally, check out a blooper reel from the fourth season of Lucifer, now available on Netflix.

First up, Warner Bros. released The Fire Rises: The Creation & Impact of The Dark Knight Trilogy takes a look at the making of Christopher Nolan’s films, including their influence on superhero movies and blockbuster filmmaking today. There’s rare footage from the set, interviews with Guillermo del Toro, Damon Lindelof, Michael Mann, insights from Christopher Nolan himself, and much more.

Next, in case you didn’t hear, Drew Barrymore has her own talk show now. And to help boost the premiere of The Drew Barrymore Show, she brought in her 50 First Dates co-star Adam Sandler to imagine what it might be like if her character Lucy had to wake up and be told about the never-ending nightmare that is 2020 through one of Henry’s catch-up video tapes.

Finally, now is your time to laugh at the devil and not get sent up in flames for it. Netflix has released a blooper reel for the fourth season of Lucifer, featuring some flubs by the comic book TV show’s cast, unintended hilarity, character breaks, pesky bugs, and much more. It just goes to show you that even the more serious shows shouldn’t be taken too seriously.

Cool Posts From Around the Web:


Boy, 6, called 911 after he saw gunmen kill mother and gravely wound dad




Husband and wife Jonathan and Wilma Hochstetler were shot by armed robbers, leaving him critically injured and killing his wife, police said. (Photo: Facebook)

A six-year-old boy called 911 after he witnessed armed robbers shoot and kill his mother while leaving his father critically injured, police said.

Jonathan and Wilma Hochstetler were attacked on Thursday in Indianapolis, Indiana while their son was hiding in a truck, according to police.

Family friend Andrew Yutzy described the incident to WLOX 13 as two individuals appearing ‘out of nowhere.’

‘They robbed them of Wilma’s phone and both of their wallets and were walking away,’ Yutzy said. ‘They turned around and came back and just point-blank shot Wilma and then Jonathan.’

Jonathan Hochstetler was struck in the neck but told his son to get his phone. The six-year-old grabbed it and gave it to his father so he could call 911. Still, it was not enough to save his mother.

‘I guess, as a six year-old boy, you don’t realize what really happened,’ Yutzy said. ‘He doesn’t realize that his mom is gone.’

Yutzy said that Wilma drove with their son to meet Jonathan with a new a trailer tire and to help him fix broken lights when the random attack took place.

Jonathan’s father Samuel said in a letter that his son does not hold bitterness over the incident.

‘He said I have total peace, I’m comfortable, I’m encouraged,’ Samuel said. ‘He said I have no anger towards those men.’

He reminisced on the couple’s early days in a church youth group and how they were kind and faithful people.

‘They were both kind of shy people, two shy people met each other and fell in love,’ Yutzy said. ‘They were just always the people that were there with a smile, and literally, they would give the shirt off their back, if it would help you.’

Jonathan Hochstetler underwent surgery on his back after doctors had to fuse together three of his vertebrae. He is now recovering at the hospital.

The suspects fled the scene and the police said they are looking for the two men. Anybody with information is urged to call Crime Stoppers.

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at [email protected]

For more stories like this, check our news page.

Continue Reading


Eddie Redmayne Confirms ‘Fantastic Beasts 3’ Is Back In Production




“Fantastic Beasts 3” is shooting once again.

RELATED: J.K. Rowling’s New Book Accused Of Transphobia And Sparks Outrage

After being forced to shut down production earlier this spring due to the coronavirus pandemic, the film is back on track, confirmed star Eddie Redmayne.

In an interview with Cinemablend, the actor described “the new normal” for the cast and crew on set amid the pandemic.

“It’s interesting because we’ve started shooting now. We’re two weeks in, and again, it’s a whole new process. It’s a whole new normal,” he said. “Testing frequently, masks. And I wondered, actually, whether the masks would affect creativity, in some ways.”

RELATED: Johnny Depp Requests Delay In Defamation Trial To Film ‘Fantastic Beasts 3’

Redmayne continued, “Maybe that was a bit ignorant, but I just thought, As humans, do we need interaction to spark from each other? What is really reassuring is that it is a different process but it still feels like it’s fizzing and that everyone is working at the top of their game.”

“Fantastic Beasts 3” is currently scheduled for release in November 2021.

Get breaking news in your inbox



Continue Reading


How Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Legal Victories for Women Led to Landmark Anti-Discrimination Rulings for the LGBTQ Community




The well-deserved tributes to Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the wake of her death justifiably focus on her transformational role in ending centuries of legal discrimination against women.

Starting in 1971, Ginsburg won five cases before the Supreme Court based on the equal protection clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Those cases led the court to end blatant discriminate against women.

She was not the first woman who attempted to use the 14th Amendment to achieve equality. Yet her legal theories, determination and brilliant litigation strategy won, where others before her had failed.

It is less known that Ginsburg’s victories on behalf of women also provided a roadmap and legal precedent for ending legal discrimination against the LGBTQ community.

Unequal protection

The 14th Amendment was enacted after the Civil War, in 1868, to give formerly enslaved Black people and their progeny equal protection under the law. It states, in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Women’s rights advocates immediately tried to use the 14th Amendment’s broad language to gain rights. At the time that the 14th Amendment was enacted, women could not own property or vote and were considered their husbands’ property.

They focused on the 14th Amendment’s broadly worded “privileges and immunities” clause as a way to gain some form of legal protection. Because that clause had no fixed meaning, it could be interpreted, they believed, in a way that advanced women’s rights.

So, in 1872, Myra Bradwell sued the state of Illinois after being denied a license to practice law because she was a woman. Ruling against her, the Illinois Supreme Court held that Bradwell did not legally exist separately from her husband, and that the privilege and immunities clause did not require the state to allow her or any other woman to pursue a professional career.

Similarly, in 1872, activists, including Susan B. Anthony, invoked the 14th Amendment to demand the right to vote. Anthony and several others were arrested after they voted in the November election. At Anthony’s trial, the judge said “The 14th Amendment gives no right to a woman to vote, and the voting by Miss Anthony was in violation of the law.”

One woman in Missouri, Virginia Minor, sued when she was refused the right to even register to vote. She argued before the U.S. Supreme Court – through her lawyer husband – that the 14th Amendment guaranteed her the right to vote as a “privilege and immunity.”

She lost.

Credit where it’s due

A century later, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s work transformed American jurisprudence for women. To do this, she also invoked the 14th Amendment. But this time, she focused on the amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which was enacted to protect newly-freed enslaved people.

Ginsburg did not devise this strategy alone. She was inspired by the writings of the African American lawyer and civil rights activist, Anna Pauline “Pauli” Murray. Murray, a co-founder of the National Organization for Women, argued that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause could be used to guarantee gender equality.

Murray’s 1950s book, “States’ Laws on Race and Color,” was considered the bible of the civil rights movement. Ginsburg was so influenced by Murray’s work that she listed Murray as a co-author of her first U.S. Supreme Court gender justice brief, Reed v. Reed, in 1971.

The legal strategy that Ginsburg used, however, was her own.

In 1971, the notion of women’s equality was absurd to most people. Ginsburg, who was at the top her her class at Harvard and Columbia law schools, could not get a job after she graduated.

Predicting that a Supreme Court composed of older white men would likely dismiss demands by women that they should be treated equally, she realized gender stereotypes could be shattered only if white men argued that women should be treated equally under the law.

For example, in the 1973 case, Frontiero v. Richardson, she successfully sued on behalf of the husband of a female Air Force officer, who was refused military benefits on the theory that women could not be primary economic providers for their families.

Similarly, in Weinberger v. Weisenfeld in 1975, she sued on behalf of a man who had been denied Social Security survivor benefits. That agency automatically assumed that men would not need survivor benefits because they earned more than their wives.

This was a brilliant strategy. Based on the five lawsuits that Ginsburg won, the Supreme Court articulated for the first time that the 14th Amendment was not only the vehicle for racial equality – it could also be invoked to achieve gender-based equality.

Another 30 years

Even after Ginsburg’s victories in the 1970s, women still did not have equal rights under the law. The equal protection women enjoyed, according to the Supreme Court, wasn’t as strong as the protection that the Constitution afforded against racial discrimination.

It wasn’t until over 30 years later, in 1996, when she was a sitting justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, that Ginsburg fully equalized the playing field for women.

In the case United States v. Virginia Military Academy, Justice Ginsburg wrote for the court’s majority that “exacting scrutiny” must be applied to any law that treats women differently than men.

She wrote that any law that “denies to women, simply because they are women, full citizenship stature – equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society” violated the equal protection Clause.

The RBG playbook

Once it was cemented into law that the equal protection clause could overturn non-race-based discriminatory laws, other marginalized groups began using the Equal Protection Clause to gain equal rights, including the LGBTQ community.

Their first victory was a 1996 ruling, Romer v. Evans, overturning laws around the country that made gay sex a crime.

A series of similar victories based on the equal protection clause followed, all written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative Republican appointee. Those decisions culminated in the 2015 landmark ruling Obergefell v. Hodges, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality, expanding the application of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause to cover LGBTQ persons, by requiring all states to recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in other states.

Justice Kennedy’s opinion, which extols the virtues of marriage, states that “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage… They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants that right.”

In 2020, the Bostock v. Clayton County decision, which banned employment discrimination against LGBTQ workers, used a similar analysis. Even though it was based on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as a legal scholar, I believe the language used by Trump appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the court’s majority opinion, comes straight out of the RBG playbook.

Gorsuch wrote: “Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. … But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands … Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.”

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]

These advances were only possible because Ruth Bader Ginsburg paved the way for applying the equal protection clause beyond its original purpose, to promote equality for women.

To echo Justice Gorsuch, that is something that the drafters of the 14th Amendment certainly never considered, and almost certainly never would have endorsed.The Conversation

Penny Venetis, Clinical Professor of Law, Director of the International Human Rights Clinic, Rutgers University Newark

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Hot Stories