Makers of ‘Naked Gun’ Reboot Give David Zucker the Cold-shoulder

David Zucker is a longtime Hollywood director, producer, and screenwriter.

A hysterically funny guy, he is recognized in the entertainment industry as one of the chief sages of the spoof genre.

He fine-tuned his comedic filmmaking skills while working together with his brother Jerry and their fellow filmmaker Jim Abrahams.

The trio wrote and directed the breakthrough 1980 comedy flick “Airplane!,” which still stands as the archetypal film in the spoof category.

The same three filmmakers also created “The Naked Gun” franchise, which includes “The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!” (1988), “The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear” (1991), and “Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult” (1994).

All of the “Naked Gun” films feature the same stars portraying the same characters, including veteran actor and comedic genius Leslie Nielsen, the surprisingly adept comedic leading lady Priscilla Presley, stellar character actor George Kennedy, and of course, the infamous O.J. Simpson.

Zucker also directed the hit films “Scary Movie 3” and “Scary Movie 4.”

Following the trend in Hollywood of resurrecting successes of the past, execs at Paramount have decided to put together a remake of the original “Naked Gun.”

The casting of the remake is puzzling to say the least.

The lead is played by dramatic film actor Liam Neeson, who has the unenviable job of trying to fill Nielsen’s huge comedic shoes. The role is quite a switch for Neeson. After a long career as a character actor, he has become increasingly known as an action star.

Pamela Anderson, famous for her TV roles on “Home Improvement” and “Baywatch,” will play the character originally portrayed by Presley.

Oddly, the filmmakers involved in the reboot didn’t include Zucker in the creation or production of the upcoming movie.

Zucker and his partners had submitted a script to Paramount in 2018, and there were indications at the time that the studio liked it. However, Paramount somehow chose to go in a different direction.

The filmmaker was stunned when he heard that the reins for a “Naked Gun” reboot had been handed over to others.

“We are not excited about having the franchise given to other people. At the time, I couldn’t believe it because we thought we had a great script,” Zucker told TMZ.

He explained when it comes to the reboot, “I don’t have any control over it. I’m not involved, and they haven’t asked me for my help. It’s completely their concept, and they’re just going to go ahead and do it.”

At first glance it seems inexplicable that those involved in the reboot of the spoof film wouldn’t have wanted to consult with the master of the genre.

But then again Zucker hasn’t shied away from publicly expressing his political opinions, which don’t exactly align with Hollywood’s current penchant for wokeness.

Could this have something to do with the decision to bypass Zucker?

Hollywood is also a town that is enamored with atheism, and Zucker happens to be a believer.

He told the BBC, “I think there’s much more evidence that there is a God than that there isn’t. I don’t believe that Mother Teresa and Hitler go to the same place.”

He appears to be taking the rebuff in a lighthearted manner, and even displayed some of his comedic prowess in a remark about Simpson’s onscreen performance in the original “Naked Gun.”

“I found that O.J.’s acting was a lot like his murdering. He got away with it, but nobody believed him,” he quipped.

Funny how Zucker makes comedy look so easy. Any pro knows it’s not.

Failing to consult with him may turn out to be a really bad business decision.

And that’s no joke.

Wise Words of Wikipedia’s Co-founder Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger is an esteemed figure in the technology community.

Recognized as one of the early pioneers of the Internet, in 2001 he co-founded Wikipedia.

He is also credited with having come up with the site’s name, which is a combination of the word “encyclopedia” and the Hawaiian word “wiki,” which means “quick.”

He and almost all of the early tech-innovators back in the day envisioned a continuous “free and open” Internet, one in which the marketplace of ideas could forever run with abandon.

Sanger has a Ph.D. in philosophy, served as a professor at a number of universities, and remains one of the truly deep thinkers of the technology world.

Many view him as the chief source of the underlying philosophy of the World Wide Web.

In an interview with senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute Christopher Rufo, which was conducted for City Journal, he reacted to statements of former Wikimedia Foundation CEO Katherine Maher, who is now CEO of NPR.

Maher’s statements have created a major backlash. She has basically rejected Internet freedom, admitted that collaboration with government to censor content has been occurring, and seemingly embraces relativism over objective truth.

Acknowledging the inherent bias that exists in Wikipedia, Sanger stated, “The fact that certain points of view have been systematically silenced, is nothing new.”

Yet the Maher comments that were recently reported by Rufo appear to have left Sanger seriously befuddled.

“My jaw is on the floor,” he said.

The Wikipedia co-founder indicated that he was previously unaware of “just how radical-sounding Katherine Maher is.”

Wikimedia’s former CEO reportedly said that it was an error for Wikipedia to be “free and open” and also suggested that allowing the site to be managed in this manner has led to bad outcomes.

Maher also acknowledged that she has worked together with governments to suppress what she deems as “misinformation” appearing on the Wikipedia site.

Sanger was quick to remark, “It’s fantastic, in a bad way, that she actually comes out against the system for being ‘free and open.’”

He views her actions in collaborating with government to censor material as completely incongruent with the notion of a free Internet.

“When she says that she’s worked with government to shut down what they consider ‘misinformation,’ that, in itself, means that it’s no longer free and open,” he noted.

He views it as outrageous that the site “has not just been taken over by the Left, but has been co-opted by and working with the government. That’s not a thing I would’ve imagined happening 20 years ago.”

What makes the situation even more untenable is the fact that now Maher is the head of a national broadcasting company that is financed by American taxpayers.

Sanger believes that she should be immediately removed from her position as CEO of NPR.

“If NPR wanted to prove that they were still committed to free speech, to being ideologically neutral, and simply nonpartisan, they would let her go right away,” he said.

He remembers clearly the vision of the web at its inception.

“We didn’t have to have a special vision of a free and open Internet. That was the Internet,” he emphasized.

Those of us who were early Internet adopters believed that freedom would forever be its hallmark.

Sanger said that in those early days “the notion of restrictions on free speech was nowhere to be found.”

He additionally commented that “in the 1990s and 2000s, Democrats and Republicans were competing with each other to demonstrate how much in favor of free speech they were.”

In an attempt to enhance the understanding of the fragile nature of the net, the online founding father drew from his academic background.

“As a philosopher, I knew that this was not automatic, that it could easily change,” he explained, noting that “we could lose these freedoms.”

To paraphrase the words of one of our nation’s eminent founding fathers, it’s a free platform if you don’t bleep it.

TikTok’s Undue Influence on Our Youth

Kids, tweens, and teens are increasingly coming to the conclusion that they suffer from myriad of mental health maladies, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obsessive compulsive tendencies, generalized anxiety, depression, autism spectrum disorder, and various other atypical conditions.

It turns out that influencers on TikTok and other social media platforms have been providing an assist in fanning the psychological flames.

Due to the fact that TikTok’s format favors brief content, the platform is generally unable to delve into the complexities of mental health conditions, which would be necessary in having any type of proper discussion.

The younger demographic commonly looks with admiration at an influencer who would share personal mental health information. Additionally, young users are frequently being prompted to engage in self-diagnosis with regard to their own mental health issues and challenges.

There are now plenty of laundry lists making the rounds that contain oversimplified and ambiguous disorders with which individuals might, and oftentimes do, identify.

In my opinion, based on my academic background and experience in the psychology and media fields, I believe there is a kind of collective mindset that has developed within our culture, particularly among our younger population.

It is one in which there has been a tendency to pathologize the customary mental, emotional, and behavioral state of each human being.

The categories of psychological disorders have been broadened, and the heightened diagnoses that are taking place are often tethered to pharmaceutical remedies.

Characterizing common human behavior as mental illness has been front and center since the DSM-V, the standard classification of mental disorders, was published in 2013. Since this time many psychologists and psychiatrists have contended that the DSM-V took what were ordinary human behavioral patterns and moods and relabeled them as abnormal pathologies.

Social media platforms have exacerbated the problem by leading individuals to believe they are suffering from a serious condition when they may not be.

TikTok in particular, and social media in general, pose a danger to a sizable number of younger users who are still coming to know themselves and to develop the self-confidence needed to succeed in life.

The algorithmically generated content on social media repeatedly exposes viewers to programmed content, causing impressionable young minds to undergo a reshaping.

The algorithms can then be used to place individuals into categories based on an individual’s preferences regarding various mental disorders. Those who are categorized may then be the subjects of targeted marketing, the life blood of the social media business.

Algorithms are designed to present content to viewers, which lines up with their pre-determined interests. This creates a type of “echo chamber” that supplies young users with material that coincides with their perceived mental health conditions. Completing the cycle, all of it works to reinforce users’ self-diagnoses.

There are numerous downsides to self-diagnoses under the guidance of TikTok.

However, one of the most insidious is when multiple people within a social group develop similar, medically inexplicable symptoms. The illnesses are called sociogenic.

The first known example of social media-induced sociogenic illness occurred in 2021. Neurologists experienced a sudden surge of patients, particularly teenage girls, who were exhibiting symptoms associated with Tourette syndrome, a genetic condition in which someone involuntarily displays a sudden, fast-paced and repetitive sound or movement.

Psychiatric professionals determined that the symptoms the teens were exhibiting were the result of the many hours spent watching viral TikTok videos of people with Tourette syndrome. The teens had self-diagnosed and had concluded that they also suffered from Tourette syndrome.

What’s the cure for the mind massage that is going on with our youth, making them think that they are all suffering from physical, mental, psychological, and emotional disorders?

I don’t claim to have an instant cure, but it wouldn’t hurt to ditch TikTok.

Then try focusing on others twice as much as self.

And lastly, hold on tight to a grateful heart.

Death by Doctor

Suicide Is Painless

(Theme from the 1970 film M*A*S*H)

Through early morning fog I see
Visions of the things to be
The pains that are withheld for me
I realize and I can see
That suicide is painless
It brings on many changes
And I can take or leave it
If I please…

Lyrics by Michael Altman and music by Johnny Mandel

The Golden State, known for its beaches, mountains, theme parks, and entertainment industry, may soon become the go-to destination for anyone who would like a swift death, courtesy of a doctor.

California already allows people to end their own lives on the conditions that they have the mental capacity to decide, are expected to die within six months due to a terminal disease, and willingly administer the lethal dose themselves.

Back when California’s assisted suicide law was first implemented the public was assured that the vulnerable would be protected from undue influence or manipulation, which might persuade a person to take the life-ending option.

Additionally, doctors that refused to be involved in the deliberate snuffing out of human life were allowed to opt out.

However, left-wing legislators chipped away at the safeguards that were in place, and eventually conscience provisions that allowed physicians to avoid participation in the killing of patients were stripped away.

Now new legislation has been proposed by a California state senator that will allow an individual to choose to undergo doctor-assisted suicide without having had a terminal diagnosis.

The bill would permit individuals with various conditions and maladies to choose the life-ending alternative, even if potentially effective treatments are available.

It would also allow lethal drugs to be delivered intravenously, thereby eliminating the previous requirement that the lethal drugs had to be self-administered.

And here’s the topper. The proposed legislation would also permit those who are not California residents to hurry on over to the state and schedule their very own personal demise.

Sadly, California’s Democratic supermajority in the legislature gives the proposed bill a good chance of becoming law.

Despite being the antithesis of the Hippocratic Oath, leftist advocates of the so-called right-to-die ideology consider death by doctor to somehow be “health care.”

For those desiring assistance with the self-killing process, the previous requirements of having a terminal disease and possessing the appropriate mental capacity, needed to be struck; this according to a so-called fact sheet released by the sponsor of the proposed legislation.

The fact sheet also describes assisted suicide in a most Orwellian way, calling it “aid-in-dying medicine.”

As Europe and Canada have demonstrated, when the facilitation of death becomes a supposed treatment, it gives insurers, both private and public, a perverse incentive to deny health care and promote self-exit.

There have been numerous instances of individuals being coerced, convinced, and even guilted into opting for assisted death.

In an episode of the iconic TV series “The Twilight Zone” called “The Obsolete Man,”

a librarian is determined by the futuristic totalitarian state to be obsolete.

His occupation and his belief in God are enough justification to end his life.

In trademark fashion, host Rod Serling narrates the following at the beginning of the episode:

“You walk into this room at your own risk, because it leads to the future, not a future that will be, but one that might be. This is not a new world, it is simply an extension of what began in the old one. It has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. It has refinements, technological advances, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom…”

The death by doctor procedure obliterates the precept that life is sacred.

When life is no longer considered sacred, a utilitarian society in which individuals are disposable at the whim of the state can be ushered in.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you your life isn’t worth living.

The One who made you and loves you says it is.

AI’s Rising Hollywood Star

In a town known for its artificiality, Artificial Intelligence (AI) appears to be a perfect Hollywood fit.

Last year AI language models and image creations truly dazzled the public. But they scared the unions half out of their wits.

As a matter of fact the Hollywood unions negotiated hard with the studios to get limitations put in place regarding the use of AI.

In its new three-year agreement, the Directors Guild of America (DGA) contract has a provision that forbids studios from replacing a DGA member with AI.

The Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) contract does not permit studios to use AI to replicate the likeness of a union member without obtaining (via a separate agreement) the member’s clear consent.

And the Writers Guild of America (WGA) Basic Agreement states, for purposes of credit and compensation, that any material written by AI will not be considered “literary material.”

However, it appears as though mere contractual provisions will not be enough to prevent AI technology from becoming a major future Hollywood player.

The latest anxiety inducer is the advent of text-to-video, a production-disrupting technology that allows film footage to be created without the involvement of writers, directors, actors, cinematographers, and the like.

AI models have already demonstrated a virtual capability to pen screenplays, create images, and produce music, solely from written commands.

Videos illustrating the extraordinary capabilities of AI have already been posted on the Internet, including a trailer that features Jared Leto promoting his band Thirty Seconds to Mars and a parody of the film “Ocean’s Eleven.”

While numerous AI technology projects have popped up in the entertainment realm, OpenAI’s Sora has gotten the biggest reaction. After having exclusively been fed only written instructions, the new model has been able to create stunningly realistic high quality short videos.

It seems inevitable that the technology will soon be converting entire movie scripts into complete feature-length films via an individual’s simple typing on a computer keyboard.

Sora’s demos sparked justified fears that the technology threatens future employment within the Hollywood creative community.

Filmmaker Tyler Perry specifically cited Sora as the reason for the cancellation of his proposed $800 million studio expansion project in Atlanta, Georgia.

“Being told that it [Sora] can do all of these things is one thing, but actually seeing the capabilities, it was mind-blowing,” Perry said in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter.

“There’s got to be some sort of regulations in order to protect us. If not, I just don’t see how we survive,” he added.

In its apparent effort to secure fame and fortune, OpenAI has reportedly been wooing Hollywood executives to use Sora as their preferred filmmaking tool.

According to Bloomberg, the AI company is now setting up a series of meetings with major studios, media executives and talent agencies in order to pitch its automated video content creation machine.

In an apparent effort to pave the way for future business transactions, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was spotted hanging out with key Hollywood players and was even in attendance at some of Oscar’s A-list parties.

A spokesperson for OpenAI told Bloomberg the following:

“OpenAI has a deliberate strategy of working in collaboration with industry through a process of iterative deployment – rolling out AI advances in phases in order to ensure safe implementation and to give people an idea of what’s on the horizon.”

Another way of phrasing “iterative deployment” might be a slow and steady takeover of Hollywood.

AI’s growing entertainment industry involvement will most certainly usher in plenty of lawyers and lawsuits. There has already been a sizable number of legal actions filed against AI companies, most of which assert copyright infringement.

When the output of AI has an obvious resemblance to an original work, the attendant lawsuits frequently have outcomes that are similar to those of traditional copyright claims.

Other cases involve a focus upon and an analysis of the time frame in which the protected works were uploaded into the AI technology as training data.

The Congress and the courts will have to wrestle with the notion of copyright protection as well as additional intellectual property rights issues that arise from the unauthorized uses of AI.

As Perry has suggested, guardrails must be put in place.

But the question is, Will this occur before the Hollywood Walk of Fame turns into a virtual one?

Transhumanism and the Abolition of Free Will

What is free will?

It is the ability to act at one’s own discretion, to make choices of one’s own volition.

Within the earthly realm, it is actually a prerequisite to human rights, to the pursuit of happiness, and to true liberty.

In America we have oftentimes taken the gift of free will for granted. However, when we experience the loss of this treasure, in ways great or small, we are suddenly cognizant of how crucial it is for us to safeguard it always.

Elite leaders, who are part of influential global organizations, dream of a future in which the world is no longer populated by human beings as they are currently known.

Instead “new human beings” would consist of an amalgam of human as well as high-tech components. This would likely result in the manufacturing of synthetic creatures devoid of the remnants of free will.

The notion of a super-humanity, i.e., one that is theoretically enhanced via the merger of people with technological parts, is known as transhumanism.

Transhumanists are supposedly looking to convert human beings into creatures with amplified intellects and increased vigor.

More than anything, though, transhumanists seek to extend human life indefinitely.

In other words, they are on a quest for immortality.

Transhumanists see their form of eternal life being brought to fruition via the uploading of themselves into Artificial Intelligence hardware.

Oxford professor Nick Bostrom wrote that transhumanism is “a loosely defined movement…that can be viewed as an outgrowth of secular humanism and the Enlightenment.”

Many transhumanists are actually enamored with the whole notion of an immortal cyber-being, one in which the human intellect has been separated from the physical body and the “person” has been uploaded into computer hardware to achieve the ultimate end-goal.

Transhumanists refer to this state as the “posthuman” one.

Ray Kurzweil, a leading transhumanist, forecasts a world in which humans are extinct and the only “life” on earth will be computers.

Like many other transhumanists, Kurzweil’s view is that the universe is merely matter in motion. Our souls and minds are nothing more than bio-computers.

He further posits that his perspective leads to the logical conclusion that there is no essential difference between human brains and computers.

“We’re going to become increasingly non-biological, to the point where the biological part isn’t that important anymore,” Kurzweil stated at a conference about the coming 2045 world.

“Even if the biological part went away, it wouldn’t make any difference,” he remarked.

The pursuit of immortality is happening in plain sight.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and others are spending enormous amounts of money on anti-aging technology and treatments that they purportedly believe will allow humans to live forever.

In order to reach their goal of living forever, transhumanists are willing to give up everything it means to be human, including free will.

Yuval Noah Harari of the World Economic Forum stated, “Humans are now hackable animals. You know the whole idea that humans have this soul or spirit or free will, and nobody knows what’s happening inside me, so whatever I choose, whether in the election or whether in the supermarket, this is my free will – that’s over.”

The idea of humanity devoid of free will was featured in the 1948 novel, Walden Two, written by father of behaviorist psychology B.F. Skinner.

Skinner’s utopia was inhabited by people who were completely under the control of operant conditioning. In this fictional community, everyone is content because all have been fully conditioned to respond to their constraints with pleasure.

Individuals are ruled by elite experts who program them to pursue entertainment and leisure in controlled harmony. Of course, it is a world that is devoid of free will as well as representative government.

Similarly, Brave New World, the 1932 dystopian novel by Aldous Huxley, imagines a global government whose citizens are environmentally engineered into a blissful servitude. This is accomplished through reproductive technology, bioengineered drugs, and psychological conditioning.

Skinner’s Waldensians and Huxley’s 26th Century Londoners lack some very basic human attributes. Since they have become automatons they no can longer experience the transcendence of friendship, courage, self-sacrifice, love, and more.

Ironically, the folks who are pushing the transhumanist agenda are engaging in an intellectual sleight of hand.

They substitute a counterfeit faith in place of a genuine one.

Transhumanists desire to scan and transfer human consciousness into a machine. But in order for this to be accomplished, they must first come to believe in what could be called “a digital soul.”

Somehow a machine would have to possess the spiritual cognizance that human beings instinctively understand are not a part of the physical world.

Transhumanists have channeled their hope for salvation into an irrational belief.

Contrary to the religious wisdom of the ages concerning the sacredness and dignity of life, they cling to the idea that all of the mysteries of human consciousness can be reduced to mere algorithms.

Caution: If you go down this path, there’s no turning back.

Instead I recommend following the road where free will is the norm, happiness abounds, and life everlasting is waiting for you.

When Hollywood Made the Big Left Turn

The Hollywood tale begins in the 1920s.

It was a time when most major studio heads were decidedly on the conservative side of the political aisle.

So how did the entertainment industry veer into the leftist stratosphere?

Well, the process seemed to begin after some Hollywood-related scandals caused quite a bit of public embarrassment, which prompted the studios to become more proactive in terms of controlling the inner workings of the movie business.

Rather than having to bow to government regulators, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America hired a former U.S. postmaster general by the name of Will Hays to help develop guardrails for movie production.

In 1933, Hays pushed the film industry to adopt what would come to be known as the Hays Code, which established rules that set boundaries pertaining to onscreen depictions of sex and crime.

Films and eventually television content that conformed to the code received a seal of approval upon which the movie-going public could rely, particularly families with children.

A pivotal event occurred in the late 1940s, which resulted in a transformation of the industry itself.

Some of the intellectuals around town, who were purportedly sympathetic to communist ideology, were investigated by the House Un-American Activities Committee.

The Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals provided to the committee the names of those who were alleged to be communists as well as those who supported communist organizations.

Notable entertainment figures of the time, including Gary Cooper, Ronald Reagan, Robert Taylor, Sterling Hayden, and Edward G. Robinson named names and/or expressed concern about subversive content of screenplays.

Most of the names that were named were those of screenwriters. A select group of blacklisted individuals became known as the “Hollywood Ten.”

Hollywood is still burdened with an obsession over the blacklist era. Movies that deal with the subject are continuously being produced: “Good Night, and Good Luck,” “The Front,” “Guilty by Suspicion,” “Yoo-Hoo, Mrs. Goldberg,” “The Majestic,” and two biopics, both titled “Trumbo” based on blacklisted screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, just to name a few.

At the time of the blacklist and up until the late 1960s, Hollywood was structured along the lines of what came to be called the “studio system.”

This top-down model was controlled by five major movie studios known as the Big Five, and three smaller studios known as the Little Three.

The Big Five was comprised of Paramount, Warner Bros., RKO Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, and 20th Century Fox.

The Little Three were United Artists, Universal, and Columbia Pictures.

Interestingly, today’s largest and most powerful company, Disney, was not part of either the Big Five or the Little Three.

The studio system, as well as Hollywood’s Golden Era, took a hit both in power and influence as a result of a landmark Supreme Court decision, United States v. Paramount, an antitrust case.

Originally filed a decade earlier, the landmark case shocked the entertainment industry with language that called for the complete separation of ownership of movie theaters from film production and distribution, effectively terminating the studio system.

This legal decision, along with the continuing backlash against the blacklist, ended up being the catalyst for Hollywood’s extreme leftward tilt.

The studios opened up to independent filmmakers, and by the early 1960s the Hays Code had been replaced by a rating system that had been implemented by the newly formed Motion Picture Association of America, the same rating system that the industry uses to this day.

A new breed of filmmakers began to produce titles with defiant, rebellious, and anti-conventional themes, such as “Easy Rider,” “Midnight Cowboy,” and “Carnal Knowledge.”

By the late 1970s, its metamorphosis was evident. Hollywood continued over the years to become ever more left-wing, which cultivated the soil from which the unimpeded weeds of wokeness grew.

So here we are stuck with the 96th Academy Awards ceremony that recently aired, which, among other things, had imposed a set of DEI rules for a nominee to qualify for the Best Picture Oscar.

Needless to say, the DEI rules are at a minimum a profound obstacle to the creative process and another truly divisive thorn in our culture’s side.

Veteran actor Richard Dreyfuss gave a candid response to the Academy’s DEI standards, after they had been revealed to the public.

“They make me vomit,” Dreyfuss said. “Because this is an art form, it’s also a form of commerce, and it makes money, but it’s an art.”

Is life imitating art or art imitating life?

In a woke world, it’s anybody’s guess.