Seth Rogen Spreads His Hate Around

c7affe6db7a6cbdcbb6486a28e0e62dc_800_420

Seth Rogen has a strange way of showing love for his fans.

The Canadian actor recently appeared on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” and told a story about how he laughingly rejected some fans that had requested to have their photos taken with him.

Maybe Rogen was trying to shore up his reputation with some of his leftist Hollywood pals, many of whom have been hysterical about the U.S. border policy.

The Rogen fans who were rebuffed turned out to be the children of the current Speaker of the House and the Speaker himself.

In his Colbert appearance, Rogen describes a summit to which he had been invited to speak, an event that was hosted in early June 2018 by former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The gathering was held ostensibly to assist in finding a cure for Alzheimer’s.

However, it seems as though Rogen may have been uncomfortable about having been present at a GOP gathering. His likely discomfort may account for his peculiar willingness to boast about his despicable behavior toward fans who prior to this occasion had likely looked up to him.

In relaying the story, Rogen tells of how two “young fans” that he characterizes in racially charged terms as “very white” approached him and told him that their dad was a fan and would like to meet him.

Rogen soon realized the father was none other than Paul Ryan. The actor described the meeting in the following way: “My whole body puckered, I tensed up, and I didn’t know what to do,” Rogen said. “And I turned around and Paul Ryan was walking towards me.”

After shaking hands, Ryan requested that Rogen allow a photo to be taken with the Speaker and his children, but Rogen would have none of it. Instead he flat-out rejected the request.

Rogen explained to Colbert’s audience, “I look over and his [Ryan’s] kids are standing right there expectantly, clearly fans of mine, and I said, ‘No way, man!’”

Famous for its blatent insensitivity, the Colbert crowd cheered vociferously, despite the hurt that Ryan and his children likely suffered.

After telling the studio audience how he summarily rejected Ryan in front of his children, Rogen then added insult to injury by bragging about how he really gave it to the Speaker in front of his kids.

“Furthermore, I hate what you’re doing to the country at this moment and I’m counting the days until you no longer have one iota of the power that you currently have,” Rogen purportedly told Ryan.

Claiming he felt “conflicted” about subjecting Ryan’s children to his mean-spirited remarks, Rogen evidently just couldn’t resist the urge to diss the kids’ dad.

Throwing in a bit more reverse racism, Rogen said, “His kids seemed lovely, and very Caucasian.”

Guilt seemed to manifest itself until arrogance got the better of him as Rogen said, “It’s not their fault, but at the same time they should probably learn that if they like a movie or song, the person who made that probably doesn’t like their dad that much.”

During the appearance, Rogen jumped to the topic of the border and also praised his native country for legalizing marijuana.

“This week Trump made prisons for kids, and Canada legalized recreational marijuana,” Rogen said. “I don’t know if there’s an official grading system for the weeks a country has, but that was a good week for Canada.”

Because the hosts of “Fox & Friends Weekend” had some less than flattering things to say about Rogen’s Colbert appearance, the actor apparently felt the need to lash out with a tweet, which read, “Oh man. Now my TL [timeline] is gonna be filled with virtue signaling snowflakes who are offended by my free speech.”

This is the same guy who belittled the Christian concept of the rapture in “This is the End,” disparaged Christmas in “The Night Before,” and tried to get Costco to stop selling Dinesh D’Souza’s book “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left. ”

Rogen had used his Twitter account to ask Costco, “Why do you sell books that compare left wing people like me to Nazis?”

Rogen is apparently trying to stretch into serious dramatic roles now, beginning with a film called “Newsflash” about the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

In the upcoming movie, Rogen will play the role of legendary news anchor Walter Cronkite, who is the person who earned the title of “the most trusted man in America.”

Paul Ryan and his kids may have a few choice words to say about that.

Advertisements

Back to the Future for the AT&T-Time Warner Merger

f2e69dea-1587-4aa0-8eda-01a0cddb5775-1280x720_80612b00xhbst

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon recently greenlighted the $85 billion AT&T-Time Warner merger, while failing to impose any conditions or restrictions upon the massive media consolidation.

The merger, about which reports have circulated since late 2016, was publicly opposed by President Donald Trump as well as by the Department of Justice, which in the fall of 2017 went to court to stop the transaction.

After a six-week trial, Judge Leon ruled that the merger could move ahead, belittling the government’s legal arguments.

In an unusual expression for a jurist, Leon, who also presided over the Comcast-NBC-U mega-merger in 2011, went so far as to urge the government not to appeal the decision.

Antitrust law exists to prevent monopolies that could potentially stifle competition and harm consumers. When the same company owns the means of media production as well as the means of distribution of media content, antitrust issues arise.

This is not the first time that media companies have been met with legal challenges over simultaneous ownership of content and the means by which the content is delivered. In the 1940s, Hollywood studios produced motion pictures while owning the theaters in which the very films were being displayed.

In a 1948 decision, United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that Hollywood studios would be required to sell off movie theater holdings.

The landmark decision essentially ended the studio system of the “Golden Age” of movies, while fundamentally altering the way in which Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited. It also fostered the idea that “vertical integration” should be restrained by courts and, based on antitrust principles, barriers should be put in place between corporate ownership of both distribution and content.

With regard to the AT&T-Time Warner merger, the Trump administration had argued that the resulting conglomerate would create the same vertical integration-dual ownership issue that the old Hollywood studio system faced, and as a negative consequence consumers would end up paying more for their television viewing.

This was the same position with regard to the proposed merger that then-candidate Trump held during the 2016 presidential campaign.

In addition to potential risk to consumers’ pocketbooks, the entertainment business will be significantly affected by the AT&T-Time Warner combination. Allowing the merger to proceed in its present fashion will have profound ramifications for the manner in which entertainment companies compete with one other.

Owners of news, movie, and/or entertainment cable television channels, who wish to be well placed on the AT&T-Time Warner system, will be beholden to a company that has control over the delivery system while simultaneously owning competing channels.

Producers of content that competes with that of AT&T-Time Warner may need to have the content distributed via the merged company’s delivery system.

It is certainly within the realm of possibility that the merged company would advertently or even inadvertently favor channels and content which the enterprise owns.

The court’s decision in approving the merger may also embolden other Hollywood studios to pair up with telecommunications companies in order to effectively deal with the cash-rich tech companies that have invaded the entertainment space of late, e.g., Apple, Amazon, Google, and Netflix.

One relevant case in point is that of Comcast, which has jumped into the bidding for 21st Century Fox’s assets that Disney had already been in the process of negotiating to purchase.

Consumers generally have very few options when it comes to cable, satellite, and broadband services. AT&T provides broadband and television via a cable media delivery service, U-verse. It also owns a major satellite television provider, DirecTV.

By acquiring Time Warner, the company obtains a major movie and television studio, which includes the DC Comics’ franchises, Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman, along with television programming on TBS, TNT, CNN, and HBO.

By owning content and delivery, the newly merged company has the same kind of vertical integration that the Court broke up years ago, when it forced movie studios to divest in the Paramount case.

 

Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert and the Death of Late-night Comedy

gettyimages-631178240-550x330

With liberals targeting for destruction one cultural institution after another, it was inevitable that late-night comedy was going to have its turn.

Ironically, late-night comic hosts, many of whom were trailblazers in the laugh industry, have slowly but surely morphed into lemmings, substituting smug political claptrap for comedy.

Rather than entertain, the ones who are lucky enough to have actually made it into comedy’s top echelon are now catering to a flimsy fan base of enraged resisters and hate-driven hypocrites.

Bill Maher, host of HBO’s “Real Time,” is the latest example. He recently let it be known how bitter leftists view President Donald Trump’s economic track record.

Recognizing the phenomenal economy under President Trump’s leadership, Maher stated that he believes it is critical for the U.S. economy to collapse in order to rid the country of a president with whom he disagrees.

“I feel like the bottom has to fall out at some point, and by the way, I’m hoping for it because I think one way you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy,” Maher said. “So please, bring on the recession. Sorry if that hurts people but it’s either root for a recession, or you lose your democracy.”

The left is so steeped in hatred it is willing to let the best interests of the nation take a back seat to spite. And like far too many others in his industry, Maher is more than willing to see his neighbor harmed than to see President Trump succeed.

It is hard to fathom how late-night comedy allowed itself to descend to such a pitiful depth. Late-night television was created and branded by the pioneers of the medium – Jack Paar, Steve Allen, and of course the man who defined the forum, “The King of Late-Night” Johnny Carson.

Carson was the guy who dropped in unannounced but you never wanted him to leave. No matter what had transpired in the course of the day, he could make you forget in a single quip. He was simply a friend that taught you how to smile yourself to sleep.

The current crop of late-night hosts could benefit from the master in more ways than one. A single show of Carson’s could bring in as many as 9 million viewers. By comparison, CBS’s “Late Show,” hosted by Stephen Colbert, is currently the highest-rated late-night program, but a good night for Colbert is typically a third of the viewers that Carson had, in part because Colbert’s program generally consists of Trump trashing and partisan punches.

Viewers today admittedly have a lot more options when it comes to the late-night timeslot. In addition to broadcast networks’ offerings of Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, and Jimmy Fallon, there are numerous cable offerings, which include TBS’s Conan O’Brien, Comedy Central’s Trevor Noah, HBO’s John Oliver, and BET’s Robin Thede, along with broadcast networks’ very late-nighters James Corden and Seth Meyers.

Late-night writers generally cater to viewers who use social media to watch highlight video footage from previous programs. Shows with late-night content that stream to viewers include Hulu’s Sarah Silverman and Netlix’s Joel McHale and Michelle Wolf, who is best known for her embarrassingly unfunny performance at the most recent White House Correspondents Dinner. Weekly late-nighters such as Comedy Central’s Jim Jeffries and TBS’s Samantha Bee are also part of the mix.

Virtually all of the shows specialize in targeting the president, and Bee is one of the hosts who clearly illustrates the lowlights of today’s pathetic programming. Referring to the daughter of the president in the crudest of ways, Bee incurred a deserved backlash, which prompted defections by a number of sponsors. Both Bee and TBS later apologized, but the comic was not fired or suspended. In another humorless incident, there was a young man who had attended the Conservative Political Action Conference and was bashed with a comment about “Nazi hair.” It turned out that the young man was actually suffering from Stage 4 brain cancer, and Bee was again forced to apologize.

It is painful to have to say that in this sorry state of late-night comedy, television’s most visible hosts have turned into boring political preachers and in the process have themselves become the joke.

‘Roseanne’ without Roseanne Barr?

roseanne-cast-new

After Disney and ABC gave Roseanne Barr the severest of penalties for her ill-fated tweet by canceling her television show “Roseanne,” sources indicate that the ABC brass are now looking into the idea of continuing the sitcom in some fashion without Barr.

TMZ first reported the following: “The powers that be at ABC are exploring the possibility of re-branding the show and focusing on the character Darlene instead of Roseanne.”

A pitch meeting is set to take place between the producers of “Roseanne” and Disney ABC executives on June 4 to explore a revival of the “Roseanne” reboot with a new name minus the show’s namesake.

The key individuals that have been pursuing the continuation of the sitcom include co-star and executive producer Sara Gilbert, showrunner and executive producer Bruce Helford, and executive producer Tom Werner.

Gilbert was the driving force behind the initial “Roseanne” reboot. Helford was the co-creator and executive producer of “The Drew Carey Show” as well as the executive producer and writer for the original “Roseanne” during season five of the series. Werner co-founded the Carsey-Werner Company and was executive producer of the original “Roseanne,” along with “The Cosby Show,” “A Different World,” “3rd Rock from the Sun,” and “That 70s Show.”

Even if ABC greenlights a revival of a reboot, financial and legal obstacles may end up thwarting its plans. Carsey-Werner owns the lion’s share of the rights to “Roseanne.” However, Barr was the co-creator and executive producer of the show and has contractual financial interests in the series.

ABC is aware of the fact that a competing network faced a similar problem when it removed the lead actor from a top sitcom. Charlie Sheen was fired from “Two and a Half Men” in 2011, and Ashton Kutcher became the star of the show. Sheen also possessed contractual financial interests in the show and filed a $100 million lawsuit to pursue those interests, which concluded with a settlement of $25 million.

Barr has indicated via her Twitter account that she is thinking about fighting back against the cancellation of her reboot. Depending on the provisions in her contract, she may be able to legally challenge the attempt to create a spinoff that has the same characters and similar plotlines.

Disney ABC attorneys could even find themselves working overtime to negotiate a buyout of Roseanne’s rights in order to move forward with a project without her.

Another significant challenge involves the cast. Key members may not wish to be associated with the show or may have conflicting projects. Actors need to know that a project is real so that they can reserve time on their calendars.

It would be crucial for the producer to secure co-stars John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf for the new project. Goodman is a sought after character actor, and Metcalf just snagged an Oscar nomination for “Lady Bird” and is additionally doing well on Broadway. The aforementioned Gilbert has her continuing spot on CBS’s “The Talk” to protect.

The writing staff would have to be contracted as well. Ironically, on the very same day that ABC cancelled “Roseanne,” the writers had gathered at the studio lot to begin work on the upcoming season.

Despite the cancellation, ABC and Carsey-Werner reportedly have a contractual obligation to pay key cast members and writers for the upcoming season on a 10-episode guarantee, which provides an incentive to revive the series reboot.

There are other shows that have continued on following the departure of their lead actors. Current streaming programs “House of Cards” and “Transparent” have both made the transition following the removal of their respective stars Kevin Spacey and Jeffrey Tambor.

An example often cited by industry experts is one from the 1980s. A successful sitcom, “Valerie,” starred Valerie Harper as a career mother, who along with a somewhat invisible airline pilot husband is raising her three sons. After Harper had a dispute with the show’s producers, she was written out of the series. Sandy Duncan joined the cast as the boys’ aunt, who moved in and became their de facto parent. The series was renamed “Valerie’s Family: The Hogans,” which was later shortened to “The Hogan Family.”

However, the unprecedented success of the “Roseanne” reboot differs from the run-of-the-mill television project. Barr had built a sizable reservoir of conventional fandom during her syndication run of 25 years. What gave the reboot such exceptional impetus was the bond that she shares with millions of people, many of whom voted for President Trump, who were chiefly responsible for the phenomenal ratings of the show and who managed to transform a television debut into a cultural event.

A “Roseanne” series without Roseanne may initially draw the curious. But without the show’s comedic and cultural core cast member, it would likely end up as a shadow of its former self.

Disney Stunned as ‘Solo’ Stumbles at the Box Office

maxresdefault

The “Star Wars” franchise has been a sure winner for Disney, well worth the $4 billion the studio paid for Lucasfilm in 2012.

When a “Star Wars” movie is released, it is nothing short of a spectacular event accompanied by an interstellar performance at the box office, but not this time.

Box-office proceeds of the latest “Star Wars” installment, “Solo: A Star Wars Story,” has hit Disney executives hard, with a lower than expected three-day opening of $84.7 million and a projected four-day opening of $103 million; all this while the movie carried a production budget of over $250 million.

The “Solo” results were 46 percent lower than the previous “Star Wars” release, “Rogue One,” causing

Lucasfilm and Disney to reexamine the management of the “Star Wars” asset.

The overseas performance thus far for “Solo” has been an abysmal $65 million, including a tepid take of $10.1 million in box-office receipts in China. Since foreign box office can be up to 70 percent of a studio release’s overall gross revenue, “Solo” will likely bring in a far lower proportion of overseas money, so Disney has to be concerned that the film will not come close to the more than $1 billion in global gross that “Rogue One” delivered.

“Solo” tells the story of the younger days of iconic character Hans Solo, from the original “Star Wars” movie. The lead character was so deeply defined into the cultural memory by Harrison Ford that it posed an extremely difficult casting job.

Alden Ehrenreich has some very big shoes to fill, and it is safe to say that no actor could recreate the roguish character that the world came to love in the original “Star Wars” trilogy.

Movie experts cite a number of reasons for the latest “Star Wars” film’s lack of box-office energy, including politically correct plotlines, weak directing, poor casting, and “Star Wars” weariness.

As to the fatigue factor, it does not help that “Solo” was released a mere five months after another “Star Wars” movie, “The Last Jedi.”

Disney seems to have learned its lesson on the timing of releases and will probably avoid premiering “Star Wars” sequels, reboots, or spin-offs more than once per year.

The Mouse House is run by some of the most effective business people in the entertainment world. Last year the studio changed the release date of the upcoming “Star Wars” installment, “Episode IX,” from Memorial Day to December of 2019.

When it comes to the “Star Wars” series, year-end releases have been very good for the studio. “Force Awakens,” “Rogue One,” and “The Last Jedi” were all released during the Christmas season. Each movie brought in revenue in the $1 billion range and ended up being the top box-office performers during the year in which the movie release took place.

Disney execs also wisely brought back J.J. Abrams, who directed 2015’s “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” to co-write and direct the upcoming “Star Wars: Episode IX.”

Ron Howard had been tapped by the studio at the production’s halfway point to direct “Solo” after Christopher Miller and Phil Lord left the project.

As an enterprise, Disney has so many other film irons in the fire that it will easily weather the “Solo” disappointment. The company’s Marvel franchise offering, “Avengers: Infinity War,” has at the time of this writing accumulated a box-office bonanza of $622 million domestically and $1.9 billion worldwide.

The family friendly “Incredibles 2” will be released June 15, 2018, and is projected to open in the $130 million range.

Most importantly for “Star Wars” fans, the next scheduled release of a “Star Wars” movie is not until December of 2019.

Like the proverbial football coach at the half, Disney will have the time to determine what went wrong with “Solo” and make the necessary adjustments to its strategic thinking regarding its revered “Star Wars” franchise.

The Fourth Amendment Is Worth Protecting

Intelligence Chiefs Testify At House Hearing On National Security Threats

The New York Times recently published an extensive article that attempted to shine a positive light on an appallingly scandalous set of facts.

However, even with its extravagant spin efforts the newspaper could not exclude the information that the FBI employed secret counterintelligence tools to spy on the Trump campaign, including the use of a paid confidential informant who sought to extract damaging information from several people associated with the campaign.

It is a grave situation when, through the use of counterintelligence powers, a presidential administration targets officials associated with the campaign of the opposition party.

The same Obama executive branch engaged in a series of extraordinary actions to step-up government intrusions, including the following:

-The NSA was allowed to obtain private data on American citizens;

-Members of the press were spied upon;

-Hundreds of individuals were “unmasked” by the ambassador to the UN and the national security adviser;

-An unreliable dossier was used to obtain FISA warrants, and the parties submitting the applications failed to disclose key facts to the FISA court.

After all of these expansive actions were taken, the FBI counterintelligence probe, code-named “Crossfire Hurricane,” placed then-presidential candidate Donald Trump under surveillance.

It is the height of irony that in early 2017 President Trump was derided for his tweet that claimed he was being surveilled.

As these and other troubling facts emerged, the mainstream media did their dutifully best to rev up the spin engines.

The New York Times characterized the actions taken by the FBI during the above-referenced period as focused on Russia rather than spying, while the Washington Post attempted to twist the narrative into asserting that the FBI was “protecting” President Trump rather than targeting him.

In an appearance on CNN about the spying on the Trump campaign that had taken place via the hands of the government, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper channeled Martha Stewart as he indicated how the spying was a “good thing.”

Seemingly lost in the media coverage as well as in the continuing discussion is the damage being done to the fundamental principles of individual privacy rights, which are set forth in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment provides that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Framers sought to protect citizens from unreasonable intrusions by the government. It was indeed a breakthrough notion by the Founding Fathers that the privacy of our persons, houses, papers, and effects are off limits to interference by government, unless and until a judge has signed off on a warrant that authorizes a search, seizure, or surveillance.

Judges may only issue warrants after finding probable cause to believe that the invasion of privacy or surveillance will produce evidence of criminal behavior. In addition, the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to specifically describe what will be seized and where a search will take place.

The norm in the Colonies during the pre-Fourth Amendment era was that warrants were issued in secret by British courts, without the inclusion of probable cause and/or specificity. In other words, the government could conduct a search without any legitimate judicial scrutiny.

It is now known that secret FISA warrants for surveillance on the Trump campaign were issued, based on an unreliable dossier purchased by the Hillary Clinton campaign, and that the FBI failed to disclose key information to the FISA court.

The use of so-called national security letters to gather documents on Trump campaign figures, however, constitutes a whole new level of government action that flies in the face of Fourth Amendment precepts.

According to the New York Times, the FBI “obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters – a secret type of subpoena…”

Several federal statutes allow intelligence officials to request certain business record information using national security letters, which are documents that compel the production of private materials.

National security letters are a type of administrative subpoena, which must be used solely in connection with national security investigations. The documents require individuals or organizations to provide materials that typically involve telephone, email, and/or financial records.

The national security letters include a gag order mandating that those responsible for complying cannot disclose the existence of the document or its content. When used in the manner in which the New York Times describes, national security letters are de facto warrants.

Simply said, phone records and other documents were compelled by a government agency from individuals connected with an opposing political party’s campaign, without a court, probable cause, or any judicial oversight whatsoever.

History demonstrates the danger of granting government agencies the ability to subvert constitutional norms.

Even in cases involving national security, the full requirements of the Fourth Amendment can and should be fulfilled in an expedited fashion, with no intrusions into citizens’ privacy without probable cause that is determined by a court of law, upheld by affirmation or sworn oath, which sets forth precisely what will be confiscated and the location that will be searched.

Tim Allen Is ‘Standing’ Again

lastmanstandingboycott-640x480

In May of 2016, ABC executives made an inexplicable decision, one that from a business standpoint seemed totally incoherent.

The Disney-owned network mysteriously cancelled its second-highest rated sitcom, which made no sense since the comedy had already received two prime time Emmy nominations and was on a solid upward trajectory.

“Last Man Standing,” starring Tim Allen, was in its sixth successful season at the time of its cancellation, with an average of more than 8 million viewers for the 2016-17 season. It was well on its way to the lucrative syndication level to which television producers, showrunners, and stars perpetually aspire.

Mike Baxter, the show’s lead character played by Allen, is a charmingly crusty outdoor sporting goods executive. He is also a refreshingly vocal and hilariously brazen center-right individual.

One rational explanation for ABC’s exercise in poor judgment back in 2016 may be that the company has an inherent disdain, as many in Hollywood do, for the show’s conservative-leaning content.

The fact that Allen’s actual political views are pretty much the same as the character he plays seems to give credence to the network’s likely motive in terminating the show. Adding possible fuel to the proverbial fire, Allen also happens to be a supporter of President Trump.

The comedic tension in the show comes from the nature of Allen’s character being a married father of three, who as a tried and true male head of the household attempts to safeguard his family fortress against attacks from left-minded relatives and the PC police.

A petition to bring back the show was launched by center-right TV viewers. “Last Man Standing” was described in the petition as a show that “appeals to a broad swath of Americans who find very few shows that extol the virtues with which they can identify; namely conservative values.”

ABC predictably denied that bias played any role in the decision to deep-six the original sitcom. Channing Dungey, president of ABC Entertainment, claimed that the reason the show was cancelled was due to high costs as opposed to Allen’s personal politics or the political content of the show.

Considering the fierce competition within the television industry as well as the difficulty of achieving the kind of consistent ratings success that Allen’s show garnered, ABC’s explanation simply does not hold water. As Allen himself told the Hollywood Reporter, “…there is nothing more dangerous, especially in this climate, than a funny, likable conservative character.”

After “Last Man Standing” was cut, ABC plugged the adult fairy tale drama “Once Upon a Time” into the time slot, which drew far lower ratings.

Then recently, in a sort of serendipitous Hollywood surprise, along came the refreshing reboot of the 1980s sitcom “Roseanne,” which took the TV world by storm and gave a starving center-right public (which incidentally is a huge demographic) a reason to laugh again.

Fox Television Group, led by chairpersons Gary Newman and Dana Walden, made a wise call and announced that they were bringing back the series.

“‘Last Man Standing’ ended too soon and the outcry from the fans has been deafening,” Newman and Walden said in a statement. “We’ve wanted to put the show back together since its final taping a year ago, and Tim never gave up hope either. Thanks to its millions of devoted viewers and the irrepressible Tim Allen, we haven’t seen the last of ‘Last Man Standing.’”

It initially appeared that key players Nancy Travis and Hector Elizondo were caught up in other television projects. However, in addition to Allen the show has been able to get Travis onboard, along with other original cast members Jonathan Adams, Christoph Sanders, Amanda Fuller, and Jordan Masterson. Hopefully the network can find a way to include Elizondo in the renewed show as well.

As for Allen, he issued a statement asking himself whether he was excited by the announcement that his show was returning to the air.

“Team LMS was in the sixth inning, ahead by four runs, stands were packed and then for no reason, they call off the game. It leaves you sitting in the dugout, holding a bat and puzzled. Now we get the news from Fox that it’s time to get back out on that diamond – hell yes, I’m excited!” Allen said.

In the same manner as his character would, Allen quipped, “When I heard the offer to create more episodes of ‘Last Man Standing,’ I did a fist pump so hard I threw my back out.”

“Last Man Standing” is expected to be part of the Fox schedule in the 2018-19 season, and much to the chagrin of ABC, many viewers will be doing fist pumps as they hand Fox a mega-ratings hit.