Speaker 1: Joe Escalante live from Hollywood by Hollywood, I mean Burbank
Speaker 1: this weekend. Sorry about all the traveling, not that you care,
Speaker 1: but I am once again somewhere. Last weekend I was
Speaker 1: in Washington, D C. For the Van's Warped Tour with Sublime,
Speaker 1: the band that I manage, and then this week the
Speaker 1: band that I'm in. We are in New York City
Speaker 1: where we have a show at Irving Plaza, and then
Speaker 1: we had one at the Punk Sylvania Festival with hundreds
Speaker 1: of bands. This festival is so small. The Vandals are headlining.
Speaker 1: So let's get to it the box office. This show
Speaker 1: is actually recorded prior to the weekend. But the predictions
Speaker 1: for the weekend, let's see if they came true. We
Speaker 1: got twenty eight years later from Sony. This one's expected
Speaker 1: to be number one highly anticipated horror sequel from Danny
Speaker 1: Boyle and Alex Garland, and predictions generally ranged in the
Speaker 1: forty to fifty million range for the opening weekend. And
Speaker 1: you know, horror sequels with a strong pedigree like this
Speaker 1: one does, they can often overperform. So maybe it did.
Speaker 1: Maybe you didn't. What about L e O L E
Speaker 1: oh from Disney Pixar it's an original animated film also
Speaker 1: debuting this weekend, and Pixar is seeing mixed results with
Speaker 1: original content lately so compared to the sequels, so we'll
Speaker 1: see how it does. Predictions are like twenty five million
Speaker 1: to thirty five million. That Disney has a problem because
Speaker 1: they have so much IP in their vaults and it's
Speaker 1: so easy to just make another version of something, make
Speaker 1: a live action version of The Lion King, make a
Speaker 1: live action Leelo and Stitch and the original stuff. If
Speaker 1: they don't do well, then someone says, hey, stop you
Speaker 1: who at the last meeting said we should do something original.
Speaker 1: You You're fired. Stock went down five percent? You know,
Speaker 1: do you want to be that guy? No? So you say, okay,
Speaker 1: what have we got? Swis Family Robinson's Let's do it?
Speaker 1: And I know people who work there and they have
Speaker 1: quit because they just they they find their lack of
Speaker 1: creativity in the constant reimagining of IP rather than coming
Speaker 1: up with something new. But you know what, I think
Speaker 1: there's things you could come up with that are new
Speaker 1: but are old. Let's take a movie like Song of
Speaker 1: the Self band all over the world because of the
Speaker 1: joyful slaves that play a big part in the movie.
Speaker 1: If you've ever seen this, you know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: They're pretty joyful and they sing some amazing songs. And
Speaker 1: at some point people said, uh, that's not a good look.
Speaker 1: You know, Uh, let's not depict them slaves as happy.
Speaker 1: We don't want to whitewash it. So they just got
Speaker 1: rid of the movie. What you could reimagine that movie
Speaker 1: and you could just say, in a world where where
Speaker 1: white people are slaves, and uh, I don't know, that's
Speaker 1: what That's all I got. So maybe I'll feed it
Speaker 1: into my Google Gemini and see what comes out. Let's
Speaker 1: see the Song of the South. What about song of
Speaker 1: the Middle East? Now I see, Now I'm things just
Speaker 1: starting to trigger. I was in Egypt last year, and uh,
Speaker 1: you know that, you know how people tell you that,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, actually there are more slaves today
Speaker 1: and then there were during the Civil War on the earth.
Speaker 1: That's how they talked to Okay, I don't know if
Speaker 1: that's true or not, and uh, it's probably different degrees
Speaker 1: of slavery. But then there's countries in the Middle East
Speaker 1: that people tell me slavery is either legal or at
Speaker 1: least just not prosecuted, and then I was in Egypt,
Speaker 1: and then I was staying at the Four Seasons Nile.
Speaker 1: And if you ever get a chance to stay at
Speaker 1: the Four Seasons on the Nile, you gotta do it.
Speaker 1: It's exactly what you think would be. It's insane. So
Speaker 1: four Seasons at the Nile. I'm down at the pool.
Speaker 1: There's like wealthy Arab families. Clearly slaves. Clearly slaves are
Speaker 1: taking care of their kids. And I mean they're not
Speaker 1: even allowed to sit on chairs. One was allowed to
Speaker 1: sit on a nice chest. And when I say clearly
Speaker 1: they are slaves, I'm like, I'm absolutely twenty percent certain
Speaker 1: that these are slaves. I don't know. They say, there's
Speaker 1: all these slaves. I'm looking at them right in front
Speaker 1: of me. And then they busted it out into song
Speaker 1: and I stopped him. I threw him all into the pool.
Speaker 1: I said, that's offensive. Do not be happy, do not
Speaker 1: What was that song you were just singing, ma'am zippity
Speaker 1: doo doo. Never sing that again. Okay, don't make me
Speaker 1: come back here. Okay. I don't know how we got
Speaker 1: on that tangent, but back to the box office, yeah, Ilio,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Maybe it'll do well. How to Train
Speaker 1: Your Dragon Stronghold over from last weekend probably be doing
Speaker 1: big business this weekend. And this is a live action
Speaker 1: adaptation that had a strong opening last weekend, and it's
Speaker 1: you know, competition, isn't that great? It's gonna be big again.
Speaker 1: Leelo and Stitch still probably do eight to ten million
Speaker 1: this weekend. Mission Impossible, unlike the episode that we put
Speaker 1: out last week, which we called Listen Impossible, the Final
Speaker 1: Reckoning still be floating around The Materialists. Now this one
Speaker 1: will probably bump up a little bit. Is this the wait?
Speaker 1: Is this the yeah? This is the first weekend of
Speaker 1: The Materialist because I saw at a preview. Now, I
Speaker 1: sat at a preview, so last weekend it did something,
Speaker 1: but I start at a preview before that, and then
Speaker 1: this weekend there and estimating five to seven million. What
Speaker 1: do you need to know about The Materialists? It's kind
Speaker 1: of an exciting movie. I was happy I saw it.
Speaker 1: I could have seen Mission Impossible or Lelo and Stitch,
Speaker 1: and then I just took a left turn and said
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go see this. It's directed by Selene's Song
Speaker 1: and you might remember her from the film Past Lives,
Speaker 1: which was critically acclaimed, Oscar nominated, and this is her
Speaker 1: sophomore effort, and I got to say, it's even better
Speaker 1: the Past Lives. Now. I don't know if you remember
Speaker 1: Past Lives. It was basically a really deep kind of
Speaker 1: movie about these two kids, Nora and High Song, and
Speaker 1: they're super tight growing up in Korea. But then Nora's
Speaker 1: family dips to America. Fast forward like twenty years, and
Speaker 1: they reconnect online and eventually meet up in New York.
Speaker 1: They you know, check out each other's lives, and then
Speaker 1: what happens. I mean, it was a while since I've
Speaker 1: seen it, but Nora, who's actually married. Now that's a problem,
Speaker 1: and it's all about, Hey, these old you know, connections
Speaker 1: stick with you even if you've moved on, and then
Speaker 1: you contemplate the different lives you could have lived. Who
Speaker 1: hasn't done that. I contemplate that all the time, and
Speaker 1: I always come back to wow, I think I better off.
Speaker 1: So anyway, so back to the Materialists, materialist movie, I
Speaker 1: recommend it. She goes see it. Star studied cast if
Speaker 1: you call Dakota Johnson, Chris Evans, and Pedro Pascal as
Speaker 1: star studied, pretty star study, but Pedro Pascal is in
Speaker 1: every movie. Have you noticed. You go see a movie,
Speaker 1: he's in the trailers and you come out and he's
Speaker 1: in another poster. So here's a plot. Lucy is a
Speaker 1: successful matchmaker in New York City. She doesn't make a
Speaker 1: lot of money herself, but she's only doing high end
Speaker 1: relationships and you know it, they're all transactional to her.
Speaker 1: It's a merger of assets and lifestyles. But her own
Speaker 1: romantic life gets complicated when she finds herself torn between
Speaker 1: two very different men. Harry, who embodies her materialistic philosophy
Speaker 1: with his wealth and stability. And of course there's John,
Speaker 1: her ex with whom she shares a deep emotional history
Speaker 1: but lacks financial security. He's like, you know, a waiter
Speaker 1: slash caterer. He's a waiterer. The film explores the tension
Speaker 1: between love and money. I mean, this is an old theme,
Speaker 1: but she does it really well, asking whether a genuine
Speaker 1: connection can survive in a world where material concerns heavily influenced.
Speaker 1: Romantic choices delves into the math of modern love. She's
Speaker 1: always doing math. It's just just do the math. Is
Speaker 1: this a match or not? And a key plot point
Speaker 1: involves Lucy's disillusionment with her job after a client she
Speaker 1: matched experiences with some other guy had a very negative outcome,
Speaker 1: and then she questions her cynical view of relationships and
Speaker 1: this influences where she's going to end up in the
Speaker 1: end of the movie. And it has an amazing other
Speaker 1: plot twist of what she what she finds. There's mister
Speaker 1: Wright and then there's mister Cool. Now mister Wright has
Speaker 1: a secret too, of course he does. Nobody's a ten
Speaker 1: out of a ten, but at first she thinks he's
Speaker 1: a ten out of a ten and his secret is.
Speaker 1: So I just love that this was a plot point
Speaker 1: in a movie, his secret, And you got to see
Speaker 1: the movie of I know what his secret is? What
Speaker 1: is Pedro Pascal's secret? What nobody could be that perfect?
Speaker 1: What's wrong with him? You would never guess it in
Speaker 1: a million years, although there are some hints dropped along
Speaker 1: the way in the film. All Right, we're going to
Speaker 1: take a break and come back. I'll talk a little
Speaker 1: bit more about this movie and some others and some
Speaker 1: other business on Joe Escalante Live from Hollywood. Joe Escalante
Speaker 1: Live from Hollywood. We are back, coming to you from
Speaker 1: New York City this weekend and next weekend. Coming to
Speaker 1: you from Utah, Salt Lake City at the X Games.
Speaker 1: Live from the X Games. How do you like that? Okay,
Speaker 1: we get around, We're all over the place. Let's go
Speaker 1: back to The Materialist. Did you see it during the break?
Speaker 1: Did you push pause on your podcast? Go see it
Speaker 1: and then come back. That would have been a good
Speaker 1: idea too, but now it's too late. Okay. So another
Speaker 1: thing about this movie. It's from A twenty four, so
Speaker 1: obviously it's art house, you know, art house that push
Speaker 1: the boundaries. Now people are calling it a rom com,
Speaker 1: but there's no jokes. Okay, rom drama, I don't know.
Speaker 1: And most people like it. They call it, you know,
Speaker 1: smart and witty and honest. But I'll tell you this
Speaker 1: is it's another movie that where like a lot of
Speaker 1: these movies, like I was listening to the podcast of
Speaker 1: Brett Easton Ellis the other day and he's talking to
Speaker 1: another writer and they were discussing how they can't they
Speaker 1: don't want to write stories that take place in a
Speaker 1: world with cell phones, so they write stories from the
Speaker 1: eighties or earlier because a cell phone complicates everything, Like
Speaker 1: you have some drama. You have some conflict, but you
Speaker 1: could you just call use the phone, look up Google anything.
Speaker 1: Characters can't get lost in these movies about today's people
Speaker 1: because of Google maps. So people just don't want to
Speaker 1: write in that world this movie. I like many movies,
Speaker 1: they instead of the phone, the phone is there. But
Speaker 1: what is not there is religion. And I usually come
Speaker 1: from the view of Catholicism. Now, if these people were Catholic,
Speaker 1: they couldn't do any of this stuff. They wouldn't be
Speaker 1: obsessed with premarital sex. They wouldn't be living together and
Speaker 1: trying people out to see if they're a good match,
Speaker 1: and be sleeping with each other to see if they're compatible.
Speaker 1: They wouldn't be doing any of that. They'd be saving
Speaker 1: themselves and they would have a spiritual connection. Then when
Speaker 1: they would make this solemn religious problem promise to God
Speaker 1: and the just unbreakable and they would never break it.
Speaker 1: So the matchmaker be out. I mean, you could have
Speaker 1: a matchmaker. I think is a big role for a matchmaker.
Speaker 1: Of course in religions, like in the movie what is
Speaker 1: that Fiddler on the roof? Is that the matchmaker? One? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Matchmaker or is it gental I didn't see ental suf
Speaker 1: Fiddler on the roof. Yeah, matchmaker. So it can be done.
Speaker 1: But you have to assume that all these people have
Speaker 1: no religion. They're pagans, or they're atheists or Satanists or what.
Speaker 1: I don't know what they are, but they're they're worshiping
Speaker 1: material goods, which you can have Catholic people that are
Speaker 1: very materialistic. There's a lot of rich religious people. There's
Speaker 1: the whole what do you call that prosperity ministry. Yeah,
Speaker 1: those people are materialistic. They believe in like speaking things
Speaker 1: into existence and what do they call it, positive confession,
Speaker 1: speaking things into existence? And financial giving, making money so
Speaker 1: you can give more, and this is the key to
Speaker 1: unlocking God's blessings of wealth and health in this life,
Speaker 1: in this life. So that does exist. I guess you could,
Speaker 1: but in this movie it doesn't work. If anyone's got
Speaker 1: I have so many movies I watching them on I
Speaker 1: could solve this problem. This movie be over. I could
Speaker 1: be on the freeway. If I just converted these people
Speaker 1: instantly into Catholics, all their problems will be solved. But
Speaker 1: that's not the world we live in. We don't want
Speaker 1: to see only films about cell phones, worlds with cell
Speaker 1: phone without without cell phones, and we don't want to
Speaker 1: see only movies where everybody's capfulic I get it. Okay,
Speaker 1: what if you wanted to see The Materialists? It's into
Speaker 1: theaters right now, So of course I recommend always go
Speaker 1: to the theaters because one day you'll wake up and
Speaker 1: there will be no theaters and you will feel like
Speaker 1: you didn't do enough to support them. So it makes
Speaker 1: you go get over whatever phobias you have. I don't
Speaker 1: want to sit in a room with a bunch of people.
Speaker 1: I just watch it at home on my big TV.
Speaker 1: Get over it. Go see The Materialists where you're like,
Speaker 1: where can you see it? I think it's coming to HBO.
Speaker 1: If you're a loser, you can wait, and but that's
Speaker 1: not until around October. So you got to go to
Speaker 1: the theater. Yes you do, because A twenty four doesn't
Speaker 1: play around. There's a long time between now and in October.
Speaker 1: Right next up on the Big Show, P Diddy, I
Speaker 1: know we're sick of it, but what's he I'm just
Speaker 1: going to give you a recap. This might wrap up,
Speaker 1: this might have wrapped up on Friday, but what do
Speaker 1: we got? We got Here's what happened this week. Jurors
Speaker 1: were shown explicit freak off of it. If you don't
Speaker 1: know what a freak off is, it's a drug fueled
Speaker 1: sexual encounter central to the prosecution's case. They showed him
Speaker 1: for the first time on Monday and Tuesday, and they've
Speaker 1: had previously only been seen as still images or heard
Speaker 1: as audio. But they got to see actual videos of
Speaker 1: freak offs because all freae COFs are filmed. A special
Speaker 1: agent testified about evidence related to these freak COFs, including
Speaker 1: tax flight records and hotel bills, and did He's legal
Speaker 1: team has indicated that he is unlikely to testify. Oh,
Speaker 1: so the big man is not going to take the stand.
Speaker 1: M probably a wise move. I think a wise move
Speaker 1: because I think it's going to be hard to prove
Speaker 1: all their charges and a lot of stuff is going
Speaker 1: to be not guilty. Maybe he'll get charged on something,
Speaker 1: but not. I don't think he's but he has a
Speaker 1: chance to just do very little time or maybe none
Speaker 1: at all. The Judge I issued a stern warning this
Speaker 1: week to both the prosecution and Evince about information after
Speaker 1: information about a sealed proceeding allegedly leaked to the media
Speaker 1: and he threatened criminal contempt for future violations. That's about
Speaker 1: it for P Diddy, But it might have been the
Speaker 1: prosecution may have rested its case. Okay, Now what happens
Speaker 1: when the prosecution rests its case. Other then the defense
Speaker 1: comes up and they make their case. So let's go
Speaker 1: with Uh, we'll find out, you know, we'll find out
Speaker 1: next week. How about the Justin Baldini case. I know
Speaker 1: you're sick of that and you don't like it, and
Speaker 1: I don't talk about it a lot because it's just
Speaker 1: like lame. So here's what's new though. You know how
Speaker 1: Blake Lively sued Justin Baldini for all the stuff you
Speaker 1: ruined me, you sexually harassed me, all this stuff, and
Speaker 1: then Baldini filed the countersuit. He su Blake Lively and
Speaker 1: her husband for allegedly attempting to destroy his reputation and career.
Speaker 1: Handy sue the New York Times sort of defamation related
Speaker 1: to articles about the onset conflict, but it got dismissed,
Speaker 1: so his arguments were rejected by the court. Wow, so
Speaker 1: now he's just defending a big, expensive lawsuit. But his
Speaker 1: lot he was like suing her for like four hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars. It's just like, what are you doing? Where
Speaker 1: does that number come from? So now just the broader
Speaker 1: underlying dispute about sexual harassment and hostile workplace environment, this
Speaker 1: kind of stuff still ongoing. All right, let's take a
Speaker 1: break and come back with more. I got some Disney news,
Speaker 1: I got some you never know what I got up
Speaker 1: my sleeve kind of news after this. Joe Scalante Live
Speaker 1: from Hollywood. Joe Scalante Live from Hollywood. If by Hollywood
Speaker 1: need a burbank. This is two hours of the business
Speaker 1: end of show business. We do it every Sunday on
Speaker 1: KiB eleven to fifteen your AM dial. And there's a
Speaker 1: podcast version. They turn the show into a podcast miraculously,
Speaker 1: and then you get it on iTunes or Spotify or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. Okay, all right, let's go
Speaker 1: to a Supreme Court case on intellectual property. Can you
Speaker 1: imagine this week? June seventeenth, the US Supreme Court officially
Speaker 1: rejected a bid to revive the copyright claim against Ed
Speaker 1: Sheeran over his twenty fourteen hit song Thinking Out Loud.
Speaker 1: This decision brings an end to the decade long legal battle.
Speaker 1: This is a sub total bum out. Poor guy. The
Speaker 1: villain here is a company called Structured Asset Sales, which
Speaker 1: holds copyright into st interests in Marvin Gay's Let's Get
Speaker 1: It On, And they alleged that Cheeran copied the melody,
Speaker 1: harmonies and rhythm of this Marvin Gate nineteen seventy three classic.
Speaker 1: Now you can see how since here this is the
Speaker 1: family and Marvin Gay family has sold the rights to
Speaker 1: this song to a bunch of fill in the ranks,
Speaker 1: and they are suing everybody inside because of the terrible
Speaker 1: decision that was made years ago, claiming that Pharrell Williams
Speaker 1: and Robin Thick, Robin Thick or it's this kid. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Robin think his dad is Alan. His dad's from my generation.
Speaker 1: Alan think he was famous. So Robin think Pharrell Williams
Speaker 1: said that they stole the song from Marvin Gay and
Speaker 1: they didn't. And I'll I'll go over it again. The
Speaker 1: copyrighted material that was protected something. If you copyright something,
Speaker 1: it's protected. What was partet in that case was the copyright.
Speaker 1: The copyright had sheet music in it, and the judge
Speaker 1: let the jury hear the finished recording with piles and
Speaker 1: piles and piles and piles of unprotected material on it,
Speaker 1: and then the protected material that's in the copyright is
Speaker 1: the only thing the should been played. They should have
Speaker 1: had a string cortet come out there and play that
Speaker 1: protected version and then we compare that to the melodies
Speaker 1: and the expressions in the Robin Thick Farrell Williams song.
Speaker 1: But instead they compared something that is where like the
Speaker 1: final version of the Marvin gay song. So they could
Speaker 1: go take the final versions and say, oh, okay, you
Speaker 1: stole that. Well, it's just you know, they're inspired by that.
Speaker 1: And then they did what everybody else does, listen to
Speaker 1: a song, get inspired a bit. They'd like the feel
Speaker 1: of this song, and that jury said, well, you can't
Speaker 1: take the feel. Oh my gosh, yeah you can. You
Speaker 1: can take the feel. So in this case, the same
Speaker 1: company comes after. Maybe it's after that that the Marvin
Speaker 1: Gaye family sold it to these people, but I don't know.
Speaker 1: So these people are running around suing people since they
Speaker 1: got a bad decision, and finally a court said no,
Speaker 1: you're not getting another bad decision, and then went to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court and they said, yeah, you're not getting
Speaker 1: a bad decision. Go away. So that's why I call
Speaker 1: them the villains. Whoever this company has structured asset sales. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he already won the case in twenty twenty three. So
Speaker 1: Supreme Court confirms the lower court it's findings in favor
Speaker 1: of she Ran and saying that these similarities were mere
Speaker 1: common musical building blocks. So go pound sand. And this
Speaker 1: goes back to something I always say is do we
Speaker 1: want to live in a world where these musicians are
Speaker 1: afraid to create because some terrible jury instructions were given
Speaker 1: in the Robin Thick Pharrell Marvin Gay case. No, it's
Speaker 1: not the world you want to live. You want people
Speaker 1: to be taking genres and being influenced by it and
Speaker 1: taking it to the next level. You can't pick apart
Speaker 1: their work and sue them for taking chances and being
Speaker 1: creative and pushing boundaries and saluting the original artists. It's
Speaker 1: like if you took that Marvin Gay song that they
Speaker 1: used r any of these songs, you could reverse engineer
Speaker 1: the lawsuit to find who that person took their influences
Speaker 1: from and wake that person up out of the grave
Speaker 1: and get their estate together and sue the plaintiff in
Speaker 1: the new lawsuit So do we want to live in
Speaker 1: this world where that's how artists are shackled? I don't
Speaker 1: think we do. Okay, let's go to the phones. Just kidding,
Speaker 1: taping this, Okay? Anyway, what's going on in the Harvey
Speaker 1: Weinstein trial. I knew that's what you were going to ask,
Speaker 1: and you did, and I have it for you. You know,
Speaker 1: as you know, he had some of his charges thrown out,
Speaker 1: and he had a retrial, he had a new trial.
Speaker 1: Good news for Harvey. A lot of good news in
Speaker 1: this trial. Doesn't mean he's not going to die in prison,
Speaker 1: which I believe he is. But a jury in New
Speaker 1: York reached a split verdict in his retrial, and he
Speaker 1: was found guilty on just one count of criminal of
Speaker 1: a criminal sexual act in the first degree related to
Speaker 1: the accusations by Miriam Hayley. Now, let's let's remind everybody
Speaker 1: who Miriam Haley is, because this is the big one,
Speaker 1: the one that two times he was convicted of a
Speaker 1: sexual act in the first degree. Miriam Haley was a
Speaker 1: production assistant briefly worked on Project Runway, the show that
Speaker 1: was actually produced by the Weinstein Company. Now, production assistant
Speaker 1: is the lowest level person on a set the most vulnerable,
Speaker 1: if you will. Often they are very good looking young
Speaker 1: girls that are like this girl's hot. She doesn't have
Speaker 1: any skills, but to be a production assistant, you don't
Speaker 1: need any skills, and you end up just kind of
Speaker 1: fitting in. Wherever you excel, you either get fired or
Speaker 1: someone notices that you're good at something, and you know,
Speaker 1: and just concentrate on whatever skills you have. She's in
Speaker 1: the Weinstein world. She testified that she was seeking professional
Speaker 1: opportunities in the industry and viewed Weinstein as a guy
Speaker 1: could help her, and she described a series of interactions
Speaker 1: with him that were sometimes professional and polite, but other
Speaker 1: times inappropriate and suggestive. So he's kind of grooming her
Speaker 1: and he pushed the boundaries. She maintained that she was
Speaker 1: never interested in sexual or romantic relationship with him, only impressional,
Speaker 1: only professional advancement. Okay, she's allowed to do that. She
Speaker 1: testified that in July of two thousand and six, remember
Speaker 1: this is you know, years ago, Weinstein invited her to
Speaker 1: his Manhattan apartment, where she expected to be him to
Speaker 1: be professional and have a friendly meeting, and during the meeting,
Speaker 1: he lunged at her to kiss her. She said no, thanks,
Speaker 1: but then he forcibly grabbed her and pushed her into
Speaker 1: the bedroom. Once in the bedroom, he pinned her down
Speaker 1: and performed oral sex on her against her will, despite
Speaker 1: her pleas to stop, saying no, no, no, it's not
Speaker 1: going to happen. Okay, So she feels humiliated afterwards. Then
Speaker 1: she says she did not immediately report the assault to
Speaker 1: the police and continue to have contact with Weinstein for
Speaker 1: some time afterwards, even sending cordial emails, signed lots of
Speaker 1: love and seeking professional favors. So yeah, she's milking it.
Speaker 1: That hurts her testimony, but she ultimately prevailed in this claim.
Speaker 1: She explained that her continued contact was because she was
Speaker 1: trying to and this is in quotes, navigate the whole situation.
Speaker 1: So that's her excuse. I'm trying to navigate the whole situation, okay.
Speaker 1: She wanted to preserve any potential professional opportunities and cope
Speaker 1: with the trauma by suppressing a lot of things. She
Speaker 1: also testified about another sexual encounter a few weeks later
Speaker 1: at a hotel that she described as unwanted but which
Speaker 1: she didn't physically resist. Basically had sex with them and
Speaker 1: then she felt stupid. She said she did it. She
Speaker 1: agreed to it because she felt stupid for having agreed
Speaker 1: to meet him. You know, maybe she was afraid. Okay,
Speaker 1: but you know what, We're gonna explore this att flirt
Speaker 1: further since this is, you know, almost done kind of.
Speaker 1: But first we shall go to traffic. Joe Scalante live
Speaker 1: from Hollywood.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Joe Ascalanti, here's my lawyer. You don't want money.
Speaker 1: Joe Scalante live from Hollywood. If by Hollywood you mean Burbank.
Speaker 1: Two hours of the business, end of show business right
Speaker 1: here on k e IB eleven fifty, your am dial. Okay. So,
Speaker 1: in the Weinstein retrial, guilty criminal sexual act in the
Speaker 1: first degree with Miriam Haley, we just told you who
Speaker 1: Miriam Haley was. In the last break, she was found
Speaker 1: not guilty of another criminal sexual act involving Kaja Socola. Now,
Speaker 1: who is Kadja Socola. Let's read, Let's let's go down
Speaker 1: memory lane with that one. Who is Kaja Sokolaw? Now,
Speaker 1: if you remember, Kaja Sokola is the Polish born former
Speaker 1: model and aspiring actress who became an accuser in the
Speaker 1: Harvey Weinstein sex crimes original trial, and she was just
Speaker 1: used in that trial as an example of prior bad acts,
Speaker 1: and she wasn't a it wasn't a separate charge. But
Speaker 1: in the retrial, looks like she became a new charge.
Speaker 1: And if you remember and which which he was, he
Speaker 1: was found not guilty of Okay, So what did she say.
Speaker 1: It's pretty much the same old stuff. She met Weinstein
Speaker 1: in two thousand and two. That's why it was so
Speaker 1: long ago. It wasn't really a part of the original claim.
Speaker 1: When she was about sixteen years old, she was on
Speaker 1: a modeling trip to New York and she met him
Speaker 1: and was invited to his apartment to discuss her acting career,
Speaker 1: but once there, she was told to take off her
Speaker 1: clothes and rub his naughty bits. She described feeling scared, confused.
Speaker 1: If you want to be an actress, that's what actors
Speaker 1: do in films, you should get used to it. That's
Speaker 1: what she said that he said, so not guilty, And
Speaker 1: a juror actually spoke out and said they didn't find
Speaker 1: her credible because of her continuing relationship and just her testimony,
Speaker 1: and she said she couldn't come to terms with the
Speaker 1: alleged abuse at the time, you know, and so she
Speaker 1: you know, they found diary entries. She didn't talk about this,
Speaker 1: like it wasn't that big a deal. She didn't even
Speaker 1: talk about her her diary. But she said she couldn't
Speaker 1: trying to like just kind of rewrite her life and
Speaker 1: career and her career choices. Now, the jury also couldn't
Speaker 1: reach a verdict in a third case brought by a
Speaker 1: woman named Jessica Man. Now, let's go down memory lane
Speaker 1: and remember who Jessica Man is. Jessica Man was an
Speaker 1: aspiring actress and cosmetologist in her late twenties when she
Speaker 1: met Harvey Weinstein around twenty twelve or twenty thirteen in LA.
Speaker 1: Like the other accusers, she testified that Weinstein initially showed
Speaker 1: interest in her career, leading her to believe that he
Speaker 1: could help her. She described a complex and often degrading
Speaker 1: relationship that lasted about five years. So this guy, I mean,
Speaker 1: he was accused of sexually assaulting these women who he thought,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think he's a perv and he shouldn't
Speaker 1: do this, and he was married. On top of all this,
Speaker 1: that he was these girls had him believe at least
Speaker 1: that they they thought they were getting something out of it.
Speaker 1: So I believe that he didn't think he was raping them.
Speaker 1: He's just disgusting, you know. He just thinks, ah, this
Speaker 1: is you know, I'm gonna help him, and this is
Speaker 1: how it works in Hollywood. So and again, she said
Speaker 1: it alternated between him being charming and being like aggressive
Speaker 1: and abusive. She called him a doctor Jekylo and mister Hyde.
Speaker 1: And the word no was a trigger. How do you
Speaker 1: like that one? Whoever came up to that one should
Speaker 1: get a bonus? No was a trigger, Ladies and gentleman
Speaker 1: of the jury, She said no, and then it was on.
Speaker 1: So the core accusation of Jessica Mand's case revolved around
Speaker 1: an incident at a hotel in Midtown Manhattan in March
Speaker 1: of twenty thirteen. I cannot tell you which hotel it is,
Speaker 1: but there were two trees involved. Okay, you get it.
Speaker 1: She testified that she was in New York with a
Speaker 1: friend who was supposed to meet Weinstein for breakfast. Instead,
Speaker 1: she found him checking into the hotel. Can you imagine
Speaker 1: Harvey Weinstein checking into a hotel with two trees involved?
Speaker 1: My camp? But he did it because he's a perf.
Speaker 1: She said he became angry with him with her and
Speaker 1: told her he demanded she come up to his room,
Speaker 1: and of course she went up to the room, tried
Speaker 1: to leave, he grabbed her, demanded she undressed. She recounted
Speaker 1: a moment there where she just gave up due to
Speaker 1: the aggression and her fear. And there's what she said,
Speaker 1: He raped her. This is Jessica, man, This one didn't stick.
Speaker 1: This is where they found the erection inducing syringe in
Speaker 1: the bathroom, or she said she found it. You gotta
Speaker 1: take pictures of stuff like that. That's what I see.
Speaker 1: But anyway, this is all I mean. It's hard to
Speaker 1: judge these people. She also testified about a previous instant
Speaker 1: before that in La where he forced himself on her
Speaker 1: during their first private meeting in a hotel room. This
Speaker 1: guy loves hotel rooms, and then he invited her up
Speaker 1: there of course to you know, talk about careers. She
Speaker 1: said that one was a real battle, but despite these assaults,
Speaker 1: she still maintained a relationship. Said she was trying to
Speaker 1: buy time. She believed that maintaining contact might take the
Speaker 1: pain away or create a path for her career. This
Speaker 1: just shows you how hard it is to be an
Speaker 1: actress and to be in the entertainment industry. So I
Speaker 1: don't know anyway, I know you're wondering, how often does
Speaker 1: this happen to your host? Almost never? But I did
Speaker 1: have one situation where a film was offered to me
Speaker 1: to direct. All I had to do was bad stuff
Speaker 1: and that film was never made. Just leave it there, okay, Now, okay,
Speaker 1: So these these Jessica man Kaja Sokola and and Miriam Haley,
Speaker 1: those things, those are the three charges, the main ones.
Speaker 1: Miriam Haley, this one sticks. And then okay, so what's
Speaker 1: going on with the guy?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 1: I think you're sick of this and you just want
Speaker 1: to He remains incarcerated despite the overturned twenty twenty New
Speaker 1: York conviction. Weinstein has been serving a sixteen year sentence
Speaker 1: from his separate twenty twenty two California conviction and the
Speaker 1: New York conviction which was thrown out. You know, actually
Speaker 1: the one that's now been affirmed twice is a potential
Speaker 1: twenty five year sentence. So in July second there will
Speaker 1: be sentencing on this new conviction for Miriam Haley, but
Speaker 1: he's still serving time for the other one. So he's dying.
Speaker 1: He's dying in prison. That's all we can say. Even
Speaker 1: though he's appealing that California thing. Actually, he could win
Speaker 1: his appeal in the California one and you could feel
Speaker 1: this and you could be set free. Is it gonna happen?
Speaker 1: Probably not. Am I gonna talk about this ever again?
Speaker 1: Probably not. Okay, thank you for indulging me for me.
Speaker 1: I just want I wanted to get the party straight too,
Speaker 1: and so in this report I was able to get
Speaker 1: the parties straight again. Okay, I got one more thing
Speaker 1: for you. Kind of interesting. There's a liquid death beverage
Speaker 1: coming out that has evidently contains DNA of Ozzy Osbourne
Speaker 1: in it, so recent marketing initiative featuring a some juice
Speaker 1: from his DNA. Just I mean, what does DNA taste
Speaker 1: like anyway? Are you gonna notice it? Probably not? Is
Speaker 1: it poisonous? I hope not, But it's open to peculiar
Speaker 1: discussion on the intersection of like celebrity branding and future
Speaker 1: bio legal considerations that we never thought would happen. Ten
Speaker 1: limit edition Infinite Ozzie iced tea cans were sold, each
Speaker 1: containing purportedly trace amounts of mister Osborne saliva, DNA, so
Speaker 1: Ozzy spit. The explicit premise of the campaign was to
Speaker 1: future potential was for future potential fans to clone mister Osborne,
Speaker 1: should technology and federal law permit. While human reproductive cloning
Speaker 1: from such samples remains outside current scientific capability and is
Speaker 1: widely prohibited or restricted by existing state law and international laws,
Speaker 1: this promotion raises interesting hypotheticals, you know, regarding the ownership
Speaker 1: and the intended use of genetic material in a commercial context.
Speaker 1: And let's just be glad nobody's proposed yet to clone
Speaker 1: share in Osbourne. All right, that does it for this one,
Speaker 1: And I now leave you with a taste of the
Speaker 1: greatest song ever written.