Zack Snyder Exits “Justice League” In The Wake Of Daughter's Suicide

Zack Snyder, one of the foremost directors in the DC Cinematic Universe, announced on Monday that he will be stepping down from directing Justice League in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter. He’ll be taking time away from the project to deal with the death of his 20-year-old daughter, Autumn, who killed herself this past March. Snyder’s wife, Deborah Snyder, will also be stepping down from her role as producer on the film. Joss Whedon — acclaimed director of Marvel’s The Avengers and The Avengers: Age of Ultron, and of DC’s upcoming film adaptation of Batgirl — will take over Justice League‘s post-production and shooting additional scenes.

After Autumn’s death, production on Justice League was put on a two-week hiatus for the Snyders to deal with the tragedy. “In my mind, I thought it was a cathartic thing to go back to work, to just bury myself and see if that was way through it,” Snyder told THR. But due to the “all consuming” nature of his job, Snyder, who has seven other children, “decided to take a step back from the movie to be with my family, be with my kids, who really need me. They are all having a hard time. I’m having a hard time.”

He originally planned to shoot the additional Justice League scenes, which are scheduled to film in England, but ultimately decided against leaving home at this time. “I never planned to make this public,” Snyder told THR of his daughter’s death. “I thought it would just be in the family, a private matter, our private sorrow that we would deal with. When it became obvious that I need to take break, I knew there would be narratives created on the internet. They’ll do what they do. The truth it…I’m past caring about that kind of thing now.”

Autumn was attending Sarah Lawrence College at the time of her death. Deborah Snyder told THR that Autumn had recently finished a manuscript for a sci-fi fantasy novel that the Snyders would like, one day, to publish and give the proceeds to charity. “In the end, she didn’t make it, but her character does and I think there would be something cathartic for people,” said Snyder.

As for Justice League, Snyder told THR: “I know the fans are going to be worried about the movie but there are seven other kids that need me … In the end, it’s just a movie. It’s a great movie. But it’s just a movie.”

BuzzFeed News has reached out to Whedon and Warner Bros. for further information, but according to THR, Justice League is still set to maintain its original release date, Nov. 17, 2017.

The New Fall Shows Are Opting For Comfort Over Relevance

In late-night, being politically engaged and enraged has allowed the once faltering Stephen Colbert to challenge Jimmy Fallon in ratings, and on streaming, series like The Handmaid’s Tale and Dear White People have garnered significant attention for tackling issues of gender and race.

But, at least for this forthcoming season — the first since President Trump was voted into office — network TV appears to be heading in the other direction, toward the safety of the already known or the feels-like-you-already-know-it.

At least that’s what was suggested by the first round of new shows announced in the past week. The big networks — ABC, CBS, The CW, Fox, and NBC — all held their upfront presentations in New York City this past week, glitzy annual events where new series and fall schedules are presented to advertisers, who are treated to footage and appearances from talent.

What was unveiled were programming choices that seemed designed to evoke the familiar — sometimes literally. One of the biggest surprises the week had to offer was that the previously announced Roseanne return would go to ABC for an eight-episode season to air in 2018. “There’s really no one better to comment on our modern America than Roseanne,” ABC president Channing Dungey said in a statement about the show, expressing the kind of “now more than ever” sentiment with which all kinds of content has been anointed ever since Trump’s win.

In this case, though, it’s not clear exactly what Dungey meant by that. No one better because the original Roseanne, which ran from 1988 to 1997, was progressive in its tackling of issues like LGBT representation and abortion? Because it’s a portrayal of the white working class that became so central to the election? Because of Barr’s present-day stance as someone who made a Green Party presidential candidate bid and who told the Hollywood Reporter that “we would be so lucky if Trump won. Because then it wouldn’t be Hillary”? Or is it just because we’ve heard from Barr before? As with all network presidents, Dungey is unlikely to give a clear answer (particularly in the wake of all the flak ABC got for canceling the conservative-leaning Last Man Standing).

But she did did share, in a conference call with press, that what “the mood of the country has told us is that television is a little bit of an escape,” which speaks to the nostalgic tendencies seen all around. Roseanne isn’t the only show arising from the grave — Will & Grace is also back this fall with its original cast, a fact heralded with a video that confusingly suggested that Eric McCormack’s Will and Debra Messing’s Grace existed in the real world, while Karen (Megan Mullally) and Jack (Sean Hayes) somehow did not. Then there are the reboots and remakes, like The CW’s Dynasty, a new take on the ’80s Aaron Spelling primetime soap, and CBS’s S.W.A.T., based on another Spelling show, as well as the 2003 movie of the same name it inspired.

There are prequels like Star Trek: Discovery, which will stream on CBS’s digital subscription VOD service CBS All Access, and Young Sheldon, which will follow the long-running Big Bang Theory it plays off of, exploring the childhood of Jim Parsons’ persnickety genius Sheldon Cooper.

And then there are the shows that merely feel like something we’ve seen before. Seth MacFarlane’s Fox sci-fi satire The Orville is reminiscent of Galaxy Quest, while NBC’s Rise, with Josh Radnor and Moana‘s Auli’i Cravalho, looks like a more serious Glee. The Fox airline comedy LA to Vegas has Dylan McDermott doing what appears to be a Will Ferrell impression, while ABC’s The Gospel of Kevin comes across as a sibling to Joan of Arcadia, Eli Stone, and My Name Is Earl in its regular-joe-gets-a-divine-mission setup. There are two medical series about brilliant doctors who have a harder time socially: One, ABC’s drama The Good Doctor, which stars Freddie Highmore as surgeon with Asperger’s, is actually from the creator of House; the other, Fox’s The Resident, is just House-like, with Matt Czuchry as a tough truth-teller mentoring an idealistic newcomer (Manish Dayal).

Mark Feuerstein’s autobiographical CBS sitcom 9JKL resembles Everybody Loves Raymond. ABC’s Deception (magician) and CBS’s Instinct (writer/professor) fall into the well-established formula of unlikely consultants helping to catch criminals — see The Mentalist, Castle, Lucifer, and on and on. And in the most centrally backwards-looking (but intriguing) concept of them all, Justin Theroux and Jimmy Kimmel will have a live ABC special in which stars read classic TV scripts from the likes of Norman Lear and James L. Brooks.

This is not to say these shows, considered on the very early basis of their network-provided cutdowns and loglines, look bad. In fact, the most-watched trailer from the bunch, for Fox’s X-Men drama The Gifted, manages to give off a serious whiff of Heroes while also looking like a promising small-screen superhero saga. But there’s a general conservatism in the announced aims of so many of these new series — not politically so much as in terms of ambition.

While hardly daring, steering into strengths may be the smartest move for networks that haven’t been able to compete with the freedoms of cable and streaming. Especially at a time in which ratings are lower than ever, the TV equivalent of comfort food has a powerful pull.

Of course, there are still the odd blips in the lineup of shows with potential to do more than offer entertainment and escape — like ABC’s The Mayor (Brandon Micheal Hall), which flips the script on the idea of a Trump-style outsider winning a campaign by having a struggling rapper find himself in office after a publicity stunt goes a little too well. Or The CW’s Black Lightning, with its superhero turned principal turned superhero battling gang violence. And then there’s that S.W.A.T. reboot, which in its surprising trailer acknowledges that the whole cops-kicking-ass premise of the original hasn’t aged so well, and gives glimpses of a police shooting of an unarmed black teenager and a protagonist (Shemar Moore) focused on rebuilding trust with the community.

Of course, it also involves running around with massive guns and shooting what looks like a rocket launcher. You can’t go too far off book, after all — you’ve still got to give the people what they want.

An Attempt At Color-Conscious Casting Has Opened Up A Massive Theater Debate

Casting director and producer Michael Streeter was “furious and dumbfounded” when he was told he couldn’t cast a black actor in his planned production of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? in Portland, Oregon. “The [Edward] Albee Estate called and said I need to fire the black actor and replace him with a white one,” he posted on Facebook. Streeter declined and decided to cancel the production entirely.

After Vulture’s Mark Harris shared Streeter’s post on Twitter, it started gaining traction. Performer Brian Lobel tweeted, “Edward Albee’s Estate is racist. Decolonize the curriculum. Make work which is relevant, not racist. Time to find some new idols.”

While Streeter’s account might sound like a clear example of discrimination — and there’s certainly a moral argument to be made against the Albee estate’s decision — from a legal perspective, it’s more complicated than that. Producers have to get rights before they can put on a production, and many in the theater community believe that playwrights or their estates can withhold those rights to their plays for any reason they see fit. The Dramatists Guild Bill of Rights states, “You have the right to approve the cast, director, and designers … This is called ‘artistic approval.’” And yes, in some cases, that means approving or rejecting an actor based on race.

“I don’t see this as being racist,” Streeter told BuzzFeed News. “I think that they are operating from some fealty to a sense of integrity, of retaining what Edward Albee would want. And I understand that.”

He said he never questioned the legality of the Albee estate’s choice. “They certainly are within their rights to do it, and they did it. … I’m disappointed that they made that choice.”

The concept of “artistic approval” doesn’t exclusively benefit white actors; it also serves to protect playwrights who have written characters to be played specifically by actors of color. In 2015, the Dramatists Guild spoke out in defense of playwrights Lloyd Suh and Katori Hall, whose work was being produced on college campuses with white actors playing roles that had been written as nonwhite. And while race is central to these examples, playwrights have railed against other “nontraditional” casting choices: In 2014, representatives for David Mamet sent a cease-and-desist letter to a production of Oleanna that cast a man in a female role. That production shut down after one performance.

In the case of Streeter’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, the concern seems to be over how casting a black actor as Nick fundamentally changes the text. Nick is one-half of the younger couple in the play who intrude on the fractured marriage of George and Martha. In a letter sent to Streeter and provided to BuzzFeed News, a representative for the office of Edward Albee writes, “It is important to note that Mr. Albee wrote Nick as a Caucasian character, whose blonde hair and blue eyes are remarked on frequently in the play, even alluding to Nick’s likeness as that of an Aryan of Nazi racial ideology. Furthermore, Mr. Albee himself said on numerous occasions when approached with requests for non-traditional casting in productions of Virginia Woolf? that a mixed-race marriage between a Caucasian and an African-American would not have gone unacknowledged in conversations in that time and place and under the circumstances in which the play is expressly set by textual references in the 1960s.”

The letter also notes that Streeter went against protocol by hiring actors without prior approval by the Albee estate, and by advertising the production before receiving the rights to the play. (In his Facebook post, Streeter said that he requested the rights in November, but said the estate requires a venue and cast to be set in order to grant the rights. He also said he only created images for casting purposes, not to advertise the production.)

Streeter is taking the Albee estate’s word when it comes to the reason for wanting Nick to remain white. At the same time, he noted, there is some inconsistency within their response. A 2002 Oregon Shakespeare Festival production of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? cast black actor Andrea Frye as Martha alongside white actor Richard Elmore as George, going against the Albee estate’s current assertion that one of their objections is to the portrayal of an interracial couple. But Albee was alive to give his approval at the time of the Shakespeare Festival production — the playwright died in 2016 — and Streeter believes some of the resistance now might reflect a more restrictive approach designed to preserve the intent of an author who is deceased.

“I think now that Albee is gone, they should let go of some of that and open up to the idea,” Streeter said. He’s sympathetic, but he believes Albee’s death could actually allow for more diverse productions of his plays. “I was hoping the negative elements with Edward Albee would have died with him,” he said. “You’ve got years of situations where black actors have not had the opportunities to play those great roles.”

The controversy over Streeter’s planned production and the Albee estate’s response has also drawn attention to the difference between colorblind versus color-conscious casting. Both are intended to increase representation in theater, but while the former reflects a belief that any actor can play any part, the latter viewpoint is that casting actors of color in traditionally white roles does change the meaning of the work. Hamilton, for example, is held up as color conscious: Lin-Manuel Miranda wrote the musical to be performed by nonwhite actors as the Founding Fathers with specific artistic intent. Similarly, Streeter was only considering actors of color for Nick in his Virginia Woolf, which he described as “color conscious.” In a second Facebook post, he explained his thought process behind casting Nick as black. “The character is an up and comer,” he wrote. “He is ambitious and tolerates a lot of abuse in order to get ahead. I see this as emblematic of African Americans in 1962, the time the play was written.”

Colorblind casting has drawn its own share of controversy over the years. Black playwright August Wilson once said, “To cast us in the role of mimics is to deny us our own competence … colorblind casting is the same idea of assimilation that black Americans have been rejecting for the past 380 years. For the record, we reject it again.” The recently announced production of Carousel, which will open on Broadway in spring 2018, has earned criticism for casting black actor Joshua Henry as Billy Bigelow, the abusive, criminal male lead, against white actor Jessie Mueller as Julie Jordan. Some have suggested the casting perpetuates negative stereotypes about black men: As one tweet noted, this is the problem with colorblind casting — as opposed to the upcoming Frozen musical, which consciously cast a black actor as the romantic lead Kristoff and a white actor as the villain Hans.

Though color-conscious casting offers a more thoughtful approach to diversity than colorblind casting does, it can dramatically alter the material — and when the playwright is no longer alive, as is the case with Albee, that presents a problem for the estate trying to honor his original vision.

There’s no easy answer to that conundrum, but Streeter hopes that producers continue to broaden their visions of classic plays by casting outside the traditional restrictions. To playwrights, he offered: “Certainly it’s your work, you should exert what control you think is necessary. One thing I would say to them is, ‘Hey, after you’re gone … let it go. Just let people do what they want with it.’”

What Led To The Fiery “Grey’s Anatomy” Exit That Shook Fans

Fans of Grey’s Anatomy braced themselves for the worst before watching Thursday night’s finale: the possible death of another major character, this time Stephanie Edwards (Jerrika Hinton). And though the surgical resident survives the explosion that left viewers breathless in the penultimate episode, the reality is that her survival still comes with a bittersweet goodbye.

Hinton has been hinting about exiting Grey’s Anatomy for over a year now. In March 2016, she signed on to star in the ShondaLand comedy pilot Toast, set during a couple’s engagement dinner. ABC decided not to move forward with the show — but Hinton, who’s played Edwards on Grey’s since 2012, was still making moves toward a departure. “Shonda and I met almost a year ago,” Hinton told BuzzFeed News. “We had a phenomenal, very gratifying conversation about creative process, and work.

“She was immensely supportive of my wishes,” Hinton recalled. “I thanked her tons privately, and I’d also like to use this as a time to thank her publicly for being so supportive of the decision that was right for me at the time.”

Though it was rumored back in January 2017 that Hinton would not be back as a series regular in the show’s 14th season, it was the cliffhanger of the penultimate episode of Season 13 that really shook fans. In the episode, Edwards is held hostage by a rapist (Casey Thomas Brown). In an attempt to escape his clutches and protect a little girl, Erin, (Big Little Lies’ Darby Camp) whom they stumble on, Edwards lights the man on fire. He falls down near some oxygen tanks, and the episode ends with a major explosion — and with the fate of Erin, the rapist, and Edwards unknown.

Fan reaction around the episode was passionate and pleading. In one example of many tweets like it, @OffSeids wrote “Girl istg if they kill off Edwards I’m done with Shonda lol.” Another, @JadeCaity, tweeted “Grey’s Anatomy did not just kill Stephanie Edwards. this is not happening.”

As the Season 14 finale revealed, that indeed did not happen — though it seemed like a close call for a while there. Instead, Edwards spends most of the finale saving Erin from the raging fire. Severely burned by the end of the episode, she tells Richard Webber (James Pickens Jr.) that between this and her childhood in sickle cell trials, she’s had enough of hospitals. She announces her plans to travel the world and live her life, her surgical ambitions no longer her top priority.

Hinton was very aware of the fan response to the cliffhanger last week. “I hope that [viewers] are not only relieved that she lives, but also that she gets to exit that hospital on her own terms,” Hinton said. “I hope they see that in the powerful way that it is.”

According to Hinton, Edwards’ storyline this season is “one where if you sit back and review it on a binge-watch, there might be some threads there that you catch the second time around that weren’t evident the first time.”

That could be, in part, because of how long this has been in the works. In her initial meeting with Rhimes, Hinton said they talked about Edwards’ exit and the conversation was largely about “reaching common ground.”

“Stephanie’s journey has always existed on a bit of a back burner,” Hinton said, “and so it seemed right to have these flames come to the foreground in her departure.”

As for whether we’ll see Edwards again at Grey Sloan Memorial, Hinton thinks it’s unlikely. “The reasons why she’s choosing to leave that place are deep, profound, multi-layered reasons, and because of that, it would not make sense for her to keep checking back in to that place,” she said. “She’s seeking something much more profound for her life.”

Hinton’s post-Grey’s plan was similar to her character’s: “My plan was to conclude Stephanie’s chapter, and then, honestly, leave the country for six months and travel, and be a part of the world again, and feel reintegrated into society, and basically go on this spiritual quest,” she said. But then, an opportunity “materialized out of the ether,” as she put it: a costarring role on Alan Ball’s new HBO show, Here Now. Hinton will play one of the adopted children of Holly Hunter’s character. “It’s this wonderful thing I did not plan,” she said.

So yes, this is a goodbye to Stephanie Edwards, but Hinton wouldn’t change a thing. “Sometimes you do all of the blood, sweat, and tears, and you go home wondering if it was worth it,” Hinton said of filming her final episodes. “With this, the blood, sweat, and tears have been worth it.”

Here Are The Questions We Have Now That “Missing Richard Simmons” Is Over

Richard Simmons in October 2013 in New York City.

Ilya S. Savenok / Getty Images

The podcast Missing Richard Simmons, created by Simmons’ friend-for-one-year Dan Taberski, was meant, Taberski said in its last episode, to be a “grand gesture” that would draw Simmons out of his three-year self-exile from public life. The 68-year-old exercise guru and formerly ubiquitous talk show personality took himself out of the spotlight in February 2014 without a word of goodbye to many of those close to him. Over the six episodes of his podcast, Taberski sought to solve this mystery and lure Simmons out of hiding, giving particular weight to one theory that Teresa Reveles, Simmons’ housekeeper, has been keeping Simmons hostage.

The tone of Missing Richard Simmons was impish and jaunty, despite its subject matter, which increasingly became about Simmons as a lifelong depressive whose need to be loved had seemingly become too much for him to bear. And it did not succeed in its mission: Simmons never responded to Taberski.

Dan Taberski in 2016.

Mike Windle / Getty Images

Missing Richard Simmons, which launched on Feb. 15 and concluded this week, was at or near the top of the iTunes and Stitcher podcast charts and was at first frequently compared favorably to Serial (Serial has resulted in a new trial for Adnan Syed, a real-world effect). As it launched and in the weeks after, Taberski, a former Daily Show producer and documentarian, did a number of interviews: with Esquire, The Guardian, and The New York Times, to name a few.

He seems to have stopped doing interviews, though — BuzzFeed News asked twice over two weeks and was told he wasn’t available. It’s probably not a coincidence that backlash against Missing Richard Simmons reached its apex upon the publication of a damning New York Times essay, in which Amanda Hess called it “disturbing,” a “public hounding,” “exploitative,” and “morally suspect” — and “an invasion of privacy masquerading as a love letter.” More criticism has followed: in The Atlantic, NPR, and The New Yorker. Simmons’ longtime publicist and his brother have maintained throughout — both in the press and to the podcast — that Simmons is fine and just wants to be left alone.

Ultimately, the podcast created more questions than it answered. Here are a few of the ones we had about Missing Richard Simmons upon its completion.

Simmons in 2013 in Los Angeles.

Jason Kempin / Getty Images

1. Several minutes of each episode were devoted to Taberski talking about why he was doing the podcast. One example of many (truly: many): “Look, Richard Simmons should spend his time any way he wants. I really believe that. But all he has to do is say goodbye. Why won’t he give that to people? It’s the easiest thing in the world to do. A one-line email, a two-second phone call, why won’t he give that to them, to David [Garcia, someone who went to Simmons’ exercise studio]? It’s not that it’s wrong, exactly, it’s just confusing. Why would you do that to a friend? Especially a friend whose life you’ve changed.” These justifications for the podcast’s existence really amount to a lot of what is talked about — did Taberski hear himself repeatedly saying these things and think, Maybe this is wrong?

2. Taberski said on the podcast and in interviews that Simmons is “important,” and he wanted to reclaim that legacy on Simmons’ behalf. The whole structure of Missing Richard Simmons could have just been a story about Simmons’ life and legacy, with a very small part of it being that Simmons has dropped out of the world. Instead, Taberski made the search for Simmons the central focus of the podcast. If he had to start over now, knowing what he knows, would he do it the same way?

Simmons speaking at the funeral of fellow fitness guru Jack LaLanne in February 2011 in Los Angeles.

David Mcnew / Getty Images

3. In Episode 3, “The Maid and the Masseuse,” Taberski allowed Mauro Oliveira — an artist, Simmons’ former assistant and masseuse, and, Taberski implied, Simmons’ lover — to call Reveles a literal witch, and, though it’s winking, Taberski also called her a witch. (He said: “So let’s recap: Richard’s maid is a witch, and pretty much nothing matters after you call somebody a witch, so let’s start with that.”) He also snidely made fun of Simmons buying Reveles a Mercedes, her taste for Chanel, and the fact that Simmons and Oliveira would cook for her and serve her.

More important, Taberski indulged Oliveira’s kidnapping/hostage fantasy, actively — that Reveles is holding Simmons captive. In Episode 4, after Simmons called the Today show to say he’s fine, Taberski said, “Someone calls to say, ‘Everything’s fine, I’m great!’ and then you cut to the shot that reveals a gun to his head. I’m not saying that’s what’s happening; I’m just saying.”

By the finale, though, Taberski said he wanted to “clear something up about Teresa Reveles,” because of what an LAPD detective had told him. He said: “Based on all this information, I believe Teresa Reveles is just doing her job. Moreover, from what I hear now, she seems to be doing it well.” That’s a huge reversal from calling her a witch (even if he claims to be “skeptical” of that, as he told The Ringer) — and strongly implying that she is a felon. Does Taberski regret that whole subplot?

Simmons in 2008.

Michael Buckner / Getty Images

4. Missing Richard Simmons gave Oliveira a platform to reveal what he thinks are Reveles’ literal crimes. Did Taberski take into account that Reveles might have been trying to keep Simmons away from someone she thought was a hustler? Does he regret relying so much on Oliveira’s theories, as amusing as they may be? And what was the “falling-out” Taberski mentioned, but did not detail, that Simmons had with Oliveira?

5. Episode 5 had concluded with Taberski saying: “I will, in fact, relent. Right after I give it one last shot. Don’t worry, it’s nothing crazy or illegal, it’s just persistent. Loving, but persistent. This time I’m not taking no from your housekeeper for an answer.” And then in the final episode, he mentioned…a boombox. Was he actually going to stand outside of Richard Simmons’ house Say Anything–style?

6. Leading up to the finale, the LAPD did a welfare check on Simmons and Reveles. Taberski finally seemed convinced that Simmons is fine — was it talking to the LAPD detective that changed his mind?

7. In Episode 6, the final installment, it felt like Taberski had perhaps read the criticisms of Missing Richard Simmons. He mentioned that he had scrapped things over the past week, and even in the 24 hours before finalizing it. What were those changes, and why did he make them? How had he pictured the ending beforehand?

Simmons leads Capitol Hill staff and visitors through an exercise routine on July 24, 2004, in Washington, DC.

Tim Sloan / AFP / Getty Images

8. In that final episode, Simmons’ manager, Michael Catalano, said to Taberski: “I can’t say that Richard feels better as a result of the podcast. Perhaps you do. I think you really created more worry and speculation.” And he said that Simmons is someone who had the gift of “spending 10 minutes with somebody and they feel like they are his best friend.” Did hearing that from Catalano make Taberski feel that he had unnecessarily caused Simmons worry and attention he doesn’t want, and also that perhaps he hadn’t been as close to Simmons as he’d thought he was?

9. Also in the final episode, Taberski mentioned a chatroom log from April 2014 in which Simmons had said things that were “upsetting: about depression and dark places — things that would make you worried for him.” From the podcast itself, and also just imagining what would make someone disappear from the world, there were so many red flags about Simmons being in a dangerous, debilitating, possibly suicidal depression. How much had Taberski taken that into account? Did he feel that the upbeat, jokey tone of Missing Richard Simmons was ever at odds with what appears to be a very sad story?

Just 17 Really Funny Tweets About DJ Khaled And His Son Asahd


This is DJ Khaled and his son, Asahd. They’ve become one of the purest examples of wholesome entertainment on the internet.

This is DJ Khaled and his son, Asahd. They've become one of the purest examples of wholesome entertainment on the internet.

Rich Polk / Getty Images

With his father being the king of inspiring people on Snapchat, it’s no surprise that Asahd would become the beneficiary of incessant praise and positivity from his father.

Instagram: @asahdkhaled

The infant’s personal Instagram, which has nearly 300K followers, frequently features a comment from his father saying “ASAHD” in all caps, followed by an endearing message.

Instagram: @asahdkhaled

Sorta like this:

Sorta like this:

Twitter / Via Twitter: @PresiYankova

View Entire List ›

Mariah Carey Is Turning “All I Want For Christmas Is You” Into A Movie

The Queen of Christmas strikes again.

Mariah Carey, the creator of Christmas*, shared some exciting news on Tuesday morning: Her legendary song “All I Want For Christmas Is You” is being turned into a movie.

Mariah Carey, the creator of Christmas*, shared some exciting news on Tuesday morning: Her legendary song "All I Want For Christmas Is You" is being turned into a movie.

*Mariah Carey did not actually invent Christmas.

Angela Weiss / AFP / Getty Images

This isn’t the first time Carey has turned her classic yuletide carol into a different form of media. In 2015, Carey released a children’s book based on her iconic hit song.

The book boasts some pretty high Amazon ratings from customers who bought it.

Instagram: @mariahcarey

The song has continued to top the charts more than 20 years after its initial release in 1994, and is essentially inescapable once the holidays roll around.

The song has continued to top the charts more than 20 years after its initial release in 1994, and is essentially inescapable once the holidays roll around.

Columbia Records / Via

View Entire List ›