Year: 2022

With a month remaining in the 2021-22 NBA season, most teams in the league are focused on the present, at least to some degree. For a handful of teams at the bottom of the standings, however, everything is future-facing, and that includes a deep focus on the upcoming 2022 NBA Draft. It is still (very) early in the draft process in mid-March but, with the 2022 NCAA Tournament set to begin in short order, the attention of the basketball world moves to the college ranks and to the pre-draft process.

The general consensus of the 2022 class revolves around a clear top four, with Duke’s Paolo Banchero, Gonzaga’s Chet Holmgren, Auburn’s Jabari Smith, and Purdue’s Jaden Ivey taking center stage. After that, there are wild cards and, in general, there is a lot of room for players to leave marks on the process on the college game’s biggest stage this month. In advance of the madness, though, it is time to roll out a pre-tournament NBA Mock Draft, acknowledging that a lot will change in the coming days.

Note: Draft order according to NBA standings as of Thursday, March 10.

1) Orlando Magic – Chet Holmgren (C/F, Gonzaga)

At this very early stage in the process, team fit isn’t the most important thing in this mock. Acknowledging that, we’re rolling with Holmgren, who is No. 1 on our big board. Orlando wouldn’t necessarily be the perfect destination with a log-jam of frontcourt options, but Holmgren’s ceiling is sky-high with his defensive length and aptitude and moldable offensive game. He isn’t the same kind of clear No. 1 that Cade Cunningham was at this point a year ago, but Holmgren is a monster prospect.

2) Houston Rockets – Jabari Smith (F, Auburn)

There are some concerns about Smith as a ball-handler and play-maker, but he is an obscene shooter. Anytime a player is getting compared to Kevin Durant from a length and shooting perspective, that is probably a good sign. Smith seems like a mortal lock to be a 20-point scorer in the NBA. Houston is almost assuredly in BPA mode at this stage of their rebuild and, at two, that’d be Smith.

3) Detroit Pistons – Jaden Ivey (G, Purdue)

Putting Ivey next to Cunningham would be fun. Unlike Cunningham, Ivey is an elite athlete and he can wreck the opposition with that force. He’s also come a long way as a shooter, and Ivey has the tools to be a good defender in time. He isn’t a good defender now and he’ll need to improve his array of lead guard skills, but Ivey’s breakout has been fun.

4) Oklahoma City Thunder – Paolo Banchero (F, Duke)

Banchero was No. 1 on a lot of boards a few months ago, and it wouldn’t be crazy to have him there now. He’s more of a pure 4 than anything, but Banchero is more than willing to be a lead shot creator and he can get off difficult attempts to carry a late-clock offense. On the other hand, he isn’t an elite shooter just yet, and his defense has some work to do. Still, the Thunder would love to add more frontcourt talent and Banchero fits the bill.

5) Indiana Pacers – Shaedon Sharpe (G/F, Kentucky)

Sharpe may not be in the draft, and that is a bizarre statement to type for a top-five pick. However, he hasn’t played at the college level after reclassifying, and the former No. 1 prospect for 2023 has some questions as a result. If he declares (and is granted eligibility for the draft), it is hard see Sharpe falling much further than this. He’s a crazy athlete and has the kind of wing superstar appeal that every team wants.

6) Sacramento Kings – A.J. Griffin (F/G, Duke)

Griffin has great tools and is shooting the ball phenomenally well recently. He also had a dreadful start to the season, even with injury caveats, and it’s been a weird ride in the last couple of years overall. I’m personally buying him as being “back” as an elite prospect, and he brings immediate versatility and value with his shooting, athleticism, and size.

7) San Antonio Spurs – Johnny Davis (G, Wisconsin)

Davis might be the best player in college basketball this season, carrying an otherwise mediocre Wisconsin team to lofty heights. He’s made a ton of big shots and has enjoyed a breakout that most didn’t see coming. He’s also relatively limited from a size standpoint and may not be able to carry the same kind of offensive usage in the NBA. If he’s a role player, this might be too lofty, particularly if he’s merely a solid defender than a plus one, but he’s a very strong prospect.

8) Portland Trail Blazers – Keegan Murray (F, Iowa)

I was pretty skeptical of Murray early in the season when he was bludgeoning mid-major (and low-major) opponents. Most of that skepticism is gone now, as he played very well in Big Ten play and maintained efficiency. The next hurdle is translation to the NBA game, where he is probably a 4 on defense and someone who isn’t quite a No. 1 scorer. Fortunately, he has really good size and his transition appeal is clear.

9) Portland Trail Blazers (via New Orleans) – Jalen Duren (C, Memphis)

When Duren was viewed as a potential top-five pick, there were worries about over-drafting for a rim-running big man. Now that the hype has cooled a bit, it’s easier to take him in the mid-late lottery. Duren has showcased his skills much better during a recent run by Memphis, and he is an athletic monster with a reported 7’6 wingspan. He’s not going to be an offensive star, but the defensive ceiling is sky-high and he’ll finish anything around the rim.

10) New York Knicks – Ochai Agbaji (G/F, Kansas)

I wish Agbaji was 6’7 or 6’8, but other than that, his projection as a quality role player is very evident. He’s been great for Kansas as a lead option this season, but in the NBA, he’ll be a catch-and-shoot guy who defends at a high level on and off ball. Every squad needs that.

11) Memphis Grizzlies (via Lakers) – Bennedict Mathurin (G/F, Arizona)

I was mocking Mathurin as a first-rounder a year ago, even while acknowledging it was a year early for him. He went back to school, clearly improved, and vaulted his stock into the mid-late lottery range. He’s a fantastic shooter, and Mathurin has shown more off the bounce skill this season. Defensively, it’s not perfect, but the tools are solid and he should be able to hold up eventually.

12) Washington Wizards – TyTy Washington (G, Kentucky)

By now, anyone doubting Kentucky guards is doing so at their own peril. Beyond that (with tongue in cheek), Washington has shown a lot as a shot creator, and he is very smart. He’s more of a combo guard, so situation will be important, but he can get his own shot and pass at an impressive level.

13) Atlanta Hawks – Dyson Daniels (G, G League Ignite)

The Hawks have been a defensive disaster this season, and they’ve also been looking for defense-first backcourt partner with Trae Young for a while. Daniels is very young, and he has a long way to go on offense, but his defensive tools are very impressive. He’s also a ball-mover and is potentially closer to making an impact than a typical one-and-done guy in this range.

14) Charlotte Hornets – Walker Kessler (C, Auburn)

Kessler is probably the best defender in the draft, at least in the short term. He has been one of the best shot blockers in the history of college basketball (not hyperbole) and is the anchor of a top-tier team at Auburn. This is higher than I’d want to take him in the current landscape of the NBA, but there are a ton of centers in this class and some of them will creep up the board. Charlotte’s need for a defensive presence is not a secret, and Kessler would certainly fit the bill.

15) Houston Rockets (via Brooklyn) – Kendall Brown (F, Baylor)

This is a pure upside/athleticism play. Brown is not a fantastic offensive player right now, to say the least, and he doesn’t assert himself on that end. There is a fun package of cutting and finishing in his bag, but he doesn’t have much in the way of ball skills or a reliable jumper. On defense, he is a mega-athlete that should create havoc, but there are raw moments. Houston can afford some swings and keep Brown in the state of Texas.

16) Oklahoma City Thunder (via Clippers) – Jeremy Sochan (F, Baylor)

There is some intentionality in having Brown and Sochan back-to-back. Brown was more on the radar in the preseason for the 2022 class, where as Sochan has come on and gotten the “pre-draft” moniker as a very, very interesting long-term guy that probably isn’t ready yet. The Thunder are in a position to be patient and have a bundle of picks.

17) San Antonio Spurs (via Toronto) – E.J. Liddell (F, Ohio State)

Liddell is an older guy who is one of the ten best college players in the country. He also doesn’t have a super easy defensive translation in the modern NBA, but he is scoring efficiently and doing all the little things for Ohio State. That seems like a Spurs guy.

18) Minnesota Timberwolves – Tari Eason (F, LSU)

Observers are all over the place on Eason, but he is up my alley. His defense is excellent, and Eason projects to defend multiple positions effectively at 6’8 with power. That can carry him to a rotation level in the NBA, but he’ll need to make threes to unlock his true high-end potential. That is a big question, but if you buy his ability to improve there, he could be a lottery guy.

19) Indiana Pacers (via Cleveland) – MarJon Beauchamp (G/F, G League Ignite)

While Beauchamp is in the G League Ignite program, he is much older (21) than most prospects he’s playing with this season. That isn’t an impediment necessarily, but rather a potentially important piece of context. At any rate, he’s a good athlete who defends and plays hard at 6’6. The question is whether he can do enough on offense.

20) San Antonio Spurs (via Boston) – Patrick Baldwin Jr. (F, Milwaukee)

In a draft full of uncertainty, Baldwin Jr. still stands out on the weirdness scale. He was a consensus top-10 player coming into college, but went to play for his father at Milwaukee and had a dreadful season at a mid-major level. To be fair, he projects as a high-level role player and Baldwin Jr. was not perfectly set up to be “the guy,” even at Milwaukee. Still, the numbers and eye test were bad enough where it wouldn’t be completely stunning if he fell out of the first round.

21) Dallas Mavericks – Jaden Hardy (G, G League Ignite)

Hardy is a bucket getter with shot selection issues and inconsistency questions. He does bring very high upside on offense and, at some point, a team is going to fall in love in the workout process. Perhaps even higher than this.

22) Chicago Bulls – Justin Lewis (F, Marquette)

Lewis isn’t a sexy prospect, but he’s 6’7 with a 7’1 wingspan and he projects as a combo forward role player. Every team needs that, particularly if his jumper goes in. There are at least some concerns about athletic pop with Lewis, but at No. 22, that’s not as big of a problem.

23) Denver Nuggets – Trevor Keels (G, Duke)

Keels came flying out of the gate for Duke but subtly regressed, at least in the numbers, during the season. His defensive potential is very, very interesting as a rangy athlete who knows how to play, but he’ll need to clean up some offensive stuff in the near future.

24) Brooklyn Nets (via Philadelphia) – Mark Williams (C, Duke)

There is nuance here, but the simple explanation is that Williams projects as a potential starting center in the NBA, even without too much star potential. He’s incredibly long, flashes plenty on defense, rebounds, and finishes at the rim. The Nets need a long-term guy to potentially pair with (or replace) Nic Claxton.

25) Milwaukee Bucks – Nikola Jovic (F, Mega)

If you haven’t noticed, this is not a strong international class, and Jovic is the first guy off the board. He is a fun passer at 6’10 and he projects as a willing and potentially solid shooter. The questions arrive on defense.

26) Memphis Grizzlies (via Utah) – Jean Montero (G, Overtime Elite)

Montero is going to have to shoot better than he has with Overtime Elite. If he doesn’t, he shouldn’t be a first-rounder, simply because he is small, not a high-end passer at point guard, and not a great defender. The talent is clear, though, and this is a flat class once you get to this range.

27) Miami Heat – Ousmane Dieng (F, New Zealand Breakers)

Dieng is pretty far away right now, but the tools are there for him to be a versatile forward in the future. Getting him into Miami’s developmental pipeline would be fun.

28) Golden State Warriors – Harrison Ingram (F, Stanford)

Like many guys on this list, Ingram’s freshman year didn’t go according to plan. But at the same time, he’s a very good passer who plays a smart game and has defensive potential. The Warriors should’ve seen him plenty from close by and he fits better with Golden State than most teams.

29) Memphis Grizzlies – Malaki Branham (F/G, Ohio State)

This is an upside play for a guy who wasn’t really on the radar too much as a first-rounder a few months ago. Branham has come on strong, and his offensive tools are very tantalizing when paired with his size and athleticism.

30) Oklahoma City Thunder (via Phoenix) – Christian Koloko (C, Arizona)

Koloko joins Kessler and Williams among pure centers in this top-30. He’s been the best defender in the Pac-12 and has plenty of size and upside.

There has been a slew of copyright cases in the music industry as of late, from Dua Lipa getting sued for “Levitating” to Sam Smith and Normani getting sued for “Dancing With A Stranger.” Luckily, though, Katy Perry finally won her “Dark Horse” case, which dates all the way back to 2014.

In 2019, she lost the case when the jury decided that Perry replicated the underlying beat of Marcus Gray’s, aka Flame’s, 2008 Christian rap song “Joyful Noise.” After Perry appealed that decision, she ended up winning in the following year. In October of 2020, though, Gray then appealed that decision, but the federal appeals court has stuck with their previous stance, meaning Perry remains the winner in the case.

The appeal court voted 3 to 0, stating: “The portion of the ‘Joyful Noise’ ostinato that overlaps with the ‘Dark Horse’ ostinato consists of a manifestly conventional arrangement of musical building blocks. Allowing a copyright over this material would essentially amount to allowing an improper monopoly over two-note pitch sequences or even the minor scale itself.”

The reasoning is similar to Post Malone’s in his recent “Circles” case with Canadian musician Tyler Armes; Post’s lawyers claim that Armes only played an “admittedly extremely commonplace guitar chord progression.”

Some artists covered here are Warner Music artists. Uproxx is an independent subsidiary of Warner Music Group.

In the last few days, Vladimir Putin and his propaganda machine have unofficially joined forces with QAnon conspiracy theorists and trying to push out the now-many-times-debunked idea that the Russian leader’s reason for invading Ukraine was to destroy the secret bioweapons labs that America is running there. Now, as The Wrap reports, we can officially add another tiny, insecure tyrant to the list of people pushing that malarkey: Tucker Carlson.

Surprised? Of course not. The Fox News host’s whole brand is based on being an ultra-smug contrarian a**hole, a fact he highlighted on Thursday night’s show when he took the media to task for saying that these totally untrue rumors are totally untrue. Here’s how he spun it:

“You know that the Pentagon talking points you saw reported as fact on television today—and last night—were an utter lie. Did the reporters who repeated those talking points verbatim know that they were a lie? Maybe they did. On the other hand, how would they know? They didn’t bother to do any reporting what. So. Ever,”

“They got a text from some Biden administration flack and they just read it on the air like it was true. You shouldn’t be surprised because that’s what they do. And it’s possible that they’re afraid not to do that. They know if they stray from the script the White House has written for them, they’ll be denounced from the briefing room as tools of Putin.”

As The Wrap’s Ross A. Lincoln points out, Carlson also seemed to take a thinly veiled shot at his Fox News colleague, national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin, who has been one of the news network’s loudest proponents of actual reporting, writing: “In one telling aside, [Carlson] appears unmistakably to include Griffin in those accusations and insinuations.”

Looking forward to seeing more clips of Tucker aired on Russian state television.

(Via The Wrap)

Phoebe Bridgers’ 2020 album Punisher yielded a good handful of singles, but “Chinese Satellite” wasn’t one of them. Today is a good day for fans of the album track, though, as Bridgers has shared a new acoustic version of it, which she recorded at legendary Los Angeles studio Sound City (the one from the Dave Grohl documentary, yes).

The recording is part of Secretly Canadian’s 25th anniversary singles series SC25, which has the goal of raising $250,000 for Bloomington, Indiana shelter New Hope For Families.

Bridgers previously told Apple Music of the song:

“I have no faith — and that’s what it’s about. My friend Harry put it in the best way ever once. He was like, ‘Man, sometimes I just wish I could make the Jesus leap.’ But I can’t do it. I mean, I definitely have weird beliefs that come from nothing. I wasn’t raised religious. I do yoga and stuff. I think breathing is important. But that’s pretty much as far as it goes. I like to believe that ghosts and aliens exist, but I kind of doubt it. I love science — I think science is like the closest thing to that that you’ll get. If I’m being honest, this song is about turning 11 and not getting a letter from Hogwarts, just realizing that nobody’s going to save me from my life, nobody’s going to wake me up and be like, ‘Hey, just kidding. Actually, it’s really a lot more special than this, and you’re special.’ No, I’m going to be the way that I am forever. I mean, secretly, I am still waiting on that letter, which is also that part of the song, that I want someone to shake me awake in the middle of the night and be like, ‘Come with me. It’s actually totally different than you ever thought.’ That’d be sweet.”

Listen to “Chinese Satellite (Live From Sound City)” above.

Free Guy director Shawn Levy might be one of the greatest pop-action visual stylists working today, if only he could stop trying so hard to be cute. It’s fitting that he has found his muse in Ryan Reynolds, the Redditor’s Tom Hanks.

In Free Guy, Levy gave us a broad high-concept about what-if-the-NPCs-in-Fortnite-were-real, which engaged almost instantly and even groped toward profundity before dissolving into an orgy of nauseating tie-ins. In its final moments, Guy, played by Ryan Reynolds, discovers a Captain America shield and squeals fanboyishly about having a Star Wars lightsaber — as if Levy had belatedly realized that he could use any Disney or Marvel tie-in (thanks to Disney having bought 20th Century Fox, the company that produced Free Guy) and went overboard with it, like Homer Simpson with the star wipe.

Free Guy was four-fifths, maybe even seven-eighths of a good movie, that final embarrassing spectacle of corporate toadying aside, and many of us were hoping that Levy had gotten all that out of his system. After seeing his latest, The Adam Project, which opens on Netflix this week, I’m here to tell you… he has not.

Levy remains a frustratingly talented composer of visual action, the likes of which we maybe haven’t seen since vintage Spielberg or Zemeckis. Levy just can’t stop shitting “Easter eggs” all over every scene. And I mean “Easter eggs” in internet parlance: those meta-textual references to other movies the most obnoxious viewers can pat themselves on the back for recognizing. Because that’s what movies are, right? A forum to reward one’s self for having seen other movies!

If the premise of Ad Astra was “What if you had to go to space to kill your dad,” The Adam Project poses the less bellicose, “What if you had to go back in time to save your dad?”

Any time anyone goes to space or back in time in a movie, it almost always has to do with saving, killing, avenging, or proving one’s self to the protagonist’s dad. Naturally, The Adam Project plays like someone put Back To The Future, Frequency, and Guardians Of The Galaxy into a narrative blender, with an opening scene proclaiming “time travel exists, you just don’t know it yet,” leading into a spaceship dog fight set to a “Gimme Some Lovin’” needle drop. It’s a toe-tapper, and Levy excels at this kind of upbeat, PG-friendly action rendered in major key. It looks great, and you can tell what’s happening — a bar most action movies fail to clear these days, including the most recent one, The Batman.

Ryan Reynolds plays Adam Reed, a 2050 Air Force pilot fleeing the future in a stolen jet. We sort of know what we’re going to get with a Ryan Reynolds vehicle these days — winky asides, copious pop culture references, and an overwhelming air of knowing smarm. Reynolds has become the ideal mouthpiece for this style, which has been referred to variously as Buffy speak, soy dialogue (an adaptation of “soy face“), and probably 100 other names invoking Joss Whedon, post-modernism or Tumblr. Suffice it to say, you know it when you hear it. (“Well… that just happened…”).

After a suitably glib exchange with his threatening commanding officer, played by Catherine Keener, Adam zaps open a wormhole and crash lands in 2022, at his own house, in Rainier, Washington. 2022 Adam is 12 years old, played by Walker Scobell, who has a constantly shiny bottom lip for some reason. Kid Adam is tiny for his age, lives with his widowed mom (Jennifer Garner) inside what appears to be a Thomas Kinkade painting, and is always getting beat up by bullies on account of his smart mouth.

“I’m gonna enjoy this,” says the thuggish Ray (Braxton Bjerken), cocking back a fist.

“‘I’m gonna enjoy this?’” mocks Adam. “Who talks like that? Did you buy, like, a bully starter kit on Amazon or something?”

Yes, the trouble with casting Ryan Reynolds in a time travel movie is that you have to make a little kid do a Ryan Reynolds impression. And the trouble with this kind of dialogue is not that it’s self-referential so much as kind of self-defeating. Having one of your characters ask another “who talks like that?!” is a bit like the screenwriters questioning themselves out loud. Who talks like that? Your characters, apparently!

Whether you find that kind of transparency relatable (we all beat ourselves up from time to time, don’t we?), tedious (quit waffling and get to the point!), or lazy (why not just write something not corny rather than having your characters acknowledge the corniness of it?) is somewhat subjective.

For me, I found The Adam Project‘s self-referencing forgivable (or maybe just inevitable, given the people involved), and its constant references to other movies… less so. Young Adam asks older Adam, of his magic staff thingy (whose properties are never really explained), “is that a lightsaber?”

When Young Adam jumps off a high thing and lands like a tripod, he says “superhero landing!” to no one in particular. My question: Why? Were the implied references not obvious enough?

Adult Adam has returned to 2022, it turns out, in search of his wife, Laura (Zoe Saldaña), a fellow time-traveling pilot who has disappeared under mysterious circumstances. When Adam gets chased through a mossy forest by bad guys on hoverboards/gliders (choose your own reference!), it looks unmistakably like Return of the Jedi. When Laura and Adam decide that they may have to part, possibly forever, for the good of the universe, her explanation of why it’s going to be okay sounds a lot like “Don’t you remember Cloud Atlas?”

When Kid Adam asks Adult Adam whether 2050 is really so bad that it warrants these extreme measures to correct it, Adult Adam asks, “You remember Terminator? 2050 makes Terminator look like a daydream.”

My problem with all these name drops isn’t that they acknowledge the existence of movies in the Project Adam universe (hey, we also like movies!), it’s that they tend to reduce rather than to expand. They’re Band-Aids; shortcuts to understanding. What is the future like? Well, it’s like Terminator. That’s more of a barrier, a conversation stopper rather than a conversation starter. The Adam Project is a patchwork quilt of these references, and not incorporated beautifully into some whole, but crude, utilitarian things meant to cover some holes.

That’s a shame, because dammit, Shawn Levy is one of the few directors out there who can convey a sense of wonder, who can apply a genuine visual vocabulary to a family adventure PG setting. He’s constantly inspiring us to imagine something new, right before dragging us kicking and screaming back into the known. Did Spielberg have to name-drop other movies every five seconds? Okay, bad example: Spielberg referenced his pal George Lucas’s Star Wars movies in E.T. almost as often as Levy references his pal Disney’s Star Wars movies in The Adam Project. But Spielberg eventually grew out of that. …At least until he went on to direct Ready Player One, the ur-text of late 20th century nerds who could categorize and regurgitate culture without synthesizing.

The point is, Spielberg’s movies were once able to succeed in spite of their references, whereas Levy can’t seem to shake the idea that he needs these references, like pathological tics. Our own pop culture landscape in 2022 looks less like Terminator than Demolition Man, when motorists crank the volume on their stereos and sing along to commercial jingles like “Oscar Mayer Wiener.” Gee, that was swell. Remember that?

‘The Adam Project’ hits Netflix March 11th. Vince Mancini is on Twitter. You can access his archive of reviews here.

Kenan Thompson joined SNL in 2003. The musical guests that season included Jet, Clay Aiken, and N*E*R*D, while Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen hosted the season finale. He’s been there for both Trump appearances and every Lonely Island sketch.

Point is, the Good Burger star has been on SNL for awhile. Longer than anyone in the show’s history, and during last weekend’s episode, he hit another impressive milestone: Thompson is the first SNL cast member to make it to 1,500 sketches.

“Beyond blessed!! 1500?! @nbc and @nbcsnl has been my home for 19 years and counting!!!” he wrote on Instagram prior to the Oscar Isaac-hosted episode. “Love everyone that’s helped me get to this amazing milestone!!!” Thompson hit sketch #1,500 with “Home Repair Show,” and unfortunately not the deeply weird “Meatballs.” Those singing meatball men deserve it.

Ahead of season 47, Thompson said he doesn’t plan on leaving SNL any time soon. “I keep saying I’m trying to get to 20 [seasons]. So if they don’t throw me out of there before, I’m trying to get to 20. And then, I don’t know if it makes sense for me to leave even after that point. As long as the show keeps going and they want me to be there and I don’t feel like I’m in the way of somebody else’s opportunity, should I just oblige?” he told EW. “I don’t really know what to do at this point, as far as leaving is concerned. Like, why should I ever have to leave?”

As long as we get the occasional “What Up with That?,” that’s fine by me.

(Via BuzzFeed)

Just like his character Luke Skywalker in the classic Star Wars films, Mark Hamill is always ready to fight against an oppressive regime and do the right thing. In this case, and frankly, most cases, that involves pushing back against the far right, which is exactly what Hamill did this week when he used his sizable Twitter presence to mock Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill that’s expected to be passed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis.

In a tweet supporting students who are fighting against the controversial bill that will severely restrict teachers from mentioning homosexual or transgender issues in schools, Hamill wrote the word “gay” 69 times and added a rainbow emoji at the end for good measure.

Hamill’s tweet caught the attention of right wing “intellectual” Ben Shapiro, who’s been heavily involved in championing the “Don’t Say Gay” bill under the highly questionable auspice of “parental choice.” Not realizing the mistake he’s about to make, Shapiro decided to take a swing at Hamill for being a decent person who supports LGBTQ high school kids.

“So I take it you wish to indoctrinate small children into gender and sexual ideology,” Shapiro tweeted. “Because that’s the only reason you’re parroting idiotic propaganda.”

Naturally, Hamill shot back, and like a proton torpedo fired at the Death Star’s thermal exhaust port, he did not miss. “Hi Ben, I LOVE mind-reading acts!” Hamill replied. “Now guess which finger I’m holding up…”

Smoked him like a womp rat in Beggar’s Canyon.

(Via Mark Hamill on Twitter)

God only knows if Kim Kardashian planned out her latest fiasco. The reality TV star did, after all, need to drum up interest ahead of April 14, the day that Hulu debuts The Kardashians while the family tries to jump from cable to streaming. That could explain the crotchless catsuits, as well, from Kim’s SKIMS clothing line. Yet those clothing designs are particularly amusing because Kim upset a great deal of the new show’s prospective audience by declaring (to Variety), “I have the best advice for women in business.” By now, you’ve surely heard about her condescending followup: “Get your f*cking ass up and work. It seems like nobody wants to work these days.”

The backlash has been both fierce and understandable. This is particularly the case because Kim added that “no toxic work environments” should exist, and a former Kardashian app editor, Jessica DeFino, came forward to reveal how she toiled at all hours (and on all days) with pay so low that she couldn’t afford proper groceries or gas, and then DeFino was “reprimanded for freelancing on the side.” Reports and rumors of Kardashian-linked “sweatshops” have persisted (regarding their clothing lines) over the years, and as the ladies of The View put it, “People that are born on third base shouldn’t be talking about how easy it is to hit a home run.”

Kim hasn’t responded to the backlash over her words, but she did tweet these photos.

If one puts this all together, the suggestion from Kim’s quote is that the Kardashians are having difficulty finding people to work for them in this tight labor market. And yup, that’s gonna happen when one doesn’t pay a living wage and has a “get your f*cking ass up and work” attitude. And that doesn’t look fantastic when one posts lounge photos in luxury surroundings while other peeps are rising for work. So, it’s no wonder that people are coming at Kim and telling her to, you know, get to work (and they keep going).

Kim should probably have someone start drafting an apology right about now.

Rodney Barnes is a producer on Winning Time and a credited writer on the next nine episodes of the series. So there’s no one better to talk to about diving into these characters than Barnes. And as he says, it’s tricky, because we don’t always see flattering representations of these people, many of whom are still very much alive. To the point where, and I did mean this as a compliment, I could see just about every single living person depicted in Winning Time not being happy about something. Is Barnes worried about getting some angry phone calls? Not really, because, as he explains, he really did do the best he can to capture them as human beings.

Also, I asked Barnes about two specific scenes and how true they are: Without giving too much away, in an upcoming episode the Lakers pursue UNLV basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian and it turns out the mob isn’t happy about that idea. And, of course, did Kareem really tell the kid from Airplane! to fuck off?

So I was just talking to Max and was about to ask about the Jerry Tarkanian episode. I’ve never heard that before. That really happened?

It really happened.

The mob basically said you can’t take this job?

Yeah. I don’t want to give away the big reveal at the end. It really was… yes. Yes, that really happened.

There’s so much in this series that you think you kind of know the story, did that happen to you while researching?

It did. When you look at the Jack McKinney story…

Exactly.

I knew of Jack, but I did not know that Jack basically revolutionized the way basketball was played, that modern way. I came from an era when I actually played the game of basketball that was very traditional. If you tried to dunk, if you did all of this stuff, it was seen as showboating. And the way Jack McKinney was able to infuse his ideas into the game and make that running style a regular thing – and you look at how fast the NBA goes right now. For a guy who contributed to all of that stuff and is basically forgotten, to me that’s the tragedy of Jack McKinney.

It feels like he got a raw deal, not just through history, but the team, too.

Yes. Yes. That’s true. I think that’s another story that could be told in a completely different way. But for a guy who contributed so much and to not necessarily be recognized by the team in a major way, it’s kind of sad. But then again, I look at a character like Spencer Haywood as well. And when I look at the modern NBA and how guys like LeBron and Kevin Durant and all these guys can move around from team to team, a lot of that was because of Spencer Haywood.

In regards to Spencer Haywood, the player I kept thinking of was Colin Kaepernick…

Yeah!

He’s told, hey, you pissed off these white owners. They don’t forget, and they won’t let you play anymore. And it kind of hits like, well, that’s still happening.

And you had a different type of owner at the time. You had more of a Jack Kent Cooke guy and really conservative guys who looked at their team as their property. And they didn’t necessarily like guys like Spencer Haywood who were kind of rabble-rousers. And then you look at a Dr. Buss who embodied the modern owner. He fraternized with the players. He got to know them as people. They were his friends, way different than the guys that came prior.

Who was the most difficult character to capture? I have a guess.

I’m going to say Kareem.

Okay. That was my guess.

I’m going to say Kareem because the way that we start his journey – with him being kind of surly in the beginning, and to where his journey ends up – it’s hard to do that in a nuanced way without making a judgment. Because you’re still telling the story of a guy you don’t know, and you don’t want to do anything disparaging to anyone’s character in this because we love these guys. This is all out of appreciation and really being a fan of theirs. But when you’re going on a journey of an arc, and you’re trying to get to a place where you get to know this guy, and you’re telling the facts of what really happened, being able to kind of walk on that thin ice of not going too far in one direction or the other is the thing that’s always difficult.

There’s a big argument between Kareem and Magic I thought was just so well done because they both have good points. They’re both kind of right.

Yeah, and the stuff that’s under it is highly charged as well. It’s not just about basketball. Ideologically, they were so opposed to one another, where you have a guy who thinks it should be this way, and you’ve got a guy coming in that plays it a different way. And again, it speaks to the development of both Quincy Isaiah who plays Magic and Solomon Hughes who plays Kareem – two guys that had never really acted before just raising their chops from being green, for lack of a better word, to really bringing some stellar stuff to the screen.

Did that Airplane!, Kareem scene really happen where he tells the kid to fuck off?

I will say that it actually happened.

Aw, that poor kid. He loved Kareem.

Yes. What do you do? What do you do? What can you do?

What an experience that kid must have had on Airplane! with all these weird jokes being thrown in his face, and then that happens.

That’s the punctuation. That’s the stamp.

You mentioned trying to develop these characters and you’re trying to do basically right by them. Have you heard from anyone? Because, and I mean as a compliment, I could see almost every character in this, if they are still alive, being mad at you. Which means you’re getting to some sort of truth probably.

Only Norm Nixon, who I happen to know in real life.

Ah, okay.

He’s a friend, and hopefully he’s still a friend, and since his son is playing him, it’s hard to keep the secret when your son is playing you. So he was privy to information along the way, and I hope he likes what he sees when he finally sees the show.

Who would you be most worried about that you might hear from? Like if someone’s says, “Hey, Magic Johnson just called” would think that would be a positive or negative conversation?

Here’s the thing. It’s not so much of their reaction to me. I would hope that they would look at the show and see how much work we put into really capturing them as human beings. If they’re angry, I get it, because if someone was telling the story of my life, and I wasn’t a part of that storytelling, that would probably irk me and be a little weird. We don’t do anything, I believe, that is disparaging or in any way desecrates their legacy as players or people. We’re fans.

You can contact Mike Ryan directly on Twitter.

With the recent release of the six-hour Beatles documentary, Get Back, music fans have been re-examining the Fab Four’s body of work, achievements, and impact. And rightly so — the group absolutely set standards for what achievement and excellence in popular music could look like. But, what if you found out that there was another group who achieved twelve No. 1 singles, who knocked The Beatles out of the No. 1 spot on the Billboard 100 not once but three times; who appeared on the Ed Sullivan show eleven times to the Liverpudlians’ three visits; who released 20 albums between the years 1962 and 1970, and who toured and performed long after The Beatles retired from live concerts in 1966?

That group was none other than The Supremes, the Motown trio consisting of Diana Ross, Mary Wilson, and Florence Ballard. And yet, these women haven’t received half the accolades and hero worship that is attached to The Beatles. That’s because the primacy of the Fab Four as the platonic ideal of serious musicians worthy of study and consideration is deeply entrenched and unquestioned. But The Supremes made history, broke records, and set standards at a level that deserves the same level of regard.

The first argument against this position will undoubtedly be that The Supremes didn’t write their songs, nor did they play any instruments. Yes, The Supremes benefited from the same hit-making machine that all the Motown artists used — songwriters Holland-Dozier-Holland and the stellar house band, The Funk Brothers. They also greatly benefited from the creative vision of Motown founder and CEO Barry Gordy. But all of that behind-the-scenes skill and talent would have gone unheard without the voices of the three women who sang, performed, and interpreted the songs. You could try to argue that Barry Gordy could have gotten anyone else in the Motown family to sing the songs, except that the minute The Supremes became successful is when Holland-Dozier-Holland figured out how to write for Diana Ross’ voice.

The Beatles didn’t exist in a vacuum. They taught themselves to write songs by listening to and performing covers of American rhythm and blues artists. But they too were guided by seasoned professionals who had the skills to plug into The Beatles’ innate talents. Brian Epstein, the group’s manager, and George Martin, the A+R man who signed them to their record contract and produced their albums, provided equally decisive and impactful guidance and direction. Epstein influenced their visual image and presentation, and offered direction that helped the band evolve their live act to a more professional level. Martin was instrumental in piloting the band through the unwelcoming and unfamiliar recording studio process and knowledge required to successfully capture their sound on record, and remained a valued ally for life.

Both groups were incredibly successful from a commercial standpoint. Their chart histories on the all-important Billboard Hot 100 Singles chart is a literal hit parade. The Supremes reached the No. 1 position no less than twelve times within a five year period, which included five No. 1 singles in a row in 1964 and 1965: “Where Did Our Love Go,” “Baby Love,” and “Come See About Me” in 1964, then “Stop! In The Name of Love” and “Back In My Arms Again” in 1965. By comparison, The Beatles achieved 20 No. 1s, beginning with “Please Please Me” in 1963. But their activity directly impacted each other: “Come See About Me” knocked The Beatles’ “I Feel Fine” out of the No. 1 spot, “Stop! In The Name of Love” replaced “Eight Days A Week,” and in 1968, “Love Child” toppled none other than “Hey Jude,” which had stayed in the top slot for almost five months.

Both The Beatles and The Supremes toured and performed live, and once both groups hit the charts, they were constantly in demand. The Supremes got started in one of the traveling revue types of shows popularized in the 1950s, Dick Clark’s ‘Cavalcade Of Stars,’ where they started at the bottom, not even appearing on the marquee. By the tour’s end, they were the headliners due to the success of “Where Did Our Love Go.” They also toured with Berry Gordy’s own operation, the Motortown Revue, played their own headlining shows, and as part of Gordy’s strategy to move The Supremes into the mainstream, played residencies in Las Vegas and the Copacabana in New York City. The Beatles, on the other hand, followed what is now the traditional rock and roll path of playing headlining shows in theaters, arenas, and, finally, stadiums. They wound up retiring from live performance in 1966 because Beatlemania made it dangerous and artistically unrewarding. The perils the band faced while performing live, from non-stop screaming making it impossible to be heard to real physical peril from surging fans, is incredibly well-documented and obviously very real. But we hear far less about the danger Black artists like The Supremes faced touring the American South due to racism and segregation, which made simple acts like stopping for a bathroom or finding somewhere to eat literally life-threatening.

In terms of cultural influence, the stories of The Beatles’ first appearance on Ed Sullivan causing every young boy in America to run out and buy a guitar is now canon. The impact they had on the art, culture, music, and society of the 1960s is undeniable; it’s been written about, documented, discussed in a million interviews with rock and roll bands from that time forward. But The Supremes’ effect on popular culture is somehow less revered despite having effected a level of impact that is similar, if not greater in some ways. They were the first Motown act to appear on Ed Sullivan, which beamed them into exactly the same households that watched The Beatles. Oprah Winfrey has told the story about what it felt like to see The Supremes on the show, and how “every little Black girl of my generation wanted to grow up and be…Miss Ross.” And the esteemed civil rights leader Reverend Ralph Abernathy, told Diana, “Just continue to be great. Every time the white man sees you on television or in concert and becomes a fan, you are being of assistance.”

Expanding the traditional canon of popular music to include artists who should have always been considered influential doesn’t devalue the achievements of the artists who are already there. Recognizing wider definitions of influence and importance, and re-examining our criteria of interpretation provides listeners and music fans with a new vantage point that potentially enhances and enriches their enjoyment and understanding, and also provides inspiration for future musicians by giving them a wider palette to draw from. The Beatles themselves adored Motown and the American rhythm and blues that they drew from to create something that was uniquely their own. They’d likely be the first ones to agree with a more expansive definition of influence that included The Supremes.