Scarlett Johansson Joins Husband Colin Jost on SNL for Sweet Revenge
During a new episode of SNL, in the 'Weekend Update' segment, both comedians started swapping each other's jokes per tradition. In the middle of the segment, Che welcomed Johansson on the show after apologizing to her for the 'Costco roast beef' joke last December.
Scarlett Johansson and her husband, Colin Jost, recently brought in their revenge game while on a new episode of Saturday Night Live Season 50. The couple got their revenge on comedians and the show's co-host, Michael Che, for his December jokes on the 'Black Widow' actor which Jost had to read as a joke swapping tradition in the show.
During the recent episode of SNL50 in the 'Weekend Update' segment, Michael Che said, 'Before I tell another joke, I wanna take this opportunity to apologize to someone I hurt.' After that, the comedian introduced Scarlett Johansson to the audience and welcomed her on stage for the rest of the segment. The comedian then continued, 'Last time we did joke swaps, I made Colin do some tasteless jokes, comparing your vagina to Costco roast beef.'
The 'Lost in Translation' actor responded with, 'Yes, I remember that.' After that, Michael Che went on to read jokes written by his co-host and Johansson's husband, Colin Jost. It was a sweet revenge on Jost and Johansson's part, Che read, 'I was just lashing out because I'm jealous.' He continued, 'I've never seen a human vagina. Notice I said human, because I once spent a summer on a farm.' However, at the end of the segment, Johansson is seen giving a hug to Che, indicating that she had forgiven the comedian.
The post Scarlett Johansson Joins Husband Colin Jost on SNL for Sweet Revenge appeared first on Reality Tea.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pete Davidson Names The 'Humiliating' Tattoo He Totally Regrets
Pete Davidson got candid about the story behind a 'humiliating' tattoo that read, 'Jokes come and go, but swag is forever.' The 'Saturday Night Live' alum, in an appearance on 'Hot Ones,' told host Sean Evans that the ink was inspired by a conversation with Dave Chappelle after the comedian watched Davidson perform stand-up at the since-closed Knitting Factory in Brooklyn. 'Seeing him was like crazy, like 'what the fuck,'' said Davidson of Chappelle, who at the time was still on hiatus from performing himself. 'I got off stage, and he was like, 'I watched your whole set. It was really good.'' Davidson thanked Chappelle before asking him how he keeps 'coming up with new stuff' as a comedian, referring to it as a 'difficult' task at the time. 'And he goes, 'Jokes come and go, but swag is forever.' And guess who got that tattooed on his chest?' Davidson said. Davidson noted that while Chappelle was — and still is — his idol, he later covered it with the shark from 'Jaws' because he 'needed something huge to black it out.' 'I could have just told people he said that to me,' Davidson said of the tat, which was not attributed to Chappelle. 'When you see that, you think I thought of it. I didn't put, 'dash Chappelle' ... horrible.' Davidson brought up the ink when asked about his experience with his costly, yearslong process of removing hundreds of tattoos from his body. The former 'SNL' cast member told Variety back in April that he started the process — which is at least 30% complete and has cost him $200,000 — back in 2020, and it'll take him another 10 years before he removes the rest. Davidson, who has noted that he looks to keep two or three tattoos among the bunch, said he sees the process of removing most of his ink as part of his healing journey. 'I used to be a drug addict and I was a sad person, and I felt ugly and that I needed to be covered up,' he told Variety. 'So I'm just removing them and starting fresh, because that's what I think works best for me and for my brain.' Related... Oprah's Reps Address Rumors Her Estate Blocked Critical Tsunami Escape Route Kristin Davis Called This 'Sex And The City' Scene One Of The Most 'Embarrassing' To Film Harrison Ford Says Politics May Be Making A 'Healthy Swing To The Right'
Forbes
7 hours ago
- Forbes
‘Jurassic World Rebirth' Gets Streaming Release Date, Report Says
Jurassic World Rebirth, starring Scarlett Johansson, Jonathan Bailey and Mahershala Ali, is reportedly coming soon to digital streaming. Rated PG-13, Jurassic World Rebirth opened in theaters on July 2. The official summary for the film reads, 'Five years after the events of Jurassic World Dominion, the planet's ecology has proven largely inhospitable to dinosaurs. Those remaining exist in isolated equatorial environments with climates resembling the one in which they once thrived. 'The three most colossal creatures across land, sea and air within that tropical biosphere hold, in their DNA, the key to a drug that will bring miraculous life-saving benefits to humankind.' Johansson stars as Zora Bennett in Jurassic World Rebirth, while Bailey plays Dr. Henry Loomis and Ali stars as Duncan Kincaid. The film also stars Rupert Friend, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Luna Blaise, David Iacono, Audrina Miranda, Philippine Velge, Bechir Sylvain and Ed Skrein. Jurassic World Rebirth is expected to arrive on digital streaming via premium video on demand on Tuesday, Aug. 5, according to When to Stream. While the streaming tracker is typically accurate with its PVOD reports, When to Stream noted that Jurassic World Rebirth studio Universal Pictures has not announced or confirmed the film's release date on digital and it is subject to change. Jurassic World Rebirth is currently listed for pre-order on Prime Video for $29.99, which is also the film's purchase price on PVOD. Since PVOD rentals are typically $5 less than digital rental prices, viewers can expect to rent the film for $24.99 for 48 hours. In addition to Prime Video, Jurassic World Rebirth will be available on such digital platforms as Apple TV, Fandango at Home and YouTube. How Did Audiences And Critics Respond To 'Jurassic World Rebirth'? Jurassic World Rebirth is still playing in theaters. To date, the film has earned $303.3 million domestically and $418.1 internationally for a worldwide box office tally of $721.4 million. The film had a $225 million production budget before prints and advertising costs, according to The Numbers. Directed by Gareth Edwards, Jurassic World Rebirth earned a 51% 'rotten' rating from Rotten Tomatoes critics based on 374 reviews. The RT Critics Consensus for the film reads, 'Going back to basics with rip-roaring set pieces and fossilized clichés, Jurassic World Rebirth doesn't evolve this prehistoric franchise but does restore some of its most reliable DNA.' Audiences had a much more positive take on Jurassic World Rebirth, giving it a 71% 'fresh' Popcornmeter score based on 10,000-plus verified user ratings. The RT audience summary for the film reads, 'Equal parts comforting and terrifying, returning to the beloved Jurassic World is a thrill, and while predictable, Rebirth jump-starts the franchise with a dino-mite time at the movies.' Jurassic World Rebirth is expected to arrive on PVOD on Tuesday, Aug. 5.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Discourse Is Broken
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Sydney Sweeney is inexplicably reclining and also buttoning up her jeans. She's wearing a jacket with nothing underneath. She's attempting to sell some denim to women, and appears to be writhing while doing so. In a breathy voice, the actor recites the following ad copy as the camera pans up her body: 'Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color.' When the camera lands on her eyes, which are blue, she says, 'My jeans are blue.' The commercial is for American Eagle. The whole thing is a lot. The jeans/genes play is a garden-variety dad pun. But when uttered by Sweeney—a blond, blue-eyed actor whose buxomness and comfort in her own skin seems to drive everyone just a little bit insane—it becomes something else. Sweeney does not speak much about her politics (for interested parties, there are potential clues, such as a 2020 tweet supporting Black Lives Matter and a mention of having conservative relatives), but this hasn't stopped the right wing from framing her as one of their own. Her mere appearance in a plunging neckline on Saturday Night Live led the right-wing blogger Richard Hanania to declare that 'wokeness is dead.' Meanwhile, speaking about the American Eagle ad in a TikTok post that's been liked more than 200,000 times, one influencer said, 'It's literally giving Nazi propaganda.' For some, the ad copy about parents and offspring sounded less like a dictionary entry and more like a 4chan post—either politically obtuse or outrightly nefarious. Across platforms, people expressed their frustration that 'Sydney Sweeney is advertising eugenics.' One of the posters offered context for their alarm, arguing that 'historic fascist regimes have weaponized the feminine ideal,' ultimately linking femininity to motherhood and reproduction. Another said that, in the current political climate, a fair-skinned white woman musing about passing down her traits is 'uncreative and unfunny.'(To further complicate matters, before the controversy, American Eagle announced that a butterfly insignia on the jeans represented domestic-violence awareness and that the company would donate 100 percent of profits from 'the Sydney Jean' to a nonprofit crisis text line.) Are you tired? I'm tired! The trajectory of all this is well rehearsed at this point. Progressive posters register their genuine outrage. Reactionaries respond in kind by cataloging that outrage and using it to portray their ideological opponents as hysterical, overreactive, and out of touch. Then savvy content creators glom on to the trending discourse and surf the algorithmic waves on TikTok, X, and every other platform. Yet another faction emerges: People who agree politically with those who are outraged about Sydney Sweeney but wish they would instead channel their anger toward actual Nazis. All the while, media outlets survey the landscape and attempt to round up these conversations into clickable content—search Google's 'News' tab for Sydney Sweeney, and you'll get the gist. (Even this article, which presents individual posts as evidence of broader outrage, unavoidably plays into the cycle.) Although the Sweeney controversy is predictable, it also shows how the internet has completely disordered political and cultural discourse. Even that word, discourse—a shorthand for the way that a particular topic gets put through the internet's meat grinder—is a misnomer, because none of the participants is really talking to the others. Instead, every participant—be they bloggers, randos on X, or people leaving Instagram comments—are issuing statements, not unlike public figures. Each of these statements becomes fodder for somebody else's statement. People are not quite talking past one another, but clearly nobody's listening to anyone else. Our information ecosystem collects these statements, stripping them of their original context while adding on the context of everything else that is happening in the world: political anxieties, cultural frustrations, fandoms, niche beefs between different posters, current events, celebrity gossip, beauty standards, rampant conspiracism. No post exists on an island. They are all surrounded and colored by an infinite array of other content targeted to the tastes of individual social-media users. What can start out as a legitimate grievance becomes something else altogether—an internet event, an attention spectacle. This is not a process for sense-making; it is a process for making people feel upset at scale. Unfortunately for us all, our institutions, politicians, influencers, celebrities, and corporations—virtually everyone with a smartphone—operate inside this ecosystem. It has changed the way people talk to and fight with one another, as well as the way jeans are marketed. Electoral politics, activism, getting people to stream your SoundCloud mixtape—all of it relies on attracting attention using online platforms. The Sweeney incident is useful because it allows us to see how all these competing interests overlap to create a self-perpetuating controversy. Did American Eagle know what it was doing when it made the Sweeney advertisement? The company hasn't addressed the controversy, but the ad—not unlike the famous and controversial Brooke Shields Calvin Klein campaign it appears to be playing off of—seems like it was perhaps meant to walk a line, to be just controversial enough to garner some attention. Casting Sweeney to begin with supports this theory. Her image has been co-opted by the right, accurately or not, in part because of where she's from (the Mountain West) and some of her hobbies (fixing cars). Even her figure has become a cultural stand-in for the idea, pushed by conservative commentators, that Americans should be free to love boobs. (Sweeney's cultural associations with conservatism have also been helped along by an Instagram post she made in 2022 featuring photos from a 'surprise hoedown' party for her mother's 60th birthday; online sleuths found separate photos depicting guests in MAGA-style hats and 'Blue Lives Matter' gear, which led to a backlash.) A marketing executive with enough awareness of Sweeney's image and the political and cultural conversation around her might have figured that an ad featuring her talking about her good jeans would draw eyeballs. This does not mean that some of the outrage isn't culturally significant. Those who have spoken out about the advertisement aren't doing so in a vacuum: Fears over eugenics creeping into mainstream culture are empirically grounded—just glance at some aspects of the very public and loud pronatalist movements, which have been supported by influential people such as Elon Musk. Proud eugenicists have found purchase in mainstream culture on platforms such as X. The Trump administration is making white-supremacist-coded posts on X and enacting cruel immigration policies, complete with military-style ICE raids and imprisonment in a makeshift gulag in the Florida swamps. That's the real context that the ad was dropped into. It makes sense that, as one commentator noted, the ad might feel like it is part of 'an unbridled cultural shift toward whiteness.' But all of this reality is stripped away by opportunists across the internet. The right-wing-media ecosystem is excellent at cherry-picking examples that look, to their audiences, like egregious examples of so-called snowflake behavior. MAGA influencers and Fox News prime-time segments feed off this type of content, which allows their audiences to feel morally superior. Very real concerns about the political direction of the country and the emboldening of bigots are reduced to: Democrats are triggered by cleavage. The right-wing-media apparatus has every incentive to go at the Sweeney stuff, as the MAGA coalition struggles to distract its base from Donald Trump's Epstein-files debacle. But it's not only the right that cherry-picks. In their rush to publish viral news stories explaining the controversy, the media credulously grab examples of supposed outrage—regardless of whether the accounts in question have tens of thousands of followers (and actual influence) or just a handful. One BuzzFeed story quoted an Instagram comment from a user who is not a public figure, just a person with 119 followers. This kind of amplification, where nonpublic figures become stand-ins for public opinion, is a dangerous game. It distorts the conversation, sending a flood of attention to posts from small accounts, often in the form of other users who pile on and excoriate the original poster. In turn, this leads to the otherwise inconsequential post taking on the appearance of relevance, causing more outrage. What ends up happening in these scenarios is that everyone gets very mad, in a way that allows for a touch of moral superiority and is also good for creating online content. The Sweeney ad, like any good piece of discourse, allows everyone to exploit a political and cultural moment for different ends. Some of it is well intentioned. Some of it is cynical. Almost all of it persists because there are deeper things going on that people actually want to fight about. The polarized discourse obscures the real possibility that the majority of people encountering this ad are uninvested, passive consumers. Rather than having any conviction at all about the entire affair, they're consuming this discourse the way that people consume sports content about player infighting in a locker room or the way that people read celebrity gossip. Perhaps this is why American Eagle hasn't issued a panicked statement about the ad or why its stock price, barring a small fluctuation, hasn't changed much. For some, the stakes are high; for others, this is content to be consumed in a moment of boredom. The internet loves Sweeney—not as one might love, say, a person, but as one might love an object, an atomic unit of content. Her image is fawned over but also analyzed, co-opted, and monetized. She is savvy enough to get a piece of this action too—hence selling her bathwater and these jeans. But the internet loving you, it should be said, is not often a good thing. Its desire is limitless. It ingests a person and slowly turns them into a trend, a main character, a thing that people struggle to speak normally about. Perhaps the impulse to label these predictable culture-war moments as discourse reflects a need to make all the anger and fighting mean something. Discourse suggests a process that feels productive, maybe even democratic. But there's nothing productive about the end result of our information environment. What we're consuming isn't discourse; it's algorithmic grist for the mills that power the platforms we've uploaded our conversations onto. The grist is made of all of our very real political and cultural anxieties, ground down until they start to feel meaningless. The only thing that matters is that the machine keeps running. The wheel keeps turning, leaving everybody feeling like they've won and lost at the same time. Article originally published at The Atlantic Solve the daily Crossword
