Latest news with #SupermanII
Forbes
26-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Forbes
Superman Returns (Again) - How James Gunn's Reboot Defines DC's Future
This summer, you will believe a man can fly again. And again. And again. Superman returns to the big screen on July 11th this summer in writer-director (and DC Studios co-CEO) James Gunn's reboot that will define DC's future on the big screen. David Corenswet stars in "Superman." Gunn's film is Superman's eighth solo feature film and the character's twelfth live-action movie appearance, counting 1951's hour-long Superman and the Mole Men starring George Reeves in what was essentially a low-budget cinematic pilot launching The Adventures of Superman TV series a year later. Reeves' Superman was actually quite faithful to the depiction and persona in the early Superman comic strips, while his Clark was less cowardly and more of an intrepid reporter like Lois – they competed, and it was part of their friendly repertoire. The 1978 one that started it all, Superman: The Movie, offered a comics-accurate adaptation of the character in all of his earnest corny charm. Christopher Reeve was born to the play the role if anyone was, making Clark Kent and his costumed alter ego two distinct performances that could've been played by different actors. Reeve's Clark put on a bumbling and cowardly display, in line with much of the early comic strip stories, but only gradually incorporated more of the investigative reporter elements. Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor is an evil mad scientist with plans for destruction and domination, armed with Kryptonite and a subterranean lair shared. Superman stops crime, saves people from disasters, rescues kittens from trees, and demonstrates all of his famous powers in what were then eye-popping visual effects promoted as making you believe a man could fly. And in 1978, it did. Superman II continued the approach of the first film, with superhuman villains threatening the world and Lex Luthor once again with his grubby fingers in the mix. Superman, however, is feeling disenchanted with his role as Earth's protector at the expense of his own personal happiness – namely, a love life with Lois Lane. The extended fight sequence in the middle of Metropolis offered even more dramatic action spectacle than the first film, and firmly established superhero cinema as a modern force to be reconned with. But Superman III, for all of its charm – and there's much charm to be found, from Reeve's never less than 100% effort and performance to one of the coolest scenes in any Superman movie when Clark Kent does battle with his own cape-wearing identity. Still, the plot and production values were weak and the film relied heavily on camp and a comedic turn by Richard Pryor. Superman IV was the worst of the bunch, by a wide margin. Terrible visual effects, bad plot, ridiculous villain, a cast who mostly sleepwalk through their roles – with the exception again of Reeve, who commits to the role fully and sells the themes about disarmament even while the movie falls apart around him. Superman Returns was a worthy if flawed sequel to the first two Superman films, ignoring the third and fourth movie completely. Brandon Routh was a great Superman and could've made the role his own if given the time. Alas, the film's choice not to have Superman fight anybody, the love triangle and dominance of relationship drama, and the addition of a son were controversial choices among different corners of the audience and fandom. Routh's Clark and Superman were treated as mostly the same person, frankly, and Clark had only a few hints of Reeve's more comically bumbling persona, yet also lacked any notable distinctions as a character from his costumed alias. So it was that after five films across 28 years, Superman's next appearance would finally be a reboot for new generations. Man of Steel in 2013 introduced a very different type of Superman in Henry Cavill, with a grounded deconstructive approach similar to the popular billion dollar Dark Knight Batman trilogy from director Christopher Nolan. Nolan's 'grandfathering' of Man of Steel and David Goyer's script brought the same sensibilities the pair brought to Batman Begins, and combined with Zack Snyder's directing it established a mythic scale and counterpoint to Marvel Studio's MCU approach (which had just scored $1.5 billion with The Avengers a year prior). The desaturated colors, somber tone, and questioning of Superman's place in the world – indeed, questioning whether humanity deserves him or is ready for him – were unexpected approaches and combinations at a time when Marvel's more mainstream and colorful, family-friendly approach had made superhero cinema the dominant force at the box office. Still, Man of Steel shared a great deal in common with Superman and Superman II. The origin story begins on Krypton and brings Kal-El to Earth, young Clark sets off in the world to find his purpose, and he discovers his origins via hologram of his father in a Kryptonian structure in the Arctic, all mirroring the 1978 film. Then comes the arrival of General Zod and his two primary compatriots – a warrior woman and a silent hulking brute – who do battle with Superman around the city, causing much destruction and threatening the life of Lois Lane and her Daily Planet coworkers. Now add in Superman losing his powers temporarily when Zod's crew first arrives and needing to regain his powers via help from his father, Superman's flight high over Earth as he zooms toward the camera, and a few other homages. (Maybe even at least consider that the theatrical version of Superman II seemed to suggest Superman killed Zod, Ursa, and Non, dropping them down into the freezing shafts of his Fortress of Solitude and then seen flying away with Lois in his arms. Deleted footage showed the trio of villains taken into custody. Interestingly, the theatrical film also implied Superman left Lex Luthor stranded in the Arctic as well.) Cavill's Clark was an interesting throwback to George Reeves' intrepid reporter, lacking the bumbling personality and other aspects that perhaps drew more attention to Clark than if he just acted like a regular guy who was trying to be good at his job – few people would expect Superman to spend most of his life wearing glasses and a suit so that he could be a newspaper reporter of no notable personal distinction other than good local reporting. It's actually maybe the smartest play. So Man of Steel was at once a nod to everything audiences generally knew and had seen from Superman on the big screen, but all of it modernized and made more serious, with upgraded visual effects to turn every super-powered event into an operatic and often destructive force. Viewers mostly liked or loved it, contrary to how its reputation is perceived these days – it earned an A- Cinemascore from audiences, and while considered 'Rotten' by site standards it still enjoys majority-positive reviews from critics at 57%. Whatever flaws it had, it seemed audiences were intrigued enough and entertained enough to want to see more of this new Superman. Again, the proximity to The Dark Knight Trilogy and some of the same creative team members created the sense we could get a Superman trilogy comparable to the magic they worked with Batman. Instead of standalone Superman movies like Nolan's Batman series, however, Man of Steel quickly evolved into a shared-universe setup. The most obvious choice, and one not just rumored but indeed investigated by Warner at the time, was to use The Dark Knight series and Man of Steel as part of the same new DC shared universe of films. But Nolan balked, and the studio agreed to honor a promise not to use his Batman again. With a new Caped Crusader installed, Man of Steel's sequel became 2016's Batman v Superman. And now the deconstruction dominated the proceedings, something many of us loved but which most audiences felt was just too much too fast. Superman's death at the end of the film, after only his second cinematic appearance, was a big surprise and upset many fans. Superman's entire purpose was questioned in the film, not just by society and by other heroes like Batman (who sought to literally murder Superman), but even by Lois Lane and ultimately Superman himself. Notice that this is one of the few films – Superman III being the other – in which the character's life and work as Clark gets as much attention and screen time (and is more important to the story, if you think about it) than his costumed heroics and battles. While Batman v Superman scored $874 million at the worldwide box office, it was short of the $1 billion threshold Warner Bros. was chasing and shy of the roughly $900 million that would've been enough to avoid panic and to make more modest course-corrections. Instead, leadership already convinced nobody cared about Superman (because they didn't, apparently) wanted to veer even further away from the original plans and sequels, upending a planned Justice League trilogy of team-up films at the first signs of box office trouble. But the trouble started before Batman v Superman was even released, because the same leadership reacting so badly to the film's results were the ones who demanded cuts to reduce Superman's screen time and gutting the emotional and informational reasons for the film's central conflict. The extended version of the film reveals how much Superman's own arc and story were gutted, and how much the reasoning for society's backlash against him took place. The next time Cavill's Superman appeared on screen in the DCEU was the Frankenstein's monster of Justice League in 2017, a box office failure that was the beginning of the end for the shared DC universe, even though most people didn't fully realize it at the time. Only Aquaman with a fantastic $1 billion run managed to avoid the curse, as the next nine DCEU films in a row each grossed less than $450 million worldwide – indeed, six of them grossed less than $300 million, so bad was the mainstream worldwide rejection. Theatrical Justice League's Superman starts out dead, wakes up crazy and attacks the other superheroes, and flies away with Lois for several hours and hangs out in some nice romantic scenes and hugs his mom while the other superheroes are desperately trying to find the space-demon who is about to destroy Earth and enslave the universe. Then he shows up at the climactic battle just in time to save the day. But at no point is there any difference between who he is when he's wearing burial clothes, farm clothes, or a super-suit. Clark and Superman aren't treated differently, except that Clark is 'dead' in a small obituary in the newspaper and his resurrection will be harder to explain to the world than Superman's. Clark starts out being the same guy he is as Superman in Man of Steel, then Clark evolves into a reporter whose work is most central to his role and arc in Batman v Superman, and then Clark is gone in Justice League… or is it Superman who's gone, since we're back to the man he was in Man of Steel in those regards? He's just himself both in and out of the suit. Except both were dead, and now only 'Superman' was resurrected by his costumed peers to fight to save the planet. It's confusing, right? Maybe it should be, maybe that's part of the point about deconstructing costumed heroes with secret identities, or without them, or somewhere in between. Those are themes and questions the theatrical version doesn't remotely seem interested in exploring or reflecting, even though we can feel it baked somewhere deep into the ideas of this story. Where did they go? The answer didn't take long to arrive. Zack Snyder's Justice League – released on HBO Max in 2021, after the studio repeatedly insisted it didn't exist and/or would never be released – showed us what might've been, if the studio had delayed release and let the filmmaker return to complete his project. Ironically, if after Aquaman's billion dollar success we'd gotten a two-part Justice League cinematic 'event' that basically split Snyder's version of the film into two two-hour parts generating at least $1 billion combined, then the DCEU's reputation would've been much better and might've sustained itself. And who knows, maybe in that scenario, James Gunn writes his Superman screenplay but as a reunion with Snyder (they teamed on 2004's Dawn of the Dead) in a Man of Steel sequel. Coulda-woulda-shoulda aside, the point is Superman felt flat in the theatrical Justice League and sported laughably bad CGI to cover up his mustache, but he soared and redeemed the entire DCEU in ZSJL. He was a redemptive and inspiring character, a symbol of hope even to Batman. Clark was indeed back to the man he'd been in Man of Steel, except wiser and now sure of the man he both wanted and needed to be, as his father and mother always told him. His arc wasn't treated as an afterthought to a Batman-focused team-up. This was the Superman Cavill was supposed to be, meant to become, planned even, but the studio just never could wrap their heads around it. And as tragic as that is, whatever caused the collapse of public trust in DC cinema, the result is the same. There just wasn't enough interest anymore from mainstream moviegoers to risk hundreds of millions of more dollars to try to course-correct again with a DCEU far removed from its origins and struggling for direction and tone. After Snyder's departure, no oversight of the DCEU ever had a chance to get set up and deliver its plan. Everything was in flux, leadership changed, and things were too far gone by the end to hope to revive them if that revival counted on audiences showing up and trusting the DCEU after nine straight years of obvious rejection. Superman himself needed a reintroduction to the public. And now, he's getting one. Tasked with building a new cinematic DC, Gunn and his co-CEO partner Peter Safran came up with a game plan that kicks off the new live-action big-screen DCU with this summer's Superman, starring David Corenswet looking every bit a worthy successor. James Gunn's Superman is a clear return to the tone and style of the Christopher Reeve era in many ways, but modernized and with an idealized Metropolis akin to Superman Returns (the only Superman movie that made Metropolis feel like a unique place with a personality and 'look'). But it also clearly mirrors certain elements of the DCEU as well, and in fact carries over some characters and story arcs that will overlap both the DCEU and new DCU. Indeed, the trailer and much of what the story is doing seems like it wouldn't take much to imagine this as a soft sequel to Man of Steel and the aftermath of Zack Snyder's Justice League – including thematically suggesting heroes need to try to be heroic, not always so antiheroic as became perhaps too popular across the genre to some degree, and to embrace their status as role-models and inspirations by appealing to humanity's better nature and presenting themselves in positive redemptive ways. Which is to say, Gunn is in the envious position of having plenty of different approaches to look at and figure out what worked, what didn't work, and how to cherrypick the best perspectives and approaches and influences to create something new and yet honoring the legacy of what came before. It's no surprise this film's original working title was Superman: Legacy. Let's break down some of the key choices Gunn makes. The comparisons to the first two Reeve films are obvious, in the return of the trunks and the Fortress of Solitude's appearance, as well as some more overt sense of humor and bright colorful embrace of the superhero comic book inspirations. There's also what looks like a somewhat more awkward persona for Clark again, too. The 1978 Superman film established the template that's been used pretty consistently for most of the successful superhero movies, and in particular Marvel's MCU found tremendous success by precisely emulating and merely modernizing the same template originated in Superman. So for those who felt the DCU needed to pay more attention to what makes Marvel's films so consistently popular and successful, it's notable that the MCU got its own approach from Superman, and that Gunn seems to be returning to a strong application of that same approach again. But Gunn knows DC is not Marvel, and one of the reasons I felt immediately comfortable with Gunn running the creative show for DC is because of the Gods and Monsters framing of his plans to reboot these films. DC uses the characters and their personal stories to talk about the larger mythic stories and themes, whereas Marvel uses the larger mythic stories and themes as frameworks to tell and examine personal stories. It's a slight shift in perspective, like the way Superman/Clark suggests the 'nerd' or ordinary person is secretly super-powered but Spider-Man/Peter suggests the super-powered person is really secretly just a nerdy ordinary person. Gunn's previous DC work in Suicide Squad and Peacemaker, combined with his Guardians of the Galaxy movies for Marvel (which are among the superhero movies that speak most to me on a deeply personal level) have already demonstrated how well he understands the differences in perspectives and themes and storytelling between DC and Marvel, and that he can apply the superhero cinematic template exactly the right way for the right characters and story – he's batting a thousand as far as I'm concerned. The inclusion of Krypton is going to prove pivotal to why Superman will probably be a big hit and earn at least in the neighborhood of $700-800 million, in my too-early guesstimate. Families will turn out this time, and if the film is as good as the trailers suggest and hits that tone just right as I suspect Gunn will do (again, as he always does), the word of mouth will be relief and joy, and audiences will reward it. There's every reason for it to succeed, when looked at this way. On the other hand, I have to be honest that there is another way to look at it. Here is where I find myself worried. Gunn isn't stepping into pre-existing superhero worlds with blockbuster branding to tell these stories, as he did with Guardians and Suicided Squad. He's starting one from scratch, and has to build atop the previous failures without much room for error. DC also previously tried to jumpstart their big-screen plans by leapfrogging to a pre-existing superhero world – they started with a solo Superman movie, even. And they did it alongside everyone's memories of a separate grounded blockbuster Batman franchise. Even the trailers for Superman have echos of the Man of Steel and Batman v Superman trailers, including starting with Superman falling out of the sky into a desolate Arctic area. There's the darker and dirty costume, there are protests against him, there are a bunch of other superhero cameos fighting a big monster destroying a city, there's an alien spaceship over the city. It all looks different and also the same, which is probably the intent. Win over those who loved what came before, show those who disliked what came before a version of 'this is what it should've done, right?' And for anyone who sat it out, give them a new entry point that might finally mix enough of the right ingredients to win them over – including Marvel fans, which is everybody basically these days due to the MCU. Part of my concern is, we're still only a couple of years from the last DCEU movie, and I don't know that the sour taste in mainstream audiences' mouths has faded enough yet. Part of me believes the smartest move would've been to make Matt Reeves' The Batman series the fast-track priority and hold back Superman a couple of more years, so Batman could revive enthusiasm for DC properties again and Marvel will have done the heavy lifting of getting Hollywood over the genre's sluggish performance lately. That's all without the issue of Superman having to release in competition with Marvel's Fantastic Four: First Steps just two weeks later. Man of Steel at least gave Iron Man 3 a month of distance. So my gut would've made me consider this scenario instead: release The Batman Part II in 2026, then follow up with Superman in 2027 (and hey, with that already filmed and ready, they'd also have Supergirl and probably another project ready to go, so they'd be way ahead of the curve and better able to do softer course-corrections as events unfold). Since that scenario keeps DC out of cinemas for too long, however, in this case I'd probably also have begged Matt Reeves to edit The Penguin series into two 2-hour 45-minute feature films – Part 1 and Part 2, released at Halloween and Christmas in 2024 – and include a couple of cameos of Batman, even just a stuntman in the costume if necessary and maybe reuse some clips of Bruce Wayne and Batman from the events of The Batman film. I keep bringing up what-if scenarios to demonstrate how and why DC cinema got to where it is, including potential good alternatives that might have existed along the way. Because none of those things happened of course, and whatever my own gut would've told me to do in similar situations, the people now running DC Studios made billions of dollars making movies and have access to far more information than I do, obviously. We are here, and despite any other possible outcomes and choices, the fact is Superman looks like exactly the movie Superman and DC needed, at the time it needed it, regardless of how it had to get here. But is it the movie audiences want right now? The stakes couldn't be higher, not only for DC and Warner as corporations, but also for Superman and for Gunn. If Superman is perceived as a failure or underperforms, I strongly suspect WBD will pivot to prioritizing The Batman and developing out that world while putting the rest of the DCU plans on hold, aside from finishing projects already in development that cost more to shutter than finish. They can't just wait to see how Supergirl performs while also investing hundreds of millions more dollars into plans that just stumbled out the gate yet again, so soon after the DCEU's failure. They'll have to make big choices if Superman isn't a blockbuster success. My guess (again, this and 10 bucks gets you a cup of coffee – inflation strikes again) is that if Superman fails to launch, then Gunn and Safran will need to find a way to convince Matt Reeves to develop the larger Batman world – Robin, Batgirl, Nightwing, and so on – faster and with more hands on deck (like with The Penguin series) over the next five years. Then, they could use that larger world of streaming series and films to push boundaries of grounded realism a bit, while changing their own DCU plans to incorporate them into the expanded DC world Reeves has built around Batman. Think back to my point about using The Penguin as feature films, and why that would've been worth considering in an alternate scenario for DC Studios' plans. You think two Penguin movies that good, tied into a blockbuster Batman franchise, with a budget per film of about $50 million, wouldn't have turned a tremendous profit? Maybe earned Colin Farrell an Oscar nod? And at the box office, even if they performed as weakly as Joker: Folie à Deux, that's good for at least $400 million and probably considerably more, considering the popularity and widespread acclaim for The Penguin. Put the Arkham Asylum project into development again, and the Gotham PD series. Easy choices to make, and there's the Clayface movie that would need to be rolled into the Batman franchise universe as well. Meanwhile, use the script for The Batman Part II and plans for future films to develop a Batgirl movie spinoff and get into production in 2026 to announce it as part of the promotion for Part II. See how quickly and easily it can be to pivot to the safer bat-bet, and meanwhile use existing plans to merely lay groundwork for a relaunch within the context of Reeves' Batman world? It's even possible that, after such a pivot, Gunn and Safran could simply restart their existing plans with mere tweaks to utilize the popularity of the branding created around The Batman universe. This is just five years, remember, and Superman and Supergirl plus a couple of other projects, as well as The Batman Part II, will all already be released by that point regardless, so I merely propose putting the remaining four years into building Reeves' world with a Batgirl movie, Clayface movie, and Part III of the Batman crime saga, while putting out Arkham Asylum and Gotham PD, and then unpause the DCU plans but with tweaks so Reeves' Batman world is part of the DCU. Like it or not, if Superman fails then I think the smartest move is to double down on what is known to work – Batman, in the form he exists right now with The Batman and The Penguin – and use that to build. It's the opportunity that WB and DC will have had but rejected twice in a row (by ending Nolan's Batman, and by not building a DCU around Reeves' plans at the start), so any negative outcome this summer will present a 'third time's the charm' opportunity. I'd guess the studio takes it in that situation, since at the very least it's the closest thing to a sure bet they've got with anything from DC (especially in a scenario where their best effort with Superman doesn't work). But notice, it doesn't preclude still also using the existing future plans for the DCU and for The Batman series. In fact, if Superman doesn't do well enough, there's still a chance to pivot the marketing around Supergirl as the plans to pivot toward Reeves' bat-world develop and take shape. In this worst-case scenario for Superman and DC Studios' current plans, Supergirl could even hypothetically be delayed to 2027, until The Batman Part II can reset public sentiment again and the announcements of other Batman projects sets the stage for a rebranded Supergirl film released with that new messaging and marketing. Use The Batman Part II to heavily trumpet Supergirl and get fans to show up, spread the word, and make the film a success. What's clear to me is that, if Superman is a blockbuster hit, then DC and WB are sitting pretty with the likelihood of a lot more success ahead from both the DCU and the standalone The Batman franchise. But what's also clear is that, however things turn out, I think DC will have good options for what comes next. If Superman is only a moderate success instead of a big hit, then things can still continue as planned with Supergirl and more projects to help further boost the DCU and add turn that moderate success into a healthy foundation for greater success, while The Batman sequels still deliver their own rewards. And if Superman is a disappointment, then The Batman series can take over fairly quickly as the center of gravity for DC plans, as noted, and existing plans can be adjusted to fit things together. It isn't hard for Batman's own movies and world to be more grounded, while his crossover with other DC heroes let him play in more fantastical stories. The comics work fine that way, and I bet the overwhelming majority of audiences would've been not just fine with but actually thoroughly thrilled by seeing The Dark Knight world overlap with Man of Steel. I'd argue that in fact, Batman Begins could've easily stood alongside Wonder Woman and a version of Man of Steel that looked closer to Gunn's Superman visually and tonally, and audiences would've loved it. Whatever my concerns about Superman's obstacles, I think my faith in Gunn's filmmaking combined with my faith in Reeves' filmmaking leads me to conclude that Gunn sees the crucial difference right now between his situation and where things stood in 2013 with Nolan's Batman and the desire to build a shared world with Man of Steel is that Nolan's Batman had just concluded, while Reeves' Batman is just beginning. Gunn knows he can launch his Superman and see whether or not he needs to build around Batman or not, without fear of losing that Batman altogether in the first place. Which allows the studio to go all-in on Superman, as they seem to be smartly doing. Supergirl likewise has a backup path to success, and thus is in a comfortable spot. Not that anybody wants anything to go wrong, but if things do, then the studio won't face impossible choices and lost opportunities while lacking any backup plans. There's always even the outlier option of using the delay as an excuse to license DCEU properties – meaning specific existing scripts and plans, for a specific set of films within the context of the DCEU, including a solo Batman project and a couple of Justice League sequels, as well as a Wonder Woman sequel and the Batgirl movie – to Netflix or Apple (indeed, Apple has deep pockets to pay well for licensing such major properties for a set of streaming-exclusive superhero movie releases) for animated movies appealing to fans of the Snyderverse. Why not? It's free money, someone else does all the work, and you know there's a built-in audience and another streamer would pay handsomely. Throw in exclusive rights to stream the DCEU collection of films to that same streamer, and in the event the DCU plans have to be postponed while The Batman builds out a new world, this licensing idea is a good option to keep generating revenue for DC and find ways to engage audiences where they are, until the feature film plans get back on track again. I say that partly to poke those who claim licensing such content is somehow not possible, but mostly it's to say there are plenty of good options even in the unlikely event Gunn's and Safran's plans don't work out with Superman. Instead of the potential chaos and 'break the company up and sell it' fears that might seem obvious in such a situation, I think this all spells out how smartly positioned the studio is right now, and why they don't feel a need to rush projects or announcements or plans. Superman lives, and this summer he intends to give us all a reason to look up again.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
NBA Icon Shaq Says A Text From His Mom Saying 'Good Job, Baby' Matters More To Him Than Making $15 Million Off A Business Deal
For someone who's made more money off the court than most athletes do in a lifetime, Shaquille O'Neal keeps his priorities remarkably grounded — and personal. In a video posted last week by veteran San Antonio sportscaster Don Harris, the NBA Hall of Famer revisited his old high school where his legend first started taking shape. "My favorite movie is Superman II, where he goes back to the North Pole or wherever he from and gets his power back," he said. "So every time I'm in San Antonio, I always come here." Don't Miss: 'Scrolling To UBI' — Deloitte's #1 fastest-growing software company allows users to earn money on their phones. Here's what Americans think you need to be considered wealthy. Driving through the streets where he grew up, Shaq reflected on the early days — when his biggest dream wasn't private jets or multi-million-dollar endorsements, but to make $800,000 a year, buy a modest house, a Mercedes, and a Jimmy Blazer. "By the time I got there," he admitted, "the money was just so enormous." Shaq may have earned over $280 million during his NBA career and gone on to invest in everything from Krispy Kreme to real estate and his own Big Chicken restaurant chain. He's backed brands like Papa John's and Google, and built an empire with more than 50 business ventures over the years — but none of that, he says, matters more than the values his parents instilled. Harris asked about his entrepreneurial drive. "That came from my dad," Shaq said. "He was great at telling me how great I was not." His father hammered home one warning: don't end up like the 67% of pro athletes who are broke within five years of retirement. "That wasn't going to be me." Trending: The secret weapon in billionaire investor portfolios that you almost certainly don't own yet. His mom and dad also shaped his character — and his approach to giving. His "Shaq-a-Clause" initiative, which gives away toys to thousands of children every Christmas, is just one of the ways he gives back. "Everything I've done that's been charitable, that's my mother and father." But the viral moment came when Shaq explained what success actually feels like now: "If I can get a text from my mother that says 'Good job, baby,' that's better than receiving a text that says, 'Oh, you have gained $15 million interest off a company you bought.' Those texts mean nothing." Shaq doesn't want to be remembered for the money or fame — just as someone who made people smile. "He was a nice guy," he said. And for Shaq, that's the kind of legacy you can't measure in net worth. Read Next: Hasbro, MGM, and Skechers trust this AI marketing firm — . With shares starting at $1.52, . Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article NBA Icon Shaq Says A Text From His Mom Saying 'Good Job, Baby' Matters More To Him Than Making $15 Million Off A Business Deal originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Sign in to access your portfolio
New York Times
21-03-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Silicon Valley Has Gone From ‘Think Different' to ‘Yes, Sir'
It is painfully obvious that we should be concerned about Silicon Valley's growing influence over the United States government. It is not normal to have a business owner like Elon Musk, whose financial interests are closely entwined with government policies, ordering around cabinet officials, securing access to sensitive databases and using the Oval Office as a pulpit like General Zod in 'Superman II.' It is alarming when the administration weakens the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is investigating Meta, not long after Mark Zuckerberg, Meta's chief executive, publicly curried favor with President Trump. But there is another, less obvious concern with the increasingly cozy relationship between Silicon Valley and the government: the corrupting effect on Silicon Valley itself. Silicon Valley is hardly a paragon of corporate integrity, and it has its origins in the Cold War defense industry. But its new relationship with government, marked by a thirst for political power and fat government contracts, is a major departure. Silicon Valley once prided itself, often with justification, on its libertarian, countercultural, do-gooder ethos. Thanks to figures such as Mr. Musk, Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen, the industry is now on a trajectory to become all the things it once claimed to hate: too big and too dependent on government largess — and a threat to human liberty. One can romanticize the California computing culture of the 1960s and '70s, but it was a significant shift from the stodgy, establishment world of companies like IBM and AT&T. As promulgated by counterculture mavericks like Stewart Brand, the original Silicon Valley ideology sought to combine the business of computing with the enlightened pursuit of human progress. As Fred Turner, a historian of the movement, characterized its aspiration, 'What the communes failed to accomplish, the computers would complete.' Those ideals were never fully realized (and too often were betrayed), but they still managed to influence how Silicon Valley did business. In the 1970s, '80s and '90s, the most successful companies tended to be founded by rebellious outsiders: Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak of Apple, Mitch Kapor of Lotus, everyone at Sun Microsystems, Craig Newmark of Craigslist. These people had quit larger companies to 'think different,' questioning conventional wisdom and embracing the risk of failure. Yes, there was a taste for wealth, but building great stuff was a higher value. Few of the internet's inventors cashed in. It makes sense, given the industry's aversion to rules and conformity, that Silicon Valley long kept a distance from Washington. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit founded to defend the tech industry's ideals, deliberately avoided having a Washington headquarters. People with government experience have always found work in the tech sector, and vice versa, but as an industry, Silicon Valley had its focus elsewhere. It was more interested in sponsoring the Sundance Film Festival than shelling out for a seat at the inauguration of a U.S. president. Today this set of values is being overtly challenged. The first important Silicon Valley figure to proudly depart from the industry ethos was Mr. Thiel, the billionaire investor who helped found PayPal and who has always preferred the Übermensch to the underdog. 'Zero to One,' a book on start-ups that he published in 2014, called on every company to seek a monopoly to call its own, insisting that 'competition is for losers.' He co-founded a data-analytics company, Palantir, whose main customers have been the National Security Agency, the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. He was the first high-profile tech mogul to endorse Mr. Trump for president, which he did in 2016 — and presumably the first to openly question the merits of democracy, which he did in an essay in 2009. But it is Mr. Musk who is now the definitive counter-icon to Mr. Jobs. Mr. Musk is a tech founder who courts government power and money while attacking countercultural causes. Standards erode when they are violated without consequence, and this is how Mr. Musk is destroying the Silicon Valley spirit. He has not been punished for his departure from it but rewarded with wealth, power and status. By contrast, companies like Facebook and Google, despite purporting to pursue lofty ideals ('Don't be evil'), have been publicly vilified and legally challenged over the past decade as they've grown larger and more powerful. That lesson — play nice but get shamed anyhow — seems to have convinced figures like Mr. Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos of Amazon that the old Silicon Valley ideals were for suckers, the sort of virtues that Nietzsche belittled as a 'slave mentality.' If everyone is going to think you are big and evil anyhow, you might as well ditch the noblesse oblige and embrace being big and evil. This shift in Silicon Valley's attitude is most pronounced in its sudden fondness for military money. Mr. Musk and Mr. Thiel are military contractors, with Mr. Musk and his companies having received approximately $38 billion in public funds. Palantir also earns most of its income from government: Its $200 billion valuation on a mere $3 billion in revenue reflects a widespread impression that Mr. Thiel is a government favorite. Silicon Valley venture capital has also become interested in military money, and here it is Mr. Andreessen who serves as a bellwether of change. He began his career in the 1990s as an underdog founder whose company, Netscape, was crushed by the mighty Microsoft, and he spent most of his career investing in idiosyncratic start-ups. But in recent years his investment company has poured money into military technology. At the same time, Mr. Andreessen — who supported Mr. Trump for president in 2024 after years of supporting Democrats — has become the evangelist of techno-optimism, a philosophy described by the Wired columnist Steve Levy as 'an over-the-top declaration of humanity's destiny as a tech-empowered superspecies.' Like characters in an Ayn Rand novel, Mr. Musk, Mr. Thiel and Mr. Andreessen may believe that they have torn off the blinders of convention to seize the greatness they deserve. But their approach may actually weaken Silicon Valley in the long term. The industry's embrace of government power and money threatens what has made it an engine of innovation and a magnet for creative talent. Most government-funded monopolies grow fat and lazy; today's dynamic aerospace company becomes tomorrow's Boeing. A culture of risk taking and innovative product design is less valuable than knowing where to donate money when it comes to landing large government contracts. You don't need the best and brightest coders to do that; if anything, you are likely to alienate them. If there is any reason for hope, it is that the current transformation in Silicon Valley has been largely top down, driven by a handful of powerful executives. I suspect that most employees in the tech industry remain interested in building good products, not in overthrowing democracy or achieving a dark enlightenment. A bottom-up resistance would come from engineers and founders who dislike politics and want to get back to building tools that help people. We should also keep in mind that most people who enter Mr. Trump's orbit are hurled out at some point, damaged or destroyed. Mr. Musk is running hot; his car company, Tesla, has lost more than $700 billion since December; he seems destined to crash and burn. If he does, it will offer Silicon Valley a lesson in the wisdom of its older ways.
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump reigns supreme. His enemies no longer matter
Fantastic, shameless, five-star entertainment. Tuesday night's address to Congress was the apotheosis of Trump the TV host, Trump the people's friend. What other president would induct a kid with brain cancer into the Secret Service? Or tell a young man he'd won a place at West Point? And when Elizabeth Warren gave an extra long hand clap for Ukraine, he called her Pocahontas and brought the house down. Folks, this wasn't politics. It was like watching Sinatra play Vegas. Two messages stood out: the Democrats don't matter, and neither does Europe. The party of opposition wore pink to show solidarity with women - gender stereotyping! - and held up little paddles that read 'false' or 'that's a lie'. They looked like they were bidding on meds in a retirement home. They are old. They are cranky. They even booed Trump saying he won the election, which was one the few things he uttered that was indisputable. Al Green, a 77-year old congressman from Texas, waved his cane, shouted and was led out, after JD Vance gave security a 'remove him' signal with his hand. Green didn't look righteous; he looked confused. Melania looked like Ursa from Superman II, in a funky dress - though she smiled more than either Ursa or Melania usually do. Trump got laughs listing the items discovered in Elon's purge of federal spending: money to turn mice transsexual, to bring Sesame Street to Arabia and 'eight million dollars to promote LGBTQ+ in the African nation of Lesotho, which no one has ever heard of'. One person receiving Social Security, he said, is listed as '360 years old, more than one hundred years older than our country' (and nearly twice as old as Nancy Pelosi). The Republicans lapped it up; one Dem was caught on camera sighing and shaking his head (at what? Border security? Fighting crime?). Trump's smartest move was to treat the liberals like a nuisance in a night-club audience: mock them, toy with them, point out their absurdity. 'I could find a cure' for a disease, or 'announce the answers for the greatest economy in history... and these people would not clap.' What he did announce was 'drill baby drill', the end of woke, tariffs on the world and, by way of introducing Robert Kennedy Jnr, a pledge to find the cause of autism ('With the name Kennedy, you'd think everyone over there would be cheering.') Greenland will be America's 'one way or another.' He rounded off by announcing America's voyage 'to Mars and even far beyond.' Elon the Vulcan is going to Pluto. But what of Ukraine? It was there, briefly. Trump wants the war to end; he took delight in quoting a letter from Zelensky in which he says he wants to sign the mineral deal. You might think Trump is pure evil - fine. But his strategy has paid off and he's got what he wants: the minerals, Zelensky's submission and Europe spending more on its own defence. His broader project represents the victory of the paleoconservative movement. South Korea, he said, puts tariffs on US goods but makes America pay to defend it from the commies - a Cold War hangover that might end. America putting itself first. The most important issue in the speech wasn't Russia or even the Mexico border. It was eggs. The price has skyrocketed thanks to a bird flu outbreak, which is no one's fault - but the Dems blame Trump and Trump blames Joe Biden, mentioned here as 'the worst president in history.' 'Donald, by contrast, has had 'the most successful' first few weeks ever. 'You know who number two is? George Washington.' This is madness on a level not seen since Hugo Chavez handed out washing machines and fridges to voters on TV. Yet behind the spectacle is a revolution in government, the most determined effort since Reagan to shrink and repurpose the US government. Lesotho won't know what hit it. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Trump reigns supreme. His enemies no longer matter
Fantastic, shameless, five-star entertainment. Tuesday night's address to Congress was the apotheosis of Trump the TV host, Trump the people's friend. What other president would induct a kid with brain cancer into the Secret Service? Or tell a young man he'd won a place at West Point? And when Elizabeth Warren gave an extra long hand clap for Ukraine, he called her Pocahontas and brought the house down. Folks, this wasn't politics. It was like watching Sinatra play Vegas. Two messages stood out: the Democrats don't matter, and neither does Europe. The party of opposition wore pink to show solidarity with women - gender stereotyping! - and held up little paddles that read 'false' or 'that's a lie'. They looked like they were bidding on meds in a retirement home. They are old. They are cranky. They even booed Trump saying he won the election, which was one the few things he uttered that was indisputable. Al Green, a 77-year old congressman from Texas, waved his cane, shouted and was led out, after JD Vance gave security a 'remove him' signal with his hand. Green didn't look righteous; he looked confused. Melania looked like Ursa from Superman II, in a funky dress - though she smiled more than either Ursa or Melania usually do. Trump got laughs listing the items discovered in Elon's purge of federal spending: money to turn mice transsexual, to bring Sesame Street to Arabia and 'eight million dollars to promote LGBTQ+ in the African nation of Lesotho, which no one has ever heard of'. One person receiving Social Security, he said, is listed as '360 years old, more than one hundred years older than our country' (and nearly twice as old as Nancy Pelosi). The Republicans lapped it up; one Dem was caught on camera sighing and shaking his head (at what? Border security? Fighting crime?). Trump's smartest move was to treat the liberals like a nuisance in a night-club audience: mock them, toy with them, point out their absurdity. 'I could find a cure' for a disease, or 'announce the answers for the greatest economy in history... and these people would not clap.' What he did announce was 'drill baby drill', the end of woke, tariffs on the world and, by way of introducing Robert Kennedy Jnr, a pledge to find the cause of autism ('With the name Kennedy, you'd think everyone over there would be cheering.') Greenland will be America's 'one way or another.' He rounded off by announcing America's voyage 'to Mars and even far beyond.' Elon the Vulcan is going to Pluto. But what of Ukraine? It was there, briefly. Trump wants the war to end; he took delight in quoting a letter from Zelensky in which he says he wants to sign the mineral deal. You might think Trump is pure evil - fine. But his strategy has paid off and he's got what he wants: the minerals, Zelensky's submission and Europe spending more on its own defence. His broader project represents the victory of the paleoconservative movement. South Korea, he said, puts tariffs on US goods but makes America pay to defend it from the commies - a Cold War hangover that might end. America putting itself first. The most important issue in the speech wasn't Russia or even the Mexico border. It was eggs. The price has skyrocketed thanks to a bird flu outbreak, which is no one's fault - but the Dems blame Trump and Trump blames Joe Biden, mentioned here as 'the worst president in history.' 'Donald, by contrast, has had 'the most successful' first few weeks ever. 'You know who number two is? George Washington.' This is madness on a level not seen since Hugo Chavez handed out washing machines and fridges to voters on TV. Yet behind the spectacle is a revolution in government, the most determined effort since Reagan to shrink and repurpose the US government. Lesotho won't know what hit it.
