Jump to content

Jmacq1

Members
  • Posts

    929
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jmacq1

  1. Aside from the fact that Wolverine is once again the center of the multiverse.... That looked intriguing. Interesting to see some more comic-accurate-than-usual designs for some of the characters (Bishop, Warpath, and Blink most notably). But I'd be down for any movie that somehow manages to cram in Ian McKellan, Patrick Stewart, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Peter Dinklage, and James McAvoy into one screen. Seriously, the cast for this film is pretty nuts in terms of quality actors, if you think about it.
  2. Agreed boyo!!! I can't wait to catch this film!!! Why do I think that the next phase of movies will deal with the Registration Act?? You know, I was about to type Mutant Registration Act, that's how old school into comics I am!!! Seems like a strong possibility. They drop a hint towards it at the end of Avengers (when they're doing the "media wrap-up" thing there's a bit with a Senator talking about how the Heroes "need to be accountable"). Couple that with the strong possibility that Avengers 2 will have the Avengers at least partially responsible for the creation of Ultron, and if a big chunk of real estate gets torn up during that movie it could well propel Avengers 3 into being an abbreviated version of "Civil War." (I doubt it'll get as bad as the comics, though). It'd also make for a potentially interesting shift of direction for the Agents of SHIELD TV show if it's still airing by then.
  3. Gosh, what an utter shock to find the usual suspects didn't like it. I'll give them one thing though: they're certainly consistent in their anal-retentive fanboy expectations being completely untouched by any semblance of reality.
  4. Now you get into the argument of who's to blame for a toy line that went kaput, retailer or toy company. As a GI Joe fan, I know it well and I don't think anyone here can say for sure. Who told us retail wasn't interested in DC any more? Mattel? I'll take your DC and Batman Unlimited example. Maybe Target wanted to order more DC Unlimited but they see the company was wan't offering any more product. They (Target) knows they have a reset coming up, they're not going to save room on their new plano for a line that they know only has a finite amount left before it's gone for good. They put it on clearance. Heck...I saw a New 52 Batgirl on clearance once. That figure is NOT a peg warmer. I'm not saying this is what happened, before somebody replies saying, "Wow, you really have no clue how retail works, do you?" I'll tell you for sure, I don't know. Toy company blames retailer, retailer blames toy company. This is all well and good...except for the part where Mattel DID have more product for the rest of the year, particularly in the Batman Unlimited line, but also at least a couple new figures in the DC Unlimited line. So that scenario you present doesn't really pass the evidence test. Nobody just came out and announced "retail didn't want DC anymore." (Which is a misrepresentation anyway. DC in general is just fine...DCUC/DC Unlimited/Batman Unlimited are the lines that were cancelled, not DC in general, which has several different assortments coming in the next year). However, a manufacturer doesn't cancel a line in a vacuum. If retail was clamoring for more DCUC-style figures, the line would not have been canceled. It doesn't pass the common sense test to have a supposedly highly-demanded product that you then choose not to produce because...why exactly? But then again, it's not as if adult collectors don't regularly overestimate just how much buying power they have in the grand scheme of things. Generally the retailers don't comment at all when a toy line is canceled, much less "blame the toy company" for it. Retailers could care less. If it sells well, they order more. If it doesn't, they stop ordering it and the toy company has to trim the line back or cancel it, or offer new product to entice the retailers into buying instead. Adult collectors are barely a blip on retailers' radars (outside of Toys R Us who generally goes to greater lengths to cater to them but suffers due to sluggish inventory turnover), and while toys may still be big business, they're not even close to the highest priority for retailers (again, outside of Toys R Us). Wal-Mart doesn't care if G.I. Joe isn't carried in the back half of the year. They'll just fill the space with something else. Target doesn't care that there are adult collectors that are upset on the internet that DCUC isn't available at retail. You could pool all the money that every adult collector combined spends at Target (even including things outside of toys) in a year and it's probably not even 1 percent of their profits (much less their revenue). If you want to get down to brass tacks, the fault lies on every involved party: The retailers for not ordering more product, the manufacturer for not making the product more enticing to retailers and consumers, and the end-consumer for not buying enough of the product to keep the retailers wanting more, but make no mistake: It is the retailers that have the most power in this circle. Target and Wal-Mart can survive as businesses without Mattel. Mattel likely cannot survive without Wal-Mart and Target.
  5. Who said DCUC failed at retail? Matty? When they said that, they were desperately trying to push their sub through. The funny thing here is THE LINE DIDN'T FAIL AT RETAIL! No matter what Matty wants to tell you to sell you on subs. A line lasting 20 waves which is almost always picked over IS NOT A FAILURE! It's like, I can see my cat pushing his food bowl, I know he wants food. Then the Matty mascot shows up at my door with his crown and his smirk and tells me my cat's not hungry. But I know it's a lie because I can SEE with my EYES! Well, if you want to get technical, that's correct. The line as a whole wasn't a failure, but it petered out. Either way, retail didn't want it anymore, and the evidence is smack-dab in front of our faces with the cancellations of DC and Batman Unlimited. If retail wanted 'em...they wouldn't be canceled.
  6. sorry, i'm not a huge DC fan, but i do cherry pick some of the dcuc figures at the toy stores from time to time. has mattel officially cancelled the retail dcuc line? Yes, but this has less to do with evil Mattel conspiracies to sell more subscriptions (which apparently failed anyway) and more to do with retailers and collectors not being as interested after the DC Unlimited revamp. Meanwhile, Mattel has a new 3.75" scale collector-oriented line coming later in the year.
  7. Who said DCUC failed at retail? Matty? When they said that, they were desperately trying to push their sub through. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling we'll see DCUC style figures on shelves again real soon. One way or another, Toy Fair is gonna be real interesting come February. It doesn't take a rocket scientist: Retailers didn't want further assortments of DCU/BMU, so they were cancelled. If retailers had ordered more figures, the assortments we had seen previewed would still be making it to stores this year. If you really think Mattel is going to torpedo a mass-retail line just to try to sell a few more dozen subscriptions to hard-up collectors, you really don't have much sense of the big picture with the toy business. Selling one assortment/wave of DCU to Wal-Mart would probably be at least two or three times as much product sold as all the DCIE subscriptions combined. If given a choice between getting Wal-Mart , Target, and Toys R Us to buy a couple more waves of DCU/BMU and having a successful subscription, Mattel would torpedo the subscription in an eyeblink. Mattycollector is nearly beneath-notice in the grand scheme of things at Mattel, offering niche product to niche markets. They could likely torpedo everything on Mattycollector and it wouldn't even amount to 1% of revenue lost for Mattel. Meanwhile, Mattel has the lesser-articulated Justice League line and the new collector-oriented 3.75/4" DC Line to be their retail "push." They don't need DCUC/DCIE.
  8. Still waiting for an official announcement, but it looks like Club Infinite Earths is over. Of course Matty could still come back announcing an 11th hour win, so it's anybody's guess. This might give them a reality check that subs doesn't work for every franchise... No, it will give them the "reality check" that there aren't enough "gotta have 'em all" fans of the DC Universe to make the line worth the effort and expenditure of producing. You forget that they already had one sub "fail" (Ghostbusters). DC is just too varied and fragmented for a "universal" sub to work at this point. Meanwhile, the success of the MotUC sub will reinforce that the sub model can work. DCIE/DCUC is officially a dead brand. Retail didn't want it anymore, Mattycollector couldn't get enough subs to keep it going. Ah well. It's still the best DC toy line ever made. Fun while it lasted.
  9. Yep, the Nova Corps has already been confirmed as being in the film. Definitely went with a "realistic" take, it seems.
  10. Pretty much true, though what you're missing is that at this point the folks in Japan don't even care about bringing Macross stuff to the United States, and in fact, the Japanese side of the coin has been just as big of dicks as Harmony Gold, albeit in different ways. Basically, there have been times when Harmony Gold was willing to play ball, but the Japanese side wasn't, and vice-versa. Now there's so much bad blood on both sides that nothing's ever likely to happen. Though in all truth, Harmony Gold's "ownership" of the Macross license has never TRULY been tested in the courts. If Hasbro were to take this case to trial, it would in fact be the first time it would be held up to scrutiny (every other time Harmony Gold has gotten lawsuit-happy the other parties either settled out of court or simply gave up...for example FASA/Battletech simply stopped using the Macross (and Dougram) inspired designs in their game despite having had a valid license of their own to use them...contrary to popular belief they did NOT lose a lawsuit with Harmony Gold nor were they "pirating" the designs back in the day...it never went to trial because FASA knew they wouldn't be able to afford a protracted court case). Harmony Gold's claim certainly has NOT held up in Japan's courts. Not that it gives any legal weight in the USA, but even so... It would be some glorious irony if Hasbro were to take this to court and end up invalidating HG's license, or bankrupting them with court costs, but sadly it's not a very likely outcome. In any case, the interest on the Japan side isn't really there anyway: The anime boom has long since been over in the US, and most of the Japanese-made Macross toys wouldn't pass American safety standards, so even if they got a domestic release as "collector oriented product" they probably wouldn't cost much less than they do via import now. On a side note: The first Robotech game on PS2 was actually pretty fun. I used to follow Macross and from my understanding, the Japanese were willing to bring merch to the States. I recall them trying to bring the Yamato figures out here, as well as a lawsuit between Harmony Gold and a Japanese company over the license of Macross merchandise to the west. Harmony Gold ended up losing. Despite losing, Harmony Gold still bar the figures somehow. Here is a link where Big West, The original creators of Macross, won the lawsuit over Harmony Gold in who owns international rights. This was around a decade ago http://www.animenews...macross-lawsuit Right. That's what I was talking about with the Japan side winning outside the US. But while they had interest in bringing Macross over 10 years ago...not so much now. 10 years ago the anime market in the US was much, much bigger than it is now. Heck, it's almost had a 90's comic-book style collapse. It's possible an American distributor would be interested in the Macross properties (particularly Frontier) but most of the indicators are that Big West doesn't think the US Market is worth the trouble anymore. It doesn't help that to fully appreciate Frontier, you really need to have seen the preceding Macross series...or at least Macross Zero, Macross 7, and "Do You Remember Love?" and Macross 7 and the original Macross are pretty long in the tooth now. Don't get me wrong...the already-existing US Macross fans (myself included) would buy the heck out of it all, but it would have an uphill battle for mainstream success.
  11. Pretty much true, though what you're missing is that at this point the folks in Japan don't even care about bringing Macross stuff to the United States, and in fact, the Japanese side of the coin has been just as big of dicks as Harmony Gold, albeit in different ways. Basically, there have been times when Harmony Gold was willing to play ball, but the Japanese side wasn't, and vice-versa. Now there's so much bad blood on both sides that nothing's ever likely to happen. Though in all truth, Harmony Gold's "ownership" of the Macross license has never TRULY been tested in the courts. If Hasbro were to take this case to trial, it would in fact be the first time it would be held up to scrutiny (every other time Harmony Gold has gotten lawsuit-happy the other parties either settled out of court or simply gave up...for example FASA/Battletech simply stopped using the Macross (and Dougram) inspired designs in their game despite having had a valid license of their own to use them...contrary to popular belief they did NOT lose a lawsuit with Harmony Gold nor were they "pirating" the designs back in the day...it never went to trial because FASA knew they wouldn't be able to afford a protracted court case). Harmony Gold's claim certainly has NOT held up in Japan's courts. Not that it gives any legal weight in the USA, but even so... It would be some glorious irony if Hasbro were to take this to court and end up invalidating HG's license, or bankrupting them with court costs, but sadly it's not a very likely outcome. In any case, the interest on the Japan side isn't really there anyway: The anime boom has long since been over in the US, and most of the Japanese-made Macross toys wouldn't pass American safety standards, so even if they got a domestic release as "collector oriented product" they probably wouldn't cost much less than they do via import now. On a side note: The first Robotech game on PS2 was actually pretty fun.
  12. And the source of my "reportedly" is someone that did that very same thing on the day the exclusives went up. A HTS employee told them that they had received the Transformer/G.I. Joe exclusive, but that the couldn't put them up because of a lawsuit and weren't sure if it was going to be available. This also was after the Club e-mail went out. Sounds like the CS employee you spoke to was a little better briefed (or maybe it was later in the day). Either way, don't be at all surprised if the Joe Club raffle doesn't happen now either.
  13. Thread title is misleading. There's absolutely no evidence that the Club is getting ALL the "leftover stock." They got a limited number that they may or may not sell (the lawsuit may prevent them selling now). Reportedly, HasbroToyShop had stock that they were going to make available on their site like all the other SDCC exclusives, but the lawsuit has nixed that for the time being. And $150 is still well below what you'd have paid on Ebay even BEFORE the announcement of the lawsuit. Hasbro didn't give these to the Club for free...they had to pay for them, and they're a for-profit business. They probably should have shaved it down to $25 markup tops, but ehn...I'm not buying one anyway.
  14. How soon people forget that the "Jabba's fat dancer" figure (Yarna) was a figure that had been demanded by collectors for years. In fact she had won several polls for a "most wanted figure." Likewise, Gladiator (Purple mohawk guy) was a figure that often popped up on collectors' lists (though more often wanted in Marvel Legends than Marvel Universe). While both figures were clearly overproduced, they're an excellent illustration of the collector market's bark being bigger than its' bite, a fact which many collectors adamantly refuse to see. They have the tendency to make the blanket assumption of "If they just did everything exactly the way I personally think it should be done, the line would TOTALLY be a huge hit!" Nevermind that most of these people know nothing about running a major toy business, how to interact with retailers (and how much influence those retailers have over what makes it to shelves), How to keep costs down so you still make a profit, etc.... Why do people assume the stores are actually ordering new stuff and simply not getting it? It's seemed quite obvious the last two years or so that stores order virtually nothing unless it's a movie tie in or the holiday season starts rolling around. This isn't just Hasbro...it's basically almost every toy line on shelves. So either they're ALL incompetent (and not just Hasbro), or there's more going on here than we are privy to.
  15. Why do so many collectors assume that Hasbro is an all-powerful entity that can just MAKE retailers (and end-consumers) buy their stuff? There is no magic button to make toy lines successful. Hasbro can't force retailers or consumers to buy their stuff, and they certainly can't turn around a lousy economy that has made toys something that's easily cut from the household budget. Nor can they stop China's factory workers from demanding better pay and benefits, or stop the rising price of oil in order to keep the costs of their product low. Hasbro's far from perfect, but people need to stop assuming that the implosion of the action figure market that we've been seeing over the last couple years is solely Hasbro's doing. There's a whole heck of a lot more to the situation than just "Hasbro should've just fixed it all!"
  16. They'll show wave 3 at their booth, formally announce that wave 4 is an "e-tailer exclusive" and there will be no sign of the Night Landing, leading fans to speculate/complain about it for years until Hasbro finally releases it with Joe 3 product or something (if it doesn't end up at closeout retailers). No new product will be unveiled. GI Joe will likely become "movie only" as far as mass-retail goes, but Hasbro will probably crank out some "classic" style exclusives in the interim (multipacks on Amazon or e-tailers in general), however we won't see hide nor hair of such things until Toy Fair of next year, if not Joe Con. Still, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Hasbro put out some multipacks of several of the "concept case figures" next year. Assuming they can find vendors willing to sell them.
  17. Target absolutely does have different sets for different stores. More specifically a Super Target has a different set than a standard Target, and there are differences between basic "Targets" and "Target Greatland" stores (though most of the Greatland stores have been converted to Super Targets). None of the "Target Greatland" stores in my area have single figures on sale as of yesterday. But hey, whatever. DETH OF TEH LINE! Everybody panic! Nevermore shall G.I. Joe be on toy shelves ever again!
  18. I did not know that. That's cool. Now we just have to learn Hasbro's plans for GI Joe post-Retaliation. Which aaaaarrreeee....what, exactly? I'm sure we'll learn the answer at SDCC right? Right..........? Actually if I recall correctly, Hasbro said at Joe-Con that we won't see anything new/hear about future plans for Joe until Toy Fair 2014. G.I. Joe is usually little more than an afterthought for Hasbro at SDCC outside of the exclusives, since most of the attention gets focused on their comic and movie-based brands. Retaliation is basically done, but waves 3 and 4 and the Eaglehawk (and I suppose the Night Landing if it makes it out) are all that's left to carry folks through the holidays. Though I wouldn't put a ton of stock in Target clearancing the rest of the stuff. Most Targets aren't clearing out the single figures, and supposedly production was increased on Waves 3 and 4. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if SOME Targets stopped carrying Joes altogether. If singles are being cleared out at your local store, I'd assume they won't be carried in the future. Also, I've seen Target clear out toy lines only to continue carrying them after the clearance ends. I definitely agree it's not looking good, but I don't think it's quite time to hit the ultimate panic button (marked "Deth of teh line!!!")
  19. Monsters U and World War Z topple Man of Steel... http://www.ign.com/a...-the-box-office Is your post supposed to be relevant to what Capt. Wiseman posted? Because it's not. WB announced the sequel for Man of Steel was going into immediate development the day before the film even opened in theaters, with Snyder directing and Goyer writing. http://www.deadline....avid-s-goyer%2F Rumor has it they want to get it out as early as next year, with a Justice League film hitting in 2015...running head-to-head with Avengers 2. Though that seems unlikely unless they start filming ASAP (or conversely pulled a "Donner" and actually filmed significant chunks of a sequel already without folks knowing about it). As far as the seemingly premature sequel announcement, it may be worth noting that the film made $170 million in commercial deals and endorsements before it was even released. http://uk.movies.yah...-100906092.html Losing the #1 spot to MU and WWZ isn't surprising in the least. Both films they cut directly and deeply into core audience segments for Man of Steel (Kids/families and teenage males respectively). Even so, by this point, between worldwide grosses and the aforementioned commercial/endorsement proceeds, Man of Steel is already turning a profit for WB even when you include marketing costs. It's an unqualified success, and by comparison has already exceeded the worldwide gross of Superman Returns and Batman Begins (though adjusted for inflation it won't truly exceed those two films in terms of grosses until the end of this week, most likely).
  20. Call it a hunch, but I think we're more likely to get the big-guy Kryptonian than Perry or Lois at this point. Unless they could use parts from Faora to make Lara...then I'd see her as feasible too. (Or maybe the other female Kryptonian from Zod's crew that showed up for like ten seconds and had no lines).
  21. Pay attention to Costner's performance when he suggests the possibility that Clark -maybe- should have let the kids on the bus die. He feels guilty as hell for suggesting it, he looks away from Clark and his voice even chokes a little bit. He's a very human character, and Costner managed to give him more depth with his brief screentime than many actors manage with an entire movie. He loves his son and worries over him, and I think every (good) parents' instinct is towards protecting their children above all else. Remember, he doesn't say "Yes, you should've let them die." He says "maybe." In his own way, he's just as confused and searching for the right answer as Clark is. (Of course, this doesn't even get into the part where if he -had- let them drown, then they'd have to explain why he was the only survivor...not to mention dealing with a tremendous degree of survivor's guilt on Clark's part). The argument about using his powers in the open? Well...someone -did- find him out. Lois Lane managed to track him down. I wouldn't be surprised if Lex Luthor does the same in the next movie. In Smallville there seemed to be an unspoken/underlying attitude that some folks know Clark is "different" but the typical small-town mentality kicks in and they just don't talk about it with "out-of-towners." At first I had a problem with Ma Kent apparently spilling the beans to Lois, but as I thought about it, Lois showed up already knowing who and what Clark is...she was just looking for the final confirmation. She'd already seen Clark's face, so all it would have taken was a single photo in the Kent home to confirm that. I think Martha recognized that Lois already knew, so instead of trying to hide it, she was honest and instead tried to shift her towards not taking Clark's ID public (not that we really know for sure, since we don't actually see the conversation, but there's a definite look of resignation on Martha's face when Lois makes her introduction). On Superman killing Zod: I think Cavill sold how torn up Superman was about it in the immediate aftermath. Plus, Superman has killed (a) Zod in the comics in the past. If anything, Superman's "no killing" code has never been quite as strong as Batman's. Plus this is "rookie" Superman. It could well be that killing Zod is part of what drives Superman to being more conscious of avoiding it, and likewise the destruction in Metropolis and Smallville drive him to try to be more protective in the future, though that's material for the sequel, really. Plus on the destruction front: Not much of it really could have been avoided, and given Zod's threat at the end, every second Superman spends trying to save civilians is a second where Zod is potentially slaughtering hundreds/thousands more himself. On the power level of the Krypto-mooks and Superman beating them: The suits blocked out the super-sensory input, but not solar radiation. They were only "powerless" aboard the ship, but with the helmets on, they gained the enhanced strength but not the senses. They may be better trained than Superman (and it shows when Faora and Nam-Ek pound him in Smallville, often using teamwork to do so), but Superman is likely stronger, having had his whole life to suck up that sunshine. Heck, they all but spell out that Zod's training and discipline are the only things that let him go toe-to-toe with Supes at the end. I think I can agree that it's not a "great" movie, but I'd place it "above average" myself. The critics may not agree, but audiences are generally greatly enjoying it (A- Cinemascore), so word of mouth will probably be good, and it'll probably end up with a $300M+ domestic box office haul. It isn't as if much worse movies haven't made tons of money (Looking at you, Bayformers).
  22. Yeaaaah. Just like Thor was going to be the nail in the coffin for comic book movies. Or Green Lantern. Or Captain America, or X-Men: First Class, or....any comic book movie that's come out in the last 5 years that didn't star Batman, according to the naysayers. There were even people predicting Avengers was going to be a bomb due to "superhero fatigue." People have been claiming "The Superhero Bubble is going to burst!" for years now and it hasn't happened yet. Superhero movies aren't going anywhere. At this point, even if Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't make a single red-cent, it won't derail Disney/Marvel Studios. Not when it still has guaranteed moneymakers with the Iron Man and Avengers franchises (and to a lesser extent Thor and Captain America). Green Lantern underperforming didn't stop Superhero movies, for example, or stop other superhero movies from being among the highest grossing of pretty much every year since Raimi's first Spider-Man movie hit theaters. There's also a crapload of properties left. They're just not the ones that everyone knows, because let's face it, prior to about 10 years ago, the only superheroes the "general public" really knew were Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, the Hulk, Wonder Woman, and maybe the X-Men. Even today there are people that don't realize there's any separation between DC and Marvel characters. In any case, Guardians of the Galaxy being obscure is the whole point of the movie being made. Yes, it's a risk. Yes, it's going to have a more uphill battle than most of the other Marvel films. But if it works, then Marvel has successfully proven they can make movies of even some of their most obscure and outlandish properties and still make them profitable. So from a business standpoint, this is very much a risk worth taking. It's the movie version of "go big or go home."
  23. And just what "alternatives" do you suggest?
  24. I prefer to think of such instances as "a prime opportunity to expand my PotF2 Star Wars figure collection." (Those figures seem to be the most popular choice for the repacker/repackers in my area). Though I do occasionally see G.I. Joe repacks with simply older (but modern) G.I. Joe figures in them.
  25. I really don't understand how people can get away with this sort of thing. There needs to be a better way to check into how this money is being spent. Sure there are ways, just like there are ways to reconfigure the system so that it only works on certain items etc... The problem is that implementing any of them costs money (which many states don't have right now, much less the federal government), and takes up manpower, too. Also in the case of "checking into how this money is being spent" you start to run into privacy issues and "government intrusion" that can set a very poor precedent for the future. To use the "slippery slope" argument (which is a logical fallacy anyway, but still a popular tactic), if the government gets to decide how poor people spend their money (or sort-of money), how long before the government gets to decide how EVERYONE spends their money? Also like most things: The amount of people who abuse the system are most likely a minority compared to those that "do it right" (relatively speaking, I'm sure most food stamp users do occasionally buy junk food...junk food is cheap, after all). Yes, the exploiters exist, but when compared to the total number of people receiving benefits, they're probably a comparatively small number, though certainly some locales are going to have more of them than others. I've never met anyone on Food Stamps that was happy to be on food stamps and not trying like hell to get -off- of food stamps as fast as possible. Finally, there's a rather lively underground industry in bootleg "high end sunglasses" and "designer handbags" (and tons of other fashion accessories). You can get them dirt cheap (probably cheaper than a "generic" pair of sunglasses and handbag at Wal-Mart), and at a glance they look just like the real thing.
×
×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE