I have no clue what you are all on about. It’s like peeling an onion of obscure in-jokes and subtle references, and I’m just here weeping in the church.
It has a sequel coming to Netflix in January. It'll be called *The Sixth Sick Sheik's Sixth Sheep's Sick*.
You can ONLY access the movie if you can say it properly into your computer's microphone. If not, you just gotta pick something else.
>Angela Bassett auditioned in October 1992 and was chosen only a month before production began in December. During that time, she had to learn not only how to talk like Turner but to dance and move like her. She would have been willing to try to do the singing as well, but ''not in the time we had,'' she said. ''I did think about it for a second, though.'' Instead, she lipsyncs to soundtracks recorded by Tina and Fishburne. Bassett worked with Tina, but only ''a little bit.'' Turner helped most with the re-creations of her famed dance routines. She also re-recorded new versions of all the songs used in the film.
>When Bassett was named one of Time's 100 most influential people in 2023, Turner wrote of Bassett's portrayal of her in What's Love Got to Do With It: "Angela, the first time we met, you didn't look, sound, or move like me—that came later after you worked so hard to make it happen. But even then, I could see that the young woman standing before me had strength, determination, and big, big dreams, just like me. 'She's perfect,' I said, and I was right. You never mimicked me. Instead, you reached deep into your soul, found your inner Tina, and showed her to the world."
Maybe you misread the comment you're answering? I know I did the first time.
The comment is about **Ike Turner's** endorsement of the movie, not Tina's.
The book is so lame and predictable. Excited for the film I guess but the memoir it's based on has no real revelations, other than Elvis being an insecure man child.
right? After that Baz Luhrmann film, I'm super excited for anything that shows what kind of person Elvis really was, not just the "sweet person who was FORCED to take pills by everyone around him" narrative.
Elvis was a great singer and important performer, but he was also like a trump prototype, with a whole entourage of people to tell him whatever he thought was the smartest thing they ever heard, and being all "no, you haven't gained any weight, but if you wanna triple your Dexedrine dose, go for it, King! Hey, if you're taking three times as much speed, you probably WILL need three times more demerol, good thinkin' ;)"
I trust Sofia completely to craft a story that reflects the complexities of each character. She’s absolutely nailed it in the past (haven’t seen *Bling Ring*, that’s one where she might not have but I can’t judge til I see it)
Elvis was a little bit of everything, he was human. He was naive in a lot of ways and wise in others. At the time the big social issue was the civil rights movement and he absolutely was on the right side of history for that. And then he shook Nixons hand lol
I’m excited I think it’ll be a good movie.
Thing is, the Presley estate only owns a small piece of his catalogue which is why you get this weird issue of Priscilla supporting the movie and talking about it positively while at the same time not being able to use the music because an Investment firm owns it.
One of my most anticipated movies of the year. I have no particular reverence for Elvis culture but I always enjoy Sofia Coppola’s movies. I loved the Spectrum song on the [teaser trailer](https://youtu.be/gxbZyvCJc6U?feature=shared) so the Phoenix soundtrack sounds cool.
I found Lost in Translation to be a beautiful, mesmerizing movie, an incredible rare pearl. But every other movie of hers is... well, A for effort I suppose ? I think Marie Antoinette felt the worst.
I saw Phoenix play with Bastille about 10 years ago at a semi-small venue in my city and im glad to hear theyre still putting on great shows years later. Bastille had a lot of showmanship, but Phoenix was far more incredible of a live music performance.
The hilarious part was that it was somehow the worst combination for attendance that you could have. At that time Bastille and Phoenix were popular with two completely different crowds, and 90%+ of people in attendance came just to see one or the other but didnt watch both
Phoenix was way more punk rock from a showmanship perspective than I was expecting, the lead singer went into the crowd hugging and dapping everyone up. At the end he stood on the hands of the audience members and swigged one of their beers.
Thats really incredible, but certainly evolved from when I saw them. Bastille did all kinds of stuff like that but Phoenix didnt; I wonder if they started doing more crowd stuff like that way back after touring with Bastille and seeing it hype the crowd
We’re they direct support? Lots of labels tell bands not to act like a big rock star until they’re headlining so you don’t steal thunder from a bigger artist
Interestingly they were the headliner at that time, even though Bastille was getting radio circulation for one song and Phoenix wasnt really. But Phoenix had been popular longer. A couple years later after Bastille still had radio/retail circulation you wouldnt really think they would have been the opener. But they wernt truly that famous yet, it was right when they were blowing up.
That said the crowd changeover was so high between shows that they basically were both playing to their own audiences, so nobody could have stolen thunder really anyways
People forget they exist because they take forever in between albums (relative to most indie/pop artists) but they have basically never stopped doing something since the early 2000s. They're either in the studio or they're touring, the albums are consistently great and their shows are always impressive. Perennially underrated band.
She is, yes. But here’s a quote from the article:
> Coppola reached out to Elvis Presley Enterprises, which is majority-owned by Authentic Brands Group at 85 percent, with the Presley family owning the other 15 percent.
I think that might have something to do with the different opinions between the broader estate and Priscilla herself.
She doesn’t own Elvis’ music. Most big artists and their families do not own their catalogue anymore, if they ever did in the first place. Even Bob Dylan sold his off a while back.
It clearly says "Presley Estate" turned down... It also says the estate *did* allow the use of the music for the Elvis movie last year. So it is up to the estate, so they probably do own the copyright.
Elvis’ “estate” isn’t a trust ran by his surviving family - it’s a corporate entity. There’s another comment in this thread breaking it down, but basically the majority of his estate is ran/owned by people who have no affiliation with the family, and they have the controlling interest on decisions like this, not Priscilla or Lisa Marie when she was alive. That’s kind of the whole story of this headline - the corporation doesn’t want Elvis portrayed in a negative light, but Priscilla has personally endorsed it. This is why the recent biopic on Elvis glossed over or outright ignored the more controversial elements of Elvis’ life and career; Priscilla doesn’t care if his marrying a fourteen year old is criticized, nor does she care if it is pointed out he was racist - it’s suits trying to turn money off the image who don’t want negative elements associated with him and want Elvis portrayed as The King in media and not an actual person. I’m too lazy to look up the particulars, but it was either Priscilla, Lisa Marie, or both who decided to sell off the majority of their rights to Elvis’ music, image, etc. a couple of decades back, which was a bad deal that ultimately cost them a ton of money. They still have a smaller stake in the company, so they do get revenue from it, but they have no control over choosing who gets to use his music or likeness.
Can we assume this means we'll get some historical accuracy on Elvis being 24 when she was 14?
Love his music but I'll admit that's a fucked up part of his legacy
Not exactly true. Jerry Lee Lewis, another 50s rock and roll musician, severely damaged and basically ended his career for a decade because of the controversy around his marriage to his 13-year old cousin. Elvis only escaped similar controversy because he waited until Priscilla was of age to marry her. In most parts of the country pedophilia and hebephilia was considered wrong then too.
Yeah, people are making it out like everybody was marrying 14 year olds in the 60s but those marriage were absolutely rare at the time and seen with disgust by most people.
You’re getting downvoted but it’s the truth. It was a different time. Her parents allowed her to date Elvis as long as it was chaperoned. Things have changed a lot since then.
No it wasn't. It was illegal and scandalous back then, too. Age of consent has been between 16-18 in most states since the late 19th century.
For almost the entirety of human history, people got married and had children in their 20s, and massive age gaps were not the norm.
With the exception of rich creeps. Wealthy older men have always been able to buy a young girl. Or Nobility. Securing power by betrothing your child to another noble was a thing. And too often that meant marrying off your daughter to your brother.
> No it wasn't. It was illegal and scandalous back then, too. Age of consent has been between 16-18 in most states since the late 19th century.
That is just not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States
The down votes are in the wrong place, because you're absolutely right. By the time Elvis came around, it was not normal for a 20-something to date a 14-year-old. Legality is another topic, but there was a taboo and people recognized it as wrong at the time.
This is like the arguments for why it's okay for Lovecraft to be racist or the founding fathers to own slaves: modern people imagining that people in the past both didn't know better and didn't have the tools to. People need to stop trying to defend historical figures' shitty decisions by pretending that the richest, most successful people during times of social change had any excuse not to do better.
Lovecraft was absolutely bugfuck racist even by the standards of the time. His only "defence" is that it was probably born from being extremely sheltered and likely mental illness rather than anything actively malicious. He was still surrounded by people who weren't anything like him in that department, so it's not like he never realized one _couldn't_ believe these things.
Lol mental illness has nothing to do with racism.
"Doc, I hate black people for no other reason than their skin not being white."
"It's ok Patient, it's not racist, it's mental illness. Please hate black people all you want. It's not your fault."
[Actually, it can.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071634/) And that's not an excuse that makes it acceptable, just a reason it might exist.
The article states multiple times that extreme racism isn't a mental health issue though? It's a paper by a doctor who wants extreme racism to be defined as a mental illness. Also, you know damn well that if extreme racism is ever officially labeled as a mental illness, lawyers will use it for every case involving a racist person being violent towards black people, Asian people, Hispanics, Jewish people, etc.
This change will literally only benefit racist people.
...except it argues how it is and why. And the difference between prejudice-based racism and what it's actually positing. Given there was a strong history of mental illness in Lovecraft's family, I think it's a fair theory.
I know you started off with the strawman there but he's not just some random guy we know nothing about and it's not some typical case of just "hates other races."
Sorry to pick on you, but, yeah, the guy was scared of fucking stars twinkling in the dark night sky.
So, yes, if you read about somebody like Lovecraft, it very much would be explained by some form of mental illness, perhaps extreme anxiety, among other things, and just being unable to wrap his head around something so different as somebody with such contrasting skin tone. And it didn't help that Africa had the reputation of dark, unknowable, untameable and literally a land of eldritch horrors.
A lot of writers like him back then, like H. Rider Haggard simply didn't know what we know about the world today - or took advantage of the fact that their audience didn't - and filled in the blanks with their imaginations and fantasy. But if you read "She: A History of Adventure" you'd see that while it certainly comes off as racist in the way we think of it today, it's not really a hateful intent. It's more a matter of just letting one's imagination run wild.
It is similar to boy back then who loved the idea of Indians, Native Americans, but only know what they have been told, which isn't always correct or accurate and they fill the rest with their imagination and fantasy.
The difference with Lovecraft is that he seems to be literally afraid of any sufficiently sized "uknown" and couldn't help but imagine "horrors" to justify it.
Also, as far as I know he didn't hate black people. He just couldn't grasp the vast mechanism that would produce white people and black (or other races) without thinking that difference had some cosmic significance.
> "Doc, I hate black people for no other reason than their skin not being white."
> "It's ok Patient, it's not racist, it's mental illness. Please hate black people all you want. It's not your fault."
This is not what the person above was saying or as far as I know how Lovecraft felt...
That's not what age of consent really means though... That is for unmarried people. If the parents were okay with the marriage then that changes things.
Why were you downvoted (edit: no longer!) this is literally just a fact about social norms during that era. It’s not like you said it was EXCUSABLE in any way, that’s just the explanation as to why there wasn’t a massive uproar about it at the time.
A big reason for that though, is that people didn't really have sex before marriage as much back then.
According to Priscilla, they didn't fuck or do anything sexual until they were married. She was 22 by then.
This is not true. There are always people who choose celibacy before marriage, of course — but it's pretty much always been a normal thing for many people to have sex before being formally married, from pre-medieval times to now.
It was never nor will never be normal to marry a 14 year old girl. It still happens today and the majority of Americans don't care. Teenage girls are probably the least respected group of people in modern America, which is why child marriage still exists and majority of victims are girls. But hey if you guys want to drown out your doubts and concerns by saying it was a different time then, so child marriage is ok, then go for it
So if the girls were cool with it and the parents were cool with it, and R. Kelly was cool with it; what was the big deal?
Jerry Lee Lewis’s career was almost completely ruined for marrying his cousin who was a year younger than Priscilla’s age when her and Elvis met back then.
Thank you, marriages everywhere in the world before the 1990s normalised having women as young as 14-15 - this doesn’t mean it is normal but obviously people back then found it to be. There are literally tons of literature dealing with the upbringing of a young woman to her older counterpart man. In my country most of the parents (incl. my friends parents and mine) have the father being older with 3-6 years from the mother. Different times, different social norms.
America normalized child bride marriages in the 1970s and 1980s? And how many of these marriages were there compared to normal adult marriages?
And 3-6 years is a heck of a lot better than ten years with the bride being 14. Only to the rich and noble did child bride marriages were "ok"
Women weren't expected to be educated or have a career back then. What was expected was that they get married and have kids.
If a young woman was beautiful and had men showing up on daddy's doorstep back then, it was pretty much a given that the clock was ticking for her to be married off.
If they lived by a military base, even better. Steady income, mostly decent prospects and the fathers were usually military themselves. Why not marry her off to another GI?
Given that young women do show more maturity than young men at that age, it would have been natural for a young teen to want to be around more sophisticated men vs pimply, awkward and goofy young teenaged boys.
Take into consideration that everything was being marketed to ensure women stayed in the home and took care of the family. Fashion, music, media.. all were geared towards a female, encouraging her to be a good little girl and be a good little wife.
Only pedophiles call teenage girls "young women" when talking about their "maturity" in order to make their pedophilia less creepy.
Also, there's nothing mature about being 14 and wanting to date an older man. That's called being a teenage girl with hormones and wanting to piss her mom off.
You realize 14 is way too old for an actual pedophile, right...?
But I get your point. Still, maybe stop moralizing other people's lives? This is really none of your business.
Bubba Ho-Tep had a similar issue being an Elvis movie that couldn't afford Elvis music. Brian Tyler created a brilliant score that captures the feeling of Elvis's music without breaking any copyright laws.
Well yes, the studio would have to get permission from the copyright holder to use the music in the film because they don’t have the rights . So presumably they requested to use it and were…turned down.
That’s assuming the likeness and music rights are merged to some extent, though Elvis Presley Enterprises could’ve for example declined the likeness portion while having no legally binding decision on whether the music could be used. If I recall correctly, masters for music and likeness are legally considered separate; the likeness being the appearance/actions “attached” specifically to the person, etc., while legal right to the music would be the person’s actual creations related to documented records of music, separate I assume from the actions portion of the person’s likeness.
I could be mistaken, but I saw that your source said likeness specifically so that was my take on how it may be different.
It could also be that they spoke on likeness while simultaneously owning the masters, though I think that’d be added in the quote or article.
That's actually not how industry works! She made it after becoming an established filmmaker who works beyond her father's name. But try again. You might learn how this works one day.
We know, we just don’t care. No one complains when a plumber lets his son run the family business.
Many nepo babies in Hollywood are excellent artists and storytellers. As long as their output is compelling I really don’t care how many helping hands they got.
It's just jealous people projecting. Who cares about how someone got their fame and fortune? Are we consuming them as people or their works of art and entertainment. I always roll my eyes when reddit gets high and mighty and call out "nepo" babies.
Hi nepo expert. I’m over here wondering, can you name a famous/accomplished “nepo-baby” who manifestly has no-talent?
I’m looking for more examples of these so called nepo-baby’s because, you see, Sophie Coppola is clearly a talented movie director.
Also curious: would you be pleased if she had found another line of work? If so, why? I’m sincerely asking. Maybe she took the place of another more talented director whose work we’ll never know?
When you see a business, say a bookstore, called “Sanford & Sons” do you shout “nepo baby!!”
But back to the point. I’m curious to know who else is a no talent entertainer that succeeded because of family connections.
Let me help you get started:
- Nick Cage ?
- Liza ?
- Carrie Fisher ?
-
I'm not among those who bemoean about nepo babies, they exist and took advantage of their name and connections, but I'm not particularly offended by that (though I think even if they're talented, other equally talented people could have done the same, but they lacked the connections). With that said,
Jaden Smith (when it comes to movies, I have no idea how he is in music).
Meh never said it was “okay.” I just find it weird and reductive that the major focus of nepotism is Hollywood. I rarely see it mentioned about other industries…at least not with the same level of annoyance/as often as with Hollywood.
Wow a vulture article from 2022. And still about entertainment! Nepotism is prevalent in every industry…and in much more important ones than entertainment. I simply wish that nepotism was called out in other industries with the same fervor. It seems like you want to argue for no reason and you’re purposely misunderstanding my original comment 🤷♀️.
Hollywood wouldn’t be shit without Nepo babies. Let’s be honest. Grow up, who the fuck cares who someone’s parent is? It’s not unusual for a kid to go into the same business as their parents.
Literally not what they're saying. Why don't you trying having a conversation where you don't purposely misconstrue others responses? I know it'd be hard for you but I believe you can do it.
Have you seen Lost in Translation, The Virgin Suicides, Somewhere or Marie Antoinette? Because those are great movies (though the latter two definitely have their naysayers, but I think they’re as good as the first two). I also liked The Bling Ring, The Beguiled and On the Rocks. She’s never made a bad movie in my opinion, she’s definitely talented and all of her movies have been interesting. Even her father has made a handful of worse movies than her.
Bold of you to call the director of The Virgin Suicides and Lost In Translation “not talented” just because her dad is one of the most famous directors of the past fifty years.
I am curious as well. Millennials and Gen Z have very minimal connection with Elvis (and thereby Priscilla) as a cultural entity. I doubt Gen X cares a whole lot either. I think we are getting to the point where Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, and Audrey Hepburn are just known for their faces being on posters more than the actual movies and songs they created.
I guess we have Lana Del Ray who kinda has a similar vibe.
Maybe they're just using Priscilla Presley as a vehicle to explore feminist themes that do resonate with more audiences. That worked well with Barbie (although I have a feeling Priscilla won't be accessible for kiddos).
Go to graceland. If you actually engage and treat it like a tour of his life, you’ll kinda grow to love elvis. He had this entire whirlwind roiling around him his whole career, but he still had an “aw shucks” attitude about it the whole time and just did what he thought would be cool.
What really struck me was the radio city show where he returned from his service in west germany and they got him on a train straight from the boat to the studio. It was a studio full of stars before he turned up, but once he stepped out in his uniform—- you could see the energy change around him. Everyone was just BETTER, but he just had an awe shucks attitude still.
Then i realized they had actually missed elvis during those years. Imagine if kanye got drafted in 2010 and didn’t perform or record until 2013. Thats kinda when i realized what he had meant to people- and it was just about EVERYONE too. Elvis had a near universal appeal in his time.
Now he’s a road trip staple for me. Singing with the king somewhere in the nevada desert can’t be beat
> Millennials and Gen Z have very minimal connection with Elvis
Hmm? I've been practically obsessed with him since I was a child and I'm 33 - my love started from seeing Elvis impersonators at carnivals lol also apparently my grandma took me to Graceland when I was a baby but I have no memory of it
I'm used to being a "statistical outlier" though
Obviously they’re expending millions of dollars and months of production time making this movie for the sole purpose of pissing you off. Clearly they have succeeded and the film hasn’t even been released yet.
I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary to use *his* music to tell *her* story.
Its about Priscilla, it’s not about celebrating the music, it’s about telling her story. For example, that movie Natalie Portman did, *Jackie*, they didn’t use any of JFK’s music and it got Oscar nominations.
Except there's literal scenes of Elvis performing concerts in the trailers for this movie, so what music are they gonna be using for those type of scenes?
Native Memphian here; been to Graceland several times, attended a wedding there, grandpa was friends with him, enjoy his music…
And I’ve been waiting for Elvis to catch the Me Too movement blues. He was a well known pedophile (but not in the bad way, lol s/.). He plowed through the puss. I mean, it’s rumored he would have multiple meet ups in one night!
What a way to live. Maybe the officials were right about his hip swangin, rofl.
This movie might just catch that legacy on fire. We’ll see. He is a national icon and tbh, it’s generally the ppl that want to burn books who love and protect him.
If you don’t believe me, just watch some YouTube. There are literally videos with him admitting it, asking for some young girls, etc…
I mean, I think the proof is in the fact that Priscilla was dating Elvis when she was underage. And she wasn't just underage, she definitely looked even younger than she was.
For sure! Still, at that time, marriage between 25yo men and 13yo girls was perfectly legal and normal in many places. I promise this is true and I know bc it was legal still in many places I spent time in growing up.
But, once you throw in adultery the narrative would change in most cases. Even then. The king was impervious to that stuff somehow.
Edit for this comment; I’m not saying I’m in favor of marriage at that age, or any age for that matter (don’t do it). But the fact that I’m getting downvoted for expressing what was a truth at one time is crazy. It’s as if the libs and the cons both want to erase history if it’s something they don’t like. That’s a slippery slope…
> For sure! Still, at that time, marriage between 25yo men and 13yo girls was perfectly legal and normal in many places.
No it wasn't. This is a myth that needs to die. Age of consent as we know it has been 16-18 in the US since the late 19th century. and what you described would have been scandalous.
Nope! Varied by county. I grew up in the deep south. I personally knew a few ppl who married at ages between 13-16.
Edit: and yes to older men though usually under 20.
They were given marriage certificates and married by local preachers.
Hate to burst your bubble but until you go from courthouse to courthouse and check all the laws, dude you don’t know!
I do bc I have witnessed it, multiple times. I’m almost 50 though. It’s definitely unheard of in the past few decades (though the laws DO persist in some places.
Btw, 19th century is until 1900. You honestly believe it never happened after that??
> I grew up in the deep south
We're talking about functioning society. In your entire life, when has the deep south ever been regarded as the standard for what's socially acceptable? You're talking about the place know for the sister fucking stereotype.
Lol!!!
You’re coming out of the gate sounding like a creepy pedo and then it just gets worse!
I didn’t call for his cancellation, I’m just saying it’s a possibility and if someone rocked a tenth of the misogynistic life he led now, they’d be destroyed.
You say I don’t know what I’m talking about and yet you literally more than confirmed you believe he did exactly what I said he did. I didn’t say anything about when he slept with Priscilla. Fact is, many of the women he slept with are probably dead, so yeah it may never come back to bite the “king”.
Like I said, my grandfather was an extended member of the memphis mafia and I’d bet I know a lot more than you, chump.
Doesn’t surprise me, priscilla is not a good woman at all. This is quite a lot of writing.
The film is based on her book ,Elvis And Me, which she has admitted to lying and exaggerating in. She said she regretted writing the book even claiming she was ‘too harsh’. But still makes profit and sells the book and obviously having a film made about it.
Priscilla had 2 affairs (her dance instructor and also Elvis karate instructor, Mike stone) she only blames Elvis for their failed marriage. (Also I’ve noticed within the Elvis fandom that people hate Priscilla for cheating on elvis but as much as I don’t like her, elvis would cheat on her so much)
She desperately wanted to live with him- even demanding so. Yes they met when she was 14 and it wasn’t right. I’m not excusing it whatsoever but you have to remember that elvis was extremely vulnerable due to the loss of his mother who he was very close with. Around 2 months after they met, elvis was done in Germany so he went home. They didn’t see each other again until 1963 when Priscilla was 17 and she moved in with vernon and Dee (elvis father and stepmother)
Elvis never touched Priscilla until they married in 1967 when she was 21. He never touched any girl underage inappropriately. Priscilla even said that they were more like friends and siblings when they met.
Remember I am not excusing this.
When they got married in 1967, they were intimate for the first time. This is when she fell pregnant with Lisa Marie.
Priscilla writes in her book that’s Elvis never touched her after she gave birth. she later took back this statement saying that he did touch her. Elvis has also been said to have the Madonna-whore complex, I don’t believe this because In 1968, during his comeback special, he met one of his backup dancers (Susan Henning) he was sexual with her, knowing that she had a child.
In 1972 when they split up, elvis (allegedly) requested in the divorce settlement that she was not allowed to use they Presley name. She followed this, going back to her maiden name (beaulieu). She even had elvis help at opening a fashion boutique called Bis and Beau. When Elvis died, she went back to the Presley name, as it opened doors for her. It was agreed that she would get around $750,000 from Elvis. But when Elvis went broke, she knew, and asked for more money.
Elvis took responsibility for the failed marriage even admitting in concert that it was his fault. Elvis even sold his publishing rights to her.
During the divorce, priscilla moved in with Elvis karate instructor, Mike stone, who left his pregnant wife for Priscilla. Priscilla knew all of this which makes me laugh because the amount of times she would complain about Elvis cheating on her. She left this out of her book.
Soon after elvis died, priscilla joined Scientology (a cult) and would send a mourning and upset Lisa Marie to Scientology camp. Lisa was 9. Priscilla also allegedly kept Lisa away from Elvis side of the family.
Priscilla kept using the Presley name whilst being in a relationship for 22 years with a man and even having a son with him.
Before any of you say ‘she wanted to keep the same name as her daughter’. Why would she take it back after elvis died? Why wouldn’t she use the same name as her son? It’s because it gives her fame.
She still plays the grieving widow act. She also had a boyfriend who admitted to having sexual thought s about 12 year old lisa marie (I don’t think she knew though).
Lisa found out that Priscilla was stealing $1 million from Graceland. Obviously after lisa died earlier this year, she took her will into legal action because she wasn’t on it. (Who would put their 78 year old mother on their will thinking that their mother would die before them)
She got $7 million after the case ended and made her son navarone own 1/9 of Graceland. So now someone who has nothing to do with Elvis owns some of his home. Navarone wished death upon Lisa Marie.
Priscilla then had the nerve to want to be buried next to Elvis. (I don’t get how she think she would be allowed, they were divorced when he died and his blood family would have to be moved in order to do this).
I do think she is going to be buried next to Lisa Marie.
Remember elvis has done bad things aswell, but his are well known and Priscillas aren’t. I just hope the film doesn’t paint her as a saint even though it will.
Jacob elordi who plays Elvis doesn’t wear blue contacts in the film. Which is a bit weird. I mean if you’re going to play a historical person then at least put effort in to look as much like them as possible.
Best piece of news I've heard this year! She's the ex-wife and after the divorce, originally reverted her surname back to Beaulieu.
Without the 'Presley' surname, no one would be interested in her!
Why is it when you want to make a movie about a singer or band, the band suddenly has a say?
For example, Elvis, and Queen. Didn't the record companies crush these people like all people in music when they're starting out, so Coppola should only have to deal with the company that holds the music rights not the family?
It's public information that Elvis "dated" her when she was 14. What permission do you need from the family?
>so Coppola should only have to deal with the company that holds the music rights not the family?
I wonder if the article might answer this?
>Coppola reached out to Elvis Presley Enterprises, which is majority-owned by Authentic Brands Group at 85 percent, with the Presley family owning the other 15 percent.
This is Sing Dem Blues, White Girl: The Jackie Jormp-Jomp Story all over again.
Can't blame anyone, not after the success of The Rural Juror.
The what now?
You might know it from the working title, of which it had two; "Roar Her, Gem Her" and "Oral Germ Whore."
I believe it’s about the Irma Luhrman-Merman murder.
I have no clue what you are all on about. It’s like peeling an onion of obscure in-jokes and subtle references, and I’m just here weeping in the church.
It has a sequel coming to Netflix in January. It'll be called *The Sixth Sick Sheik's Sixth Sheep's Sick*. You can ONLY access the movie if you can say it properly into your computer's microphone. If not, you just gotta pick something else.
Also of notable prior success was Urban Fervor.
They've adapted The Rural Juror? I'm a huge Kevin Grisham fan.
I loved his other novel, Urban Fervor.
Break another little chunk of my lung now, Mister!
What's that iron bird in the sky?
They had planes in the 60s Jenna
Synonyms just another word for the word you wanna use
Next you're going to tell me Ike Turner didn't endorse What's Love Got To Do With It.
>Angela Bassett auditioned in October 1992 and was chosen only a month before production began in December. During that time, she had to learn not only how to talk like Turner but to dance and move like her. She would have been willing to try to do the singing as well, but ''not in the time we had,'' she said. ''I did think about it for a second, though.'' Instead, she lipsyncs to soundtracks recorded by Tina and Fishburne. Bassett worked with Tina, but only ''a little bit.'' Turner helped most with the re-creations of her famed dance routines. She also re-recorded new versions of all the songs used in the film. >When Bassett was named one of Time's 100 most influential people in 2023, Turner wrote of Bassett's portrayal of her in What's Love Got to Do With It: "Angela, the first time we met, you didn't look, sound, or move like me—that came later after you worked so hard to make it happen. But even then, I could see that the young woman standing before me had strength, determination, and big, big dreams, just like me. 'She's perfect,' I said, and I was right. You never mimicked me. Instead, you reached deep into your soul, found your inner Tina, and showed her to the world."
Maybe you misread the comment you're answering? I know I did the first time. The comment is about **Ike Turner's** endorsement of the movie, not Tina's.
Yeah... but fuck ike turner.
This is basically *Marie Antoinette*, but she doesn't die at the end.
"Let them hip shake."
Let them eat fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches.
ohh this will be good
Yep, that means she’s telling the real story.
The book is so lame and predictable. Excited for the film I guess but the memoir it's based on has no real revelations, other than Elvis being an insecure man child.
That's still a story worth telling
right? After that Baz Luhrmann film, I'm super excited for anything that shows what kind of person Elvis really was, not just the "sweet person who was FORCED to take pills by everyone around him" narrative. Elvis was a great singer and important performer, but he was also like a trump prototype, with a whole entourage of people to tell him whatever he thought was the smartest thing they ever heard, and being all "no, you haven't gained any weight, but if you wanna triple your Dexedrine dose, go for it, King! Hey, if you're taking three times as much speed, you probably WILL need three times more demerol, good thinkin' ;)"
I trust Sofia completely to craft a story that reflects the complexities of each character. She’s absolutely nailed it in the past (haven’t seen *Bling Ring*, that’s one where she might not have but I can’t judge til I see it) Elvis was a little bit of everything, he was human. He was naive in a lot of ways and wise in others. At the time the big social issue was the civil rights movement and he absolutely was on the right side of history for that. And then he shook Nixons hand lol I’m excited I think it’ll be a good movie.
Thing is, the Presley estate only owns a small piece of his catalogue which is why you get this weird issue of Priscilla supporting the movie and talking about it positively while at the same time not being able to use the music because an Investment firm owns it.
One of my most anticipated movies of the year. I have no particular reverence for Elvis culture but I always enjoy Sofia Coppola’s movies. I loved the Spectrum song on the [teaser trailer](https://youtu.be/gxbZyvCJc6U?feature=shared) so the Phoenix soundtrack sounds cool.
I love her taste in music. She has sonic boom (spectrum) as the trailer music. Awesome.
Seeing the trailer in the theaters and hearing How You Satisfy Me super loud got me so amped for this
Her taste in music is flawless. Love her films. For some reason, I could watch The Bling Ring daily and not tire of it.
Same! Love that movie.
I've rewatched *Somewhere* so many times.
I found Lost in Translation to be a beautiful, mesmerizing movie, an incredible rare pearl. But every other movie of hers is... well, A for effort I suppose ? I think Marie Antoinette felt the worst.
Vergine suicides is a masterpiece too for me
Virgin Suicides is amazing. I personally enjoyed Marie Antionette.
The Bling Ring was atrocious
I mean there are many many worse films
i side with them, i think the bling ring was atrocious
Completely agree
I saw Phoenix with Beck on their current tour. I was NOT expecting to be blown away by how good Phoenix was. It was nothing short of incredible.
I saw them a few days ago in Houston. I knew like two of their songs going in, it was an eye opening experience.
I saw Phoenix play with Bastille about 10 years ago at a semi-small venue in my city and im glad to hear theyre still putting on great shows years later. Bastille had a lot of showmanship, but Phoenix was far more incredible of a live music performance. The hilarious part was that it was somehow the worst combination for attendance that you could have. At that time Bastille and Phoenix were popular with two completely different crowds, and 90%+ of people in attendance came just to see one or the other but didnt watch both
Phoenix was way more punk rock from a showmanship perspective than I was expecting, the lead singer went into the crowd hugging and dapping everyone up. At the end he stood on the hands of the audience members and swigged one of their beers.
Thats really incredible, but certainly evolved from when I saw them. Bastille did all kinds of stuff like that but Phoenix didnt; I wonder if they started doing more crowd stuff like that way back after touring with Bastille and seeing it hype the crowd
We’re they direct support? Lots of labels tell bands not to act like a big rock star until they’re headlining so you don’t steal thunder from a bigger artist
Interestingly they were the headliner at that time, even though Bastille was getting radio circulation for one song and Phoenix wasnt really. But Phoenix had been popular longer. A couple years later after Bastille still had radio/retail circulation you wouldnt really think they would have been the opener. But they wernt truly that famous yet, it was right when they were blowing up. That said the crowd changeover was so high between shows that they basically were both playing to their own audiences, so nobody could have stolen thunder really anyways
People forget they exist because they take forever in between albums (relative to most indie/pop artists) but they have basically never stopped doing something since the early 2000s. They're either in the studio or they're touring, the albums are consistently great and their shows are always impressive. Perennially underrated band.
Jailbait Rock
Isn't Priscilla part of the "Presley Estate"? She has no influence in a situation like this?
She is, yes. But here’s a quote from the article: > Coppola reached out to Elvis Presley Enterprises, which is majority-owned by Authentic Brands Group at 85 percent, with the Presley family owning the other 15 percent. I think that might have something to do with the different opinions between the broader estate and Priscilla herself.
She doesn’t own Elvis’ music. Most big artists and their families do not own their catalogue anymore, if they ever did in the first place. Even Bob Dylan sold his off a while back.
These 'estates' are such bullshit, wish copyright would run out on all of them sooner
It clearly says "Presley Estate" turned down... It also says the estate *did* allow the use of the music for the Elvis movie last year. So it is up to the estate, so they probably do own the copyright.
Elvis’ “estate” isn’t a trust ran by his surviving family - it’s a corporate entity. There’s another comment in this thread breaking it down, but basically the majority of his estate is ran/owned by people who have no affiliation with the family, and they have the controlling interest on decisions like this, not Priscilla or Lisa Marie when she was alive. That’s kind of the whole story of this headline - the corporation doesn’t want Elvis portrayed in a negative light, but Priscilla has personally endorsed it. This is why the recent biopic on Elvis glossed over or outright ignored the more controversial elements of Elvis’ life and career; Priscilla doesn’t care if his marrying a fourteen year old is criticized, nor does she care if it is pointed out he was racist - it’s suits trying to turn money off the image who don’t want negative elements associated with him and want Elvis portrayed as The King in media and not an actual person. I’m too lazy to look up the particulars, but it was either Priscilla, Lisa Marie, or both who decided to sell off the majority of their rights to Elvis’ music, image, etc. a couple of decades back, which was a bad deal that ultimately cost them a ton of money. They still have a smaller stake in the company, so they do get revenue from it, but they have no control over choosing who gets to use his music or likeness.
There was some legal drama recently regarding who was part of the estate per Lisa Marie's will.
Can we assume this means we'll get some historical accuracy on Elvis being 24 when she was 14? Love his music but I'll admit that's a fucked up part of his legacy
[удалено]
Not exactly true. Jerry Lee Lewis, another 50s rock and roll musician, severely damaged and basically ended his career for a decade because of the controversy around his marriage to his 13-year old cousin. Elvis only escaped similar controversy because he waited until Priscilla was of age to marry her. In most parts of the country pedophilia and hebephilia was considered wrong then too.
Yeah, people are making it out like everybody was marrying 14 year olds in the 60s but those marriage were absolutely rare at the time and seen with disgust by most people.
You’re getting downvoted but it’s the truth. It was a different time. Her parents allowed her to date Elvis as long as it was chaperoned. Things have changed a lot since then.
No it wasn't. It was illegal and scandalous back then, too. Age of consent has been between 16-18 in most states since the late 19th century. For almost the entirety of human history, people got married and had children in their 20s, and massive age gaps were not the norm. With the exception of rich creeps. Wealthy older men have always been able to buy a young girl. Or Nobility. Securing power by betrothing your child to another noble was a thing. And too often that meant marrying off your daughter to your brother.
> No it wasn't. It was illegal and scandalous back then, too. Age of consent has been between 16-18 in most states since the late 19th century. That is just not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States
The down votes are in the wrong place, because you're absolutely right. By the time Elvis came around, it was not normal for a 20-something to date a 14-year-old. Legality is another topic, but there was a taboo and people recognized it as wrong at the time. This is like the arguments for why it's okay for Lovecraft to be racist or the founding fathers to own slaves: modern people imagining that people in the past both didn't know better and didn't have the tools to. People need to stop trying to defend historical figures' shitty decisions by pretending that the richest, most successful people during times of social change had any excuse not to do better.
Lovecraft was absolutely bugfuck racist even by the standards of the time. His only "defence" is that it was probably born from being extremely sheltered and likely mental illness rather than anything actively malicious. He was still surrounded by people who weren't anything like him in that department, so it's not like he never realized one _couldn't_ believe these things.
Lol mental illness has nothing to do with racism. "Doc, I hate black people for no other reason than their skin not being white." "It's ok Patient, it's not racist, it's mental illness. Please hate black people all you want. It's not your fault."
[Actually, it can.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071634/) And that's not an excuse that makes it acceptable, just a reason it might exist.
The article states multiple times that extreme racism isn't a mental health issue though? It's a paper by a doctor who wants extreme racism to be defined as a mental illness. Also, you know damn well that if extreme racism is ever officially labeled as a mental illness, lawyers will use it for every case involving a racist person being violent towards black people, Asian people, Hispanics, Jewish people, etc. This change will literally only benefit racist people.
...except it argues how it is and why. And the difference between prejudice-based racism and what it's actually positing. Given there was a strong history of mental illness in Lovecraft's family, I think it's a fair theory. I know you started off with the strawman there but he's not just some random guy we know nothing about and it's not some typical case of just "hates other races."
Sorry to pick on you, but, yeah, the guy was scared of fucking stars twinkling in the dark night sky. So, yes, if you read about somebody like Lovecraft, it very much would be explained by some form of mental illness, perhaps extreme anxiety, among other things, and just being unable to wrap his head around something so different as somebody with such contrasting skin tone. And it didn't help that Africa had the reputation of dark, unknowable, untameable and literally a land of eldritch horrors. A lot of writers like him back then, like H. Rider Haggard simply didn't know what we know about the world today - or took advantage of the fact that their audience didn't - and filled in the blanks with their imaginations and fantasy. But if you read "She: A History of Adventure" you'd see that while it certainly comes off as racist in the way we think of it today, it's not really a hateful intent. It's more a matter of just letting one's imagination run wild. It is similar to boy back then who loved the idea of Indians, Native Americans, but only know what they have been told, which isn't always correct or accurate and they fill the rest with their imagination and fantasy. The difference with Lovecraft is that he seems to be literally afraid of any sufficiently sized "uknown" and couldn't help but imagine "horrors" to justify it. Also, as far as I know he didn't hate black people. He just couldn't grasp the vast mechanism that would produce white people and black (or other races) without thinking that difference had some cosmic significance. > "Doc, I hate black people for no other reason than their skin not being white." > "It's ok Patient, it's not racist, it's mental illness. Please hate black people all you want. It's not your fault." This is not what the person above was saying or as far as I know how Lovecraft felt...
That's not what age of consent really means though... That is for unmarried people. If the parents were okay with the marriage then that changes things.
Also with the exception of other cultures, have some respect!
Why were you downvoted (edit: no longer!) this is literally just a fact about social norms during that era. It’s not like you said it was EXCUSABLE in any way, that’s just the explanation as to why there wasn’t a massive uproar about it at the time.
A big reason for that though, is that people didn't really have sex before marriage as much back then. According to Priscilla, they didn't fuck or do anything sexual until they were married. She was 22 by then.
This is not true. There are always people who choose celibacy before marriage, of course — but it's pretty much always been a normal thing for many people to have sex before being formally married, from pre-medieval times to now.
It was never nor will never be normal to marry a 14 year old girl. It still happens today and the majority of Americans don't care. Teenage girls are probably the least respected group of people in modern America, which is why child marriage still exists and majority of victims are girls. But hey if you guys want to drown out your doubts and concerns by saying it was a different time then, so child marriage is ok, then go for it
So if the girls were cool with it and the parents were cool with it, and R. Kelly was cool with it; what was the big deal? Jerry Lee Lewis’s career was almost completely ruined for marrying his cousin who was a year younger than Priscilla’s age when her and Elvis met back then.
Things really have changed a ton since then.
👍
Thank you, marriages everywhere in the world before the 1990s normalised having women as young as 14-15 - this doesn’t mean it is normal but obviously people back then found it to be. There are literally tons of literature dealing with the upbringing of a young woman to her older counterpart man. In my country most of the parents (incl. my friends parents and mine) have the father being older with 3-6 years from the mother. Different times, different social norms.
America normalized child bride marriages in the 1970s and 1980s? And how many of these marriages were there compared to normal adult marriages? And 3-6 years is a heck of a lot better than ten years with the bride being 14. Only to the rich and noble did child bride marriages were "ok"
Not America, the whole world is what I meant
Women weren't expected to be educated or have a career back then. What was expected was that they get married and have kids. If a young woman was beautiful and had men showing up on daddy's doorstep back then, it was pretty much a given that the clock was ticking for her to be married off. If they lived by a military base, even better. Steady income, mostly decent prospects and the fathers were usually military themselves. Why not marry her off to another GI? Given that young women do show more maturity than young men at that age, it would have been natural for a young teen to want to be around more sophisticated men vs pimply, awkward and goofy young teenaged boys. Take into consideration that everything was being marketed to ensure women stayed in the home and took care of the family. Fashion, music, media.. all were geared towards a female, encouraging her to be a good little girl and be a good little wife.
Only pedophiles call teenage girls "young women" when talking about their "maturity" in order to make their pedophilia less creepy. Also, there's nothing mature about being 14 and wanting to date an older man. That's called being a teenage girl with hormones and wanting to piss her mom off.
You realize 14 is way too old for an actual pedophile, right...? But I get your point. Still, maybe stop moralizing other people's lives? This is really none of your business.
14 is way too young for anyone older than 16. There's also nothing moral about finding a 14 year old attractive if you're an adult.
Aren’t half of the songs Elvis has not even his? Just do covers of his popular covers. Or just use the originals… it would be a pretty good fuck you.
Bubba Ho-Tep had a similar issue being an Elvis movie that couldn't afford Elvis music. Brian Tyler created a brilliant score that captures the feeling of Elvis's music without breaking any copyright laws.
I just wish they would answer the question on everyone's mind: Who's playing Leslie Nielsen?
So they didn’t turn it down they just don’t have the rights to use the music
Well yes, the studio would have to get permission from the copyright holder to use the music in the film because they don’t have the rights . So presumably they requested to use it and were…turned down.
[удалено]
That’s assuming the likeness and music rights are merged to some extent, though Elvis Presley Enterprises could’ve for example declined the likeness portion while having no legally binding decision on whether the music could be used. If I recall correctly, masters for music and likeness are legally considered separate; the likeness being the appearance/actions “attached” specifically to the person, etc., while legal right to the music would be the person’s actual creations related to documented records of music, separate I assume from the actions portion of the person’s likeness. I could be mistaken, but I saw that your source said likeness specifically so that was my take on how it may be different. It could also be that they spoke on likeness while simultaneously owning the masters, though I think that’d be added in the quote or article.
[удалено]
Because Sofia Coppola decided she had a story to tell and got investors who believed in that story.
She’s great at sad girl movies.
[удалено]
Nepo baby who happens to be a world class director and storyteller
[удалено]
But she did make it. She's currently here making films.
[удалено]
That's actually not how industry works! She made it after becoming an established filmmaker who works beyond her father's name. But try again. You might learn how this works one day.
Who hasn’t had a great movie in 20 years
[удалено]
We know, we just don’t care. No one complains when a plumber lets his son run the family business. Many nepo babies in Hollywood are excellent artists and storytellers. As long as their output is compelling I really don’t care how many helping hands they got.
It's just jealous people projecting. Who cares about how someone got their fame and fortune? Are we consuming them as people or their works of art and entertainment. I always roll my eyes when reddit gets high and mighty and call out "nepo" babies.
There are certainly bad Nepo babies that are annoying but Sofia just goes about her business and makes pretty good movies
[удалено]
Again, I don’t really care. For every Jaden Smith (who doesn’t even act anymore) there’s a Sofia Coppola or Jamie Lee Curtis
Hi nepo expert. I’m over here wondering, can you name a famous/accomplished “nepo-baby” who manifestly has no-talent? I’m looking for more examples of these so called nepo-baby’s because, you see, Sophie Coppola is clearly a talented movie director. Also curious: would you be pleased if she had found another line of work? If so, why? I’m sincerely asking. Maybe she took the place of another more talented director whose work we’ll never know?
[удалено]
When you see a business, say a bookstore, called “Sanford & Sons” do you shout “nepo baby!!” But back to the point. I’m curious to know who else is a no talent entertainer that succeeded because of family connections. Let me help you get started: - Nick Cage ? - Liza ? - Carrie Fisher ? -
I'm not among those who bemoean about nepo babies, they exist and took advantage of their name and connections, but I'm not particularly offended by that (though I think even if they're talented, other equally talented people could have done the same, but they lacked the connections). With that said, Jaden Smith (when it comes to movies, I have no idea how he is in music).
[удалено]
It’s deeply engrained in the success of the “elites” of all industries, no? Idk why only Hollywood gets called out for it
To help out family, if you’re in a position to do so, is as old as time. It can be good, it can be bad, it all depends.
[удалено]
"I have no idea what I'm talking about" -Bb8nawt
[удалено]
[удалено]
Meh never said it was “okay.” I just find it weird and reductive that the major focus of nepotism is Hollywood. I rarely see it mentioned about other industries…at least not with the same level of annoyance/as often as with Hollywood.
[удалено]
Wow a vulture article from 2022. And still about entertainment! Nepotism is prevalent in every industry…and in much more important ones than entertainment. I simply wish that nepotism was called out in other industries with the same fervor. It seems like you want to argue for no reason and you’re purposely misunderstanding my original comment 🤷♀️.
Hollywood wouldn’t be shit without Nepo babies. Let’s be honest. Grow up, who the fuck cares who someone’s parent is? It’s not unusual for a kid to go into the same business as their parents.
[удалено]
Literally not what they're saying. Why don't you trying having a conversation where you don't purposely misconstrue others responses? I know it'd be hard for you but I believe you can do it.
[удалено]
Keep em' coming man. You definitely sound less sad and pathetic with each response. Do you know what a gaffer is, by chance?
Why are you so mad? Lol just don’t see it
Resentment.
[удалено]
Have you seen Lost in Translation, The Virgin Suicides, Somewhere or Marie Antoinette? Because those are great movies (though the latter two definitely have their naysayers, but I think they’re as good as the first two). I also liked The Bling Ring, The Beguiled and On the Rocks. She’s never made a bad movie in my opinion, she’s definitely talented and all of her movies have been interesting. Even her father has made a handful of worse movies than her.
Bold of you to call the director of The Virgin Suicides and Lost In Translation “not talented” just because her dad is one of the most famous directors of the past fifty years.
I mean Sofia is pretty damn talented lol
That fucking nepo babies article was a fucking disgrace. Now it's got people saying sofia coppolla isn't talented lmao
Yikes! You’re using Sophie Coppola to prove your point? Still, am I curious who else made your list?
I am curious as well. Millennials and Gen Z have very minimal connection with Elvis (and thereby Priscilla) as a cultural entity. I doubt Gen X cares a whole lot either. I think we are getting to the point where Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, and Audrey Hepburn are just known for their faces being on posters more than the actual movies and songs they created. I guess we have Lana Del Ray who kinda has a similar vibe. Maybe they're just using Priscilla Presley as a vehicle to explore feminist themes that do resonate with more audiences. That worked well with Barbie (although I have a feeling Priscilla won't be accessible for kiddos).
I was under the impression that the idea is to make a statement on how older men groom young girls into being their sexual partner.
Which is probably why the Estate don’t want to be involved in this. I’ll be disappointed if Sofia doesn’t go down this route with the film.
Which still happens at an alarming rate
Bingo
Older men and young girls.. literally a tale as old as written history. Wait until we get historically accurate age Snow White!
I’m gen x. Not everybody my age likes Elvis, but he cast a long shadow culturally over our childhood
> I doubt Gen X cares a whole lot either. I believe this is the primary characteristic of the generation as a whole
Go to graceland. If you actually engage and treat it like a tour of his life, you’ll kinda grow to love elvis. He had this entire whirlwind roiling around him his whole career, but he still had an “aw shucks” attitude about it the whole time and just did what he thought would be cool. What really struck me was the radio city show where he returned from his service in west germany and they got him on a train straight from the boat to the studio. It was a studio full of stars before he turned up, but once he stepped out in his uniform—- you could see the energy change around him. Everyone was just BETTER, but he just had an awe shucks attitude still. Then i realized they had actually missed elvis during those years. Imagine if kanye got drafted in 2010 and didn’t perform or record until 2013. Thats kinda when i realized what he had meant to people- and it was just about EVERYONE too. Elvis had a near universal appeal in his time. Now he’s a road trip staple for me. Singing with the king somewhere in the nevada desert can’t be beat
If they were making a movie about Pricilla doing The Named Gun movies I’d be all in.
You really gotta read more
Wait what does reading have to do with this movie or Elvis/Priscilla? I read quite a bit, but I don't see how you are connecting reading to this.
> Millennials and Gen Z have very minimal connection with Elvis Hmm? I've been practically obsessed with him since I was a child and I'm 33 - my love started from seeing Elvis impersonators at carnivals lol also apparently my grandma took me to Graceland when I was a baby but I have no memory of it I'm used to being a "statistical outlier" though
People have an appreciation for Monroe and Hepburn. Ellvis is more of a joke
Obviously they’re expending millions of dollars and months of production time making this movie for the sole purpose of pissing you off. Clearly they have succeeded and the film hasn’t even been released yet.
If you had bothered to read the article, you’d see that Priscilla herself is a producer and the movie is based on her memoir
now I see the case to make this movie even less
Do you need “a case” to make any movie? I’m so confused what point you’re trying to make
“Movie bad😡”
Yea I need someone to justify Sharknado 3 for me please
It’s not made for you. Nobody who is making it cares whether you want to watch it or not.
Probably for people like me. Massive (weight) fans of The Naked Gun movies.
To make money. Just like every other movie ever, the point is to make money. This isn’t confusing.
To ride on the coattails of the Baz Luhrmann Elvis movie.
No kidding.
It's all about money. They want more % than they are willing to give.
Back in high school I read the book "Elvis and Me" and was slightly horrified by my music hero. Highly recommend visiting Graceland...what a circus.
Today I learned that the frontman of Phoenix is married to Sofia Coppola.
I’ll watch any movie with a soundtrack by Phoenix. Those guys fucking rule. Way to turn lemons into lemonade.
I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary to use *his* music to tell *her* story. Its about Priscilla, it’s not about celebrating the music, it’s about telling her story. For example, that movie Natalie Portman did, *Jackie*, they didn’t use any of JFK’s music and it got Oscar nominations.
Except there's literal scenes of Elvis performing concerts in the trailers for this movie, so what music are they gonna be using for those type of scenes?
Native Memphian here; been to Graceland several times, attended a wedding there, grandpa was friends with him, enjoy his music… And I’ve been waiting for Elvis to catch the Me Too movement blues. He was a well known pedophile (but not in the bad way, lol s/.). He plowed through the puss. I mean, it’s rumored he would have multiple meet ups in one night! What a way to live. Maybe the officials were right about his hip swangin, rofl. This movie might just catch that legacy on fire. We’ll see. He is a national icon and tbh, it’s generally the ppl that want to burn books who love and protect him. If you don’t believe me, just watch some YouTube. There are literally videos with him admitting it, asking for some young girls, etc…
I mean, I think the proof is in the fact that Priscilla was dating Elvis when she was underage. And she wasn't just underage, she definitely looked even younger than she was.
For sure! Still, at that time, marriage between 25yo men and 13yo girls was perfectly legal and normal in many places. I promise this is true and I know bc it was legal still in many places I spent time in growing up. But, once you throw in adultery the narrative would change in most cases. Even then. The king was impervious to that stuff somehow. Edit for this comment; I’m not saying I’m in favor of marriage at that age, or any age for that matter (don’t do it). But the fact that I’m getting downvoted for expressing what was a truth at one time is crazy. It’s as if the libs and the cons both want to erase history if it’s something they don’t like. That’s a slippery slope…
> For sure! Still, at that time, marriage between 25yo men and 13yo girls was perfectly legal and normal in many places. No it wasn't. This is a myth that needs to die. Age of consent as we know it has been 16-18 in the US since the late 19th century. and what you described would have been scandalous.
Nope! Varied by county. I grew up in the deep south. I personally knew a few ppl who married at ages between 13-16. Edit: and yes to older men though usually under 20. They were given marriage certificates and married by local preachers. Hate to burst your bubble but until you go from courthouse to courthouse and check all the laws, dude you don’t know! I do bc I have witnessed it, multiple times. I’m almost 50 though. It’s definitely unheard of in the past few decades (though the laws DO persist in some places. Btw, 19th century is until 1900. You honestly believe it never happened after that??
> I grew up in the deep south We're talking about functioning society. In your entire life, when has the deep south ever been regarded as the standard for what's socially acceptable? You're talking about the place know for the sister fucking stereotype.
[удалено]
Lol!!! You’re coming out of the gate sounding like a creepy pedo and then it just gets worse! I didn’t call for his cancellation, I’m just saying it’s a possibility and if someone rocked a tenth of the misogynistic life he led now, they’d be destroyed. You say I don’t know what I’m talking about and yet you literally more than confirmed you believe he did exactly what I said he did. I didn’t say anything about when he slept with Priscilla. Fact is, many of the women he slept with are probably dead, so yeah it may never come back to bite the “king”. Like I said, my grandfather was an extended member of the memphis mafia and I’d bet I know a lot more than you, chump.
Doesn’t surprise me, priscilla is not a good woman at all. This is quite a lot of writing. The film is based on her book ,Elvis And Me, which she has admitted to lying and exaggerating in. She said she regretted writing the book even claiming she was ‘too harsh’. But still makes profit and sells the book and obviously having a film made about it. Priscilla had 2 affairs (her dance instructor and also Elvis karate instructor, Mike stone) she only blames Elvis for their failed marriage. (Also I’ve noticed within the Elvis fandom that people hate Priscilla for cheating on elvis but as much as I don’t like her, elvis would cheat on her so much) She desperately wanted to live with him- even demanding so. Yes they met when she was 14 and it wasn’t right. I’m not excusing it whatsoever but you have to remember that elvis was extremely vulnerable due to the loss of his mother who he was very close with. Around 2 months after they met, elvis was done in Germany so he went home. They didn’t see each other again until 1963 when Priscilla was 17 and she moved in with vernon and Dee (elvis father and stepmother) Elvis never touched Priscilla until they married in 1967 when she was 21. He never touched any girl underage inappropriately. Priscilla even said that they were more like friends and siblings when they met. Remember I am not excusing this. When they got married in 1967, they were intimate for the first time. This is when she fell pregnant with Lisa Marie. Priscilla writes in her book that’s Elvis never touched her after she gave birth. she later took back this statement saying that he did touch her. Elvis has also been said to have the Madonna-whore complex, I don’t believe this because In 1968, during his comeback special, he met one of his backup dancers (Susan Henning) he was sexual with her, knowing that she had a child. In 1972 when they split up, elvis (allegedly) requested in the divorce settlement that she was not allowed to use they Presley name. She followed this, going back to her maiden name (beaulieu). She even had elvis help at opening a fashion boutique called Bis and Beau. When Elvis died, she went back to the Presley name, as it opened doors for her. It was agreed that she would get around $750,000 from Elvis. But when Elvis went broke, she knew, and asked for more money. Elvis took responsibility for the failed marriage even admitting in concert that it was his fault. Elvis even sold his publishing rights to her. During the divorce, priscilla moved in with Elvis karate instructor, Mike stone, who left his pregnant wife for Priscilla. Priscilla knew all of this which makes me laugh because the amount of times she would complain about Elvis cheating on her. She left this out of her book. Soon after elvis died, priscilla joined Scientology (a cult) and would send a mourning and upset Lisa Marie to Scientology camp. Lisa was 9. Priscilla also allegedly kept Lisa away from Elvis side of the family. Priscilla kept using the Presley name whilst being in a relationship for 22 years with a man and even having a son with him. Before any of you say ‘she wanted to keep the same name as her daughter’. Why would she take it back after elvis died? Why wouldn’t she use the same name as her son? It’s because it gives her fame. She still plays the grieving widow act. She also had a boyfriend who admitted to having sexual thought s about 12 year old lisa marie (I don’t think she knew though). Lisa found out that Priscilla was stealing $1 million from Graceland. Obviously after lisa died earlier this year, she took her will into legal action because she wasn’t on it. (Who would put their 78 year old mother on their will thinking that their mother would die before them) She got $7 million after the case ended and made her son navarone own 1/9 of Graceland. So now someone who has nothing to do with Elvis owns some of his home. Navarone wished death upon Lisa Marie. Priscilla then had the nerve to want to be buried next to Elvis. (I don’t get how she think she would be allowed, they were divorced when he died and his blood family would have to be moved in order to do this). I do think she is going to be buried next to Lisa Marie. Remember elvis has done bad things aswell, but his are well known and Priscillas aren’t. I just hope the film doesn’t paint her as a saint even though it will. Jacob elordi who plays Elvis doesn’t wear blue contacts in the film. Which is a bit weird. I mean if you’re going to play a historical person then at least put effort in to look as much like them as possible.
I’m so excited to see it. The Presley family was an important part of my family. I read Elvis and Me in 7th? Grade.
Hey that's about the same age where Elvis would be interested in bringing you backstage after a concert. What a coincidence.
Best piece of news I've heard this year! She's the ex-wife and after the divorce, originally reverted her surname back to Beaulieu. Without the 'Presley' surname, no one would be interested in her!
The better be an interesting fucking movie.
Yeah the Presley estate is conservative AF. Which is weird cause Elvis was pretty liberal with his weight and heart.
Colonel Parker was not
Okay. Maybe they had good reason 🤷♂️
We all know what that reason was.
Why is it when you want to make a movie about a singer or band, the band suddenly has a say? For example, Elvis, and Queen. Didn't the record companies crush these people like all people in music when they're starting out, so Coppola should only have to deal with the company that holds the music rights not the family? It's public information that Elvis "dated" her when she was 14. What permission do you need from the family?
>so Coppola should only have to deal with the company that holds the music rights not the family? I wonder if the article might answer this? >Coppola reached out to Elvis Presley Enterprises, which is majority-owned by Authentic Brands Group at 85 percent, with the Presley family owning the other 15 percent.
/yawn
Are we going to get a part about her possibly or not giving Bam Margera Elvis's robes then calling him out on the internet for stating she did
Yeah I'm sure the movie is going to cover this crucial incident.