July 9, 2025 • 33 mins
The newest Superman reboot is crash-landing to planet Earth soon. But will we accept the "Man of Steel" or arrest him and send him back in shackles? These seem to be just the kind of questions which Director James Gunn doesn't just welcome but encourages.
Gunn is no stranger to controversy, fired from 'Guardians of the Galaxy 3' for his tweets which mocked and diminished the evils of pedophilia, the Holocaust, and rape - and is unapologetic about the politics of his Superman. He asserts that anyone who doesn't like the film's politics, which seem to slant pro-immigration and anti-ICE/Trump are "jerks" and can go "screw off."
Award-winning filmmaker, author, and cultural commentator Greg Rabidoux joins Ryan to discuss whether Kal-El (Superman) is really an 'illegal immigrant' subject to deportation.
https://www.gregthefilmmaker.com/about
https://www.gregthefilmmaker.com/post/is-superman-really-an-illegal-immigrant
Gunn is no stranger to controversy, fired from 'Guardians of the Galaxy 3' for his tweets which mocked and diminished the evils of pedophilia, the Holocaust, and rape - and is unapologetic about the politics of his Superman. He asserts that anyone who doesn't like the film's politics, which seem to slant pro-immigration and anti-ICE/Trump are "jerks" and can go "screw off."
Award-winning filmmaker, author, and cultural commentator Greg Rabidoux joins Ryan to discuss whether Kal-El (Superman) is really an 'illegal immigrant' subject to deportation.
https://www.gregthefilmmaker.com/about
https://www.gregthefilmmaker.com/post/is-superman-really-an-illegal-immigrant
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Waiting on word response from Representative Rose Paglici, the House
Minority leader for the GOP, and the statement that was
released earlier today addressing concerns from Representative Brandy Bradley was
on this program yesterday joining a chorus of women who
have come forward saying, hey, Representative Ron Weinberg was inappropriate
(00:23):
in conversations that were had, whether it be on the
House floor, the General Assembly, or in particular. It seems
a flashpoint has been leadership program of the Rockies, and
it happened in back to back years, according to one
of the accusers, Jacqueline Anderson, who was on this program yesterday.
Natalie Tennant, the founder of Never Surrendered National, will be
(00:46):
joining me tomorrow with her own perspective on this, but
she offers up the following on X quote. Did Representative
Brandy Bradley play a role in amplifying allegations against Representative
Ron Weinberg to sway the minority whip? Three years ago,
Heather Booth, Jacqueline Anderson, and another individual accused Weinberg of
(01:06):
inappropriate behavior before he was a lawmaker. These claims resurfaced
just as Weinberg announced his candidacy for minority whip now
leading to his withdrawal. The timing raises eyebrows. Did Bradley
orchestrate this to boost her own influence or secure the
whip role for an ally? What do you think coincidence
are calculated? And then she cites her appearance on this
(01:28):
program coming up tomorrow and that'll be during our first
hour at about two thirty three p m.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
She goes on to say.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
Let's discuss the facts and keep it civil, and then
offers up this disclaimer quote. In no way am I
defending Representative Weinberg. I'm bringing light to the timing of
the old allegations. Everyone's voices should be heard, Truths should
always be spoken. Now she puts truth plural truths to me,
there's only one truth.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Did this happen?
Speaker 1 (01:58):
And this goes to another one of my followers on
X and she's very solid and her name on X
at least is Colorado Girl seventy three, and she says
on her ex bio formerly known as Twitter, that she
ran an anti human trafficking NGO in India for twelve years.
That's an interesting background. I want to talk to her
(02:18):
on the air, but she says the following in response
to Natalie in a post on x as well, addressing
the points one at a time. One, she meaning Representative Bradley,
dropped out from being whips, so that point is void.
Point two, she being Representative Bradley, didn't control when these
ladies came forward.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
They came forward on their own.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Now let me amend that point with a point of
my own, and that is a representative Bradley and I
had a conversation after the fact. So I saw Jacqueline Anderson,
I'm a friend of hers on Facebook, and I saw
her post on Facebook. It was very concerned by the
gravity of the allegations that she made in not one,
but back to back years at this same LPA our
(03:00):
event in which she claims that Representative Weinberg spoke to
her inappropriately and offered up some observations and suggestions that
I can't even say here on the radio. But the
galling thing to me is that allegedly Representative Weinberg said
this right in front of Jacqueline's husband, not once, but twice,
(03:22):
and there was a confrontation to that point. I commended
Jacqueline's husband for his composure, because many guys in this
situation there would have been a rumble, and it would
have been, in my view, had this if this is
exactly as she makes the account of the incident, if
it happened as she describes, any man, any husband worth
(03:44):
his salt, would be well within his rights to defend
his wife, to defend her honor, to stand up to
somebody saying these things, and to make it known and
make it clear that that will not be happening again,
not on my watch. I mean, that's how I would operate.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
And it was just.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
It was just stunning to me these details that were
provided to us by Jaqueline Anderson. Let's revisit one of
those right here.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Well, let's talk about.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
That first instance a little bit, because if that bring
into Rod's wife, especially if she just went to social
media this afternoon to say that their false accusations. She
was there when my husband confronted Ron the day after
and had a little discussion about his behavior and how
inappropriate it was. And I was quite shocked that she
seems very disconnected their husband, Like Carolyn's standing there next
(04:37):
to her husband Ron, and you have another man telling
him it's inappropriate for you to say these things to
my wife. You need to step back.
Speaker 4 (04:45):
You know, give them the what for.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
And she's just standing there like nothing's going on. How
disconnected do you have to be to completely shut down?
So for her to claim that they're false, she was there.
Speaker 4 (04:58):
She was a part of it well.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Jacqueline Anderson's account of what went down. And I did
reach out to Carolyn Weinberg, the aforementioned wife of Representative
Ron Weinberg, via email inviting Ron Representative Weinberg to join
this programmer to the Encampus show, and she offered up
the following reply, Hello, Ryan, I will consult with Representative
Weinberg and his lawyer.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
So that's the sticky wicket here.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
No matter where the truth lands in any of this,
for somebody that's accused, there are legal implications.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
I get that, and you don't want to get ahead
of that.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
But at the same time, in my view, if I'm
in Ron Weinberg's shoes and I'm feeling either unjustly accused
or that these ascertainments are going too far, that it's
a distortion, that's an exaggeration of what went down, I'm
going to get out front and center as a public
(05:52):
figure and get in front of this, get in front
of this and define the terms of how I describe
what happened. Now going forward with Colorado Girls seventy three's
points here, she gets to one that I've been making,
and it's difficult to refute. So point three, and by
the way, about the nexus between Representative Bradley and these accusers.
(06:15):
Jacqueline Anderson told me that she only came forward this
according to her, but she did consider the matter resolved.
That LPR had banned Representative Weinberg, and she considered the
matter closed. But she then found out new facts that
there were other women at the Capitol that Representative Weinberg
(06:36):
was continuing to kind of engage in this type of conduct,
and that's what prompted her to come forward. There's no
mention at least from Jacqueline.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Of Representative Brandy Bradley.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
So let's continue Colorado Girls seventy three with these points
on X point three. Three years ago, they thought LPR
had handled it, but his accused vulgar behavior has continued.
That's the point I just made.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Point four.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
He was at LPR with the aspiration running for office.
He originally got in through a vacancy committee because Senator
Barb Kirkmeyer selected him, he clearly did not learn from LPR,
that is her opinion, meaning Colorado Girls seventy three. And
here's the point that I keep coming back to, and
the one that Representative Weinberg he's gonna have to address
point blank, why did LPR ban him? Shouldn't his vulgar
(07:21):
behavior stop? And she claims that Natalie Tennant's whip argument
is quote a red herring unquote Yeah, I mean he's
been banned. It would appear to be a matter of
a record by LPR. Well, then if he was banned,
why was he banned and what would his characterization of
that reason be as to why he was banned. Representive
(07:42):
Bradley has since replied to this on X saying, quote
gaslight and divert from the real truth. Haha, Like I
don't see that playbook every day in session.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
And then it goes on from there.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
You can follow the principles involved here on X. Ready
Bradley is at Bradley for Coe for Colorado. There, so
this ongoing saga continues. I want to also go back
to this Laura Baron Lopez commentary because the Left is
simply eating this up and I knew they would, but
(08:19):
you're seeing you conservative influencers where they're be online, the
likes of Benny Johnson, Jack Pisobec, and I think those
two guys are uniquely in a position where they're made
to look foolish.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
And I'll expand on that point with this.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
Do you remember when the Epstein files, so called, originally
kind of made the news when Trump assumed office and
Attorney General Pam Bondi upon confirmation, told John Roberts from
Fox News that the files were on her desk and
that she was going through them along with the MLK
files and the JFK files on the two assassinations there. Well,
(08:58):
then they released these binders that allegedly had you know,
the Epstein documents in them, but they were highly act
and what they had where a bunch of these conservative
influencers that unless you're online, and I mean that like
literally and figuratively, like you know how you hear the
termament you're too online? That would be like me thinking
the world revolves around X formally known as Twitter, but
(09:19):
not everybody's on Twitter now X.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
The fact is a.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
Distinct minority of Americans that get their news and information
primarily through X, or exclusively through X or they operate
in that sphere, in that world, and I have to
always check myself in a like I am definitely more
online in quotes than say the average person. I need
to be to prepare for this show, to help inform
and entertain all of you. I want to make sure
that I've got that kind of information.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
And so I'm always got my eyes.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Kind of finger on the pulse looking around what's going on.
But X is not real life, not necessarily. So you
have all these influencers show up at the Capitol and
they're all holding up these binders like here we go,
We're finally going to get the Epstein and the truth.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
And you know who's on.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
Epstein's list, and what we've gotten over these last seventy
two hours just isn't satisfactory. And I have to imagine
the likes of Benny Johnson Jack Butsobic they feel like
they've been hung out to dry and they kind of
were made fools of stooges of out on the White
House lawn. Oh, I got this binder is a binder
full of crap, you know, according to Pam Bondi, now
according to Cash Pateel, according to Dan Bongino leadership of
(10:24):
the FBI.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
There's nothing to say here.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
There are no Epstein files, there is no Epstein list,
there were no clients. Epstein killed himselves. She's saying Maxwell's
in prison because of nothing, because she just trafficked underage
women for Jeffrey Epstein himself.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Is that what we're to believe here? We know that's
not true.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
We know that's not true based on observable evidence in
the public sphere.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
And so I'm not going to be lied to.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
And I know a lot of you don't want that
either on a matter of this importance and of something
this die or this dark and why is this information
being withheld? Why is it being covered up? And here
is again that entire portion, Dana Bash CNN setting this
up and then going to Laura Baron Lopez, the White
(11:13):
House correspondent for PBS, a far left organization.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Of course, that led.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
To a lot of frustration online and elsewhere among people
who are pretty influential with the magabase.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Here's just a sampling, right, this is absurd.
Speaker 6 (11:29):
Ham Bondi was talking about Ebstein, Cash was talking about Ebseen,
bon Gino talking about ebveseene Elon must talking about o's
seen Trump has been talking about Epstein. He started his
presidential campaign in twenty sixteen by blinking the Clintons to Epstein.
Speaker 7 (11:41):
Jesus that we don't need to hear about Jeffrey Epstein
ever again.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
You know what this sounds like.
Speaker 7 (11:47):
I'm going to say exactly what this sounds like, Ham
Bondie sounds like Hillary Clinton right now, ar Barll.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Lopez is back with us.
Speaker 5 (11:55):
First of all, if you're MAGA, those are fighting words
to talk about Pam Bondi as Hillary Clinton. But I
do want to just say one other thing, which is
those are just sort of some examples. It was all
over so conservative social media. We're just going to put
up a few more examples, starting with Roseanne Barr, who
(12:17):
is a supporter of the president, and the first thing
she said was, mister President, yes we still care about Epstein.
Speaker 8 (12:23):
This is mass disappointment, almost on a religious level. I mean,
this was a key pillar of MAGA canon for years.
I mean, all throughout the election cycle. The MAGA base
really built this up. Not just the MAGA base, but
key figures that are now inside the President's administration, whether
(12:45):
it's Pam Bondy, whether it's stand on Gino cash Ftel,
the leaders of the FBI, they were talking about this
non stop and putting it, presenting it as something that
was representative of you, accusing Democrats hiding the ball on this,
of building this up as some grand conspiracy theory and
(13:05):
now cognitive dissonance. Now no, there is no nothing to
see here, there's nothing to release.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
There's even internal.
Speaker 4 (13:14):
Fighting about it.
Speaker 8 (13:15):
So this is something that is incredibly confusing, clearly.
Speaker 5 (13:18):
For the MAGA base, and turning on the President personally
suggesting that he has something to hide, which we don't
have any evidence of. I want to say that for
the record, just going back to something to Elon Musk said,
time to drop a really big bomb. Donald Trump is
in the Epstein files, by the way. He deleted that
after he was trying to make nicer with the president.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
Dana Bash very wise and holding off on any kind
of accusations or assumptions of fact as it pertains to
Donald Trump with regard to Jeffrey Epstein, because she knows
ABC has been sued successfully by the President. He won
against George Stephanopolis, who called him a convicted rapist live
on the air fifteen million dollars US just settled for
(14:01):
sixteen million dollars with their deceptive editing of the Kamala
Harrison interview, and CBS had to pay that out on
behalf of sixty minutes. That's thirty one million dollars. You know,
as much as the legal fees have been. For Donald
Trump to mount his own defense against the law fair
during the twenty twenty four campaign, which was unprecedented. I
hope we never see it again, but it was absolutely
(14:21):
targeted as a way to take him out politically, and
then of course the assassination attempts plural designed to take
him out. Resilient as he is. He's won these two
lawsuits and he'd launch another one against CNN and he
would be successful. So she was wise to provide cover
there because she's right. Elon Musk did take that post down,
(14:42):
but it does beg the question why was Donald Trump
so quick to dismiss and jump in on behalf of
Pam Bondy right here? When he takes on all comers,
He holds wide open press conferences, tackles any subject, difficult, easy,
anything in between. On the questions, Pepper me with thought iver,
I'm not Joe Biden. I'll answer anything you've got, but
(15:04):
not this one your.
Speaker 9 (15:05):
Memo and released yesterday. Jeffrey estein less than leadering mysteries.
One of the biggest ones is whether he ever worked
for an American for foreign intelligence agency. The former Leaker secretary,
who is Miami US attorney Alex Casai alligedly said that
he did for intelligence agency.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
So could you resolve whether or not he did?
Speaker 9 (15:28):
And also can you see why there was a minute
missing from the jail house team dominated.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
So yeah, sure, I just sent a little lot of it.
Are you still talking about Jeffrey ever staining? This guy's
been talked about for years.
Speaker 4 (15:41):
You're asking we have Texas, we have this, we have
all of the things which and.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Are people still talking about this guy? That's creative, That
is unbelievable. If you want to waste the time, and
then if you feel like answered, I don't mind answering.
Speaker 5 (15:57):
I mean, I can't believe you're asking a question on
Epstein at a time like this where we're having.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
Some of the greatest success and also tragedy with what.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Happened in Texas. It just seems like a desecration. But
you go ahead.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
This is not in character for Donald Trump, for him
to want to avoid a subject or a topic or
change the subject or a topic. And that's why I
jumped off the page to me and then Pam BONDI
went into this long spiel. We'll catch it about midway
through here, but basically she does, you're talking about rhet herring.
Oh there's child porn, that this monster Jeffrey Epstein. Donald,
(16:34):
We're not going to publicize that and revictimize.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
These Shut up. That's not what this is about. And
you know it.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
Stop insulting our intelligence. What we want is the Epstein
client list. Don't reveal any of the pornographic images, don't
put the names of the faces of the victims out
in the public sphere.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
You don't have to do that.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
But if Bill Gates is on that list, if Bill
Clinton is on that list, if Prince Andrew's on that list,
hell if Donald Trump's on that list, we are owed
in explanation, the full transparent truth and nothing but that
period end of sentence.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Instead, she gives us this rebel rousing stuff.
Speaker 10 (17:10):
Evidence prior to it was showing he committed suicide. And
what was on that there was a minute that was
off the counter, and what we learned from Euro of
prisons was every year, every night they redo that video
as old from like nineteen ninety nine, So every night
the video is reset and every night should have the
(17:31):
same minute missing. So we're looking for that video to
release that as well, showing that a minute is missing
every night, and that's it.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
On Epstein, That is not it on Emstein. It's not
even close.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
And they should be smart enough to know that, wise
enough to know that, coherent enough to know that it's
not going away, nor should it go away. And those
of us that are on the right that voted for
Donald Trump in large part because we wanted to get
to the bottom of these matters, to clear out the
deep state, to get through the swamp for people like
Cash Betel and Dan Bongino, to root out the waste,
(18:03):
root out the corruption, the fraud, the waste, the abuse,
the infiltration of our three letter agencies by those that
are political and partisan in nature, that are motivated by
those tendencies, and to get back to having true law
enforcement agencies that we can admire, that we can respect
in the FBI and the CIA.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
But no, the subterfuge continues.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
How about no, how about no, as far as this
is really a triggering subject too. A loyal listener came
forward and voiced agreement with me on this specific issue,
and then another one whose name I will keep private,
told me this, and most recently in this text, Ryan,
I shared my assault event with you in private yesterday.
I'd like to tell any and all assault victims to
(18:48):
go forward always with your story. I knew I could
protect myself from the man who assaulted me. I went
forward and hoped that others would get some protection from him.
This goes to a message I just got from Jacqueline Anderson,
who I anticipated maybe listening to the program, and she
was on with us yesterday and she is one of
the accusers of Ron Weinberg, saying that he was inappropriate
(19:11):
with her in front of her husband at LPR. And
she says the following quote, I can tell you exactly
how our stories came forward, and at one percent has
nothing to do with Brandy. It started from the LPR
Class of twenty twenty two chat that Heather is.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
In with my husband this other woman that she's mentioning.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
They were talking about Ron running for whip, and Heather
brought up his harassment and my husband shined in and
reminded everyone again about our experience. It went from there
we decided we needed to come forward because Ron should
not be in leadership. We came forward knowing that there
are young women dealing with his harassment at the Capitol.
Someone has to be the first to come forward and
pave the way for others to do so, and Jacqueline
(19:52):
Anderson decided that.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
Was going to be her a timeout.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
The new Superman movie is coming out in theaters this weekend.
Is It too Woke? Is Superman an illegal Alien? The
next big superhero blockbuster?
Speaker 2 (20:14):
The Alpha of them All?
Speaker 1 (20:15):
Superman in theaters this weekend starring David corn Sweat directed.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
By James Gunn.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
We'll get to the latter in just a moment part
of the DC Comics Universe Coorn Sweat when he shouted
people are going to die. I thought of Will Ferrell
as Frank the Tank, an old school He.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
Goes, we gotta keep our composure.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
After he catches fire as the mascot, and the kind
of intersquad Olympics that they're doing on the CA Anyway,
That's what's what it sounded like to me back here
on Ryan Schuling Live. But has it gone woke? The
Superman franchise. I cringe at the thought. But it's James Gunn,
the director, who's taken us apparently in that direction. And
(20:58):
he says, anyone who doesn't like the film's politics, which
according to our next guest, seemed to slant pro immigration
and anti Ice, anti Trump.
Speaker 2 (21:06):
Well they're all jerks and you can screw off. Okay,
I won't go see your movie. Not sure where this
is going.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
You can check him out online, including his latest about
this film at Greg thefilmmaker dot com, and this is
entitled is Superman Really an Illegal Immigrant? Greg rabbitdo joins us. Greg,
thank you for taking the time.
Speaker 4 (21:29):
Hey, my pleasure, Thanks for having me. I love that intro.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
By the way, thank you so much. I appreciate that.
And Greg, I'm not sure. I think we're probably around
the same age. But really for us as gen Xter's
growing up, you know, the superhero franchise that the world
the universe was a lot more narrow.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
There was Superman that.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
Came out late seventies, and then Superman two, which I
would think is just about its equal, and that continued
with Christopher Reeve as Superman and Clark Kent Gene Hackman
as Lex Luthor, and then we really didn't get another
big superhero movie, is I recall in my youth in
the eighties until Michael Keaton is Batman in nineteen eighty nine.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
But now we got a Da Lug jab him.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
Ever since, it seems like the turn of the century,
two thousand, the DC Universe, the Marvel Universe. So this
latest installment of Superman, can you take us through the
genesis of what the idea was behind it to reboot
this franchise in this way?
Speaker 4 (22:21):
Yeah, no, absolutely, And you're right about the timeline. In
large part, we went a while without it because then
you had action heroes, but the human kind that kind
of took over sea had Bruce Willis and die Hard,
You had Arnold Schwarzenegger, Steven c Yal, Chuck Norris, and
so you didn't necessarily need the comic book heroes because
(22:42):
people were digging the real human guys with the quick
wit and the little quips here or there and a
lot of the action. But then the comic book heroes
started to kind of come alive again, in large part
also because they were so much cheaper to make with
this EGI special effects. So then you started to be
(23:03):
able to just crank these out, and you had essentially
ready made scripts. Because when I was growing up too,
there was a friend of ours had just tons of
comic books, and that's really where it sounds weird, but
that's really where I started to really love film, because
I'm essentially reading storyboards. So when we make storyboards for
the films that we work on, we're essentially drawing and
(23:24):
making comic books because each little frame is essentially the
kind of frame that you look through with the director
and a cinematographer to set up what's in the frame,
the camera angle, the shot, the coloring, whether it's black
and white, whether it's tight wide long, far distance, wide
distance frame. So that got me interested in it, and
(23:44):
then you had a big revival of the comic book careers.
Now we've gone, as you said, the early two thousands,
so we've had a good fifteen twenty years of them,
and now a lot of the major studios are really
starting to scramble because a couple of things are happening.
A they're still making money for the most part, but
B now they're starting to kind of scrape the barrel
(24:05):
in terms of to are there any superheroes that we
haven't discovered. Are there anyones that are somewhat obscure that
we can try to build a movie around, or And
the second option we've seen it with Spider Man, of course, two, three,
four times, is can we just reboot it? Can we
just reboot it, reinterpret it, different actor and kind of
(24:25):
update it to maybe more contemporary times, which is essentially
what James Gunn is trying to do with it. So
I was interested in both the reboot, which really goes
back to the origin of Superman, but then places them
essentially in today element, today's society, today's issues, and frames
it much more, I mean, thinly veiled, let's face it,
(24:48):
essentially of a he's an immigrant, he's misunderstood, he's just
trying to live out his dreams and protect the vulnerable.
And Luther aka Trump is evil and must be stopped.
And when I heard the we're all going to die
in the trailer, actually I immediately thought of Chuck Schumer,
who seems to be pressed in that button, you know,
(25:10):
every other day with everything that we're all going to die.
If the one big beautiful bill has passed, we're all
going to die. So that's kind of where we're at
right now in terms of the reboot, trying to see
if there's another generation audience that they can get onto
the new Superman, because if it works, then they've already
talked about doing Superman two, three, and four.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
Superman.
Speaker 1 (25:34):
This installment opens nationwide in theaters broad release on Friday,
July eleventh, that's two days from today. Rated PG thirteen,
running time two hours and nine minutes. I'm checking it
out on Rotten Tomatoes. It's doing very well so far
here Greg eighty five percent on the Tomato meter. That's critics,
ninety six percent of the Popcorn meter, that's viewers. I
(25:55):
guess advanced screenings may have taken a part of this.
Award winning filmmaker Greg Abe as our guest, Greg, have
you seen the film yet?
Speaker 2 (26:04):
I have not.
Speaker 4 (26:05):
I have a look at the trailers, of course, and
I plan on going. We plan, I plan. I'm taking
a couple of my crew with me this weekend. We
like to check these things out, one for fun, also
see what we can learn, but we also I love
going still to the theater to just see reactions of
the audience because that's something that you just for a filmmaker,
(26:27):
especially if they don't know you're watching. I really I
like to hear that where the where are the oohs
and the odds? Where are the groans when something just
doesn't work? And actually we did that to Mission Impossible,
to Final Reckoning, And I'll tell you, I don't want
to digress too much, but you made me think of it.
Where there's a scene where Tom Cruise is, you know,
(26:48):
doing stunts on a World War One plane, you know,
and he's kind of crawling around and it's a great stunt,
but it just seems to go on so long that
actually we were looking around, and I was looking around,
the audience really was losing interest. So it's a really
hype stunt. But when you watch in real time people
react to it. It was not nearly I think what
(27:10):
they were after. So to be interesting for me and
for a couple of my folks to see what works
in a way and maybe what doesn't, I would just
add the rotten tomato scores and whether it's doing good.
You got to also keep in perspective that this for
this film to be quote considered a success and to
give genesis to Superman's two, three, and four, potentially they're
(27:32):
really projecting they need to do about seven hundred and
fifty to eight hundred million dollars in terms of the
box office gross, both the US come by US and worldwide.
So it's a it's a tall order even for somebody
that can leap you know, tall buildings in a single
bound by Superman. So we will see whether that does it.
(27:55):
And also it's interesting, isn't it if years ago there's
no way director or actor would come out and boldly
essentially I think you hit it perfectly in your intro, essentially,
come out and alienate half the audience and still say
that's okay. I don't care because the core audience maybe
we made it for I'm trying to own. It's almost
(28:17):
like a politician talking to his or her base. They
have no interest in compromising or getting the other side,
I guess to feel good about them, or maybe even
get their vote. They just want to get as many
of their own base out to vote. I almost feel
that way. We're getting that way with movies with some
of these directors who alien ate half. But I guess
it works for them as long as their core base
(28:39):
comes out in the numbers they need them to come
out in.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
I just don't understand that though you're looking for broad appeel,
you're talking about a seven hundred and fifty million dollar
box office that needs to propel in a new sequels.
It's a business mindset here. Like Michael Jordan said, Republicans
buy sneakers too. You made mention of Rachel Zegler and
her comments about snow White and the audience, and it
turned off half of America. Also Anthony Mackie and the
new installment of Captain America kind of backing off of
(29:04):
the ethos of that character.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
I just don't think it's a smart business. Greg.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
Everything that I've learned, everything in my fiber agrees with you,
and it's not an approach I would take. To be
honest with you, I take more of the Tom Cruise approach,
at least the recent reincarnation of Tom Cruise, which is
I'm making movies for lots and lots of people around
the world to enjoy. I don't want to offend anybody.
I just want you to have a great movie time
(29:33):
at the movies, enjoy your popcor In, and tell me
that you liked it. I mean that wasn't always Tom
Cruise either. He pushed the scientology agenda. He pushed the
postpartum depression no pills agenda with Brooks Shield. He jumped
on the couch professing his love for Katie Holmes. Guess
what nobody's talking about that Tom Cruise. We're talking about
the Tom Cruise stunt and the motorcycle jumping and the
(29:54):
World War One plane stunts and all that cool stuff.
Foudition possible, and you're right for a business of that work.
So it's hard for me to agree and say, yeah,
this James Gunn kind of just burn Bridges and my
corek folks will show up in the numbers we need
(30:15):
and to heck, with half our audience, I can't be
that way. So we'll see if it works. But certainly
he has a vision. Now he is, he's co CEO
of DC Studios, which is now partnering with the with
the Warner Brothers, So this is very much his vision
of a superman. So if you go and you love it,
(30:38):
and you love the politics, and you love arguably they're
really really thinly basically not disguised metaphor of this is
Trump's world and Superman must, as an immigrant, must come
and save the day against evil Trump slash Luther, then
you're gonna love it. If that's the politics you love,
you're probably gonna love the film. And there's a lot
of other cgi and in it that people seem to
(31:02):
be responding to, which is great. On the other hand,
if you're turned off by that three movie sort of politics,
alien and to halfy on it, you may not like it.
And to your point, it's a numbers game. You may
just run out of numbers ultimately to hit what you need.
And if that happens, just like Disney is really in
(31:23):
a pickle now and trying to determine where do we go.
They've laid off some of their staff and writers and
creative folks that took them more into an LGBTQ path.
I think they're trying to come back around to the
fact that their core, at least going back to Walt
Disney himself, was families and maybe they moved too much
in one direction in Woke because it's been hurting their
(31:46):
bottom line. Elio the one they just did in terms
of the picks and just bombed, So they've got to
make some decisions. And if they don't hit the numbers
for the Superman, I think you'll find that studios go, hey,
it's time to maybe get rid of those kind of politics,
and that kind of outspoken is free sales because ultimately,
(32:06):
as you point out, you've got to hit your numbers
to make more money. Like Sam Goldlin said, movies are fun,
but you got to get fannies in the seats or
you can't put more movies on the screen.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
There it is, Is Superman really an illegal immigrant? Read
more about it. Greg Thefilmmaker dot Com award winning filmmaker
and his own right, Greg Rabbadue joining us here on
Ryan Schuling Live a time out back to wrap it
all up after this for Dan caf let's a couple
of your texts on the heels of that conversation that
(32:38):
I just had about the new Superman movie.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
So disappointing? Is it woke? I think it's gonna be.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
Greg Rabbadue joining us Award winning filmmaker. This texter says,
entertainment is simple. We want to be entertained. We don't need,
want or want politics in our entertainment. Here here and
this one says, Ryan, wouldn't Superman be a true illegal
alien since he's from another planet? Loll Well, yes, literally, so,
but do we have to deport him Krypton? It doesn't
(33:05):
exist anymore. Oh sorry, spoiler alert if you haven't seen
the First Superman with jor L and Marlon Brando. If
you haven't gon back, it was the seventies. It was
a great time, pre woke era, hiding it all up. Next,
like I said, filling in for Dan Capitalis, I'm with
you tomorrow.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
Right here, I'm Ryan schooling Live
Waiting on word response from Representative Rose Paglici, the House
Minority leader for the GOP, and the statement that was
released earlier today addressing concerns from Representative Brandy Bradley was
on this program yesterday joining a chorus of women who
have come forward saying, hey, Representative Ron Weinberg was inappropriate
(00:23):
in conversations that were had, whether it be on the
House floor, the General Assembly, or in particular. It seems
a flashpoint has been leadership program of the Rockies, and
it happened in back to back years, according to one
of the accusers, Jacqueline Anderson, who was on this program yesterday.
Natalie Tennant, the founder of Never Surrendered National, will be
(00:46):
joining me tomorrow with her own perspective on this, but
she offers up the following on X quote. Did Representative
Brandy Bradley play a role in amplifying allegations against Representative
Ron Weinberg to sway the minority whip? Three years ago,
Heather Booth, Jacqueline Anderson, and another individual accused Weinberg of
(01:06):
inappropriate behavior before he was a lawmaker. These claims resurfaced
just as Weinberg announced his candidacy for minority whip now
leading to his withdrawal. The timing raises eyebrows. Did Bradley
orchestrate this to boost her own influence or secure the
whip role for an ally? What do you think coincidence
are calculated? And then she cites her appearance on this
(01:28):
program coming up tomorrow and that'll be during our first
hour at about two thirty three p m.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
She goes on to say.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
Let's discuss the facts and keep it civil, and then
offers up this disclaimer quote. In no way am I
defending Representative Weinberg. I'm bringing light to the timing of
the old allegations. Everyone's voices should be heard, Truths should
always be spoken. Now she puts truth plural truths to me,
there's only one truth.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Did this happen?
Speaker 1 (01:58):
And this goes to another one of my followers on
X and she's very solid and her name on X
at least is Colorado Girl seventy three, and she says
on her ex bio formerly known as Twitter, that she
ran an anti human trafficking NGO in India for twelve years.
That's an interesting background. I want to talk to her
(02:18):
on the air, but she says the following in response
to Natalie in a post on x as well, addressing
the points one at a time. One, she meaning Representative Bradley,
dropped out from being whips, so that point is void.
Point two, she being Representative Bradley, didn't control when these
ladies came forward.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
They came forward on their own.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Now let me amend that point with a point of
my own, and that is a representative Bradley and I
had a conversation after the fact. So I saw Jacqueline Anderson,
I'm a friend of hers on Facebook, and I saw
her post on Facebook. It was very concerned by the
gravity of the allegations that she made in not one,
but back to back years at this same LPA our
(03:00):
event in which she claims that Representative Weinberg spoke to
her inappropriately and offered up some observations and suggestions that
I can't even say here on the radio. But the
galling thing to me is that allegedly Representative Weinberg said
this right in front of Jacqueline's husband, not once, but twice,
(03:22):
and there was a confrontation to that point. I commended
Jacqueline's husband for his composure, because many guys in this
situation there would have been a rumble, and it would
have been, in my view, had this if this is
exactly as she makes the account of the incident, if
it happened as she describes, any man, any husband worth
(03:44):
his salt, would be well within his rights to defend
his wife, to defend her honor, to stand up to
somebody saying these things, and to make it known and
make it clear that that will not be happening again,
not on my watch. I mean, that's how I would operate.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
And it was just.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
It was just stunning to me these details that were
provided to us by Jaqueline Anderson. Let's revisit one of
those right here.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Well, let's talk about.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
That first instance a little bit, because if that bring
into Rod's wife, especially if she just went to social
media this afternoon to say that their false accusations. She
was there when my husband confronted Ron the day after
and had a little discussion about his behavior and how
inappropriate it was. And I was quite shocked that she
seems very disconnected their husband, Like Carolyn's standing there next
(04:37):
to her husband Ron, and you have another man telling
him it's inappropriate for you to say these things to
my wife. You need to step back.
Speaker 4 (04:45):
You know, give them the what for.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
And she's just standing there like nothing's going on. How
disconnected do you have to be to completely shut down?
So for her to claim that they're false, she was there.
Speaker 4 (04:58):
She was a part of it well.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Jacqueline Anderson's account of what went down. And I did
reach out to Carolyn Weinberg, the aforementioned wife of Representative
Ron Weinberg, via email inviting Ron Representative Weinberg to join
this programmer to the Encampus show, and she offered up
the following reply, Hello, Ryan, I will consult with Representative
Weinberg and his lawyer.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
So that's the sticky wicket here.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
No matter where the truth lands in any of this,
for somebody that's accused, there are legal implications.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
I get that, and you don't want to get ahead
of that.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
But at the same time, in my view, if I'm
in Ron Weinberg's shoes and I'm feeling either unjustly accused
or that these ascertainments are going too far, that it's
a distortion, that's an exaggeration of what went down, I'm
going to get out front and center as a public
(05:52):
figure and get in front of this, get in front
of this and define the terms of how I describe
what happened. Now going forward with Colorado Girls seventy three's
points here, she gets to one that I've been making,
and it's difficult to refute. So point three, and by
the way, about the nexus between Representative Bradley and these accusers.
(06:15):
Jacqueline Anderson told me that she only came forward this
according to her, but she did consider the matter resolved.
That LPR had banned Representative Weinberg, and she considered the
matter closed. But she then found out new facts that
there were other women at the Capitol that Representative Weinberg
(06:36):
was continuing to kind of engage in this type of conduct,
and that's what prompted her to come forward. There's no
mention at least from Jacqueline.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Of Representative Brandy Bradley.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
So let's continue Colorado Girls seventy three with these points
on X point three. Three years ago, they thought LPR
had handled it, but his accused vulgar behavior has continued.
That's the point I just made.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Point four.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
He was at LPR with the aspiration running for office.
He originally got in through a vacancy committee because Senator
Barb Kirkmeyer selected him, he clearly did not learn from LPR,
that is her opinion, meaning Colorado Girls seventy three. And
here's the point that I keep coming back to, and
the one that Representative Weinberg he's gonna have to address
point blank, why did LPR ban him? Shouldn't his vulgar
(07:21):
behavior stop? And she claims that Natalie Tennant's whip argument
is quote a red herring unquote Yeah, I mean he's
been banned. It would appear to be a matter of
a record by LPR. Well, then if he was banned,
why was he banned and what would his characterization of
that reason be as to why he was banned. Representive
(07:42):
Bradley has since replied to this on X saying, quote
gaslight and divert from the real truth. Haha, Like I
don't see that playbook every day in session.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
And then it goes on from there.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
You can follow the principles involved here on X. Ready
Bradley is at Bradley for Coe for Colorado. There, so
this ongoing saga continues. I want to also go back
to this Laura Baron Lopez commentary because the Left is
simply eating this up and I knew they would, but
(08:19):
you're seeing you conservative influencers where they're be online, the
likes of Benny Johnson, Jack Pisobec, and I think those
two guys are uniquely in a position where they're made
to look foolish.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
And I'll expand on that point with this.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
Do you remember when the Epstein files, so called, originally
kind of made the news when Trump assumed office and
Attorney General Pam Bondi upon confirmation, told John Roberts from
Fox News that the files were on her desk and
that she was going through them along with the MLK
files and the JFK files on the two assassinations there. Well,
(08:58):
then they released these binders that allegedly had you know,
the Epstein documents in them, but they were highly act
and what they had where a bunch of these conservative
influencers that unless you're online, and I mean that like
literally and figuratively, like you know how you hear the
termament you're too online? That would be like me thinking
the world revolves around X formally known as Twitter, but
(09:19):
not everybody's on Twitter now X.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
The fact is a.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
Distinct minority of Americans that get their news and information
primarily through X, or exclusively through X or they operate
in that sphere, in that world, and I have to
always check myself in a like I am definitely more
online in quotes than say the average person. I need
to be to prepare for this show, to help inform
and entertain all of you. I want to make sure
that I've got that kind of information.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
And so I'm always got my eyes.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Kind of finger on the pulse looking around what's going on.
But X is not real life, not necessarily. So you
have all these influencers show up at the Capitol and
they're all holding up these binders like here we go,
We're finally going to get the Epstein and the truth.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
And you know who's on.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
Epstein's list, and what we've gotten over these last seventy
two hours just isn't satisfactory. And I have to imagine
the likes of Benny Johnson Jack Butsobic they feel like
they've been hung out to dry and they kind of
were made fools of stooges of out on the White
House lawn. Oh, I got this binder is a binder
full of crap, you know, according to Pam Bondi, now
according to Cash Pateel, according to Dan Bongino leadership of
(10:24):
the FBI.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
There's nothing to say here.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
There are no Epstein files, there is no Epstein list,
there were no clients. Epstein killed himselves. She's saying Maxwell's
in prison because of nothing, because she just trafficked underage
women for Jeffrey Epstein himself.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Is that what we're to believe here? We know that's
not true.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
We know that's not true based on observable evidence in
the public sphere.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
And so I'm not going to be lied to.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
And I know a lot of you don't want that
either on a matter of this importance and of something
this die or this dark and why is this information
being withheld? Why is it being covered up? And here
is again that entire portion, Dana Bash CNN setting this
up and then going to Laura Baron Lopez, the White
(11:13):
House correspondent for PBS, a far left organization.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Of course, that led.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
To a lot of frustration online and elsewhere among people
who are pretty influential with the magabase.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Here's just a sampling, right, this is absurd.
Speaker 6 (11:29):
Ham Bondi was talking about Ebstein, Cash was talking about Ebseen,
bon Gino talking about ebveseene Elon must talking about o's
seen Trump has been talking about Epstein. He started his
presidential campaign in twenty sixteen by blinking the Clintons to Epstein.
Speaker 7 (11:41):
Jesus that we don't need to hear about Jeffrey Epstein
ever again.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
You know what this sounds like.
Speaker 7 (11:47):
I'm going to say exactly what this sounds like, Ham
Bondie sounds like Hillary Clinton right now, ar Barll.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Lopez is back with us.
Speaker 5 (11:55):
First of all, if you're MAGA, those are fighting words
to talk about Pam Bondi as Hillary Clinton. But I
do want to just say one other thing, which is
those are just sort of some examples. It was all
over so conservative social media. We're just going to put
up a few more examples, starting with Roseanne Barr, who
(12:17):
is a supporter of the president, and the first thing
she said was, mister President, yes we still care about Epstein.
Speaker 8 (12:23):
This is mass disappointment, almost on a religious level. I mean,
this was a key pillar of MAGA canon for years.
I mean, all throughout the election cycle. The MAGA base
really built this up. Not just the MAGA base, but
key figures that are now inside the President's administration, whether
(12:45):
it's Pam Bondy, whether it's stand on Gino cash Ftel,
the leaders of the FBI, they were talking about this
non stop and putting it, presenting it as something that
was representative of you, accusing Democrats hiding the ball on this,
of building this up as some grand conspiracy theory and
(13:05):
now cognitive dissonance. Now no, there is no nothing to
see here, there's nothing to release.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
There's even internal.
Speaker 4 (13:14):
Fighting about it.
Speaker 8 (13:15):
So this is something that is incredibly confusing, clearly.
Speaker 5 (13:18):
For the MAGA base, and turning on the President personally
suggesting that he has something to hide, which we don't
have any evidence of. I want to say that for
the record, just going back to something to Elon Musk said,
time to drop a really big bomb. Donald Trump is
in the Epstein files, by the way. He deleted that
after he was trying to make nicer with the president.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
Dana Bash very wise and holding off on any kind
of accusations or assumptions of fact as it pertains to
Donald Trump with regard to Jeffrey Epstein, because she knows
ABC has been sued successfully by the President. He won
against George Stephanopolis, who called him a convicted rapist live
on the air fifteen million dollars US just settled for
(14:01):
sixteen million dollars with their deceptive editing of the Kamala
Harrison interview, and CBS had to pay that out on
behalf of sixty minutes. That's thirty one million dollars. You know,
as much as the legal fees have been. For Donald
Trump to mount his own defense against the law fair
during the twenty twenty four campaign, which was unprecedented. I
hope we never see it again, but it was absolutely
(14:21):
targeted as a way to take him out politically, and
then of course the assassination attempts plural designed to take
him out. Resilient as he is. He's won these two
lawsuits and he'd launch another one against CNN and he
would be successful. So she was wise to provide cover
there because she's right. Elon Musk did take that post down,
(14:42):
but it does beg the question why was Donald Trump
so quick to dismiss and jump in on behalf of
Pam Bondy right here? When he takes on all comers,
He holds wide open press conferences, tackles any subject, difficult, easy,
anything in between. On the questions, Pepper me with thought iver,
I'm not Joe Biden. I'll answer anything you've got, but
(15:04):
not this one your.
Speaker 9 (15:05):
Memo and released yesterday. Jeffrey estein less than leadering mysteries.
One of the biggest ones is whether he ever worked
for an American for foreign intelligence agency. The former Leaker secretary,
who is Miami US attorney Alex Casai alligedly said that
he did for intelligence agency.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
So could you resolve whether or not he did?
Speaker 9 (15:28):
And also can you see why there was a minute
missing from the jail house team dominated.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
So yeah, sure, I just sent a little lot of it.
Are you still talking about Jeffrey ever staining? This guy's
been talked about for years.
Speaker 4 (15:41):
You're asking we have Texas, we have this, we have
all of the things which and.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Are people still talking about this guy? That's creative, That
is unbelievable. If you want to waste the time, and
then if you feel like answered, I don't mind answering.
Speaker 5 (15:57):
I mean, I can't believe you're asking a question on
Epstein at a time like this where we're having.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
Some of the greatest success and also tragedy with what.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Happened in Texas. It just seems like a desecration. But
you go ahead.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
This is not in character for Donald Trump, for him
to want to avoid a subject or a topic or
change the subject or a topic. And that's why I
jumped off the page to me and then Pam BONDI
went into this long spiel. We'll catch it about midway
through here, but basically she does, you're talking about rhet herring.
Oh there's child porn, that this monster Jeffrey Epstein. Donald,
(16:34):
We're not going to publicize that and revictimize.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
These Shut up. That's not what this is about. And
you know it.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
Stop insulting our intelligence. What we want is the Epstein
client list. Don't reveal any of the pornographic images, don't
put the names of the faces of the victims out
in the public sphere.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
You don't have to do that.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
But if Bill Gates is on that list, if Bill
Clinton is on that list, if Prince Andrew's on that list,
hell if Donald Trump's on that list, we are owed
in explanation, the full transparent truth and nothing but that
period end of sentence.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Instead, she gives us this rebel rousing stuff.
Speaker 10 (17:10):
Evidence prior to it was showing he committed suicide. And
what was on that there was a minute that was
off the counter, and what we learned from Euro of
prisons was every year, every night they redo that video
as old from like nineteen ninety nine, So every night
the video is reset and every night should have the
(17:31):
same minute missing. So we're looking for that video to
release that as well, showing that a minute is missing
every night, and that's it.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
On Epstein, That is not it on Emstein. It's not
even close.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
And they should be smart enough to know that, wise
enough to know that, coherent enough to know that it's
not going away, nor should it go away. And those
of us that are on the right that voted for
Donald Trump in large part because we wanted to get
to the bottom of these matters, to clear out the
deep state, to get through the swamp for people like
Cash Betel and Dan Bongino, to root out the waste,
(18:03):
root out the corruption, the fraud, the waste, the abuse,
the infiltration of our three letter agencies by those that
are political and partisan in nature, that are motivated by
those tendencies, and to get back to having true law
enforcement agencies that we can admire, that we can respect
in the FBI and the CIA.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
But no, the subterfuge continues.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
How about no, how about no, as far as this
is really a triggering subject too. A loyal listener came
forward and voiced agreement with me on this specific issue,
and then another one whose name I will keep private,
told me this, and most recently in this text, Ryan,
I shared my assault event with you in private yesterday.
I'd like to tell any and all assault victims to
(18:48):
go forward always with your story. I knew I could
protect myself from the man who assaulted me. I went
forward and hoped that others would get some protection from him.
This goes to a message I just got from Jacqueline Anderson,
who I anticipated maybe listening to the program, and she
was on with us yesterday and she is one of
the accusers of Ron Weinberg, saying that he was inappropriate
(19:11):
with her in front of her husband at LPR. And
she says the following quote, I can tell you exactly
how our stories came forward, and at one percent has
nothing to do with Brandy. It started from the LPR
Class of twenty twenty two chat that Heather is.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
In with my husband this other woman that she's mentioning.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
They were talking about Ron running for whip, and Heather
brought up his harassment and my husband shined in and
reminded everyone again about our experience. It went from there
we decided we needed to come forward because Ron should
not be in leadership. We came forward knowing that there
are young women dealing with his harassment at the Capitol.
Someone has to be the first to come forward and
pave the way for others to do so, and Jacqueline
(19:52):
Anderson decided that.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
Was going to be her a timeout.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
The new Superman movie is coming out in theaters this weekend.
Is It too Woke? Is Superman an illegal Alien? The
next big superhero blockbuster?
Speaker 2 (20:14):
The Alpha of them All?
Speaker 1 (20:15):
Superman in theaters this weekend starring David corn Sweat directed.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
By James Gunn.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
We'll get to the latter in just a moment part
of the DC Comics Universe Coorn Sweat when he shouted
people are going to die. I thought of Will Ferrell
as Frank the Tank, an old school He.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
Goes, we gotta keep our composure.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
After he catches fire as the mascot, and the kind
of intersquad Olympics that they're doing on the CA Anyway,
That's what's what it sounded like to me back here
on Ryan Schuling Live. But has it gone woke? The
Superman franchise. I cringe at the thought. But it's James Gunn,
the director, who's taken us apparently in that direction. And
(20:58):
he says, anyone who doesn't like the film's politics, which
according to our next guest, seemed to slant pro immigration
and anti Ice, anti Trump.
Speaker 2 (21:06):
Well they're all jerks and you can screw off. Okay,
I won't go see your movie. Not sure where this
is going.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
You can check him out online, including his latest about
this film at Greg thefilmmaker dot com, and this is
entitled is Superman Really an Illegal Immigrant? Greg rabbitdo joins us. Greg,
thank you for taking the time.
Speaker 4 (21:29):
Hey, my pleasure, Thanks for having me. I love that intro.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
By the way, thank you so much. I appreciate that.
And Greg, I'm not sure. I think we're probably around
the same age. But really for us as gen Xter's
growing up, you know, the superhero franchise that the world
the universe was a lot more narrow.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
There was Superman that.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
Came out late seventies, and then Superman two, which I
would think is just about its equal, and that continued
with Christopher Reeve as Superman and Clark Kent Gene Hackman
as Lex Luthor, and then we really didn't get another
big superhero movie, is I recall in my youth in
the eighties until Michael Keaton is Batman in nineteen eighty nine.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
But now we got a Da Lug jab him.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
Ever since, it seems like the turn of the century,
two thousand, the DC Universe, the Marvel Universe. So this
latest installment of Superman, can you take us through the
genesis of what the idea was behind it to reboot
this franchise in this way?
Speaker 4 (22:21):
Yeah, no, absolutely, And you're right about the timeline. In
large part, we went a while without it because then
you had action heroes, but the human kind that kind
of took over sea had Bruce Willis and die Hard,
You had Arnold Schwarzenegger, Steven c Yal, Chuck Norris, and
so you didn't necessarily need the comic book heroes because
(22:42):
people were digging the real human guys with the quick
wit and the little quips here or there and a
lot of the action. But then the comic book heroes
started to kind of come alive again, in large part
also because they were so much cheaper to make with
this EGI special effects. So then you started to be
(23:03):
able to just crank these out, and you had essentially
ready made scripts. Because when I was growing up too,
there was a friend of ours had just tons of
comic books, and that's really where it sounds weird, but
that's really where I started to really love film, because
I'm essentially reading storyboards. So when we make storyboards for
the films that we work on, we're essentially drawing and
(23:24):
making comic books because each little frame is essentially the
kind of frame that you look through with the director
and a cinematographer to set up what's in the frame,
the camera angle, the shot, the coloring, whether it's black
and white, whether it's tight wide long, far distance, wide
distance frame. So that got me interested in it, and
(23:44):
then you had a big revival of the comic book careers.
Now we've gone, as you said, the early two thousands,
so we've had a good fifteen twenty years of them,
and now a lot of the major studios are really
starting to scramble because a couple of things are happening.
A they're still making money for the most part, but
B now they're starting to kind of scrape the barrel
(24:05):
in terms of to are there any superheroes that we
haven't discovered. Are there anyones that are somewhat obscure that
we can try to build a movie around, or And
the second option we've seen it with Spider Man, of course, two, three,
four times, is can we just reboot it? Can we
just reboot it, reinterpret it, different actor and kind of
(24:25):
update it to maybe more contemporary times, which is essentially
what James Gunn is trying to do with it. So
I was interested in both the reboot, which really goes
back to the origin of Superman, but then places them
essentially in today element, today's society, today's issues, and frames
it much more, I mean, thinly veiled, let's face it,
(24:48):
essentially of a he's an immigrant, he's misunderstood, he's just
trying to live out his dreams and protect the vulnerable.
And Luther aka Trump is evil and must be stopped.
And when I heard the we're all going to die
in the trailer, actually I immediately thought of Chuck Schumer,
who seems to be pressed in that button, you know,
(25:10):
every other day with everything that we're all going to die.
If the one big beautiful bill has passed, we're all
going to die. So that's kind of where we're at
right now in terms of the reboot, trying to see
if there's another generation audience that they can get onto
the new Superman, because if it works, then they've already
talked about doing Superman two, three, and four.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
Superman.
Speaker 1 (25:34):
This installment opens nationwide in theaters broad release on Friday,
July eleventh, that's two days from today. Rated PG thirteen,
running time two hours and nine minutes. I'm checking it
out on Rotten Tomatoes. It's doing very well so far
here Greg eighty five percent on the Tomato meter. That's critics,
ninety six percent of the Popcorn meter, that's viewers. I
(25:55):
guess advanced screenings may have taken a part of this.
Award winning filmmaker Greg Abe as our guest, Greg, have
you seen the film yet?
Speaker 2 (26:04):
I have not.
Speaker 4 (26:05):
I have a look at the trailers, of course, and
I plan on going. We plan, I plan. I'm taking
a couple of my crew with me this weekend. We
like to check these things out, one for fun, also
see what we can learn, but we also I love
going still to the theater to just see reactions of
the audience because that's something that you just for a filmmaker,
(26:27):
especially if they don't know you're watching. I really I
like to hear that where the where are the oohs
and the odds? Where are the groans when something just
doesn't work? And actually we did that to Mission Impossible,
to Final Reckoning, And I'll tell you, I don't want
to digress too much, but you made me think of it.
Where there's a scene where Tom Cruise is, you know,
(26:48):
doing stunts on a World War One plane, you know,
and he's kind of crawling around and it's a great stunt,
but it just seems to go on so long that
actually we were looking around, and I was looking around,
the audience really was losing interest. So it's a really
hype stunt. But when you watch in real time people
react to it. It was not nearly I think what
(27:10):
they were after. So to be interesting for me and
for a couple of my folks to see what works
in a way and maybe what doesn't, I would just
add the rotten tomato scores and whether it's doing good.
You got to also keep in perspective that this for
this film to be quote considered a success and to
give genesis to Superman's two, three, and four, potentially they're
(27:32):
really projecting they need to do about seven hundred and
fifty to eight hundred million dollars in terms of the
box office gross, both the US come by US and worldwide.
So it's a it's a tall order even for somebody
that can leap you know, tall buildings in a single
bound by Superman. So we will see whether that does it.
(27:55):
And also it's interesting, isn't it if years ago there's
no way director or actor would come out and boldly
essentially I think you hit it perfectly in your intro, essentially,
come out and alienate half the audience and still say
that's okay. I don't care because the core audience maybe
we made it for I'm trying to own. It's almost
(28:17):
like a politician talking to his or her base. They
have no interest in compromising or getting the other side,
I guess to feel good about them, or maybe even
get their vote. They just want to get as many
of their own base out to vote. I almost feel
that way. We're getting that way with movies with some
of these directors who alien ate half. But I guess
it works for them as long as their core base
(28:39):
comes out in the numbers they need them to come
out in.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
I just don't understand that though you're looking for broad appeel,
you're talking about a seven hundred and fifty million dollar
box office that needs to propel in a new sequels.
It's a business mindset here. Like Michael Jordan said, Republicans
buy sneakers too. You made mention of Rachel Zegler and
her comments about snow White and the audience, and it
turned off half of America. Also Anthony Mackie and the
new installment of Captain America kind of backing off of
(29:04):
the ethos of that character.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
I just don't think it's a smart business. Greg.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
Everything that I've learned, everything in my fiber agrees with you,
and it's not an approach I would take. To be
honest with you, I take more of the Tom Cruise approach,
at least the recent reincarnation of Tom Cruise, which is
I'm making movies for lots and lots of people around
the world to enjoy. I don't want to offend anybody.
I just want you to have a great movie time
(29:33):
at the movies, enjoy your popcor In, and tell me
that you liked it. I mean that wasn't always Tom
Cruise either. He pushed the scientology agenda. He pushed the
postpartum depression no pills agenda with Brooks Shield. He jumped
on the couch professing his love for Katie Holmes. Guess
what nobody's talking about that Tom Cruise. We're talking about
the Tom Cruise stunt and the motorcycle jumping and the
(29:54):
World War One plane stunts and all that cool stuff.
Foudition possible, and you're right for a business of that work.
So it's hard for me to agree and say, yeah,
this James Gunn kind of just burn Bridges and my
corek folks will show up in the numbers we need
(30:15):
and to heck, with half our audience, I can't be
that way. So we'll see if it works. But certainly
he has a vision. Now he is, he's co CEO
of DC Studios, which is now partnering with the with
the Warner Brothers, So this is very much his vision
of a superman. So if you go and you love it,
(30:38):
and you love the politics, and you love arguably they're
really really thinly basically not disguised metaphor of this is
Trump's world and Superman must, as an immigrant, must come
and save the day against evil Trump slash Luther, then
you're gonna love it. If that's the politics you love,
you're probably gonna love the film. And there's a lot
of other cgi and in it that people seem to
(31:02):
be responding to, which is great. On the other hand,
if you're turned off by that three movie sort of politics,
alien and to halfy on it, you may not like it.
And to your point, it's a numbers game. You may
just run out of numbers ultimately to hit what you need.
And if that happens, just like Disney is really in
(31:23):
a pickle now and trying to determine where do we go.
They've laid off some of their staff and writers and
creative folks that took them more into an LGBTQ path.
I think they're trying to come back around to the
fact that their core, at least going back to Walt
Disney himself, was families and maybe they moved too much
in one direction in Woke because it's been hurting their
(31:46):
bottom line. Elio the one they just did in terms
of the picks and just bombed, So they've got to
make some decisions. And if they don't hit the numbers
for the Superman, I think you'll find that studios go, hey,
it's time to maybe get rid of those kind of politics,
and that kind of outspoken is free sales because ultimately,
(32:06):
as you point out, you've got to hit your numbers
to make more money. Like Sam Goldlin said, movies are fun,
but you got to get fannies in the seats or
you can't put more movies on the screen.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
There it is, Is Superman really an illegal immigrant? Read
more about it. Greg Thefilmmaker dot Com award winning filmmaker
and his own right, Greg Rabbadue joining us here on
Ryan Schuling Live a time out back to wrap it
all up after this for Dan caf let's a couple
of your texts on the heels of that conversation that
(32:38):
I just had about the new Superman movie.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
So disappointing? Is it woke? I think it's gonna be.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
Greg Rabbadue joining us Award winning filmmaker. This texter says,
entertainment is simple. We want to be entertained. We don't need,
want or want politics in our entertainment. Here here and
this one says, Ryan, wouldn't Superman be a true illegal
alien since he's from another planet? Loll Well, yes, literally, so,
but do we have to deport him Krypton? It doesn't
(33:05):
exist anymore. Oh sorry, spoiler alert if you haven't seen
the First Superman with jor L and Marlon Brando. If
you haven't gon back, it was the seventies. It was
a great time, pre woke era, hiding it all up. Next,
like I said, filling in for Dan Capitalis, I'm with
you tomorrow.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
Right here, I'm Ryan schooling Live
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.