#in another clip from this interview he refers to ~their ten year anniversary

[bigfan-fanfic]

The Batfam meets Irondad (Batfam x Male Reader Headcanons)

Requested by Anonymous for “Can we have batdad and the family reacting to meeting a version of batdad that is married to Tony Stark? You(the author) can decide if you want batman and iron man to meet or not.”

Once again, they landed on another Earth.

They weren’t particularly worried, though. Knowing you and Alfred would be working on the case was a big relief. They’d likely be spending only a day or so here.

Dick is the first to spot it. He goes numb and points to the TV screen in the window.

No one else thinks about it. “Billionaire Tony Stark throws Anniversary Bash for Husband?” 

“What’s the big deal? So Stark is married to a dude here.” Jason sighs.

Dick keeps pointing as the entertainment broadcaster giggles.

“Tony Stark has been married for ten years to his amazing husband Y/N. The Iron Men have been together for so long, but every year, Tony always makes sure to commemorate their anniversary in the only way he knows how: a fabulous par-tay!”

And on the screen, a clip of said party shows, with you in a maroon suit and Tony in a shiny bronze-colored one, forming the Iron Man colors as you two kiss.

There are four open mouths and one clenched-very-tightly one.

“We’re taking a trip.” Bruce says tightly.

As far as they can find out, in this universe you left Gotham as a child with your parents. You and Bruce kept in touch through email and letters, but never developed anything more than a friendship. It was actually due to this friendship that you met Tony. Bruce wanted to endear himself to the media to distract from Batman making an appearance, so he invited “childhood bestie” to a swanky Gotham party full of networking business kooks, and you ran into Tony.

An interview from you states that you were very charming and he invited you for a chaste drink and then asked you for a date. A more honest interview from Tony states that you stammered and blushed a lot, and Tony gave you a “wanna get out of here,” to which you agreed. And you ended up spending the evening at the Iceberg Lounge, dancing with each other.

And you and Tony together became Iron Man, or the Iron Men. As the only one of the Avengers without much in the way of mental trauma, you became the rock of the group, the soul, much in the way you became that for the Justice League - which doesn’t seem to have formed yet.

Civil War never happened because you not only teamed up with Pepper to ensure the Avengers were not blamed for Sokovia, and you played the role of group mediator and prevented them from separating. The Sokovia Accords were also rejected due to your meddling. 

Bruce and the boys show up at the Avengers compound unannounced, knowing the two of you are there.

They barge in, to find you sitting with Tony and Peter and May, the four of you having what appeared to be a pizza party. 

You just ruffled Peter’s hair in a fatherly way, which was the last straw for Tim.

He goes stomping up, but Dick holds him back.

May and Peter look awed to see Bruce Wayne here, but you and Tony look less shocked.

“Bruce! Glad you could make it.” you grin.

Tony scoffs, and you mock-glare. “Be nice, Tony.”

He gives you a sarcastically cherubic look. “Anything for you, dearest.”

You turn to May and Peter. “So, I had Pepper call Bruce. You know he’s a big sponsor for the Avengers, and he owns a tech company in his own right. He’s generously offered to have his team collaborate with Tony to design new gear for Spider-Man that will keep him safe in the line of duty.”

You hug Bruce, but it feels all wrong to him.

“So, Bruce, why’d you bring my favorite god-kids to see me?”

They all blink. So you know them, but only as godchildren? 

Bruce’s training kicks in and he lies easily. “Damian was dying to see some New York zoos, so we thought we’d make a family weekend of the trip.”

You grin. “That’s lovely. You should have called; Morgan would have loved to come. Oh, you and Clark are coming to her programming exhibition, right? She’s so excited to have her godfathers come.”

He has no idea who Morgan is, and he refuses to consider the obvious reference to Clark.

“Uh... yes, yes, of course.”

“Great.”

Tony clearly senses something is up. The Bruce of his universe doesn’t usually look at Y/N like that.

And then this universe’s Bruce shows up at the entrance, so now the family has to make a quick escape.

Thankfully you - the you from their universe - had a portal ready to bring them home.

They all hug you.

“Bruce? I’m sorry to rush you, but we have a Wayne Enterprises board meeting with Tony Stark -”

“NO!”

[quynhvynguyen]

Patricia Field on Creating the Look of 'The Devil Wears Prada'

Một bài viết rất hay về các bạn wardrobe stylist. Save ở đây để làm ref cho mình đọc khi cần. Các bạn art/copy làm nghề quảng cáo rất nên đọc bài này. Trong quá trình sản xuất phim/digital clip/print ad/MV or any creative piece, mình sẽ phải work với bên production house - chính xác là với bạn stylist - để chọn áo quần trang phục. Làm trong agency, các bạn phải hiểu rõ brand của mình là gì, character của sản phẩm, character của người đóng (nếu là MV), để cho ra đời các sản phẩm sáng tạo “on point”. Đừng phụ thuộc vào stylist của production house. Đừng phụ thuộc vào client. Bạn phải có tiếng nói riêng của mình, phải có trách nhiệm với những gì mình sản xuất.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a16439/patricia-field-devil-wears-prada-10-year-anniversary-interview/

Ten years ago today, The Devil Wears Prada premiered in theaters, and fashion has never been the same. From "Florals? For spring? Groundbreaking.", to "That's all.", the movie shined a glamorous—if not slightly brutal—light on the glossiest of industries. The woman behind the glamour? Super stylist Patricia Field (also of Sex and the City and Ugly Betty fame). Below, she opens up to HarpersBAZAAR.comabout the legacy of the film and how she created the style of its iconic characters:

Harper's BAZAAR: I can't believe it's been 10 years since The Devil Wears Prada came out. How do you think the fashion industry as a whole has changed since then?

PF: I think the fashion industry, as a result of globalization, has undergone a uniformity. I'm not saying that's good or that's bad but that is my observation.

MORE FROM HARPER'S BAZAAR

Jennifer Garner’s Easy Beach Waves

Play Video

HB: How you were able to create individual personalities through the clothing of the main characters: Miranda, Andy and Emily?

PF: There's a formula you start off with and it starts with the script, because in the script it describes the characters and there's dialogue, and you learn about the character, who is fictitious, that we are creating. So that's step one: the script. Step two: character. Step three: Meet the actual human being, the actress or the actor. It's extremely important to have a relationship with the actor. I always feel my job is to support the actor who is creating this character.

The more information you have, the better you're able to have success. Part of that relationship is getting to know one another. You need to develop a respect, a trust for each other so that you're comfortable in this collaboration. So that's the general rule for all filmmaking for me. With Miranda Priestly, who is a chief editor, my idea was to create Miranda Priestly, not any other real chief editor, because it has to be an original for it to be interesting. Even though Devil Wears Prada originated as a book and it was in reference to Anna Wintour, I was not trying to recreate Anna Wintour. By no means. I was putting together a new formula that included very strongly the script and Meryl Streep. After meeting with her and talking with her, having a dialogue back and forth, you start to educate yourself . It's really important. Dressing is personal. I'd like to think that part of my formula, if possible, is finding any parallel lines between the character and the actor. If I can abstract those parallel lines and stay with them it becomes more organic and believable. Meryl had very good ideas that I liked very much, including her white hair, because I felt the white hair was a great palette. I could put anything to it. It was dynamic. That's an example of the kind of collaboration that I'm talking about. Some actors come with many ideas, some actors come with less ideas and say, "You're the expert, dress me, I don't know anything about fashion." Getting back to Meryl Streep, I wanted to create a fashion editor portrayed by Meryl, so it was very important that I understood her body, her ideas, and so on. After this so-called "research," I came up with—based on Meryl Streep—I went into the archives of Donna Karan, because when she started in the '80s and the '90s, her silhouettes were classic, they held up in time, they fit women, they flattered women, they weren't difficult. You can't start putting difficult clothes on a person. They're actors: they have to move, they have to feel real. And Donna said "Yeah, go to my archives." I went to New Jersey where she has a warehouse and I went through racks and racks, and I brought a lot of pieces out from there, and we used a lot of those piece. I was really happy because they weren't recognizable. They allowed Meryl to create her style, and I knew that fit-wise they would be good. They wasn't constricting or an outlandish shape or something like that.

ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW

20TH CENTURY FOX

HB: And Donna is famous for her workwear anyway.

PF: Absolutely. And the fact that I was in the archives, it was not recognizable. It wasn't Donna Karan 2016. It was very important for me be in that zone because I wanted, when people saw Meryl in these outfits, for it to look completely as her original style and not be distracted by the current trend.

HB: It's timeless.

PF: It is and I think timelessness is a very important factor in whatever I do. That's what makes a classic. It's obvious what's timeless and what is not timeless, but you need time to find that answer. I used it a lot for her workwear—she wore other designers, of course—but that was the foundation. It allowed me to create a style around it because it didn't dictate the style. It went with everything, you could wear it so many ways. So that is one of the main factors about Meryl as Miranda Priestly���that she have her own unique style. Style has become very important, the whole idea of style, what your personal style is. It's your identity, and that's what we're creating here.

When it came to Annie Hathaway, of course I went through the same exercise. I met her—I had never met her before—she was a young girl, just graduated out of being a princess for Disney—other than her role in Brokeback Mountain, which I thought she did a really good job in—so she was excited and open to this new stage in her life as an actress. She was optimistic, she was happy. I took on whatever information I received from her, and it was all positive. So the story is, she's a writer and all of a sudden she gets this job as this big deal fashion editor and she has no background in fashion at all. She starts out looking a bit grungy, non fashion-conscious. And along the storyline she develops into a little fashionista. After my meeting with her and understanding her personality, I got the idea that she's a Chanel girl. And when I spoke to Chanel—and here we go again: classic—when I spoke to Chanel they were very happy. They wanted to put their clothes on a young girl. They were very happy to work with me, which was great because there's nothing like cooperation when you're trying to paint a picture and you have all your paints there, and in this case the paint was Chanel. So her transition from the beginning to the end fit her persona. So there's that parallel line that I was talking about—it's believable about her, her whole persona. She's not Versace, for example. The expression comes in the styling and how you handle it. You take the classic and you take it on a little styling trip and then it becomes individual, original, interesting.

20TH CENTURY FOX

Emily Blunt, she's another one, I love her. She's very outspoken, her lines are underscored, she can handle extremes very well. Just based on my meeting her—I would bring her things and how she would react to it—she was my actress who I could be a little bit more expressive. I could take some chances, some liberties, because she could handle it within the way she delivered this character. She delivered it boldly and very expressively, so I linked that up with the wardrobe. And Stanley, I really didn't have a clue about this character. I went to my wardrobe fitting and I walked out understanding this character 100%. That was wonderful. He's fantastic, he can play anything. He and Meryl are the same in that sense. They can do any role and I so respect the two of them for that. They're not typecast in anyway. That is an actor, as opposed to a type that becomes a celebrity.

HB: Did Meryl offer any other input into what her character was wearing, aside from the white hair?

ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW

PF: Yes. Basically the process is, if she needs an outfit for a scene, I'm not gonna bring her one thing or she's gonna tell me this is what she wants. Based on the range of what she expresses and the range of what I bring her, I might bring her 10 different options she can choose. I think collaboration is extremely important in the process. And at the end of the day, I'm not on camera. Meryl is. The actor is. I think it's very important that they're involved. I never think of an actor as a model. A model wears what you tell them to wear, that's their job. An actor is different. It's important to work with the actor because in the end that's who the audience sees and that's the success that you need. Believable, great to look at, but it all has to come together. I notice a lot of people don't understand that aspect, they think it's more like fashion. I love to do fashion. I always put fashion in all of my storytelling because that's what I am, but I'm not selling clothes, I'm telling a story.

HB: Were those montage scenes particularly challenging? Gathering all those clothes and making sense as a whole?

PF: David Frankel, who is the director and writer and someone who I've worked with many times in the past—who I have a close relationship with—he would come into my office and say, "I just wrote a scene. It's a montage. Meryl is coming into the office and each time she comes into the office she throws another coat down and another coat down." And I go, "David, ca-ching ca-ching ca-ching!" Anyway, we did it. Those and the Annie montages in the street, those are some of the most remembered scenes. They were written after the main film script was written. They were add-ons as we were preparing. Also, I took David to Paris with me to couture. I said, "Come on, this is what you're gonna be shooting. You gotta come and see." We went and that really worked out very well. It inspired him.

HB: Did you design anything yourself for the film?

PF: I was asked to design a bag for Annie. It shifts into a clutch and has a circular handle that's part of the shape of the bag and it's got some fringe on it.

HB: Were there any designers that you were adamant about working with? Prada, Chanel…Valentino himself makes a cameo in the film.

PF: That was great, his cameo in the film. I love Valentino. I love his spirit, his love of life, his enjoyment of the whole experience. He's wonderful. I just landed on the designers as I got into the script and the actors. There were no imperatives. I used other designers besides the ones that I mentioned. But the main thing is, it's not about the designer as much as it's about the piece. Concerning Annie Hathaway, because she's in so much wardrobe, she had to have a style and I came up with the Chanel idea and that worked out. She didn't only wear Chanel. Same for Meryl regarding Donna Karan. Meryl wore some Prada, she wore different things. There wasn't just one thing. When Meryl went to work a lot of it was from the Donna Karan archive. It was important to me because in trying to create a style for this character, I didn't want the clothing to be current, on the runway or in the magazines, and be recognizable. I wanted it to be all Miranda Priestly, individual and original. It's like Anna Wintour has her own style, she's the original of it. Carine [Roitfeld], she has a completely different style, it's her style.

20TH CENTURY FOX

HB: What was your favorite look to put together?

PF: Going back I liked them all, but based on the reaction, I know that when Anne does that Chanel transformation with the mini checked skirt and the thigh-high boots, people loved it. I put a twist on Chanel but the Chanel was there.

ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW

HB: How was designing for The Devil Wears Prada different from Sex in the City, a very fashion-heavy series?

PF: Well it was a different story. It was a different situation. You had different actors. You have to deal with each of them individually and the characters they're playing. It's hard to compare them because they're entirely different. It's really difficult to in any way to compare them. They're much easier to contrast than to find similarity. Again, it depends on the actor. You have somebody like Sarah Jessica Parker, who is a fashionista. She loves fashion. And that's a perk! And she can come with ideas because she's thinking about it. She loves fashion. So the collaboration yields a bonus that way. She loved her role as a supermodel. She loves that. That's like a gift. It's not fashion first, it's storytelling first. And then I throw my fashion and style into it because that's what I know and that's what I do. When you have actors who can support it, it's great. Sarah Jessica could be wearing a pair of five-inch heels and she's running down the street and her feet don't touch the ground. That's a beautiful thing to see. I can't make that happen. That has to come out of the actor. I can only recognize it and utilize it, but if it's not there I can't make it happen. You have to deal with a certain reality and expand it in anyway you can.

JK: Are you surprised by the staying power of the film and how beloved and iconic it is ten years later?

PF: I'm very happily surprised. I never thought that this would become a classic on its own. I never really thought about it going in, "I'm gonna make this the most unforgettable movie." I just go in and do my job and be positive and have fun with it. If I'm not enjoying it, it doesn't happen.

JULIE KOSIN

Senior Culture EditorJulie Kosin is the senior culture editor of ELLE.com, where she oversees all things movies, TV, books, music, and art, from trawling Netflix for a worthy binge to endorsing your next book club pick.

[ofvernacular]

Can’t Stop Keeping Up With The Kardashians

In the endless stream of content that beleaguers consumers of art, culture and entertainment, people are constantly in the search for the more scintillating, the more engaging, the more exciting. In this search for amusement and momentary escapism from the capitalistic enslavement of the daily nine to five, reality television proves to be a seductive option. Reality television promises a raw, unscripted, and uncensored experience. There is no plot, it is just a production of people’s real lives, no characters, no pretentions. Reality T.V. gives you access to, as implicit by the name, reality. The phenomena of producing real lives serves as “the ideal of what is natural” in the field of the entertainment industry, as it “diminishes the tension between the finished product and everyday life” (Adorno 1944, 5). For the scope of this essay, I will investigate the ways in which this reality is produced for spectatorship through the mechanism of the culture industry by analyzing the television show Keeping Up With The Kardashians. The episode selected for analysis is the first episode of the fourteenth season, which is also a special ‘tenth anniversary episode’, aired on September 24, 2017, celebrating ten years of the Kardashian Empire.

           Keeping Up With The Kardashians, first aired in 2007 and running till date, is E! network’s highest-rated show. The megafranchise, consisting of multiple spinoffs and business endeavors, collectively garners billions of dollars every passing year earned from television salaries, celebrity appearances, social media endorsements, and make-up and fashion lines (Forbes 2018). The show follows the lives of sisters Kourtney (age 39), Kim (38), and Khloe Kardashian (34), their half-sisters Kendall (22) and Kylie Jenner (21), and other close family such as their mother and the family’s matriarch, Kris Jenner (62), brother Rob Kardashian Jr (31), stepfather Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner (69), and significant others. Each episode documents one event in the Kardashian-Jenner life, spanning from a day long to a week long, interspersed with clips from camera interviews of the separate family members commenting on the event that is taking place. The structure of all the episodes provides the audience with an immersive experience of the event, being shown (selectively) all the angles of a situation, and all recorded reactions. Each situation is dealt with and portrayed in a similar way, be it a scandal, a holiday, a party, or a personal challenge. As Adorno (1944, 9) says, a trademark of the entertainment industry is that the “content is merely a faded foreground; what sinks in is the automatic succession of standardized operations.”  The episode analysed for this essay documented the media coverage of the family’s tenth anniversary celebrations, a trip taken by the three Kardashian sisters to Cleveland, and a scandal regarding Kendall Jenner’s advertisement for Coca-Cola.

           It becomes evident from the beginning of the episode that the producers, in our case Ryan Seacrest and Kris Jenner, do not intend to hide the ‘industrial’ nature of the T.V. Show that they are producing. The first five minutes of the show itself revealed the Kardashian-Jenners in the middle of a production studio standing under artificial lighting against a luxurious white background, surrounded by cameramen, producers, make-up artists, crew members etc, posing for a photoshoot by The Hollywood Reporter covering the show’s tenth anniversary. The filming does not discriminate between the home lives and the business lives of the Kardashians, it testifies its promise of showing the family’s actual lives wherever they go, and so the spectator is left under the impression of watching these people in their natural habitat. The spectator accepts that the production studio is as much of a natural habitat for a Kardashian as a luxury restaurant or their home. Following this acceptance of seeing a Kardashian in a natural habitat, the spectator slowly begins to accept every depiction on the show as a truth and a reality. The episode features a vacation taken by the three Kardashian sisters to Khloe Kardashian’s boyfriend Tristan Thompson’s Cleveland house. The celebrity status of the Kardashians becomes evident as entire restaurants and amusement parks are booked out for their visit, and they are greeted by hordes of fans at multiple locations, all which is caught on camera. This stardom is juxtaposed with interval cuts of the sisters speaking to producers on camera, answering personal questions about their feelings, opinions and thoughts to bring them back in touch with the normal experience of the everyman. On being asked (note: the question prompt is never featured on screen, only the response of the Kardashian-Jenner being filmed, which too is evidently edited) about what Khloe Kardashian and her boyfriend do in Cleveland, Khloe tells the camera that they “are boring, watch T.V.” and “do normal things like cooking, cleaning…” These small interviews that are inserted into the videographical narrative that follows the Kardashians humanizes their lives, their emotions, and helps the audience feel as if they’re being communicated all essential information that may contextualize the events being filmed, while providing real human feelings for the audience to connect to. Seeing Khloe portraying herself as any other girl in a mundane relationship reassures the audience of the realness of the people whose lives they so enthusiastically yet absent-mindedly follow.

           The utility of these interview cuts can be illustrated with the way the Kendall Jenner Coca-Cola scandal was dealt with in this particular episode. The depiction of the scandal completely unveiled the mechanisms of the culture industry that may prevail today. One of the first conversations regarding the scandal, about eight minutes into the episode, featured Kourtney Kardashian telling her sister Kendall Jenner on video chat that “Russel called me today saying that we can turn this into a positive and said he’d call mom,” to which Kendal replied saying “yeah, he called me…if I knew this was the outcome I would never have done anything like this.” Many allusions were made to people such as Russell who were the Kardashians’ personal publicists and other business affiliates. The conversations regarding the scandal throughout the episode revealed attempts of the family and their employed publicists to diffuse the scandal that labelled Kendall Jenner a racist for doing a culturally insensitive commercial for Coca-Cola during the Black Lives Matter protests. In an interview with the camera, Kendall explained that when she “first took [the offer] [she] thought it was going to be a good thing. The company is amazing. So many people have done it. Michael Jackson did it, Britney Spears has done it…the list goes on...I trusted everyone, I trusted the teams.” This information reveals the influence of the entertainment business on the lives of the Kardashians. The narratives created when the Kardashian-Jenners refer to the external team recording and controlling their appearances make explicit to the spectator that all social media news on the Kardashians external to the television show is mediated, untrue and ‘gossipy’, while proving the show to be the source of ‘real facts’ or information for the audience to consume unquestioningly. It is the reckless honesty portrayed by the cameras that helps perpetuate the show’s position as an unbiased documentation of now-celebrity lives.

           However, “the culture industry perpetually cheats its consumers of what it perpetually promises” (Adorno 1944, 10). It becomes evident to the suspicious eye that the portrayal of what is true on the T.V. show is just the product of another narrative that is trying to be created by executive producer and also star-mom Kris Jenner to clear up any unwanted controversy and keep the show popular and entertaining. Through the show there are multiple cuts where Kendall discusses her regret over starring in the commercial and having no bad intent while shooting it. There is a scene where the family discusses Caitlyn Jenner’s upcoming media appearances and their apprehension of her tendency to say politically incorrect things on camera or, in Kim’s words, “Caitlyn [being] known for saying all the wrong things.” This implies a right versus wrong narrative that could be associated with the family, and Kris Jenner’s motive to always stay on the right side becomes explicit through the content of each episode. Kendall makes clear to the audience on multiple occasions to not pay heed to her father’s public words as “the only problem is that because she’s [her] dad, people are gonna like really believe it and take it and run with it and like what does she even actually know.” Even the ending scene of the show drives home the point that any controversy created by Caitlyn Jenner regarding the Coca Cola scandal is baseless as Kendall sobbingly testifies to the camera that “my dad doesn’t actually know what happened…I just feel really really really bad…that this was taken in such a wrong way.” The T.V. show naturally monopolizes all the news on the Kardashian family, while easily being one of their most edited and mediated productions that run past several bureaucratic check-posts before the final airing.

           It should be noted that the executive producer of this television show, the kingpin of the mediation who controls the final narrative created around the Kardashian Lifestyle, is in fact personally involved with the family’s fortune and appearance. This kingpin is the Kardashian-Jenner’s mother, Kris Jenner. Her influence can be felt in certain productions of truth on the show, such as writing away her popular ex-husband Caitlyn Jenner as an uninformed liar, however this observation may be based on my personal conjecture. The bitterness, also felt by her children towards their ex-stepfather, can be recorded in this show by Khloe’s statement “It’s not cause you’re trans, that’s not why I’m not talking to you, I’m not talking to you because you’re a bad mean person.” The outrage against Caitlyn Jenner is fierce in this particular episode, and the Kardashians make it a point to feature it extensively in their show, publicly demonizing Caitlyn Jenner. It is also interesting to note in the statement above Khloe’s need to clarify that she dislikes Caitlyn Jenner, but not because of her gender. The fact that the show is a product of a business industry that must appease certain public ideologies is revealed in all the Kardashian-Jenner’s effort to be politically correct on camera, and also clear up controversies outside camera regarding political correctness using extensive means such as publicists, personal social media statements et cetera. These small details make evident the fact that ultimately, the show is being produced for a particular consumer, an imagined spectator, whom the show must adjust itself to to keep him or her unquestioningly amused and involved. As Adorno (1944, 9) says, “it is quite correct that the power of the culture industry resides in its identification with a manufactured need, and not in simple contrast to it, even if this contrast were one of complete power and complete powerlessness.”

           The “complete power” of these media magnates is shown in the public engagement with their brand that is formulated on the platform of the T.V. show. The blasting sales of Kylie Jenner’s make-up line that makes her one of the youngest and richest ‘self-made women’ (Forbes 2018) or the amused people who flock to watch redundant spin-offs made on different members of the Kardashian clan to remain as connected to the family as possible, prove the influence of the Kardashians on their followers. These followers are provided a “convergent media experience” (Barron 2012, 82) where they can stay in touch with the Kardashian’s personal lives through their social media accounts on Instagram and Snapchat in addition to the T.V. show and Hollywood news, adding a sense of accessibility to their celebrity lifestyle. The fanbase generated by the seemingly innocuous family can be explained by Adorno on page 8:

The consumers are the workers and employees, the farmers and lower middle class. Capitalist production so confines them, body and soul, that they fall helpless victims to what is offered them. As naturally as the ruled always took the morality imposed upon them more seriously than did the rulers themselves, the deceived masses are today captivated by the myth of success even more than the successful are. Immovably, they insist on the very ideology which enslaves them.

Each fan following the Kardashians has become an aspirant to their lifestyle, and a subject of their brand. On page 22 Adorno continues by saying that “the assembly-line character of the culture industry, the synthetic, planned method of turning out its products is very suited to advertising,” claiming that each “interchangeable” shot of a celebrity in a production becomes an advertisement for his or her name. Every public appearance made by a Kardashian-Jenner is controlled by and also controls the brand name Kardashian. The brand infiltrates the wishes and wardrobes of its consumers. The Kim Kardashian make-up line generates its profits not from its inherent goodness as a cosmetic, but through its cosmetic connection with the queen of the pop culture industry. Every “recommendation” by the family “becomes an order” (Adorno 1944, 21). The advertising takes place in the show as well as on all platforms of media outside. Whether it be sponsored Instagram posts on Fit Tea, or in the episode under analysis, a three minute sponsored demonstration of Nurse Jamie’s Healthy Skin Solutions which the Kardashian sisters learn about, experience and review on camera. These endorsements become cultural symbols of a Kardashian lifestyle and control the tastes of the public for economic profit.

Through this essay we realize the not-so-hidden business intentions behind the reproduction of the Kardashian-Jenner family life for public reality television. What started out as Ryan Seacrest’s wish to create a successful T.V. show (Cosmopolitan 2018) has evolved into an entertainment empire headed by Matriarch and Executive Producer Kris Jenner, and her business subjects, also children, Kourtney, Kim, Khloe, Kendall, Kylie and Rob. There are many instances through the T.V. show that reveal its industrial nature to us, be it the brand endorsements casually mentioned through the episode, the intimate relationship of the family with the business associates such as publicists, personal assistants, crew members etc, the revelation of the politics around Hollywood gossip or the constant editorial interruption in the forms of camera interviews that sprinkle the flow of events in each episode. Nevertheless, consumers keep desiring more of the DASH business, and “desire is always in excess of the object’s capacity to satisfy it” (Phillips 1999, 100). The Kardashians could produce as many spinoffs, brew as much controversy, and curate countless media appearances, and the consumers will never be satisfied. That is because the depiction of absolute reality promises a constant influx of possible new information, gossip and news. Because the consumers’ lives run parallel, in the same space-time fabric as their T.V. idols’ lives, the expectations do not cease. Thus every episode, like a kiss, leaves the watcher disappointed, longing for more. This disappointment ensures the return of the consumer for another round, another peck. Like a moth, the consumer lingers in front of the bright screen desiring a minute more of escapism from the rut of capitalistic enslavement, by submitting him or herself into an alternate industry that controls not their employment but their culture.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barron, Lee. Social Theory in Popular Culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

 Lerner, Rebecca. "'Keeping Up With The Kardashians' Ratings Improve." Forbes. January 26, 2018. Accessed October 29, 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccalerner/2018/01/17/keeping-up-with-the-kardashians-ratings-improve/#316f29d969c2.

 Phillips, Adam. On Kissing, Tickling, and Being Bored: Psychoanalytic Essays on the Unexamined Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.

 Rees, Alex. "Here's How the Kardashians Landed Their Reality Show." Cosmopolitan. October 07, 2017. Accessed October 29, 2018. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/news/a35457/heres-how-the-kardashians-landed-their-reality-show/.

 Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception,” in Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002.

 Robehmed, Natalie. "How 20-Year-Old Kylie Jenner Built A $900 Million Fortune In Less Than 3 Years." Forbes. July 13, 2018. Accessed October 29, 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesdigitalcovers/2018/07/11/how-20-year-old-kylie-jenner-built-a-900-million-fortune-in-less-than-3-years/.

[flauntpage]

Tonight is the 15th Anniversary of the Great Flyers-Senators Brawl

I can’t believe it’s been 15 years since the most memorable regular season game of my sports writing career.

What happened in this game had never happened before in the history of hockey, and since the sport has almost completely gotten away from fighting, it’s likely it will never happen again.

But man, it was glorious.

After the jump is a copy of the story I wrote that night, back when I was just a freelance writer for ComcastSportsNet.com, which is now NBCSPhilly.com

The story is OK by my standards – but there’s some stuff that was left out. So, I’ve added some more details in bold text that will hopefully paint a fuller picture of that beauty of a hockey game.

What a night.

Feisty Flyers Beat Up Senators 

(This really needed a better headline, but SEO wasn’t really a thing then…)

3/5/04

Anthony J. SanFilippo

ComcastSportsNet.com Contributor

Martin Havlat has no one to blame but himself.

All the guy had to do was keep his stick down when the Flyers last met the Ottawa Senators in Canada’s capital city last month.

But instead, he mistook himself for an Iron Chef and Mark Recchi’s head for a nice pot roast.

(It was the second time Havlat had clipped a Flyer in the face with his stick and he was getting a reputation for being a bit too cavalier with it. He had high-sticked Kim Johnsson in the playoffs the season before and the high stick on Recchi certainly appeared blatant and infuriated everyone on the Flyers from the GM’s box on down.)

Flyers coach Ken Hitchcock vowed revenge. (It was one of Hitch’s great quips – “Someone is going to make him eat his lunch.”)

What happened Friday night was not what he had in mind, but hey, he’ll take it and so will the sell-out crowd who witnessed one of the most memorable games in the history of the Flyers franchise.

What happened? Let’s see… where should we begin?

How about the end, where, when the game concluded, the Flyers had seven skaters and a goalie, and the Senators six skaters and a goalie — on the entire squad.

In a game fresh out of 1974, a combined 23 players were tossed from the game for engaging in several melees on the ice. The goalies went toe-to-toe, the coaches screamed unprintable words back and forth at each other across the bench, and blood was spilled. The gloves dropped after every faceoff in the game’s final minutes. Records for penalty minutes were shattered. After the game general manager Bob Clarke went head-hunting, looking for an Ottawa official to tear apart. Even the media from each country had to be separated following an incident.

All the while, Havlat dodged the combat better than President Clinton during Vietnam, hiding on the Ottawa bench or in the penalty box serving penalties for booted teammates.

(Oh, the days when you could inject a little political humor into a sports story. Such a bygone era.)

Oh yeah, the Flyers defeated the Ottawa Senators 5-3. But back to the good stuff.

All told there were a combined 419 minutes in penalties, smashing the league record of 406 set by the Minnesota North Stars and Boston Bruins in February, 1981.

The Flyers obliterated their own team record of 194 penalty minutes set in March, 1979 against the Los Angeles Kings with 213 on Friday.

The two teams also broke a record for most penalty minutes in a period by amassing 409, smashing the league mark of 379 set in the same 1979 Flyers-Kings squabble.

And it all started when a frustrated Senators squad took a run at Sami Kapanen.

“(Rob) Ray went after Sami and started throwing punches at him,” said Donald Brashear. “If you want to screw around, we will take care of business.”

So Brash did. And he beat Ray to a pulp, leaving the Senators’ tough guy dripping blood drops on the ice.

A couple of Senators didn’t take too kindly to Brashear’s easy knockout and went after him as he was skating off the ice. A rumble ensued. Every possible glove and stick was on the ice.

“They were mad because their tough guy got beat up,” Hitchcock said. “Then their next two (fighters) go after two guys who don’t fight at all. That’s why what happened, happened.”

(This is partly true, but also partly disingenuous. Yes, the fighting went on longer than probably necessary because Ottawa coach Jacques Martin threw Chris Neil and Zdeno Chara onto the ice after the Brashear-Ray fight and they went after two non-fighters in Radovan Somik and Mattias Timander. But, in reality, the Flyers were looking for an opportunity to have Havlat pay for his actions, and Martin was rooting him to the bench. That’s what pissed off the Flyers most – a lack of accountability on the part of the Senators, so things got ugly.)

Even the goalies dropped the gloves, as Esche landed a couple of shots to Patrick Lalime’s head.

Brashear amassed 34 minutes of penalties all by himself. He was tossed along with Esche, Danny Markov — who dropped them with Todd Simpson — and Branko Radivojevic, who traded blows with Shaun Van Allen. Ray, Lalime, Simpson and Van Allen all got the gate for Ottawa. All this occurred at 18:15 of the third period.

(I was in the arena, so I didn’t get to hear Jim Jackson and Gary Dornhoeffer call this action until a few days later. Comcast Sports Net re-aired the game as an “Instant Classic” five days later and it drew a higher rating than most live Flyers regular season games at the time. The NHL was not happy with this because they were on a crusade to curb fighting, and replaying this game was promoting it. But Dorny and J.J. were great calling this game. Some great moments including Dorny saying, “Fans can’t stand this though. They don’t like this at all,” as the Wachovia Center was in a frenzy.

It was the best brawl of the season. But that was just the appetizer for a seven-course meal.

Three seconds later, on the very next faceoff, secondary fighter for Ottawa, Chris Neil, jabbed Radovan Somik in the groin with his stick. Somik jabbed back. Then Neil punched him, and every player on the ice went at it again.

More penalties. More ejections. (One of my favorite moments here is poor public address announcer Lou Nolan trying to announce the penalties when another fight broke out and he stopped reading the penalties and let out an exasperated “Oh, boy” over the mic.)

Good-bye to Somik, Neil and Mattias Timander and Zdeno Chara, who also went at it on the same faceoff.

(While this was going on, the players who were ejected were standing in the hallway just steps from the tunnel, watching the feed on a mini TV that Comcast Sports Net had set up in the hallway where reporter Matt Yallof was able to interview players between periods and postgame. When Markov and Brashear saw Neil and Chara jump a couple of non-fighters, they darted back up the tunnel and started screaming at referees Marc Joannette and Dan Marouelli. Brashear even sent one of the equipment guys back into the locker room to get his helmet and gloves – even though he had already been kicked out of the game! At this juncture Hitchock started chirping at Martin. He was telling the Sens coach that all he had to do was put Havlat on the ice and this would all come to a conclusion. Instead, Martin responded by sending Havlat on the ice – to go to the penalty box and serve a teammates penalty. Hitchcock was steamed and directed his players to keep up the physical play. He was going to send a message to Martin for his coaching cowardice.)

Fast forward another three seconds. Michal Handzus, one of Somik’s good friends on the Flyers, attacked Mike Fisher as soon as the puck dropped.

Thanks for playing gentlemen.

By this point, the crowd was in a state of euphoria.

The officials seemed to plead to the benches to end the chicanery.

Oh, but they were far from done.

A mere 23 seconds later, as it appeared cooler heads had prevailed, Recchi drilled Wade Redden into the boards. Redden turned around and attacked John LeClair. Recchi grabbed Brian Smolinski.

More gloves, more penalties, four more players shown the door.

Two seconds later it was Patrick Sharp pounding on Jason Spezza.

Adios Amigos.

Ten fights in 32 seconds. Must be another record.

All the while Havlat just watched from his island.

“My team didn’t forget what Havlat did last game,” Recchi said. “I’d be pretty upset if I were his teammates, I’ll tell you that.”

(Here’s the reference to being accountable for your actions when you do something like high stick an opponent. You need to be prepared to face the consequences – and Havlat never did.)

And if the show of sportsmanship on the ice wasn’t enough, what happened off of it was just the cherry on top.

First, Brashear allegedly was making gestures down the hallway between the two locker rooms, mocking slitting his throat at Senator player Todd Simpson.

When asked about it, Brashear said, “No comment.”

(Brashear later admitted that he did make the gesture, but it was just in conversation, not really reported anywhere. But he was pissed at Simpson because Simpson and Brian Pothier were the guys who jumped him after fighting with Ray. The shouting in the hallway between the two locker rooms was insane. I was on the elevator with Bob Clarke and he was cursing the Senators the whole way down. He was walking with a purpose toward the locker room area and when he didn’t turn to go where he usually would to go into the Flyers locker room, it dawned on me that he was heading toward the Ottawa locker room. So I followed…more on this later… )

When peppered by a Canadian reporter as to why he sucker-punched Ray, Brashear said “I didn’t sucker punch him. If I’d have sucker punched him he would be laying on his back.”

Brash then said he started the whole bru-ha-ha.

“Of course I started it, why wouldn’t I start it?” he said. “Did you watch the last game? You figure it out.”

(Brash was always a great quote. Always.)

It was the same Canadian television reporter who crashed into a Comcast SportsNet reporter (not this one) during an interview with Senators coach Jacques Martin.

Looking like Tyrone Power and Basil Rathbone in “The Mark of Zorro,” the two reporters, wielding microphones, nearly killed each other.

(The CSN reporter was Yallof. I don’t want to make this sound like a stereotype, because it certainly doesn’t fit the bill for all Canadian TV employees, but, when it comes to hockey, both the Canadian TV guys and their cameramen have shown a propensity over the years to be a little more bullish when it comes to getting into position for a media scrum. The energy was so high that night that a little effort to create elbow room led to tempers flaring in the hallway between TV guys. It was just like this:

It was a lot more exciting than what Martin had to say, which was nothing.

Maybe that’s why Clarke called Martin “a gutless puke.”

Wait, when did that happen?

Oh, yeah. Clarkie stormed downstairs from his cozy perch atop the arena and had to be restrained from going after Martin in the Senators locker room.

He later eyeballed Senators G.M. John Muckler in the hallway before voicing his displeasure with NHL supervisor of officials, Claude Loiselle, who happened to be in attendance for the game.

Clarke said a lot more that can’t be reprinted here, but it was yet another priceless moment in the middle of a priceless turn of events.

(This was Clarke at his best. He made it all the way down the hall just outside the Senators locker room and was calling for Martin to come out. Some Flyers employees were holding him back as he yelled to Martin, “Come out here now you fucking gutless puke!” Muckler came out instead, but Clarke was already on his way back down the hallway and he just stared at Muckler the whole time. It was so WWE. Clarke addressed reporters afterwards. He said he wasn’t going to hit Martin if he came out of the locker room – although it sure looked like he wanted to – but rather wanted to challenge him for sending Neil and Chara after Somik and Timander. “Their tough guy [Rob Ray] got beat up and then their next two lines fought guys who don’t fight,” Clarke said.  “I understand Rob Ray fighting Donald Brashear. That’s okay. […] But don’t go after guys who don’t know how to defend themselves like Somik and Timander.”

Lost in all of this translation was the fact that the Flyers dominated Ottawa for the game’s first 55 minutes.

After allowing Neil to score the first goal of the game 4:07 in, Claude LaPointe, Recchi and Markov all put the puck past a shaky Lalime giving the Flyers a 3-1 lead after one period.

Kim Johnsson and Alexei Zhamnov also scored while Chara and Petr Bondra added goals for the Senators.

The win and the fights didn’t come without a cost, though. The Flyers lost three defensemen in the game and will have to make due with minor leaguers for at least Saturday’s game in Washington.

Chris Therien and Joni Pitkanen both left the game in the first period with injuries. Therien suffered a strained left shoulder, and Pitkanen was listed as having his “bell rung,” although Hitchcock later said it was a concussion.

Markov will also be out of the lineup serving a one-game suspension for picking up his third game misconduct of the year. This leaves the Flyers with Johnsson, Timander and John Slaney as the only blue liners remaining on the roster.

Kapanen was an emergency fill-in on defense for the last two periods against Ottawa and may see some time there against Washington.

Hitchcock also said Phantoms defenseman Freddie Meyer and Joey Hope could see time.

Of course, there’s also the possibility of Clarke pulling off a trade once he calms down.

With the win, the Flyers (35-16-12-6, 88 points) remained tied for the top spot in the Eastern Conference with Tampa Bay and moved seven points ahead of New Jersey in the Atlantic Division.

(Final notes: The only Flyers who were left available for the final minute of the game were Johnsson and Slaney on defense, Zhamnov, Simon Gagne, Tony Amonte, Kapanen and Lapointe with Sean Burke in goal…. It’s amazing the Flyers made it to Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals despite all their injuries. They were without Keith Primeau, Jeremy Roenick, Eric Desjardins and Marcus Ragnarsson in this game alone – Todd Fedoruk and Dennis Seidenberg were healthy scratches. Chris Therien and Joni Pitkanen got hurt in the first period of this game. Clarke went out and traded for Vladimir Malakhov at the trade deadline three days later, but he also traded Therien, which proved costly because in the playoffs, Hitchcock had to frequently play Sami Kapanen as a sixth defenseman because of how injured they were… These two teams met again one more time on April 2 that season at Wachovia Center. Everyone was looking for a sequel – it turned out to be a dud. The Flyers lost 3-1 and the teams combined for 10 minutes in penalties total as neither team wanted to lose anyone to injury or suspension since it was the penultimate game of the regular season and the playoffs were around the corner. )

  The post Tonight is the 15th Anniversary of the Great Flyers-Senators Brawl appeared first on Crossing Broad.

Tonight is the 15th Anniversary of the Great Flyers-Senators Brawl published first on https://footballhighlightseurope.tumblr.com/

[alwayssummerblog]

Carrie Underwood & Brad Paisley’s CMA Awards Hosting History

There’s no doubt, the holiday season is in full swing. With the November chill setting in across most of the country, and excitement building for the seasons hallmark holidays, Thanksgiving, Christmas, the New Year and of course, the CMA Awards! 

A bona fide country music tradition, officially a decade strong, is the yearly partnership of Brad Paisley and Carrie Underwood to host the Country Music Association’s annual award show. As one of the industry’s biggest nights, the hosts are given an immense amount of responsibility, and year after year Underwood and Paisley prove themselves to be just the duo for the job.

The Birth of a Tradition, 41st CMA Awards (2007)

Taking over for Brooks & Dunn, who hosted the ceremonies from 2004 through 2006, after positive reviews of their amplified roles in the production in 2007, they were officially named co-hosts in 2008. This is also the year that the event moved from Madison Square Garden in New York City to the Bridgestone Arena in Nashville, Tennessee. The commercials that ran promotion for the 2007 Awards show a burgeoning career for the future co-hosts that would result in their faces becoming synonymous with the function. 

Fun fact, for the second year in a row, co-host Carrie Underwood was the winner of the Female Vocalist of the Year Award, a title she would hold for 3 years straight through 2008. Her co-host took home a few awards in 2006 and 2007 as well, winning album of the year for Time Well Wasted and Musical Event of the Year for “Where I Ge Where I’m Going,” a gorgeous collaboration with icon Dolly Parton, all before taking home more awards in 2007. This year both co-hosts won vocalist of the year in their respective categories, with Underwood taking home Single of the Year for “Before He Cheats” and Paisley took Music Video of the Year for the hilarious accompaniment to “Online.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qiy6NhHY-p0

Made it Official, 42nd CMA Awards (2008)

Coming off raving reviews of their onstage chemistry, strong senses of humor and engaging hosting talents, the two artists were excited to return to the CMA stage in 2008. Both leaders of the genre, the Male and Female Vocalists of the Year at this very award show, fans couldn’t get enough of seeing a different side of their favorite artists. At this point, the value the hosting pair brought to the show was obvious, and the promotions reflect that. One of the more fun initiatives was a Q&A the CMA posted, videos with each host individually that turned out to be an awesome visual time capsule. Combined with that promo video, you’ll find all the 2000’s fashion you’ve been missing. Co-host Paisley received another nod to his music video style, taking home Music Video of the Year for “Waitin’ on a Woman.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1rDuIHcqDo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31Q93ZCcUzc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD7Ab2tOQvE

Second Times the Charm, 43rd CMA Awards (2009)

By the time the awards had finished airing, Underwood and Paisley were as synonymous with CMA as the words country music or award themselves. Having solidified their position as the co-hosts for the foreseeable future, they began to really grow into their roles. In a recap CMT published of the awards that year, the author praised their performance specifically, writing “Brad and Carrie, if I had an awards show, I’d hire you guys to host. I’ve been watching these shows since the ’70s, and nobody did better than you.” With Paisley managing to maintain the title of Male Vocalist of the Year, the two co-hosts had officially each held that respective title for three consecutive years, not bad. His “Start a Band” performance with Keith Urban earned them the Musical Event of the Year Award, his second of the night. And that’s not to mention the jaw-dropping performances each artist pulled off alongside their hosting duties.

Each is too intricate and impressive for words, watch for yourself below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMPmBt0OSuw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAJkSp6aDgc

New Decade, Same Hosts, 44th CMA Awards (2010)

New decade, new title for host Brad Paisley, “promoted” if you will, to Entertainer of the Year at the 2010 Awards, it’s safe to say he was having a great year. Having been nominated five times prior, it was exciting for fans everywhere to see him finally take home the award. Having become close friends from years of show preparation, the hosting duo’s rapport only improved. From hilarious commercials featuring the artists and hosts playing air hockey backstage, practicing lines and a comedic sketch starring a very snobby Paisley enjoying lobster claw, it’s clear to see how much fun they have not only hosting, but promoting the show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Xt9A0xnOk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH3O06jDvKk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWjilDdH8i0

Careful Not to get Comfortable, 45th CMA Awards (2011)

Back again with a truly hilarious comedy sketch intended to promote the show, featuring a number of hilarious characters including Miss Piggy, Minnie and Mickey Mouse, ventriloquists and mimes, they joke they’ve been made by ABC to audition for their hosting jobs. Watch both the final product and some fun behind the scenes footage below. And bonus, ABC World News did an awesome recap of the year’s awards, with really fun footage and a few facts, you can watch in full as well. This was also the year that the co-hosts released their hit duet, “Remind Me.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmzqjCQ-K8U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqi9gRwqP70

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDywgoixj4A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qzhngp7jh8

5th Year Anniversary, 46th CMA Awards (2012)

By the 5-year anniversary of the pairs selection as co-hosts, their act had become an event in of itself. Always ones to keep their dialogue relevant, there was even reference to viral sensation of the time “Gangam Style” and both busted out some dance moves to accompany it. In a performance of hit single “Blown Away” that had the crowd literally blown away, Underwood once again proved herself the hostess with the mostest, the most stage presence that is.  

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/cma-awards-2012-show-highlights/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsnc7kH-eLE

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/cma-awards-2012-show-highlights/2/

Keeping the Excitement Alive, 47th CMA Awards (2013)

In a reveal video that features mega group and friends of theirs, Little Big Town, Underwood and Paisley were announced as the hosts for a sixth consecutive year. In an interview with ABC news, the two stars shared their pre-show rituals, and even play a fun game titled “Co-Host Connection” running through some of the best memories they made over their 5 consecutive years as hosts. The entire video is so fun, it’s worth every single one of the six minutes of your time.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzcDqJXMJFE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I42TKWUVFHY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txMh-zF5JhM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me4KBqZ0SqI

Lucky Number 7 Calls for a Throwback, 48th CMA Awards (2014)

One of the most memorable moments in their careers as co-hosts, the show was promoted with a few videos featuring mini versions of Paisley and Underwood, two children dressed to look like their adult counterparts. The promo videos even had a clip of the mini-me’s discussing what they want to be when they grow up—CMA Awards hosts of course! The series of clips including an array of antics in the mini-hosts lives, and they’re all so funny and adorable, definitely worth watching. Another great promotional tool, the trivia game show that friends Little Big Town returned to host.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qOfVtWoo68

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj6H72MtDbs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiEFgTFF5W4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y_x_QNzsOg

Awards or Comedy Show? 49th CMA Awards (2015)

With seven years of experience under their belt, Paisley and Underwood returned to the CMA stage, now very comfortable in their co-host duties. Never one to skip a performance, this year Underwood belted her hit single “Smoke Break” brandishing an electric guitar. Now as much an attraction to the program as the awards themselves, Underwood and Paisley had fine-tuned their comedic timing over nearly a decade sharing the role. The commercials are reflective how much value the hosting pair has for the entire operation, check em out below.

[insert]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHMV_dmsZfk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpAlePVFlJ8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s40WFH1cqls

Half a Century of Country Music Celebration, 50th CMA Awards (2016)

In celebration of a remarkable fifty years of CMA Award shows, the music community came together for a night of jaw-dropping performances, tributes, and surprise guests. True to form, co-host Underwood performed her hit “Dirty Laundry,” but the true star of the night was not the hosts or the artists this year, it was country music, an honoree the community gladly bowed in their heads in respect to. Stars from across the American musical spectrum teamed up, including Texas natives The Dixie Chicks, and worldwide superstar Beyoncé. Taylor Swift even returned to present the Entertainer of the Year Award!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OmKnKw0l5s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3Ygnx9C5AU

[insert]

A Decade of Brad & Carrie, 51st CMA Awards (2017)

Ten years, an entire decade of hosting a nationally televised award show, calls for one big time celebration. However, times of hardship had a hold on the country, and the hosts began the show with a dedication to the victims of the Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs shootings. They did manage to brighten the mood, even sporting those infamous solar eclipse glasses worn during the event that previous August. The seasoned veterans were clearly in their stride, navigating the previous years’ hardship and happiness with mindfulness and a healthy sense of humor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCVnxY3nBoA

[insert]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFQ_HCzkYQA

Coming off an incredible ten straight years of hosting success, fans nationwide are looking forward to the duos eleventh joint CMA performance. Over the years, this event has become a marker in time throughout the year, almost an introduction to the holiday season. Always brave enough to incorporate the latest pop culture sensations into their monologues, and with lots of material having been generated in the country community over the past year, we can’t wait to see what they’ve come up with.