A federal judge has reportedly blocked the Trump administration from banning SNAP recipients from using their benefits on soda and candy.

RELATED: Democratic States Could Face SNAP Restriction As Trump Administration Reportedly Cracks Down On Fraud (UPDATE)

Federal Judge Reportedly Blocks Trump Administration From Banning SNAP Recipients From Using Benefits On Soda & Candy

According to CNN, on Monday, June 22, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from imposing SNAP bans on five states. Specifically, blocking the ban on the purchase of sodas, candy, and other food items. US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson reportedly ruled that “the US Department of Agriculture lacked the authority to approve” apparent “pilot projects” in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee. and West Virginia. To note, in each state, the ban somewhat differed.

Per the outlet, “five food stamp enrollees” who pushed back against the initiative argued that the items are needed “to address Type 1 diabetes, kidney issues, and lack of energy.”

“The federal defendants and the states may have a genuine desire to improve the health of SNAP households by encouraging healthy choices at the store, and they can take lawful steps to meet those goals. But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way,” Jackson reportedly noted in her decision.

Since then, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, a proponent of the ban, has taken to X, asserting, “SNAP is for food — not sugar bombs fueling obesity, diabetes, and skyrocketing healthcare costs for low-income families. Taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize junk food and drinks at the expense of American health.”

Social Media Reacts To Federal Judge Reportedly Blocking Trump Administration From Banning SNAP Recipients From Using Benefits On Soda & Candy

Social media users reacted to the federal judge’s block on the Trump administration’s effort in TSR’s comment section.

More On The Initiative

As The Shade Room previously reported, earlier this year, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia adopted SNAP bans on soda, candy, and other food items. At the time, the United States Department of Agriculture shared a statement asserting that the update was a “key step in ensuring that taxpayer dollars provide nutritious options that improve health outcomes within SNAP.”

Previously, Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr has reportedly stated that “Every American who wants to eat a donut ought to be able to eat it or drink a Coke. But the federal taxpayer should not be paying to poison our children. And we’re going to end that.”

RELATED: REPORT: SNAP Bans On Soda, Candy & Other Food Items Begin Taking Effect In Select States

Sophie Brussaux, the mom of Drake’s son, Adonis, married Turkish Muay Thai fighter Efe Calikan on Father’s Day.

RELATED: Time Flies! Social Media Users Are Doin’ A Double-Take After Drake & Adonis Attended Toronto Raptors Game

Sophie Brussaux, Mom Of Drake’s Son, Marries Turkish Muay Thai Fighter Efe Caliskan On Father’s Day

According to the New York Post, Sophie Brussaux tied the knot with Efe Calikan during a ceremony in North York, Toronto, Canada, on Sunday, June 22. Per the outlet, the pair were surrounded by close family and friends. However, it remains unclear whether Brussaux and Drake’s son, Adonis, was in attendance.

Per the outlet, Efe Calikan is a professional fighter who currently practices Muay Thai, which Google credits as a “dynamic martial art.”

Furthermore, the outlet reports that Calikan laced Brussaux with a “7-carat pear-shaped diamond.”

See more photos and videos from their big day below.

Social Media Reacts To Mom Of Drake’s Son Marrying Turkish Muay Thai Fighter Efe Caliskan On Father’s Day

Social media users slid into the comment section of a joint post shared to Sophie Brussaux’s Instagram profile with their reactions.

More On Sophie Brussaux

Sophie Brussaux made headlines in October 2025. As The Shade Room previously reported, at the time, she and Drake came together to celebrate Adonis’ eighth birthday. At the time, clips surfaced showing the pair and their son at his cowboy-themed party.

RELATED: Time Flies! Fans React To Updated Photo Of Adonis As Drake & Sophie Brussaux Link Up To Celebrate His 8th Birthday (VIDEOS)

More than a decade after Whitney Houston’s death, a new dispute has reignited conversation about one of the most scrutinized periods of her life.

Comments recently made by Oprah Winfrey about the late singer have drawn a sharp response from Houston’s estate, which argues that an incident from 2009 has been mischaracterized.

The controversy began after Oprah Winfrey shared a story during an appearance at Cannes Lions, where she reflected on the influence and responsibility that came with hosting one of television’s most powerful talk shows.

During the discussion, Winfrey recalled her experiences interviewing Whitney Houston and described a moment she says occurred when the singer returned to her show years after struggling with substance abuse.

Her comments quickly generated headlines, but they also prompted an immediate response from Houston’s estate.

Advertisement

Pat Houston, Whitney Houston’s sister-in-law and the executor of her estate, disputed Winfrey’s version of events in a strongly worded statement posted on Instagram.

According to Pat, the singer did indeed fall, but the circumstances were very different from what was being suggested.

Pat wrote, “From the 2009 interview on the Oprah Winfrey show, Whitney absolutely fell off stage, but it was during a sound check and it was due to the darkness of the area and her unfamiliarity with the stage. She was absolutely not high.”

Pat also criticized attempts to connect every difficult moment in the singer’s life to her well-documented personal struggles.

Advertisement

She added, “This story was picked up by several media outlets. Like many people, she faced personal battles, but it is inaccurate and unfair to attach that struggle to every performance or every chapter of her life.”

Whitney Houston Family Defends Her Professional Legacy

Pat Houston argued that the narrative being repeated does not accurately reflect what happened and overlooks the professionalism Whitney Houston consistently brought to her work.

In her statement, Pat emphasized that audience members witnessed a performer dedicated to her craft rather than someone impaired by drugs.

Advertisement

“What the studio audience witnessed on stage was the result of discipline, talent, and commitment not the assumptions others project,” she wrote.

She also urged the public to remember the singer in a fair and balanced way, acknowledging both her achievements and personal challenges.

Pat added, “Whitney’s humanity included triumphs and struggles, but on that day, she showed up as the professional and gifted artist she always worked to be. We owe her the dignity of telling the truth not repeating myths.”

Oprah Winfrey Recalls A Private Conversation

Advertisement

During her appearance at the Lumière Theatre, Winfrey reflected on one of her interviews with Whitney Houston and described the approach she took before the cameras started rolling.

As The Blast reported, the media icon said she wanted to establish trust before the conversation began.

She shared, “We did the whole, ‘Hey girl, how you doing?’ greeting thing and then I stopped the cameras, and I went behind stage, and I said, ‘So tell me, what do you want to happen here? And I’m gonna tell you what I want to happen here.’”

Winfrey later reflected on the result of that conversation and how meaningful it became, noting, “And that was one of the most powerful interviews.”

Advertisement

However, it was her later comments about Whitney’s return appearance that attracted the most attention.

Whitney Houston Fall Becomes Center Of New Debate

Oprah Winfrey claimed that Houston returned to “The Oprah Winfrey Show” at a time when she had relapsed and that an incident occurred while she was preparing to perform.

Recalling the moment, Winfrey said, “I had such trust from ‘The Oprah Show’ audience … I think it was [Houston’s] last show with us, and she had gone back on drugs.”

Advertisement

She continued, “The first interview I did with her when we’d gone behind stage and I asked her about her intention, she was clean, but the day she came to my show then to perform in front of the audience, she was not, and she fell off of the stage.”

According to Winfrey, her concern at the time centered on protecting Whitney from further public embarrassment.

She explained, “I knew that if that story got out … she would be destroyed by that. And so even though the audience was there and the audience had cameras, I begged them not to put those pictures out because it would ruin her life, and they did not. That would not happen today, I can tell you that.”

Those remarks became the catalyst for the estate’s public response.

Advertisement

Fans Question Why The Story Emerged Now

The dispute quickly spilled onto social media, where many fans questioned the timing of Oprah Winfrey’s comments.

Some critics pointed out that if the talk show host believed keeping the incident private was important at the time, they struggled to understand why it was being discussed publicly years later.

Others wondered what purpose was served by revisiting a story connected to one of the most difficult chapters of Whitney Houston’s life.

By Chris Snellgrove
| Updated 39 seconds ago

My first world problem is simple: Star Trek is my favorite franchise, and Paramount has systematically run it into the ground, canceling show after show due to low viewership. That’s annoying, of course, but that’s not my problem … at least, not exactly. My problem is that any time I complain about changes made by NuTrek, I get swarmed by fanboys claiming these shows are perfect and I must be some weird, right-wing bigot if I don’t agree. God forbid I complain about any changes to the franchise formula or lore, which results in those same fans crying out, in unison, “Star Trek has always been like that!”

In truth, Paramount has made countless changes to Star Trek in the ongoing effort to do the seemingly impossible: lure new, younger fans to the franchise. Perhaps the best example of this is the weird will they/won’t they relationship between Spock and Chapel in Strange New Worlds. Some diehard fans believe their relationship is in line with what we saw in The Original Series, and others give the portrayal of a very human Spock a pass because the actors have such fun chemistry together. However, according to one of the greatest original Trek writers, Chapel was originally created to emphasize Spock’s aloofness rather than his hidden humanity.

Kiss The Old Spock Goodbye

The arguments about Spock and Chapel’s relationship in Strange New Worlds are tied to a larger, ongoing debate about Spock’s portrayal in the show. As with other Vulcans, he suppresses his feelings so much that most consider him completely emotionless. That is how he was portrayed by Leonard Nimoy, whose Spock frequently got into debates with the overly emotional Dr. McCoy. While SNW is nominally a prequel to The Original Series, it has Ethan Peck playing a very different Spock, one who smiles, cracks jokes, rages out, and endlessly pines for Chapel despite having a Vulcan fiancée back home

Critics of Strange New Worlds have singled out the Spock/Chapel relationship for breaking several parts of established lore. For one thing, SNW goes out of its way to establish a Spock/Chapel/T’Pring love triangle, but in TOS, Spock hadn’t seen T’Pring since she was a child. For another thing, while the Chapel of The Original Series did flirt with Spock, he never reciprocated, which seems weird now that we know he was loudly singing about how much he wanted her just a few years earlier. This is a huge departure from what TOS writer David Gerrold said was Chapel’s true purpose: to emphasize how aloof and alien Spock really is.

The Real Reason Chapel Was Created

David Gerrold is one of the more important figures in Star Trek lore. He wrote some amazing Original Series episodes, including the Hugo-nominated  “The Trouble With Tribbles.” Later, Gerrold became a story editor for The Next Generation and wrote most of that series’ bible. He also wrote a number of great reference books, including The World of Star Trek. In that book, he wrote that Chapel “was obviously created specifically” to love Spock and that “The need to dramatize Spock’s Vulcan aloofness requires that a woman fall in love with him and be continually rebuffed. Hence, Nurse Chapel.”

In other words, the best way to show how inhuman this alien character really is was to have a drop-dead gorgeous woman throwing herself at him and him showing no interest. But Strange New Worlds flipped this formula on its head, using Chapel to constantly signal how human this alien really is. The writers and producers likely did this to add a little more romantic tension to the show, lest everything get mired in special effects and moral dilemmas. Whether you love or hate their onscreen pairing, one thing is abundantly clear: these characters and their situation are written completely differently than they were in The Original Series.  

More Human Than Human  

At the risk of sounding like an old crank (who, me?), this dramatic change emphasizes everything wrong with NuTrek. There isn’t much regard for who these characters are and how they would realistically act. Instead, everything is written to court some non-existent younger viewers who are more into CW-style drama and less into exploring strange, new worlds. Unfortunately, this adds up to the worst of both worlds: major changes to characters and lore drive away older fans, and younger fans never show up. What we are left with is a show with a dwindling audience, which is why SNW was canceled early and given such a short final season.

Now, Strange New Worlds is still an entertaining TV show, and it’s light-years better than Starfleet Academy (the ultimate “let’s make one for the kids” Star Trek TV show). But as the show gets near the time frame of The Original Series, older fans will be paying closer and closer attention to how well it adheres to established lore. If it does a good job, this show may ultimately stick its landing and cement its reputation as a solid complement to TOS. If the show keeps breaking lore and characters to pander to a non-existent audience, though, SNW may one day be considered the greatest example of how NuTrek completely failed.

One of the main allures of Hollywood lies in the subtle fact that classics never truly die. Should a movie or television show from a decade or two ago, or even more, garner enough attention, a reboot could be sanctioned to roll back the years. For instance, a brand new, 12-episode Baywatch reboot is officially slated to premiere on Fox in January 2027 as the classic 90s lifeguard series gets a makeover. Big studio, Warner Bros. has reportedly also gotten into the groove, scheduling a new reboot of the 80s cult classic, Gremlins, with Chris Columbus returning to write and produce.

While the originals might be classics, a well-made reboot could attain such a title in short order if done properly, and that is exactly what Amazon MGM Studios is aiming for with its next big property. However, that might prove a tall order, especially with a reimagining of Paul Verhoeven’s 1987 sci-fi classic RoboCop looming large. Generally, it should arguably be a rule not to remake Verhoeven’s titles within Hollywood, as previous attempts to replicate the Dutch filmmaker’s artistry have failed. Reboots like Total Recall (2012) and RoboCop (2014) both struggled to justify their own existence while offering few compelling updates on their original versions.

However, Prime Video, after recently come to the decision to shelve plans for the revival of the classic sci-fi franchise, Stargate, has set its sights on yet another classic sci-fi franchise with RoboCop. The project was first announced in 2023, and World of Reel recently provided an update on the reboot, which will reimagine the legendary sci-fi saga as a television series. According to a new report from World of Reel, the new series will see contemporary horror master James Wan, who was already attached as an executive producer, direct key episodes. Also in this new report, which comes after an extended period of silence, is the revelation that the RoboCop series is reportedly preparing for a six-month shoot next January in Vancouver.

Prime Video’s ‘RoboCop’ Series First Alleged Plot Details Promise a Bold New Direction for the Franchise

Along with the reported shooting date, alleged plot details for Prime Video’s RoboCop reboot have surfaced online. The upcoming Robocop series will reportedly focus on a character named Marc Kyle, as opposed to Alex Murphy, who was the main character of the original Robocop films of the late 80s, early 90s and the 2014 reboot. Furthermore, Kyle will also reportedly start off as a soldier rather than a police officer, his death coming from war and not via gang violence in a North American city like previous iterations. Of course, Kyle’s death will, however, clear the way for him to be transformed into a cybernetic officer, where he may serve under the tutelage of Alex Murphy. Yes, the same Alex Murphy from previous installments.

Interestingly, it has yet to be confirmed if Peter Weller will reprise the role of Murphy, as the show might be aiming to have a familiar face that could help drive the narrative of the story across generations. Lodge 49‘s Peter Ocko has been tapped as writer, executive producer, and showrunner for the upcoming title.

There is currently no release date for Prime Video’s RoboCop series. Stay tuned to Collider for updates.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Release Date

July 17, 1987

Runtime

Advertisement

102 minutes

Director

Paul Verhoeven

Advertisement

Writers

Edward Neumeier, Michael Miner

Advertisement

Producers

Arne Schmidt

Advertisement

• 

  Officer Alex J. Murphy / RoboCop

  Advertisement
• 

  Nancy Allen

  Officer Anne Lewis

  Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

After 18 months of seemingly endless PR mudslinging and more than 1,400 court filings, the bitter legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni appears to finally — mercifully — be winding down. In early May, two weeks before their high-profile trial was set to start, attorneys announced they’d settled the case out of court. On June 12, Judge Lewis Liman ordered Baldoni to pay Lively’s legal fees under a California law created to shield sexual harassment victims from retaliatory defamation claims but denied her request to pursue damages.

As of press time, Judge Liman had yet to determine the amount Baldoni, 42, will need to pay Lively, 38. In the meantime, sources tell Us Weekly both stars are doing their best to move on with their lives following one of Hollywood’s ugliest and most polarizing feuds. “Justin’s focus is on his family and living in the moment,” says one source. The Jane the Virgin alum is dad to daughter Maiya, 11, and son Maxwell, 8, with his wife of nearly 13 years, Emily Baldoni. “He wants to get back to some sense of normalcy for them.” Lively, who shares daughters James, 11, Inez, 9, and Betty, 6, and son Olin, 3, with husband Ryan Reynolds, has her sights set on returning to work. “Blake is focused on rebuilding her career,” a second source says. “She’s confident she can come back from this.”

They both face the arduous task of rehabilitating their reputations. “Neither side emerged as an overall winner,” says David Johnson, CEO of Strategic Vision PR Group. “But Blake suffered the most because people viewed her as humorous, family-oriented and approachable, and the lawsuit tarnished that image.” PR expert Mark Borkowski says it’s best to let her work do the talking. “[She should be] undeniable in the work and boring everywhere else. Boring is the most underrated crisis strategy in the business.”

Baldoni’s sensitive “Man Enough” podcast host persona took a huge hit. “Recovery from a case like this depends on three factors,” says Johnson, “the absence of new controversies, continued professional achievement and time.” Adds Borkowski: “Justin’s only route back [is to] make something good and [be quiet] for two years.”

A third source says the actress was ready and willing to go to trial. “Blake was anxious, but also prepared. She had accepted that a trial was a real possibility and spent months getting herself mentally prepared.” In court documents, Lively alleged that during filming, Baldoni improvised kissing scenes, made inappropriate comments about her body and spoke openly of his past porn addiction (Baldoni has denied the claims). “Part of Blake wanted the opportunity to tell her story in court,” the source adds. “She thought she would at least win [when it came to] public opinion.”

Still, Lively is relieved she can finally move forward. “She felt confident in her position, but it was still incredibly stressful,” explains the source. “She was ready to fully focus on her family, her career and getting back to normal life instead of staying tied up in litigation for another year.”

Baldoni felt “a huge sense of relief” when Judge Liman dismissed 10 out of 13 of Lively’s allegations back in April, says the first source. While Baldoni’s production company, Wayfarer, was set to proceed against the remaining claims, the actor was glad “to put an end to a drawn-out legal process.”

A public trial could’ve been disastrous for both Lively and Baldoni. “Nothing tanks public perception faster than dragging your mess into a courtroom and letting the world watch it turn into a full-blown circus,” says publicist Steven Cuoco. (Johnny Depp and Amber Heard’s infamous 2022 defamation trial is proof.) Settling out of court “gives off the vibe that Blake and Justin finally chose the grown-up route,” adds Cuoco.

In a statement, Lively’s legal team told Us that Judge Liman’s decision to have her legal fees paid by Baldoni was a major triumph, noting that the actress is “gratified” by the ruling. She won the motion under Civil Code Section 47.1, a law designed by attorney Victoria Burke. “It would seem to be [a win],” Burke tells Us, noting that the exposure the law has gotten via Lively’s case is “a positive outcome. People now know these protections are available.”

Lively’s legal team notes that “Justin Baldoni and his Wayfarer collaborators have become the first plaintiffs ever to be found liable in federal court under California Civil Code Section 47.1 for unlawfully retaliating against a sexual harassment and retaliation victim through litigation.” They add that “Ms. Lively is the first person in history to successfully apply Section 47.1 in federal court and has charted the path for future victims who face abuse and harassment to do the same.”

Burke previously said she worried Lively was using 47.1 as a weaponized PR tool. She tells Us Lively’s lawyers talked to her about expanding the law nationally, “but I had already moved the bill successfully into four states and introduced it in 15 states. I was concerned because I had seen [Blake’s] appearance at the Met Gala… and then here’s this plan for moving the bill without consideration that it’s already started [and] part of the nationwide movement is underway. So I was like, ‘I’m not understanding what’s happening here. Is this being used for PR?’ That was one of my concerns, because the bill is so important for survivors.” [Lively made a surprise appearance at the May 4 Met Gala, walking the carpet in a Versace gown just hours after settling with Baldoni.] Burke tells Us she ultimately remained “neutral” about the case, adding, “Any of my statements were always regarding the bill, not in favor of Blake or Justin.”

Related: Blake Lively Seeking Millions in Justin Baldoni Lawsuit, Citing #MeToo Law

Blake Lively is requesting a ruling that would force Justin Baldoni to pay millions of dollars for filing a defamation suit against her. In a motion obtained by Us Weekly on Tuesday, September 9, Lively’s attorneys argued the actress is entitled to “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successfully defending [herself] in the litigation.” (Variety […]

Advertisement

The first source says some perceive that Lively “put everyone through hell and then settled” and is now “trying to find new pathways because she doesn’t feel vindicated.” A source close to Lively tells Us that “only after Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties were finally willing to admit that Ms. Lively did not fabricate her claims, and that her claims ‘deserved to be heard,’ she was willing and able to reach an agreement.” The source adds, “there is only one side that lost their entire lawsuit, and that was Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties, whose $400 million was dismissed in its entirety.”

However, the first source sees it differently, telling Us, “Blake’s team asked to settle. The settlement was a mutual decision to move forward. There was no admission of wrongdoing by any defendant. The parties simply agreed that Blake had the right to share her perspective and have it heard. That’s as far as it went.”

Attorney Lisa Bloom notes that Lively and Baldoni’s settlement contained “a specific carveout” that allowed Lively to retain the right to ask the court to award her money under 47.1. “This is a straightforward case of a sexual harassment plaintiff being countersued for defamation — [and that’s] exactly what this law is designed to prohibit,” she says.

As attorney Tre Lovell points out, the legal fees Baldoni will be forced to pay are those incurred while Lively’s team worked on getting his countersuit dismissed, which are separate from the rest of the case. Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman — who released the settlement publicly on June 16 — tells Us that The New York Times spent $180,000 in legal fees when Baldoni sued the outlet for defamation and estimates the amount Baldoni will have to pay Lively could “be in the neighborhood of that amount.” Says the first source: “The expectation is attorney’s fees should be a drop in the bucket compared to the millions Blake was seeking.”

Advertisement

Related: Justin Baldoni’s Attorney Reflects on Blake Lively Legal Battle: ‘We Fought’

Justin Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, is speaking out after a judge ruled Blake Lively is entitled to legal fees. “We fought and won against a coordinated effort built on allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation and a smear campaign that never happened,” Freedman said in a statement to Us Weekly on Friday, June 12. “Ms. Lively […]

It’s hard to point to a clear winner in the case. “Baldoni lost his countersuit and now faces a fee award to Lively,” says attorney Joe Meadows, partner at Fox Rothschild LLP. “On the other side, most of Lively’s claims were dismissed, and no damages were awarded. The outcome seems genuinely mixed.” Adds Bloom: “In reality, the only true winners here were the lawyers.”

Baldoni is producing the upcoming film Dinner with Audrey, starring Thomasin McKenzie as Audrey Hepburn and Ansel Elgort as Hubert de Givenchy. But the first source says he’s not looking to direct or act again right now. “He’s not worried about work. He feels like when he’s ready, it will work out. He’s been patient and let the process play out. That was important to him.” Baldoni is thinking of writing a book. “[It would be] about his experience and the impact it’s had on him. But nothing is solid, and he’s in no rush,” the source adds. “He’s still processing and healing.” Freedman tells Us he believes Baldoni will tell his side of the story at some point. “I think we will hear from him,” he says, adding, “Justin’s looking forward to going back to work and having the opportunity to do what he loves to do.”

He and Emily relocated to Nashville in late 2025. “It’s been a difficult time for his family, and he wanted to create some privacy,” the source says. “It’s been a really welcoming community, and he’s living as much of a normal life as he can.” Emily, 41, has been his rock. “This brought them closer. She’s a grounding force. He’s been very lucky to have an incredible support system around him.”

Lively knows she has work to do on revamping her image. “She is rebuilding right now and looking at projects that would be the best fit for her,” explains the source. “She wants to get back to work but is being intentional about it. She’d love to work on more female-driven projects moving forward. This experience reinforced how important it is for her to feel safe and supported.” Reynolds, 49, hasn’t left her side. “This took a huge toll on Blake’s mental health, and there were days she couldn’t get out of bed,” reveals the source. “At times, her kids and Ryan were the only reason she could push forward. They are a strong family unit.” Now, the Lively source says the actress wants to move on, “but not at the expense of seeing justice done.”

Thank You!

You have successfully subscribed.

Freedman predicts motions will be filed over the fee amount until Judge Liman comes to a ruling. “And that should end the matter involving Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni,” he says. “It’s interesting that the film is called It Ends With Us [because] this never seemed to end. It should be over.”

For more on Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, watch the exclusive video above and pick up the latest issue of Us Weekly — on newsstands now.

With additional reporting by Brody Brown, Paola Leva and Whitney Vasquez 

By Jonathan Klotz
| Published 21 seconds ago

Imagine a doomsday virus has been unleashed that kills off 80 percent of the world’s population. The only hope for humanity is a United States warship in the middle of the ocean, blissfully unaware of what’s happened. That’s the basic plot of the TNT series, The Last Ship, that’s now available for streaming on Netflix where it debuted in the top ten. It’s taken on new meaning in a post-Covid world, but the post-apocalyptic sci-fi series has enough twists and turns to overcome any real world trauma. 

The Last Ship Is Humanity’s Last Hope

The Last Ship stars Eric Dane as Commander Tom Chandler and Adam Baldwin as Commander Mike Slattery, though both men wind up in different positions by the end of the show’s fifth season. It starts out simple enough, the U.S.S. Nathan James picks up a pair of scientists, learns about the viral outbreak, and the choice is made to keep sailing so the researchers can work on a vaccine. If only it really was that simple. 

The Nathan James is a massive warship but it still needs to come to port for supplies. You’ll quickly learn that every time they make port, the crew is attacked by civilians, Russians, or those with a natural immunity to the virus who have formed a cult believing they should inherit the planet. As it turns out, the 2014 series accurately predicted in the face of a global pandemic, humanity won’t unite, it will fracture, adding a layer of global politics on top of the military action and race against time for a cure. 

The Story Was Too Complex For The Average Viewer

Released at the tail end of TNT’s foray into original series, The Last Ship was a huge success during its first season. Over 5 million tuned in for the show’s premiere, and amazingly, it held at over 4 million for the entire first season. After Season 3, following a shift in tone, scope, and the mission of the Nathan Jones crew, viewers tuned out by the millions. Which is unfortunate, as the show rose to the occasion and finished strong. 

In a brilliant move, The Last Ship has the crew develop a vaccine fairly early in the series, but that then raises the question of how do they get it to the population, why should other countries trust them, and hold on a minute, how did the virus ravage the planet in the first place? Thankfully, every question is answered by the finale, and to get there, you’ll also get to enjoy multiple action setpieces each season that have the budget and cinematography of a major movie behind them. 

The Last Ship adapts the 1988 novel of the same name, and for anyone who read the book, while the series does have a dark ending, it’s not the same. Considering the Cold War origins of the novel, it does make sense that the Russians become the primary villain for the crew of the Nathan Jones. Don’t let that stop you from checking out the series on Netflix. Few shows dive into the realities of the post-apocalypse like The Last Ship, and if nothing else, you get to experience Eric Dane’s best performance.

By Jonathan Klotz
| Published 17 seconds ago

Some of the best shows in history were around for only a few episodes, from Star Trek: The Original Series to Firefly, but they left a lasting impression on everyone who watched them. The Pirates of Dark Water is one of those shows, as it only aired 21 episodes, but to a certain generation, it’s a fondly remembered classic that still holds up over 30 years later. The Hanna-Barbara series may have come and gone, but it lived on in syndication for years and marked a turning point in American animation.

The Pirates Of Dark Water Is An All-Time Classic

The Pirates of Dark Water was created by David Kirschner, then the president of Hanna-Barbara, which explains why it was so good (Kirschner wrote Hocus Pocus and An American Tail, among many other hits) and why it became the most expensive cartoon in the legendary company’s history.

In 1991, the first five episodes cost half a million dollars each and featured more frames of animation than most Saturday morning cartoon series. All of the expense and effort behind the scenes shows up on screen as viewers become immersed in the weird and wonderful world of Mer.

The Imaginative World Of Mer

A strange planet unlike Earth, Mer is filled with oceans and appears to be in a state of constant turmoil, with islands rising out of nowhere, floating rocks shooting into the sky, and the existence of the strange and alien Dark Water.

Slowly consuming everything in its path, it’s up to the orphan Ren and his friends, Tula the necromancer, Ioz the pirate, and Niddler the monkey-bird, to find the thirteen Treasures of Rule and restore the planet. Ren is, of course, actually the Prince of the fallen kingdom Octopon, which is why the fate of the planet rests with him.

The Villains

Opposing the heroes are a host of villains, but none like the pirate captain Bloth, who wants to collect the Treasures of Rule to control Dark Water. Bloth and his crew might sound familiar, as The Pirates of Dark Water rounded some major names for what would be otherwise throw-away parts. Bloth is voiced by Star Trek’s Brock Peters, while Mantus, his second-in-command, is played by Peter Cullen, famous for being Optimus Prime.

Of course, if Prime is involved, so too must be Megatron, and Frank Welker lends his evil voice to the Dark Dweller. Konk, not the sharpest knife, provides a bit of comic relief with his bluster and a lot of enjoyment for everyone who recognizes Tim Curry’s voice.

Never Found An Audience

With a fun setting, an overarching serialized story, a talented cast of voice actors, and gorgeous animation, The Pirates of Dark Water was set up for success. The only problem is that, during its initial run, the audience wasn’t there. While the show had its fans, Hanna-Barbara wanted a smash hit of a series, as they already had licensing deals and a multi-media plan of attack in place.

Unfortunately, while now it’s easy to recognize the animation work, character development, and dark storyline as things to be praised, back then, it simply couldn’t compete with the likes of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The Pirates of Dark Water ended suddenly, without finishing the story, with 21 episodes aired, and despite rumors of more episodes that were made, that was never the case and simply a playground rumor.

Why You Think It Was More Successful

The Pirates of Dark Water leaves behind an amazing run, short as it is, and while Nibbler can get a little annoying, he’s still not as bad as the similar phoenix Needler from one of the show’s contemporaries, Conan the Adventurer. With action figures, two video games that, as was the custom of the time, were in two separate genres depending on if you played the SNES (a beat’em up) or Genesis (platformer) versions, and even a role-playing game, you’re forgiven if you think the show was bigger than it was.

When I went back to watch The Pirates of Dark Water, I was shocked at how quickly it went by, even if I sadly remembered that it lacked an ending. I can’t remember my parents’ phone numbers, but I can picture Dark Water eating people and Octopon’s appearance when the lighthouse keeper who raised Ren explains his parentage. Relive your childhood, or learn why this is a cult classic for a reason by checking out the series through by streaming both seasons of The Pirates of Dark Water for free on Tubi today.

THE PIRATES OF DARK WATER SCORE