user: Arnold Schwarzenegger: they 'screwed up' Predator franchise
Arnold Schwarzenegger has given the sequels to his 1987 blockbuster Predator a skinning, saying the follow-up films – neither of which starred him – were not “satisfactory to the audience”.

When asked in a Q and A hosted by Reddit whether he would consider appearing in an upcoming franchise reboot helmed by Iron Man 3 director Shane Black, Schwarzenegger revealed that he has “not been asked”, but that Black’s talents as a “great” writer and director would ensure that “it would become a great movie”, even without his involvement. He went on to describe the first Predator as his “absolute favourite” of the series, and criticised the latter films implying that the the studios rushed them in order to make a quick buck.

“The sad story is that sometimes studios do a great job with creating sequels, and sometimes they really screw it up bad, and it all has to do with greed,” he said. “They sometimes want to do it really cheap and make as much money as possible, so they don’t hire the right cast or the right director.”

Schwarzenegger presumably does not feel the same way about the latest instalment of the Terminator franchise. In Terminator Genisys he again returns to his best-known role as the titular cyborg, although that film has been received largely negatively by critics.

Related: Terminator Genisys review: Arnie's back, but the lustre isn't

He has never shown the same devotion for the Predator franchise since starring in the original back in 1987, and turned down the offer to appear in 1990’s Predator 2 due to a salary dispute. The series has continued in his absence, spawning Predators in 2010, Alien vs. Predator in 2004 and Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem in 2007.
Please write a summary below.
Arnold Schwarzenegger tells online forum that ‘greedy’ studios rushed through sequel to his alien hunter thriller


Q: Gang of Six: When compromise can hinder real progress

The problem? It doesn’t appear to be working. While a report may still come, its release has been stalled, and one member of the so-called gang, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), abruptly announced Tuesday he would be rolling out his own offering. The talks have gotten so drawn out, one Democratic aide has said, they’re becoming less and less relevant. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid even forgot to include the group when he recently listed the competing plans for reducing the deficit.

In the meantime, the White House and GOP lawmakers have begun talks on a deal that, at least as outlined, appears to have support from both sides. The plan, which would produce significant cuts in order to get the votes to raise the debt ceiling while postponing land mine issues such as Medicare until the 2012 election, will be like getting “a single or a double,” says Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), rather than a “grand slam” that would mirror his more radical budget overhaul. Hardly unbridled enthusiasm; but in Washington, it’s better than nothing.

As a result, it’s quite possible the Gang of Six’s report could be sidelined, or arrive too late. Such an outcome highlights the downsides of consensus-building, and to what extent a group of peers without a nominal leader have trouble making progress during emergency situations. While most leadership thinkers hail concessions and compromises as critical skills, there are times when it can actually hinder real progress, rather than bringing two sides together to move forward.

That appears to be what’s happening with the Gang of Six. There is a serious deadline, after all. If Congress does not vote to raise the debt ceiling by this summer—now Aug. 2, according to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner—the U.S. could default on its debt, sending the economy into a tailspin. And no Republican lawmaker is going to risk voting for such an action—no matter the consequences, they say—without some serious spending cuts that would help to bring down the deficit.

If they’re able to produce a report in the coming weeks, the Gang of Six’s bipartisan approach could be just the plan needed to bridge the revenue-versus-spending gap that so dominates this debate. But if they don’t do so quickly, they’re likely to be beat to the punch by the deal getting hashed out between the White House and the GOP. Unfortunately, the back-and-forth negotiations of an evenly split group without an apparent chairman may be too slow for the sort of pressing emergency deadline that this country faces over the debt ceiling.

The Gang of Six: Peer pressure on leaders?

The budget’s missing big-ticket item

Jena McGregor writes a daily column analyzing leadership in the news for the Washington Post’s On Leadership section.
What are the most important parts of this text?

A: The bipartisan Gang of Six is a noble idea. The problem? It doesn’t appear to be working.


DeAngelo Hall says the Redskins ‘probably should’ change their name

I know some of you are tired of this topic. If you’re one of those people, keep in mind that you clicked on the headline that clearly states this is a post about the Redskins name.

DeAngelo Hall was on the Fox Sports show “Keepin’ it Real with Mike Hill,” and at the end of the conversation was asked if the Redskins should change their name.

“I think eventually they will change it,” said Hall.

When pressed by Hill to give a more definitive answer, or “keep it real,” if you will, Hall went a step further.

“They probably should,” he admitted. “But they won’t for a while at least.”

As far as I know, Hall is the first current Redskins player to offer an opinion other than full support of the name. Most of the players have either stayed mum on the subject or offered middle-of-the-road answers, aside from receiver Josh Morgan. In May, Morgan, who grew up in Washington, spoke about Daniel Snyder’s declaration that the team’s name will never change.

“I grew up right down the street from RFK stadium,” he said at the time. “As a matter of fact, I’m sitting here right now. All I know is the Redskins, so I’m glad we’re not going ever to change the name.”

Summary:

assistant: Hall is the first current Redskins player to express the opinion that the name should change.